ML11348A350
| ML11348A350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/2011 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21542, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, NYS00133A | |
| Download: ML11348A350 (153) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:NYS00133A Submitted: December 14, 2011 ~U.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 1 Protecting People and the Environment Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Final Report Main Report and Comment Responses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OAGI0001367A_00001
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal http.:/IINININ.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and Publicly released records include, to name a few, congressional reports. Such documents as theses, NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal from their sponsoring organization. memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their Copies of industry codes and standards used in a attachments. substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at-NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC The NRC Technical Library regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of Two White Flint North Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 11545 Rockville Pike of these two sources. Rockville, MD 20852-2738
- 1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP These standards are available in the library for Washington, DC 20402-0001 reference use by the public. Codes and standards are Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the Telephone: 202-512-1800 originating organization or, if they are American Fax: 202-512-2250 National Standards, from-
- 2. The National Technical Information Service American National Standards Institute nd Springfield, VA 22161-0002 11 West 42 Street INININ. ntis. gov New York, NY 10036-8002 1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000 INININ. ansi. org 212-642-4900 A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request as follows: Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical Office of Administration specifications; or orders, not in Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in Washington, DC 20555-0001 contractor-prepared publications in this series are not E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.qov necessarily those of the NRC.
Facsimile: 301-415-2289 The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and Some publications in the NUREG series that are administrative reports and books prepared by the staff posted at NRC's Web site address (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors http://INININ. nrc. govIreadi ng-rm/doc-coll ections/n uregs (NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences are updated periodically and may differ from the last (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from printed version. Although references to material found international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) on a Web site bear the date the material was brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations accessed, the material available on the date cited may of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and subsequently be removed from the site. Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors' decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG-0750). OAGI0001367A_00002
~U.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 1 Protecting People and the Environment Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Final Report Main Report and Comment Responses Manuscript Completed: November 2010 Date Published: December 2010 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OAGI0001367A_00003
1 ABSTRACT 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of 3 renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses for a 20-year period in NUREG-1437, 4 Volumes 1 and 2, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 5 Plants" (hereafter referred to as the GEIS),(1) and codified the results in Title 10, Part 51, 6 "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 7 Functions," of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). In the GElS (and its 8 Addendum 1), the NRC staff identified 92 environmental issues and reached generic 9 conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to 10 plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for 11 the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the 12 GElS. 13 This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an 14 application submitted to the NRC by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Entergy 15 Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (all applicants will be 16 jointly referred to as Entergy) to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear 17 Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (I P2 and IP3) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54, 18 "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." This SEIS 19 includes the NRC staff's analysis which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the 20 proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and 21 mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the 22 NRC staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action. 23 Regarding the 69 issues for which the GElS reached generic conclusions, neither Entergy nor 24 the NRC staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issues that apply 25 to IP2 and/or IP3. In addition, the NRC staff determined that information provided during the 26 scoping process was not new and significant with respect to the conclusions in the GElS. 27 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the operating licenses for IP2 28 and IP3 will not be greater than the impacts identified for these issues in the GElS. For each of 29 these issues, the NRC staff's conclusion in the GElS is that the impact is of SMALL(2) 30 significance (except for the collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and high-31 level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level). 32 Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to IP2 and IP3 are addressed in this SEIS. 33 The NRC staff determined that several of these issues were not applicable because of the type 34 of facility cooling system or other reasons detailed within this SEIS. For the remaining 35 applicable issues, the NRC staff concludes that the significance of potential environmental 36 impacts related to operating license renewal is SMALL, with three exceptions-entrainment, 37 impingement, and heat shock from the facility's heated discharge. Overall effects from 38 entrainment and impingement are likely to be MODERATE. Impacts from heat shock potentially (1) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GElS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1. (2) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. December 2010 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00004
Abstract 1 range from SMALL to LARGE depending on the conclusions of thermal studies proposed by the 2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Based on corrected 3 data received since completing the draft SEIS, NRC staff concludes that impacts to the 4 endangered shortnose sturgeon - which ranged from SMALL to LARGE in the draft SEIS - are 5 likely to be SMALL. 6 The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse 7 environmental impacts of license renewals for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that preserving the 8 option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. This 9 recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GElS, (2) the environmental 10 report and other information submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with other Federal, State, 11 Tribal, and local agencies, (4) the NRC staff's own independent review, and (5) the NRC staff's 12 consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and in response to the 13 draft SEIS. 14 Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 15 This NUREG does not contain information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject 16 to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 ef seq.). These 17 information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 18 approval numbers 3150-0004,3150-0155,3150-0014,3150-0011, 3150-0021, 3150-0132, and 19 3150-0151. 20 Public Protection Notification 21 The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 22 information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 23 currently valid OMB control number. I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 iv December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00005
Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARy ............................................................................................................ xv ABBREViATIONS/ACRONyMS .................................................................................................xxi 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Report Contents ................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................ 1-3 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement .............................................. 1-3 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process ..................................................... 1-4 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action ............................................................................. 1-6 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................ 1-7 1.5 Compliance and Consultations ........................................................................... 1-7 1.6 References ......................................................................................................... 1-8 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with the Environment ...................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the Renewal Term .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting ........................................................... 2-2 2.1.2 Reactor Systems .................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems ..................................................... 2-8 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems ................................................................................................ 2-14 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls ....... 2-15 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls .. 2-17 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing .......................................................... 2-20 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems ............................................................ 2-21 2.1.5.1 Nonradioactive Waste Streams .............................................. 2-22 2.1.5.2 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization ........................ 2-23 2.1.6 Facility Operation and Maintenance ..................................................... 2-23 2.1.7 Power Transmission System ................................................................ 2-23 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment.. ........................................................... 2-24 2.2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................. 2-24 2.2.2 Water Use .............................................................................................2-24 2.2.3 Water Quality ........................................................................................ 2-24 2.2.4 Meteorology and Air Quality ................................................................. 2-27 2.2.4.1 Climate ...................................................................................2-27 2.2.4.2 Meteorological System ...........................................................2-28 2.2.4.3 Air Quality ...............................................................................2-29 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources ................................................................................ 2-31 2.2.5.1 The Hudson River Estuary ..................................................... 2-31 December 2010 v NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00006
Table of Contents 2.2.5.2 Significant Environmental Issues Associated with the Hudson River Estuary .............................................................2-39 2.2.5.3 Regulatory Framework and Monitoring Programs .................. 2-48 2.2.5.4 Potentially Affected Fish and Shellfish Resources ................. 2-52 2.2.5.5 Special Status Species and Habitats ...................................... 2-77 2.2.5.6 Other Potentially Affected Aquatic Resources ........................ 2-80 2.2.5.7 Nuisance Species ................................................................... 2-82 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................... 2-84 2.2.6.1 Description of Site Terrestrial Environment ............................ 2-85 2.2.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species ................... 2-86 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts ........................................................................... 2-104 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors ...................................................................... 2-114. 2.2.8.1 Housing ................................................................................2-115 2.2.8.2 Public Services ..................................................................... 2-116 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use ................................................................... 2-121 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise ................................................. 2-123 2.2.8.5 Demography .........................................................................2-124 2.2.8.6 Economy ...............................................................................2-131 2.2.9 Historic and Archeological Resources ................................................ 2-134 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background ............................................................. 2-134 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archeological Resources at the IP2 & IP3 Site .......................................................................................2-138 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations ......................... 2-139 2.3 References .....................................................................................................2-142 3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment ...................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Potential Refurbishment Activities ...................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Refurbishment Impacts ...................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Terrestrial Ecology-Refurbishment Impacts ......................................... 3-7 3.2.2 Threatened or Endangered Species-Refurbishment Impacts .............. 3-8 3.2.3 Air Quality During Refurbishment (Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas) ..................................................................................................... 3-9 3.2.4 Housing Impacts-Refurbishment ........................................................ 3-10 3.2.5 Public Services: Public Utilities-Refurbishment.. ............................... 3-10 3.2.6 Public Services: Education-Refurbishment ....................................... 3-11 3.2.7 Offsite Land Use-Refurbishment.. ...................................................... 3-11 3.2.8 Public Services: Transportation-Refurbishment.. .............................. 3-11 3.2.9 Historic and Archeological Resources-Refurbishment.. ..................... 3-12 3.2.10 Environmental Justice-Refurbishment. ............................................... 3-13 3.3 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Impacts of Refurbishment .................................................................................................. 3-13 3.4 Summary of Refurbishment Impacts ................................................................ 3-13 3.5 References ....................................................................................................... 3-13 I 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation ............................................................................. .4-1 4.1 Cooling System .................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.1 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish ....................................................... .4-10 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 vi December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00007
Table of Contents 4.1.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Lifestages .......................... .4-14 4.1.3 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment ........................... .4-15 4.1.3.1 Assessment of Population Trends-The First Line of Evidence ................................................................................ .4-19 4.1.3.2 Assessment of Strength of Connection-The Second Line of Evidence ............................................................................ .4-20 4.1.3.3 Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary .................. .4-20 4.1.3.4 Discussion of Uncertainty ...................................................... .4-24 4.1.3.5 Overall Impingement and Entrainment Impact ...................... .4-25 4.1.4 Heat Shock .......................................................................................... .4-26 4.1.4.1 Potential Effects of Heated Water Discharges on Aquatic Biota ...................................................................................... .4-27 4.1.4.2 Historical Context .................................................................. .4-27 4.1.4.3 Thermal Studies and Conclusions ......................................... .4-28 4.1.4.4 Assessments of Thermal Impacts ......................................... .4-30 4.1.4.5 NRC Staff Assessment of Thermal Impacts .......................... .4-32 4.1.5 Potential Mitigation Options ................................................................. .4-32 4.2 Transmission Lines ......................................................................................... .4-36 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields-Acute Effects ................................................ .4-38 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects ............................................ .4-40 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations .................................................... .4-40 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations during the License Renewal Term .................................................................................................................4-42 4.4.1 Housing Impacts .................................................................................. .4-43 4.4.2 Public Services-Public Utility Impacts ............................................... .4-44 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use-License Renewal Period ........................................ .4-45 4.4.3.1 Population-Related Impacts .................................................. .4-46 4.4.3.2 Tax-Revenue-Related Impacts .............................................. .4-46 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts during Operations ............... .4-47 4.4.5 Historic and Archeological Resources ................................................. .4-47 4.4.5.1 Site-Specific Cultural Resources Information ........................ .4-48 4.4.5.2 Conclusions ........................................................................... .4-48 4.4.6 Environmental Justice .......................................................................... .4-49 4.5 Ground Water Use and Quality ....................................................................... .4-56 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species ............................................................... .4-56 4.6.1 Aquatic Special Status Species ........................................................... .4-57 4.6.2 Terrestrial Threatened or Endangered Species ................................... .4-60 4.7 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Impacts of Operations during the Renewal Term ............................................................. .4-61 4.8 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... .4-61 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources ......................................... .4-62 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ..................................... .4-66 4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts ......................................................... .4-67 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts .................................................... .4-68 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Ground Water Use and Quality ...................... .4-69 4.8.6 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts ....................................... .4-69 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations during the Renewal Term ........................ .4-69 December 2010 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00008
Table of Contents 4.10 References .......................................................................................................4-70 I 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents ............................................................ 5-1 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents ................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents .......................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Severe Accidents .................................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ............................................................. 5-4 5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 5-4 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk ...................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements ................................................................. 5-7 5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements ..................... 5-8 5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison ........................................................................ 5-8 5.2.6 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 5-11 5.3 References ....................................................................................................... 5-12 6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Solid Waste Management, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle ..................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 6-8 6.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................6-8 6.2.2 IP2 and IP3 ............................................................................................. 6-9 6.2.3 GElS ....................................................................................................... 6-9 6.2.4 Other Studies .......................................................................................... 6-9 6.2.4.1 Qualitative Studies .................................................................... 6-9 6.2.4.2 Quantitative Studies ...............................................................6-10 6.2.5 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal ......................................................................................................6-12 6.2.6 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas ...........................................................................................6-13 6.2.7 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy Sources ................................................................. 6-14 6.2.8 Conclusions ..........................................................................................6-15 6.3 References .......................................................................................................6-17 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning ................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Decommissioning ............................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 References ......................................................................................................... 7-4 I 8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to License Renewal .......................................... 8-1 8.1 Alternatives to the Existing IP2 and IP3 Cooling-Water System ........................ 8-2 8.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative ........................................................... 8-5 8.1.1.1 Description of the Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative ................ 8-6 8.1.1.2 Environmental Impacts of the Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative ................................................................................. 8-6 8.2 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 8-20 8.3 Alternative Energy Sources .............................................................................. 8-26 8.3.1 Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle (NGCC) Generation ..................... 8-28 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 viii December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00009
Table of Contents 8.3.2 Purchased Electric Power ..................................................................... 8-39 8.3.3 Conservation ......................................................................................... 8-41 8.3.4 Alternatives Dismissed From Individual Consideration ......................... 8-43 8.3.4.1 Wind Power ............................................................................8-43 8.3.4.2 Wood and Wood Waste .......................................................... 8-44 8.3.4.3 Hydropower ............................................................................8-45 8.3.4.4 Oil-Fired Generation ............................................................... 8-45 8.3.4.5 Solar Power ............................................................................8-45 8.3.4.6 New Nuclear Generation ........................................................ 8-46 8.3.4.7 Geothermal Energy ................................................................ 8-46 8.3.4.8 Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................ 8-47 8.3.4.9 Other Biomass Derived Fuels ................................................. 8-47 8.3.4.10 Fuel Cells ................................................................................8-48 8.3.4.11 Delayed Retirement.. .............................................................. 8-48 8.3.4.12 Combined Heat and Power .................................................... 8-48 8.3.4.13 Supercritical Coal-Fired Generation ....................................... 8-49 8.3.5 Combination of Alternatives .................................................................. 8-59 8.3.5.1 Impacts of Combination Alternative 1 ..................................... 8-61 8.3.5.2 Impacts of Combined Alternative 2 ......................................... 8-67 8.4 Summary of Alternatives Considered ............................................................... 8-72 8.5 References ....................................................................................................... 8-73 9.0 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................ 9-1 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action-License Renewal. .................. 9-4 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................ 9-6 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments .............................. 9-6 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity .................................... 9-7 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 9-7 9.3 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 9-8 9.4 References ....................................................................................................... 9-11 Appendices Appendix A: Comments Received on the Environmental Review ............................................ A-1 Appendix B: Contributers to the Supplement.. .......................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related to the Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Application for License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 .......................................................................... C-1 Appendix 0: Organizations Contacted ...................................................................................... 0-1 Appendix E: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Numbers 2 and 3 Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence ....................................................................................... E-1 Appendix F: GElS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3 ............................................................................................... F-1 December 2010 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_0001 0
Table of Contents Appendix G: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 in Support of License Renewal Application Review ....................................................................... G-1 Appendix H: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of Cooling System ............................................................................................................. H-1 Appendix I: Statistical Analyses Conducted for Chapter 4 Aquatic Resources and Appendix H
........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 x December 2010 OAG10001367A_00011
Figures Figure 2-1. Location of IP2 and IP3, 50-mi (80-km) radius ........................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-2. Location of IP2 and IP3, 6-mi (10-km) radius .......................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3. IP2 and IP3 property boundaries and environs ....................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-4. IP2 and IP3 site layout.. ...........................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-5. IP2 intake structure ................................................................................................2-10 Figure 2-6. IP3 intake structure ................................................................................................2-11 Figure 2-7. IP2 intake system ..................................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-8. IP3 intake system ..................................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-9. Topographic features surrounding IP2 and IP3 ..................................................... 2-26 Figure 2-10. Hudson study area and river segments ............................................................... 2-32 Figure 2-11. Hudson River area and national estuarine research sites ................................... 2-33 Figure 4-1. Percentage of impingement composed of RIS fish and RIS fish plus blue crab relative to the estimated total impingement at IP2 ...................................................... .4-12 Figure 4-2. Percentage of impingement composed of RIS fish and RIS fish plus blue crab relative to the estimated total impingement at IP3 ...................................................... .4-12 Figure 4-3. Percentage of entrainment composed of RIS fish and total identified fish relative to the estimated total entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined ........................................... .4-15 Figure 4-4. General weight-of-evidence approach employed to assess the level of impact to population trends attributable to IP cooling system operation ..................................... .4-16 Figure 4-5. Minority block groups in 2000 within a 50-mi radius of IP2 and IP3 ..................... .4-52 Figure 4-6. Low-income block groups in 2000 within a 50-mi radius of IP2 and IP3 .............. .4-55 December 2010 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAG10001367A_00012
Tables Table 2-1. Historical Impacts on the Hudson River Watershed ............................................... 2-42 Table 2-2. Facilities Discharging at Least 50 mgd (190,000 m3/day) into the Lower Hudson River ............................................................................................................................. 2-44 Table 2-3. Hudson River Environmental Studies Table ........................................................... 2-52 Table 2-4. Representative Important Aquatic Species ............................................................. 2-53 Table 2-5. Locations in the Hudson River Estuary (see Figure 2-10) Where the Presence of RIS Life Stages Represented at Least 10 Percent of the Total Number Collected in Referenced Surveys or Studies ................................................................ 2-55 Table 2-6. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring in Westchester County ..................................................................................................... 2-90 Table 2-7. IP2 and IP3 Employee Residence by County in 2006 .......................................... 2-115 Table 2-8. Housing in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam and Westchester Counties, New York .... 2-116 Table 2-9. Major Public Water Supply Systems in 2005 (mgd) ............................................. 2-119 Table 2-10. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts on US 9 Near IP2 and IP3, 2004 ............. 2-121 Table 2-11. Population and Percent Growth in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties, New York, from 1970 to 2000 and Projected for 2010 and 2050 .................................................................................................................... 2-125 Table 2-12. Demographic Profile of the Population in the IP2 and IP3 Four-County ROI in 2000 .......................................................................................................................2-126 Table 2-13. Demographic Profile of the Population in the IP2 and IP3 Four-County ROI in 2006 (Estimate) ...................................................................................................... 2-127 Table 2-14. Seasonal Housing within 50 mi (80 km) of the IP2 and IP3 ................................ 2-128 Table 2-15. Migrant Farm Worker and Temporary Farm Labor within 50 mi (80 km) of IP2 and IP3 ................................................................................................................ 2-130 Table 2-16. Major Employers in Westchester County in 2006 ............................................... 2-132 Table 2-17. Income Information for the IP2 and IP3 ROI. ...................................................... 2-132 Table 2-18. IP2 and IP3 PILOT and Property Tax Paid and Percentage of the Total Revenue of the Town of Cortlandt, Hendrick Hudson Central School District, and Village of Buchanan, 2003 to 2006 ..................................................................... 2-134 Table 2-19. Cultural Sequence and Chronology .................................................................... 2-135 Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation ..................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation ..................................................... 3-7 Table 4-1. Generic (Category 1) Issues Applicable to the Operation of the IP2 and IP3 Cooling System during the Renewal Term .................................................................... .4-2 December 2010 xii NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00013
Tables Table 4-2. Site-Specific (Category 2) Issues Applicable to the Operation of the IP2 and IP3 Cooling System during the Renewal Term .................................................................... .4-6 Table 4-3. Cumulative Mortality and Injury of Selected Fish Species after Impingement on Ristroph Screens .......................................................................................................... 4-13 Table 4-4. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River RIS ............... .4-23 Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the IP2 and IP3 Transmission Lines during the Renewal Term .............................................................................................................. 4-37 Table 4-6. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the IP2 and IP3 Transmission Lines during the Renewal Term ............................................................ .4-38 Table 4-7. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations during the Renewal Term ............................................................................................ .4-41 Table 4-8. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics during the Renewal Term ........ .4-42 Table 4-9. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice during the Renewal Term ............................................................................................ .4-43 Table 4-10. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species during the Renewal Term .............................................................................................................. 4-57 Table 4-11. Impingement Data for Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon at IP2 and IP3, 1975-1990 ................................................................................................................... 4-59 Table 5-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents during the Renewal Term ... 5-2 Table 5-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents during the Renewal Term .. 5-3 Table 5-3. IP2 and IP3 Core Damage Frequency ...................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Failure Mode ................................ 5-7 Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management during the Renewal Term ......................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2. Nuclear GHG Emissions Compared to CoaL .......................................................... 6-12 Table 6-3. Nuclear GHG Emissions Compared to Natural Gas ............................................... 6-13 Table 6-4. Nuclear GHG Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy Sources ..................... 6-14 Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of IP2 and IP3 Following the Renewal Term .......................................................................................................... 7-2 Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative at IP2 and IP3 ................................................................................................................................ 8-19 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative .......................... 8-21 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the NGCC Alternative Located at IP2 and IP3 and an Alternate Site ................................................................................................... 8-37 Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Combination Alternatives .......................... 8-71 December 2010 xiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAG10001367A_00014
Tables Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation ....................................................... 9-9 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xiv December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00015
1 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2 By letter dated April 30, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an 3 application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses 4 for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (lP2 and IP3) for an additional 20-year 5 period. If the operating licenses are renewed, State regulatory agencies and Entergy will 6 ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need 7 for power, issues falling under the purview of the owners, or other matters within the State's 8 jurisdiction, including acceptability of water withdrawal. Two state-level issues (consistency with 9 State water quality standards, and consistency with State coastal zone management plans) 10 need to be resolved. On April 2,2010, the New York State Department of Environmental 11 Conservation (NYSDEC) issued a Notice of Denial regarding the Clean Water Act Section 401 12 Water Quality Certification. Entergy has since requested a hearing on the issue, and the matter 13 will be decided through NYSDEC's hearing process. If the operating licenses are not renewed, 14 then IP2 and IP3 must be shut down at or before the expiration date of their current operating 15 licenses which expire September 28,2013, and December 12, 2015, respectively. 16 The NRC has implemented Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 17 amended (42 U.S.C. 4321), in Title 10, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for 18 Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," of the Code of Federal Regulations 19 (10 CFR Part 51). In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an 20 environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor 21 operating license. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the operating 22 license renewal stage will be a supplement to NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, "Generic 23 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" (hereafter referred to 24 as the GEIS).(1) 25 Upon acceptance of the IP2 and IP3 application, the NRC began the environmental review 26 process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and 27 conduct scoping. The NRC staff visited the IP2 and IP3 site in September 2007, held two public 28 scoping meetings on September 19, 2007, and conducted two site audits on September 10-14, 29 2007, and September 24-27,2007. In the preparation of this supplemental environmental 30 impact statement (SEIS) for IP2 and IP3, the NRC staff reviewed the IP2 and IP3 environmental 31 report (ER) and compared it to the GElS; consulted with other agencies; conducted an 32 independent review of the issues following the guidance in NUREG-1555, "Standard Review 33 Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License 34 Renewal," issued October 1999; and considered the public comments received during the 35 scoping process and in response to the draft SEIS. The public comments received during the 36 scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of the environmental review are 37 contained in the Scoping Summary Report for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 38 3, issued by NRC staff in December 2008. In Appendix A of this SEIS, the NRC staff adopts, by 39 reference, the comments and responses in the Scoping Summary Report and provides 40 information on how to electronically access the scoping summary or view a hard copy. (1) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GElS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1. December 2010 xv NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00016
Executive Summary 1 The NRC staff held public meetings in Cortlandt Manor, New York, on February 12, 2009 and 2 described the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review, answered questions, and 3 provided members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on the 4 draft SEIS. The NRC staff considered and addressed all of the comments received. These 5 comments are reflected in the SEIS or addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, to this SEIS. 6 This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 7 effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, 8 and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the NRC 9 staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action. 10 The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal 11 from the GElS: 12 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) 13 is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 14 term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system 15 generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where 16 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. 17 The purpose of the NRC staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the 18 GElS, is to determine the following: 19 ... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so 20 great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision 21 makers would be unreasonable. 22 Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that 23 there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an 24 existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current operating 25 license (or licenses). 26 NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) contain the following statement regarding the content of 27 SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage: 28 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not 29 required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and 30 economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed 31 action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a 32 determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives 33 considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental environmental 34 impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other 35 issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the 36 alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the 37 scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) ["Temporary storage of 38 spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation-generic determination of no 39 significant environmental impact"] and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b). 40 The GElS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an 41 operating license and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 42 92 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance-SMALL, 43 MODERATE, or LARGE-developed using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xvi December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00017
Executive Summary 1 guidelines. 2 The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of 3 Appendix B, "Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power 4 Plant," to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, "National Environmental Policy Act-Regulations 5 Implementing Section 102(2)": 6 SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 7 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 8 MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 9 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 10 LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 11 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 12 For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GElS, the analysis in the GElS reached the following 13 conclusions: 14 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply 15 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system 16 or other specified plant or site characteristics. 17 (2) A single significance level (that is, SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned 18 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and 19 from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal). 20 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the 21 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures 22 are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 23 These 69 issues were identified in the GElS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and 24 significant information, the staff relied on conclusions in the GElS for issues designated as 25 Category 1 in Table B-1 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A. 26 Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2 27 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GElS. The remaining two issues, 28 environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 29 Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant-30 specific supplement to the GElS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields 31 was not conclusive at the time the GElS was prepared. 32 This SEIS documents the NRC staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in 33 the GElS. The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to 34 license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the 35 alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action 36 alternative (not renewing the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3), alternative methods of power 37 generation, and conservation. The NRC staff also considered an alternative that included 38 continued operation of IP2 and IP3 with a closed-cycle cooling system. This alternative is 39 considered for several reasons. First, the New York State Department of Environmental 40 Conservation (NYSDEC) issued a preliminary determination in its 2003 draft and 2004 revised 41 draft State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits that closed cycle cooling is 42 the site-specific best technology available (BTA) to reduce impacts on fish and shellfish; December 2010 xvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00018
Executive Summary 1 currently the revised draft SPDES permit is the subject of NYSDEC proceedings, and the 2 existing SPDES permit continues in effect at this time. Second, NYSDEC affirmed this view in 3 its April 2, 2010, Notice of Denial of Entergy's Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality 4 Certification, indicating that closed cycle cooling would minimize aquatic impacts; that 5 determination is currently subject to further State-level adjudication. Third, NYSDEC has 6 published a draft policy on BTA indicating that "Wet closed-cycle cooling or its equivalent" is the 7 "minimum performance goal for existing industrial facilities that operate a CWIS [cooling water 8 intake system] in connection with a point source thermal discharge." Public comments on that 9 draft policy were submitted through July 9,2010. 10 Entergy and the NRC staff have established independent processes for identifying and 11 evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license 12 renewal. Neither Entergy nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant 13 related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GElS. Similarly, 14 neither the scoping process nor the NRC staff has identified any new issue applicable to IP2 15 and IP3 that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the NRC staff relies on the 16 conclusions of the GElS for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to IP2 and IP3. 17 Entergy's license renewal application presents an analysis of the 21 Category 2 issues that are 18 applicable to IP2 and IP3, plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic 19 fields, for a total of 23 issues. The NRC staff has reviewed the Entergy analysis and has 20 conducted an independent assessment of each issue. Six of the Category 2 issues are not 21 applicable because they are related to a type of existing cooling system, water use conflicts, 22 and ground water use not found at IP2 and IP3. Entergy has stated that its evaluation of 23 structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, "Contents of Application-Technical 24 Information," did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as 25 necessary to support the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 for the license renewal period. 26 Entergy did, however, indicate that it plans to replace reactor vessel heads and control rod drive 27 mechanisms at IP2 and IP3. The NRC staff has evaluated the potential impacts of these 28 activities using the framework provided by the GElS for addressing refurbishment issues. 29 Seventeen environmental issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during 30 the renewal term are discussed in detail in this SEIS. These include 15 Category 2 issues and 31 2 uncategorized issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The 32 NRC staff also discusses in detail the potential impacts related to the 10 Category 2 issues that 33 apply to refurbishment activities. The NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental 34 effects for most of these issues are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set 35 forth in the GElS with three exceptions-entrainment, impingement, and heat shock from the 36 facility's heated discharge. The NRC staff jointly assessed the impacts of entrainment and 37 impingement to be MODERATE based on NRC's analysis of representative important species. 38 Impacts from heat shock potentially range from SMALL to LARGE depending on the 39 conclusions of thermal studies proposed by the NYSDEC. Based on corrected data received 40 since completing the draft SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to the endangered 41 shortnose sturgeon - which ranged from SMALL to LARGE in the draft SEIS - are likely to be 42 SMALL. 43 The NRC staff also determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a 44 consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, 45 no further evaluation of this issue is required. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xviii December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00019
Executive Summary 1 For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, 2 comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the 3 SAMAs for IP2 and IP3 and the plant improvements already made, the NRC staff concludes that 4 several SAMAs may be cost-beneficial. However, these SAMAs do not relate to adequate 5 management of the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they do 6 not need to be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, 7 "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." 8 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were 9 considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 10 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff determined that the cumulative 11 impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources in the IP2 and IP3 environs would be LARGE, due 12 primarily to past development and pollution, much of which preceded IP2 and IP3 or occurred 13 as a result of other actions (for example, suburban development and hardening of the Hudson 14 River shoreline). 15 The NRC staff's analysis indicates that the adverse impacts of potential alternatives will differ 16 from those of the proposed action. Most alternatives result in smaller impacts to aquatic life, 17 while creating greater impacts in other resource areas. Often, the most significant 18 environmental impacts of alternatives result from constructing new facilities or infrastructure. 19 The recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse 20 environmental impacts of license renewals for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that not preserving 21 the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. This 22 recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GElS, (2) the ER and other 23 information submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local 24 agencies, (4) the staff's own independent review, and (5) the staff's consideration of public 25 comments received during the scoping process and in response to the draft SEIS. December 2010 xix NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00020
1 I I December 2010 xx NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00021
Abbreviations/Acronym s 1 AbbreviationslAcronyms 2 0 degree(s) 3 IJm micron(s) 4 3D three dimensional 5 ACAA American Coal Ash Association 6 ac acre(s) 7 AC alternating current 8 ACC averted cleanup and decontamination 9 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 10 ADAPT Atmospheric Data Assimilation and Parameterization Technique 11 ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 12 AEC Atomic Energy Commission 13 AFW auxiliary feed water 14 AGTC Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 15 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 16 ANOVA analysis of variance 17 AOC averted off-site property damage costs 18 AOE averted occupational exposure costs 19 AOSC averted on-site costs 20 APE averted public exposure 21 ASA Applied Science Associates 22 ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 23 ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 24 ASSS alternate safe shutdown system 25 ATWS anticipated transient without scram 26 AUTOSAM Automated Abundance Sampler 27 BA biological assessment 28 BO Biological Opinion 29 Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 30 Bq/L becquerel per liter 31 Bq/kg becquerel per kilogram 32 BSS Beach Seine Survey 33 BTA best technology available 34 BTU British thermal unit(s) 35 C Celsius 36 CAA Clean Air Act 37 CAFTA computer aided fault-tree analysis code 38 CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 39 CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 40 CCF common cause failure 41 CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 42 CCW component cooling water December 2010 xxi NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00022
Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 CCWD Cortlandt Consolidated Water District 2 CDF core damage frequency 3 COM Clean Development Mechanism 4 CET Containment Event Tree 5 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 6 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 7 cfs cubic foot (feet) per second 8 CHGEC Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation 9 Ci curie(s) 10 CI confidence interval 11 cm centimeter(s) 12 CMP Coastal Management Plan 13 CMR conditional mortality rate 14 CNP Cook Nuclear Plant 15 CO carbon monoxide 16 CO 2 carbon dioxide 17 COE cost of enhancement 18 COL Combined License 19 Con Edison Consolidated Edison Company of New York 20 CORMIX Cornell University Mixing Zone Model 21 CPUE catch-per-unit-effort 22 CRDM control rod drive mechanism 23 CST condensate storage tank 24 CV coefficient of variation 25 CWA Clean Water Act 26 CWIS Circulating Water Intake System 27 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 28 dB(A) decibel(s) 29 DBA Design-basis accident 30 DC direct current 31 DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane 32 DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 33 OF Decontamination Factor 34 DNA deoxyribonucleic acid 35 DNR Department of Natural Resources 36 DO dissolved oxygen 37 DOC dissolved organic carbon 38 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 39 DOS Department of State 40 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 41 DPS Distinct Population Segment 42 DSEIS Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 43 EA Environmental Assessment 44 ECl Environmental Conservation law 45 EDG emergency diesel generator NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xxii December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00023
Abbreviations/Acronym s 1 EIA Energy Information Administration 2 EIS environmental impact statement 3 EFH Essential Fish Habitat 4 ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field 5 EMR entrainment mortality rate 6 Entergy Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 7 EOP emergency operating procedure 8 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 9 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 10 ER Environmental Report 11 ER-M effects-range-median 12 ESA Endangered Species Act 13 F Fahrenheit 14 F&O Facts and Observations 15 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 16 FDA Food and Drug Administration 17 FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 18 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 19 FES Final Environmental Statement 20 FJS Fall Juvenile Survey 21 FPC Federal Power Commission 22 fps feet per second 23 FPS fire protection system 24 FR Federal Register 25 FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 26 FSS Fall Shoals Survey 27 ft foot (feet) 28 ft2 square feet 29 fe cubic feet 30 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 31 g gram(s) 32 gal gallon(s) 33 gCeq/kWh gram(s) of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt-hour 34 GElS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 35 Plants, NUREG-1437 36 GHG greenhouse gas 37 GL Generic Letter 38 gpm gallon(s) per minute 39 GW gigawatt 40 ha hectare(s) 41 HAP hazardous air pollutant 42 HLW high-level waste 43 hr hour(s) 44 HRA Human Reliability Analysis December 2010 xxiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00024
Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 HRERF Hudson River Estuary Restoration Fund 2 HRFI Hudson River Fisheries Investigation 3 HRPC Hudson River Policy Committee 4 HRSA Hudson River Settlement Agreement 5 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 6 IMR impingement mortality rate 7 in. inch(es) 8 INEEL Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory 9 IP1 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.1 10 IP2 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.2 11 IP3 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.3 12 IPE individual plant examination 13 IPEEE individual plant examination of external events 14 ISFSI Independent Fuel Storage Installation 15 ISLOCA Interfacing Systems Loss of Coolant Accidents 16 IWSA Integrated Waste Services Association 17 kg kilogram(s) 18 km kilometer(s) 19 km 2 square kilometer(s) 20 kV kilovolt(s) 21 kWh kilowatt hour(s) 22 Ib pound(s) 23 L liter(s) 24 LERF Large Early Release Frequency 25 LLMW low-level mixed waste 26 LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Library 27 LOCA loss of coolant accident 28 LODI Lagrangian Operational Dispersion Integrator 29 LOE Line(s) of Evidence 30 Ipm liters per minute 31 LRA license renewal application 32 LR linear regression 33 LRS Long River Survey 34 LSE load serving entities 35 m meter(s) 36 mm millimeter(s) 37 m2 square meter(s) 38 m3 cubic meter(s) 39 m3/sec cubic meter(s) per second 40 MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program 41 MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 42 MBq megabecquerel 43 mg milligram(s) NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xxiv December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00025
Abbreviations/Acronym s 1 mgd million gallons per day 2 mg/L milligram(s) per liter 3 mGy milligray 4 mi mile(s) 5 min minute(s) 6 MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7 mL milliliter(s) 8 MLES Marine Life Exclusion System 9 MMBtu million British thermal unit(s) 10 mps meter(s) per second 11 mrad millirad(s) 12 mrem millirem(s) 13 mRNA messenger ribonucleic acid 14 MSE mean squared error 15 MSL mean sea level 16 MSPI Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator 17 mSv millisievert 18 MT metric ton(s) 19 MTU metric ton of uranium 20 MW megawatt 21 MWd megawatt-days 22 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 23 MW(h) megawatt hour(s) 24 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 25 MWSF Mixed Waste Storage Facility 26 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 27 NARAC National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center 28 NAS National Academy of Sciences 29 NEA Nuclear Energy Agency 30 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 31 NESC National Electric Safety Code 32 NGO Nongovernmental Organization 33 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 34 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 35 NIRS Nuclear Information and Resource Service 36 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 37 NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 38 N0 2 nitrogen dioxide 39 NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 40 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 41 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 42 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 43 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 44 NSSS nuclear steam supply system 45 NWJWW Northern Westchester Joint Water Works 46 NY/NJ/PHL New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia December 2010 xxv NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00026
Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 NYCA New York Control Area 2 NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection 3 NYCRR New York Code of Rules and Regulations 4 NYISO New York Independent System Operator 5 NYPA New York Power Authority 6 NYPSC New York Public Service Commission 7 NYRI New York Regional Interconnect, Inc. 8 NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 9 NYSDOH New York State Department of Health 10 NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 11 NYSHPO New York State Historic Preservation Office 12 03 ozone 8-hour standard 13 OCNGS Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 14 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 150MB Office of Management and Budget 16 OPR Office of Protected Resources 17 PAB primary auxiliary building 18 PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 19 PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 20 pCilL picoCuries per liter 21 pCilkg picoCuries per kilogram 22 PDS plant damage state 23 PILOT payment-in-lieu-of-taxes 24 PM particulate matter 25 PM 2 .5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter 26 PM1Q particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter 27 POC particulate organic carbon 28 PORV power operated relief valve 29 POST Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 30 ppm parts per million 31 ppt parts per thousand 32 PRA probabilistic risk assessment 33 PSA probabilistic safety assessment 34 PV photovoltaic 35 PWR pressurized water reactor 36 PWW Poughkeepsie Water Works 37 PYSL post yolk-sac larvae 38 REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 39 R-EMAP regional environmental monitoring and assessment program 40 RAI request for additional information 41 RCP reactor coolant pump 42 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 43 RCS reactor cooling system 44 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xxvi December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00027
Abbreviations/Acronym s 1 RHR residual heat removal 2 Riverkeeper Hudson River Fishermen's Association 3 RIS Representative Important Species 4 RKM river kilometer(s) 5 RM river mile(s) 6 RMP Risk Management Plan 7 ROD Record of Decision 8 ROI region of influence 9 ROW right-of-way 10 RPC long-term replacement power costs 11 rpm revolutions per minute 12 RRW risk reduction worth 13 RWST refueling water storage tank 14 s second(s) 15 SAFSTOR safe storage condition 16 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 17 SAR Safety Analysis Report 18 SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 19 SBO station blackout 20 Scenic Hudson Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference 21 SCR selective catalytic reduction 22 SEC POP sector population, land fraction and economic estimation program 23 SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 24 SFP Spent Fuel Pool 25 SGTR Steam Generator Tube Ruptures 26 SI Safety Injection 27 S02 sulfur dioxide 28 SOx sulfur oxide(s) 29 SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 30 SPU stretch power uprate 31 sq mi square mile(s) 32 SR segmented regression 33 SRP Standard Review Plan 34 SRT Status Review Team 35 SSBR spawning stock biomass per-recruit 36 SSE safe shutdown earthquake 37 Sv person-sievert 38 SWS service water system 39 t ton(s) 40 TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 41 TI-SGTR thermally-induced Steam Generator Tube Ruptures 42 TLD Thermoluminescent dosimeter 43 TOC total organic carbon 44 TRC TRC Environmental Corporation December 2010 xxvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00028
Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 U.S. United States 2 U.S.C. United States Code 3 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4 USAEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 5 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 6 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 8 UWNY United Water New York 9 V volt(s) 10 VALWNF value of non-farm wealth 11 VOC volatile organic compound 12 WCDOH Westchester County Department of Health 13 WISE World Information Service on Energy 14 WJWW Westchester Joint Water Works 15 WOE weight of evidence 16 WOG Westinghouse Owner's Group 17 YSL yolk-sac larvae 18 YOY young of year 19 yr year(s) I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xxviii December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00029
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2 Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) environmental protection regulations 3 in Title 10, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 4 Regulatory Functions," of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), which implement 5 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear 6 power plant operating license requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement 7 (EIS). In preparing the EIS, the NRC staff is required first to issue the statement in draft form for 8 public comment and then to issue a final statement after considering public comments on the 9 draft. To support the preparation of the EIS, the NRC staff prepared NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 10 and 2, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" 11 (hereafter referred to as the GElS) (NRC 1996,1999).(1) The GElS is intended to (1) provide an 12 understanding of the types and severity of environmental impacts that may occur as a result of 13 license renewal of nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of 14 Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants," (2) identify and assess the impacts that are 15 expected to be generic to license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 by defining the 16 number and scope of issues that need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant 17 renewal proceedings. Use of the GElS guides the preparation of complete plant-specific 18 information in support of the operating license renewal process. 19 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, operate the 20 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (lP2 and IP3) nuclear power reactors, 21 respectively, as indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation and indirect wholly 22 owned subsidiaries of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). IP2 and IP3 are located in 23 Buchanan, New York. 24 IP2 has operated under operating license DPR-26 since August 1974. The IP2 operating 25 license will expire on September 28,2013. IP3 has operated under operating license DPR-64 26 since August 1976. The IP3 operating license will expire on December 12,2015. Indian Point 27 Unit No.1 (lP1) was shut down in 1974 and is currently in SAFSTOR (a decommissioning 28 strategy that includes maintenance, monitoring, and delayed dismantlement to allow 29 radioactivity to decay prior to decommissioning). 30 Entergy, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, are joint 31 applicants for the renewal of the operating licenses (the joint applicants will be referred to as 32 Entergy). Entergy submitted an application to the NRC to renew the IP2 and IP3 operating 33 licenses for an additional 20 years each under 10 CFR Part 54 on April 30, 2007 (Entergy 34 2007a). Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23, "Contents of Application-Environmental Information," and 35 10 CFR 51.53(c), Entergy submitted an environmental report (ER) (Entergy 2007b) as part of 36 the license renewal application in which Entergy analyzed the environmental impacts associated 37 with the proposed license renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and 38 evaluated mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental effects. Entergy submitted 39 supplemental information clarifying operating licenses and applicant names in a letter on May 3, 40 2007 (Entergy 2007c). 41 (1) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GElS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1. December 2010 1-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00030
Introduction 1 This report is the plant-specific supplement to the GElS (the supplemental EIS (SEIS)) for the 2 Entergy license renewal application. This SEIS is a supplement to the GElS because it relies, in 3 part, on the findings of the GElS. In August, 2009, the NRC staff issued a separate safety 4 evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. 5 1.1 Report Contents 6 The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for the preparation of this 7 SEIS, including the development of the GElS and the process used by the NRC staff to assess 8 the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, (2) describe the proposed Federal 9 action to renew the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses, (3) discuss the purpose and need for the 10 proposed action, and (4) present the status of IP2 and IP3 compliance with environmental 11 quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and 12 local agencies that are responsible for environmental protection. 13 The ensuing chapters of this SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the GElS. 14 Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. 15 Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of plant 16 refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of 17 potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of severe 18 accident mitigation alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 19 management and greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and 20 Chapter 8 discusses alternatives to license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings 21 of the preceding chapters and draws conclusions about the adverse impacts that cannot be 22 avoided, the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance 23 and enhancement of long-term productivity, and the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 24 resources. Chapter 9 also presents the NRC staff's recommendation with respect to the 25 proposed license renewal action. 26 Additional information is included in appendices. Appendix A contains public comments related 27 to the environmental review for license renewal and the NRC staff's responses to those 28 comments. Appendices B through G include the following: 29
- the pre parers of the supplement (Appendix B) 30
- the chronology of the NRC staff's environmental review correspondence related to this 31 SEIS (Appendix C) 32
- the organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS (Appendix D) 33
- the IP2 and IP3 compliance status in Tables E-1 and E-2 and copies of consultation 34 correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process (Appendix E) 35
- GElS environmental issues that are not applicable to IP2 and IP3 (Appendix F) 36
- the NRC staff's evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives (Appendix G) 37
- the NRC staff's evaluation of impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling system (Appendix H) 38
- statistical analyses conducted for Chapter 4 aquatic resources and appendix H 39 (Appendix I)
NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-2 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00031
Introduction 1 1.2 Background 2 Use of the GElS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a 3 result of renewing individual nuclear power plant operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 54, and 4 the established license renewal evaluation process, support the thorough evaluation of the 5 impacts of operating license renewal. 6 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement 7 The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the 8 license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting 9 the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This 10 assessment is provided in the GElS, which serves as the principal reference for all nuclear 11 power plant license renewal EISs. 12 The GElS documents the results of the systematic approach that the NRC staff used to evaluate 13 the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants 14 and operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the 15 GElS (1) describes the activity that affects the environment, (2) identifies the population or 16 resource that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected 17 population or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of both beneficial and adverse effects, 18 (5) determines whether the results of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) considers whether 19 additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the same 20 significance level for all plants. 21 The NRC's standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on 22 Environmental Quality (CEQ) term "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires consideration 23 of both "context" and "intensity"). Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC established three 24 significance levels-SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the three significance 25 levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, "National 26 Environmental Policy Act-Regulations Implementing Section 102(2)," Appendix B, 27 "Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant," as follows: 28 SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 29 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 30 MODERA TE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 31 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 32 LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 33 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 34 The GElS assigns a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that ongoing 35 mitigation measures would continue. 36 The GElS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be 37 applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues 38 are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GElS, Category 1 39 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria: 40 (1 ) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been December 2010 1-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00032
Introduction 1 determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants 2 having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site 3 characteristics. 4 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has 5 been assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological 6 impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel 7 disposal). 8 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been 9 considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional 10 plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently 11 beneficial to warrant implementation. 12 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is 13 required in this SEIS unless new and significant information is identified. 14 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1; 15 therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required. 16 In the GElS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as 17 Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues were not categorized. The 18 two issues not categorized are environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic 19 fields. Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a 20 plant-specific supplement to the GElS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic 21 fields was not conclusive at the time the GElS was prepared. 22 Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment, 6 are related only to decommissioning, 23 67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and 8 apply to both refurbishment and 24 operation during the renewal term. A summary of the findings for all 92 issues in the GElS is 25 codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. 26 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process 27 An applicant seeking to renew its operating license is required to submit an ER as part of its 28 application. The license renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant's 29 ER and assurance that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in 30 or available during the GElS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the 31 environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal. 32 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must do the 33 following: 34
- provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 35 Appendix B, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) 36
- discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action and 37 environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action 38 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to do the following:
I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-4 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00033
Introduction 1
- consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the 2 proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either (1) essential for 3 making a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of 4 alternatives considered or (2) relevant to mitigation 5
- consider the need for power and other issues not related to the environmental effects of 6 the proposed action and the alternatives 7
- discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic 8 determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b) 9
- pursuant to 10 CFR 51.23(c)(3)(iii) and (iv), contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue 10 unless there is significant new information on a specific issue 11 New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental issue 12 not covered in the GElS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, or 13 (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GElS and that leads 14 to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GElS and codified in 15 10CFRPart51.
16 In preparing to submit its application to renew the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses, Entergy 17 developed a process to ensure that (1) information not addressed in or available during the 18 GElS evaluation regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal for IP2 and IP3 would 19 be properly reviewed before submitting the ER and (2) such new and potentially significant 20 information related to renewal of the licenses for IP2 and IP3 would be identified, reviewed, and 21 assessed during the period of NRC review. Entergy reviewed the Category 1 issues that 22 appear in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of 23 the GElS remain valid with respect to IP2 and IP3. This review was performed by personnel 24 from Entergy who were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved in the 25 preparation of a license renewal ER. 26 The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process 27 is described in detail in NUREG-1555, "Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for 28 Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal," issued March 2000 (NRC 29 2000). The search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant's ER and the process 30 for discovering and evaluating the significance of new information, (2) review of records of 31 public comments, (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations, 32 (4) coordination with Federal, State, Tribal, and local environmental protection and resource 33 agencies, and (5) review of the technical literature. New information discovered by the NRC 34 staff is evaluated for significance using the criteria set forth in the GElS. For Category 1 issues 35 where new and significant information is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those 36 issues is limited in scope to the assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the 37 scope of the assessment does not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the 38 new information. 39 Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GElS that are 40 applicable to IP2 and IP3. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, there is a 41 table that identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GElS where the 42 issue is discussed. Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For December 2010 1-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00034
Introduction 1 Category 1 issues for which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by 2 a set of short paragraphs that state the GElS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 3 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, followed by the staff's analysis and conclusion. For 4 Category 2 issues, in addition to the list of GElS sections where the issue is discussed, the 5 tables list the subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and 6 the SEIS sections where the analysis is presented. The SEIS sections that discuss the 7 Category 2 issues are presented immediately following the table. 8 The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal 9 and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of 10 the Entergy license renewal application began with the publication of a notice of acceptance for 11 docketing, notice of opportunity for a hearing, and notice of intent to prepare an EIS and 12 conduct scoping in the Federal Register, May 11, 2007 (NRC 2007; 72 FR 26850). A public 13 scoping meeting was held on June 27,2007, in Cortlandt Manor, New York. Comments 14 received during the scoping period have been summarized by the NRC in a summary report 15 issued in December of 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 16 (ADAMS) Accession No. ML083360115). The NRC staff adopts by reference the scoping 17 summary report in Part 1 of Appendix A to this SEIS. 18 The NRC staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 19 2000). The NRC staff, and the contractor retained to assist the NRC staff, visited the IP2 and 20 IP3 site on September 11 and 12, 2007, and again on September 24 and 25,2007, to gather 21 information and to become familiar with the site and its environs. The NRC staff also reviewed 22 the comments received during scoping and consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and 23 local agencies. A list of the organizations consulted is provided in Appendix D. Other 24 documents related to IP2 and IP3 were reviewed and are referenced within this SEIS. 25 This SEIS presents the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 26 effects of the proposed renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3, the environmental 27 impacts of alternatives to license renewal, and mitigation measures available for avoiding 28 adverse environmental effects. Chapter 9, "Summary and Conclusions," provides the NRC 29 staff's recommendation to the Commission on whether the adverse environmental impacts of 30 license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning 31 decision makers would be unreasonable. 32 The NRC staff issued a draft SEIS in December 2008. A 75-day comment period began on the 33 date of publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Filing of the draft 34 SEIS to allow members of the public to comment on the preliminary results of the NRC staff's 35 review. During this comment period, a public meeting was held in Cortlandt Manor, New York, 36 on February 12, 2009. During this meeting, the NRC staff described the preliminary results of 37 the NRC environmental review and answered questions to provide members of the public with 38 information to assist them in formulating their comments. The comments received, and the 39 NRC staff's responses to those comments, are presented in Appendix A to this SEIS. 40 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action 41 The proposed Federal action is renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 (lP1 was shut 42 down in 1974). IP2 and IP3 are located on approximately 239 acres of land on the east bank of 43 the Hudson River at Indian Point, Village of Buchanan, in upper Westchester County, New York, NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-6 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00035
Introduction 1 approximately 24 miles north of the New York City boundary line. The facility has two 2 Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors. IP2 is currently licensed to generate 3 3216 megawatts thermal (MW(t)) (core power) with a design net electrical capacity of 4 1078 megawatts electric (MW(e)). IP3 is currently licensed to generate 3216 MW(t) (core 5 power) with a design net electrical capacity of about 1080 MW(e). IP2 and IP3 cooling is 6 provided by water from the Hudson River to various heat loads in both the primary and 7 secondary portions of the plants. The current operating license for IP2 expires on 8 September 28,2013, and the current operating license for IP3 expires on December 12,2015. 9 By letter dated April 23, 2007, Entergy submitted an application to the NRC (Entergy 2007a) to 10 renew the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses for an additional 20 years. 11 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 12 Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the 13 existing operating license, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions 14 that must be met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed 15 license. Once an operating license is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the 16 plant will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as 17 the need for power or matters within the State's jurisdiction-including acceptability of water 18 withdrawal, consistency with State water quality standards, and consistency with State coastal 19 zone management plans-or the purview of the owners, such as whether continued operation 20 makes economic sense. 21 Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and 22 need (GElS Section 1.3): 23 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) 24 is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 25 term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system 26 generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where 27 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. 28 This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are 29 findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or 30 findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license 31 renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State 32 regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to 33 operate. From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of 34 renewing the operating licenses is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet 35 system energy requirements beyond the current term of the plant's licenses. 36 1.5 Compliance and Consultations 37 Entergy is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as 38 meet relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. In its ER, Entergy provided a list of the 39 authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well as 40 environmental approvals and consultations associated with the IP2 and IP3 license renewals. 41 Authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed operating license renewal actions are December 2010 1-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00036
Introduction 1 included in Appendix E. 2 The NRC staff has reviewed Entergy's list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, 3 Tribal, and local agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant 4 environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies. These agencies did not identify any 5 new and significant environmental issues. The ER states that Entergy is in compliance with 6 applicable environmental standards and requirements for IP2 and IP3. The NRC staff has not 7 identified any environmental issues that are both new and significant. 8 Two state-level issues, consistency with State water quality standards, and consistency with 9 State coastal zone management plans, have yet to be resolved. On April 2, 2010, the New York 10 State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issued a Notice of Denial 11 regarding the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Entergy has since 12 requested a hearing on the issue, and the matter will be decided through NYSDEC's hearing 13 process. 14 1.6 References 15 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 16 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." 17 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for 18 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." 19 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 20 Part 1508, "Terminology and Index." 21 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007a. "Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License 22 Renewal Application." April 23,2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML071210512. 23 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. "Applicant's Environment Report, 24 Operating License Renewal Stage." (Appendix E to "Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License Renewal 25 Application".) April 23, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML071210530. 26 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007c. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Indian Point 27 Energy Center Site Vice President, to the U.S. NRC regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating 28 Units Nos. 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-247, 50-286. May 3,2007. ADAMS Accession No. 29 ML071280700. 30 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 United States Code 4321, et seq. 31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement 32 for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants." NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, 33 DC. 34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement 35 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report," Section 6.3, "Transportation," Table 9.1, 36 "Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants." 37 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC. 38 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. "Standard Review Plans for Environmental 39 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal." 40 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Washington, DC. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-8 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00037
Introduction 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. "Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice 2 of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 Nos. 2 and 3; Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for an Additional 20-Year 4 Period." Federal Register, Volume 72, Number 91, p. 26850. May 11, 2007. 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. "Summary Report: Indian Point Nuclear 6 Generating Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3." Washington, DC. December 2010 1-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00038
1
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND SITE 2 AND PLANT INTERACTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENT 3 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (lP2 and IP3) are located on approximately 4 239 acres (97 hectares (ha)) of land in the Village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, 5 New York. The facility is on the eastern bank of the Hudson River at river mile (RM) 43 (river 6 kilometer (RKM) 69) about 2.5 miles (mi) (4.0 kilometers (km)) southwest of Peekskill, the 7 closest city, and about 24 mi (39 km) north of New York City. 8 Both IP2 and IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and nuclear steam supply 9 systems (NSSSs). Primary and secondary plant cooling is provided by a once-through cooling 10 water intake system that supplies cooling water from the Hudson River. The plant and its 11 surroundings are described in Section 2.1, and the plant's interaction with the environment is 12 presented in Section 2.2. 13 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1 (lP1, now permanently shut down) shares 14 the site with IP2 and IP3. IP1 is located between IP2 and IP3. IP1 was shut down on 15 October 31, 1974, and is in a safe storage condition (SAFSTOR) awaiting final 16 decommissioning. 17 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant 18 Operation During the Renewal Term 19 The entirety of the Indian Point site is surrounded by a perimeter fence, establishing an area 20 known as the "owner controlled area." Security personnel patrol all roads within the site. Within 21 the fence lies an area of greater security known as the "protected area." The protected area is 22 more heavily guarded and controlled by a second fence and an intrusion detection system. The 23 protected area is accessible only through manned security buildings and gates requiring 24 electronic identification. In addition, spaces within the protected area designated as "vital areas" 25 have additional access controls (Entergy 2006a). 26 The area within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the IP2 and IP3 site includes the Village of Buchanan, 27 located about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) southeast of the site, and the City of Peekskill, located 2.5 mi 28 (4.0 km) northeast. In the 2000 U.S. census, populations of these towns were 2,189 and 29 22,441, respectively. The largest town within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the site is Haverstraw, 30 New York, with a 2000 population of approximately 33,811 (USCB 2000). Haverstraw is located 31 to the southwest on the western bank of the Hudson River. Several other small villages, 32 including Verplanck and Montrose, lie within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the IP2 and IP3 site. The 33 area within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the site also includes several thousand acres of the Bear 34 Mountain State Park located across the Hudson River, the nearly 2000-acre (809-ha) Camp 35 Smith (a New York State military reservation) located 2.3 mi (3.7 km) north of the site, and a 36 portion-about 2000 acres (809 ha)-of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. 37 The area within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the site includes parts of New York, New Jersey, and 38 Connecticut. New York City, located approximately 24 mi (39 km) south of the plant, is the 39 largest city within 50 mi (80 km) with a 2006 population of approximately 8,214,426 (USCB 40 2006). Other population centers include Danbury and Stamford, Connecticut; Newark, New 41 Jersey; and Poughkeepsie, New York. The area within a 50-mi (80-km) radius also includes all December 2010 2-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00039
Plant and the Environment 1 of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, located 7.5 mi (12 km) northwest of the site, and the 2 Picatinny Arsenal, located 35.5 mi (57.1 km) southwest of the site in New Jersey (Entergy 3 2007a). 4 The region surrounding the Indian Point site has undulating terrain with many peaks and 5 valleys. Dunderberg Mountain lies on the western side of the Hudson River 1 mi (1.6 km) 6 northwest of the site. North of Dunderberg Mountain, high grounds reach an elevation of 7 800 feet (ft) (244 meters (m)) above the western bank of the Hudson River. To the east of the 8 site lie the Spitzenberg and Blue Mountains. These peaks are about 600 ft (183 m) in height. 9 There is also a weak, poorly defined series of ridges that run in a north-northeast direction east 10 of IP2 and IP3. The Timp Mountains are west of the facility. These mountains rise to a 11 maximum elevation of 846 ft (258 m). Elevations south of the site are 100 ft (30.5 m) or less 12 and gradually slope toward the Village of Verplanck (Entergy 2007a). 13 The site location and features within 50-mi (80-km) and 6-mi (10-km) radii are illustrated in 14 Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. 15 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting 16 As discussed in Section 2.1, the immediate area around the Indian Point site is completely 17 enclosed by a security fence. Access to the site is controlled at a security gate on Broadway 18 (main entrance). Controlled access to the site is also available using the existing wharf on the 19 Hudson River. The wharf is used to receive heavy equipment shipped to the site by barge. 20 There are no rail lines that service the site. The nearest residence is less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 21 from IP2 and IP3 and about 100 m (328 ft) beyond the site boundary to the east-southeast 22 (ENN 2007a). 23 The facility can be seen easily from the river. Surrounding high ground and vegetation make it 24 difficult to see the facility from beyond the security fence on land, except from Broadway. The 25 334-ft (102-m) tall superheater stack for IP1, the 134-ft (40.8-m) talllP2 and IP3 turbine 26 buildings, and the 250-ft (76.2-m) tall reactor containment structures are the tallest structures on 27 the site (Entergy 2007a). I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-2 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00040
Plant and the Environment
........... L<m~*".jt;C:,:"H c::=J C::,~~ti ~8-{-:) p~{.:~~~~~ * ~j~~*w~..t..r,'il~
7i~- i;:'~5;)-~
........... H !!;m.*:::"t t; Oi',:.~~i r
MM 1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-1. Location of IP2 and IP3, 50-mi (80-km) radius 3 December 2010 2-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00041
Plant and the Environment 1 2 Source: Entergy 2007a 3 Figure 2-2. Location of IP2 and IP3, 6-mi (10-km) radius 4 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-4 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00042
Plant and the Environment 1 Other visible IP2 and IP3 site features include auxiliary buildings, intake structures, the 2 discharge structure, electrical switchyard, and associated transmission lines (Entergy 2007a). 3 The site boundary and general facility layout are depicted in Figures 2-3 and 2-4, respectively. 4 The facility contains several stationary bulk petroleum and chemical storage tanks. Bulk 5 chemical storage tanks are registered with the New York State Department of Environmental 6 Conservation (NYSDEC) via Hazardous Substance Bulk Storage Registration Certificates. The 7 tanks and their contents are managed in accordance with the NYSDEC Chemical Bulk Storage 8 Regulations. The IP2 bulk petroleum storage tanks are registered with NYSDEC via a Major Oil 9 Storage Facility License, while the IP3 tanks are registered with the Westchester County 10 Department of Health via a Petroleum Bulk Storage Registration Certificate. 11 IP2 and IP3 each use two main transformers to increase voltage from their respective turbine 12 generators. The transformers increase generator output from 22 kilovolts (kV) to 345 kV. 13 Power is then delivered to the Consolidated Edison Company (Con Edison) transmission grid by 14 way of two double-circuit 345-kV lines. These lines connect the main onsite transformers to the 15 offsite Buchanan substation which is located immediately across Broadway near the main 16 entrance to the site. The lines that connect the transformers to the substation are about 2000 ft 17 (610 m) in length and, except for the terminal 100 ft where they cross over Broadway (a public 18 road) and enter the substation, lines are located within the site boundary (Entergy 2007a). The 19 345-kV transmission lines that distribute power from the substation are shown in Figure 2-3. 20 2.1.2 Reactor Systems 21 As noted in Section 2.0, both IP2 and IP3 employ Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and 22 four-loop NSSSs. Each NSSS loop contains a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator. 23 The reactor coolant system transfers the heat generated in the reactor core to the steam 24 generators, which produce steam to drive the electrical turbine generators (Entergy 2007b). 25 IP2 is currently licensed to operate at a core power of 3216 megawatt thermal (MW(t)), which 26 results in a turbine generator output of approximately 1078 megawatt electric (MW(e)). IP3 is 27 currently licensed to operate at 3216 MW(t), which results in a turbine generator output of 28 approximately 1080 MW(e). IP2 and IP3 have similar designs with independent functional and 29 safety systems. The units share the following systems (Entergy 2007b): 30
- discharge canal, outfall structure, and associated instrumentation and sampling systems 31
- electrical supplies and interties 32
- station air interties 33
- demineralized water, condensate makeup, and hydrogen interties 34
- city water and fire protection interties 35
- dedicated No.2 fuel oil systems for diesel generators 36
- sewage treatment facility 37
- auxiliary steam system intertie December 2010 2-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00043
Plant and the Environment PLANT J TRUE NORTf< NORTH
\,
EXCLUSION AREA aOJNQARY r~ INDIAN POINT 2 AND 3
£~~
- ~
- t:' ;'WJ*.::..:.: Y) fONERCON SERVICES, INC. A~
~IT ARU:NG:ON. r-.lJ ';C.!'._~ ~H)"C 1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-3. IP2 and IP3 property boundaries and environs I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-6 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00044
Plant and the Environment
\:~.".~""""""""""""""""""""""" .... ~:~; ...... x..?:~:~;~:.) r.=. . . .:. i.:.:~l.--------:-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-----------------------------
\:.....' L..""-L :i ~ ~ v r'" \\ ~ :11~~t~n P(JI~~t f.r'ef~y CC!'-i!C::"
S:~~' pl;.m ON C<O
, -. . .'"~'"' ~ ..
"' ... ~-?;~.. ,
,..,;r~ <~,"'
l ~~~I"~ ?r :- :1~::.* ~' I -. , ,._".".",-
~. ~ ~::~~ ;~~~~:~~:~:~:~:
".,,~,-
- ~',:~~
**-.--.****~5i. 2S~~~*~::_~,JJ t&:~ ~~~E- ~;: ~~:~~ ~ ~~~~;~.:.~:t1~6~ ;~. i'~~~~~C~"[~I 2:: .c;jr~:l1b 1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-4. IP2 and IP3 site layout 3
- service boiler fuel oil supply system 4
- liquid steam generator blowdown, radioactive waste processing, and discharge (to IP1) 5 facilities 6 The nuclear fuel for IP2 and IP3 is made of low-enriched (less than 5 percent by weight 7 uranium-235) uranium dioxide pellets stacked in pre-pressurized tubes made from zircaloy or 8 ZIRLO. The fuel tube rods have welded end plugs. Based on core design values, IP2 and IP3 9 operate at an individual rod average fuel burnup of no more than 62,000 megawatt-days per 10 metric ton of heavy metal. This ensures that peak burnups remain within the acceptable limits 11 specified in Table B-1 of Appendix B, "Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License 12 of a Nuclear Power Plant," to Subpart A, "National Environmental Policy Act-Regulations 13 Implementing Section 102(2)," of Title 10, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for 14 Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," of the Code of Federal Regulations 15 (10 CFR Part 51) (Entergy 2006a). Reactor fuel that has exhausted a certain percentage of its 16 fissile uranium content so that it is no longer an efficient fissile fuel source is referred to as spent 17 fuel. The spent fuel is removed from the reactor core and replaced by fresh fuel during routine 18 refueling outages. Refueling outages at IP2 and IP3 typically occur every 24 months. The 19 spent fuel assemblies are then stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) in the fuel storage building.
December 2010 2-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00045
Plant and the Environment 1 Located north of IP2 inside the protected area fence, the spent fuel will be transferred to dry 2 storage (Entergy 2007a) at an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (lSFSI). The 3 first fuel was moved from IP2 to the ISFSI pad, which is approximately 100 ft (30.5 m) wide by 4 200 ft (61.0 m) long, during the first week of January 2008 (Entergy 2008). 5 IP2 and IP3 containment buildings completely enclose each unit's reactor and the reactor 6 coolant system. The containment buildings are designed to minimize leakage of radioactive 7 materials to the environment if a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident were to occur. The 8 containment structures have an outer shell of reinforced concrete and an inner steel liner 9 (Entergy 2007b). 10 The IP2 containment building contains a containment purge supply and exhaust system and a 11 containment pressure relief system. The purge supply and exhaust system provides fresh air to 12 the containment and filters air released from containment. The containment pressure relief 13 system regulates normal pressure in the containment during reactor power operation (Entergy 14 2007b). 15 The IP3 containment building contains a vapor containment heating and ventilation purge 16 system and a vapor containment pressure relief system. The heating and ventilation system 17 regulates fresh air flow into the containment and filters air before its dispersion to the 18 environment. The vapor containment pressure relief system regulates pressure changes in 19 containment during reactor power operation (Entergy 2007b). 20 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 21 IP2 and IP3 have once-through condenser cooling systems that withdraw water from and 22 discharge it to the Hudson River. The systems are described in detail in the IP2 and IP3 23 environmental report (ER) (Entergy 2007a). This section provides a general description based 24 on the information provided by Entergy in the ER. 25 The maximum design flow rate for each cooling system is approximately 1,870 cubic feet per 26 second (cfs), 840,000 gallons per minute (gpm), or 53.0 cubic meters per second (m 3/s). 27 Two shoreline intake structures-one for each unit-are located along the Hudson River on the 28 northwestern edge of the site and provide cooling water to the site. Each structure consists of 29 seven bays, six for circulating water and one for service water. The IP2 intake structure has 30 seven independent bays, while the IP3 intake structure has seven bays that are served by a 31 common plenum. In each structure, six of the seven bays contain cooling water pumps, and the 32 seventh bay contains service/auxiliary water pumps. Before it is pumped to the condensers, 33 river water passes through traveling screens in the intake structure bays to remove debris and 34 fish. 35 The six IP2 circulating water intake pumps are dual-speed pumps. When operated at high 36 speed (254 revolutions per minute (rpm)), each pump provides 312 cfs (140,000 gpm; 37 8.83 m3/s) and a dynamic head of 21 ft (6.4 m). At low speed (187 rpm), each pump provides 38 187 cfs (84,000 gpm; 5.30 m3 /s) and a dynamic head of 15 ft (4.6 m). The six IP3 circulating 39 water intake pumps are variable-speed pumps. When operated at high speed (360 rpm), each 40 pump provides 312 cfs (140,000 gpm; 8.83 m3 /s); at low speed, it provides a dynamic head of 41 29 ft (8.8 m) and 143 cfs (64,000 gpm; 4.05 m3 /s). In accordance with the October 1997 42 Consent Order (issued pursuant to the Hudson River Settlement Agreement; see NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-8 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00046
Plant and the Environment 1 Section 2.2.5.3 for more information), the applicant adjusts the speed of the intake pumps to 2 mitigate impacts to the Hudson River. 3 Each coolant pump bay is about 15 ft (4.6 m) wide at the entrance, and the bottom is located 4 27 ft (8.2 m) below mean sea level. Before entering the intake structure bays, water flows under 5 a floating debris skimmer wall, or ice curtain, into the screen wells. This initial screen keeps 6 floating debris and ice from entering the bay. At the entrance to each bay, water also passes 7 through a subsurface bar screen to prevent additional large debris from becoming entrained in 8 the cooling system. Next, smaller debris and fish are screened out using modified Ristroph 9 traveling screens. Figures 2-5 through 2-8 illustrate the IP2 and IP3 intake structures and bays. 10 December 2010 2-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00047
Plant and the Environment 6AARAGKS~ AN:D OeBRiS
- BARRIERS SERVICE WA'TER PUMP AISTRO~
$GREENS
~. .~.
~ ! C!RCULATiNrJ R'!STROf'H -~i!-:'-~~7>::;'" i WATER SCREENS <><{ ~
- PUMP
....
C~ACl.Jl..A.T1Na :j WATER --.-.::~:~)~r... tNTME ""
~
- .;
- ~ .,.u~
1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-5. IP2 intake structure 3 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-10 December 2010 OAGI0001367 A_00048
Plant and the Environment
~
- ,>
r ! C!OOWl...AllNG
~f-+-- W:tl1'E4 ruM~
1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-6. IP3 intake structure 3 December 2010 2-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00049
Plant and the Environment o (
!!!!!!!!!!!!t 1
2 Source: Entergy 2007a 3 Figure 2-7. IP2 intake system Ci:?r':"::: ..6.*n::'~:,::; "'+:-l-.'-~'-"'-'~
'\lllFT~P Y;..I:~~P
'\
f [ I j
\,
~ , "'..........L
\
4 S Source: Entergy 2007a 6 Figure 2-8. IP3 intake system 7 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-12 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_OOOSO
Plant and the Environment 1 The modified Ristroph traveling screens consist of a series of panels that rotate continuously. 2 As each screen panel rotates out of the intake bay, impinged fish are retained in water-filled 3 baskets at the bottom of each panel and are carried over the headshaft, where they are washed 4 out onto a mesh using low-pressure sprays from the rear side of the machine. The 0.25-by-5 0.5-inch (in.) (0.635-by-1.27 centimeters (cm)) mesh is smooth to minimize fish abrasion by the 6 mesh. Two high-pressure sprays remove debris from the front side of the machine after fish 7 removal. 8 From the mesh, fish return to the river via a 12-in. (30-cm) diameter pipe. For IP2, the pipe 9 extends 200 ft (61.0 m) into the river north of the IP2 intake structure and discharges at a depth 10 of 35 ft (11 m). The IP3 fish return system discharges to the river by the northwest corner of the 11 discharge canal. 12 After moving through the condensers, cooling water is discharged to the discharge canal via a 13 total of six 96-in. (240-cm) diameter pipes. The cooling water enters below the surface of the 14 40-ft (12-m) wide canal. The canal discharges to the Hudson River through an outfall structure 15 located south of IP3 at about 4.5 feet per second (fps) (1.4 meters per second (mps)) at full 16 flow. As the discharged water enters the river, it passes through 12 discharge ports (4-ft by 17 12-ft each (1-m by 3.7-m)) across a length of 252 ft (76.8 m) about 12 ft (3.7 m) below the 18 surface of the river. The increased discharge velocity, about 10 fps (3.0 mps), enhances mixing 19 to minimize thermal impact. 20 The discharged water is at an elevated temperature, and therefore, some water is lost because 21 of evaporation. Based on conservative estimates, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 22 Commission (NRC) estimates that this induced evaporation resulting from the elevated 23 discharge temperature would be less than 60 cfs (27,000 gpm or 1.7 m3/s). This loss is about 24 0.5 percent of the annual average downstream flow of the Hudson River, which is more than 25 9000 cfs (4 million gpm or 255 m3/s). The average cooling water transient time ranges from 26 5.6 minutes for the IP3 cooling water system to 9.7 minutes for the IP2 system. 27 Auxiliary water systems for service water are also provided from the Hudson River via the 28 dedicated bays in the IP2 and IP3 intake structures. The primary role of service water is to cool 29 components (e.g., pumps) that generate heat during operation. Secondary functions of the 30 service water include the following: 31
- protect equipment from potential contamination from river water by providing cooling to 32 intermediate freshwater systems 33
- provide water for washing the modified Ristroph traveling screens 34
- provide seal water for the main circulating water pumps 35 The IP2 service water bay has six identical centrifugal sump-type pumps, each having a 36 capacity of at least 11 cfs (5000 gpm; 0.31 m3/s) at 220-ft (67-m) total design head. The IP3 37 service water bay also has 6 similar pumps, each rated at 13 cfs (6000 gpm; 0.378 m3/s) and 38 195-ft (59.4-m) total design head. The average approach velocity at the entrance to each 39 service water bay when all pumps are operating is about 0.2 fps (0.06 mps). Each service 40 water bay also contains two Ristroph screens to reduce fish entrainment.
41 Additional service water is provided to the nonessential service water header for IP2 through the 42 IP1 river water intake structure. The IP1 intake includes four intake bays each with a coarse bar December 2010 2-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00051
Plant and the Environment 1 screen and a single 0.125-in. (0.318-cm) mesh screen. The intake structure contains two 36-cfs 2 (16,000-gpm; 1.0-m3/s) spray wash pumps. The screens are washed automatically and 3 materials are sluiced to the Hudson River. 4 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems 5 IP2 and IP3 radioactive waste systems are designed to collect, treat, and dispose of radioactive 6 and potentially radioactive wastes that are byproducts of plant operations. These byproducts 7 include activation products resulting from the irradiation of reactor water and impurities therein 8 (principally metallic corrosion products) and fission products resulting from their migration 9 through the fuel cladding or uranium contamination within the reactor coolant system. 10 Operating procedures for radioactive waste systems are designed to ensure that radioactive 11 wastes are safely processed and discharged from the plant within the limits set forth in 12 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection against Radiation"; Appendix I, " Numerical Guides 13 for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low as is 14 Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor 15 Effluents," to 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities"; the 16 plant's technical specifications; and the IP2 and IP3 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) 17 (Entergy 2007a). 18 Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are classified as liquid, gaseous, or solid. 19 Liquid radioactive wastes are generated from liquids received directly from portions of the 20 reactor coolant system or were contaminated by contact with liquids from the reactor coolant 21 system. Gaseous radioactive wastes are generated from gases or airborne particulates vented 22 from reactor and turbine equipment containing radioactive material. Solid radioactive wastes 23 are solids from the reactor coolant system, solids that came into contact with reactor coolant 24 system liquids or gases, or solids used in the reactor coolant system or steam and power 25 conversion system operation or maintenance. 26 As indicated in Section 2.1.2, reactor fuel that has exhausted a certain percentage of its fissile 27 uranium content is referred to as spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies are removed from the 28 reactor core and replaced with fresh fuel assemblies during routine refueling outages, typically 29 every 24 months. Spent fuel assemblies are then stored for a period of time in the Spent Fuel 30 Pit (SFP) in the fuel storage building and may later be transferred to dry storage at a recently 31 constructed onsite ISFSI. Entergy has constructed an ISFSI in the north end of the IP2 and IP3 32 site in an area that was previously undeveloped. The facility is planned to hold up to 78 Holtec 33 International HI-STORM 100S(8) casks (Entergy 2007a). 34 The IP2 and IP3 ODCM contains the methodology and parameters used to calculate offsite 35 doses resulting from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and the gaseous and liquid 36 effluent monitoring alarm and trip setpoints used to verify that radioactive discharges meet 37 regulatory limits. The ODCM also contains the radioactive effluent controls and radiological 38 environmental monitoring activities and descriptions of the information that should be included in 39 the annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report and annual Radioactive Effluent 40 Release Report (Entergy 2007a). I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-14 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00052
Plant and the Environment 1 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 2 The liquid waste processing system collects, holds, treats, processes, and monitors all liquid 3 radioactive wastes for reuse or disposal. 4 IP2 5 In IP2, the liquid waste holdup system collects low-level radioactive waste from throughout the 6 facility and holds the waste until it can be processed. During normal plant operations the 7 system receives input from numerous sources, such as equipment drains and leak lines, 8 chemical laboratory drains, decontamination drains, demineralizer regeneration, reactor coolant 9 loops and reactor coolant pump secondary seals, valve and reactor vessel flange leak lines, and 10 floor drains. Liquid waste is divided into two general classifications-high-quality liquid waste 11 from the reactor coolant drain tank and routine liquid waste from the waste holdup tank which 12 contains reactor coolant. The IP2 liquid wastes are transferred from the waste holdup tank to 13 the IP1 waste collection system (described later in this section). The liquid waste can also be 14 transferred from the waste holdup tank to the waste condensate tank, where its radioactivity can 15 be analyzed to determine whether the waste is acceptable for discharge into the condenser 16 circulating water and into the Hudson River. 17 In the event of primary reactor coolant water (radioactive) leakage into the secondary-side water 18 (nonradioactive) system, potentially contaminated water that collects in the secondary-side 19 drains may be collected and sent to a collection point in the auxiliary boiler feedwater building 20 for eventual processing. 21 IP3 22 In IP3, the liquid waste holdup system collects low-level radioactive waste from throughout the 23 facility and holds the waste until it can be processed. During normal plant operations, the 24 system receives input from numerous sources, such as equipment drains and leak lines, 25 radioactive chemical laboratory drains, decontamination drains, demineralizer regeneration, 26 reactor coolant loops and reactor coolant pump secondary seals, valve and reactor vessel 27 flange leak-offs, and floor drains. The system consists of three tanks-a 24,500 gallon (gal) 28 (92,700 liter (L)) waste holdup tank located in the waste holdup pit, and the two 62,000 gal 29 (235,000 L) waste holdup tanks located in the liquid radioactive waste storage facility. 30 The liquid radioactive waste storage facility, which houses the 62,000 gal (235,000 L) waste 31 tanks, is an underground concrete structure. The 62,000 gal (235,000 L) tanks are supported 32 on concrete piers. The building is supported on hard rock. The foundation consists of a rigid 33 2 in. (5.0 cm) thick slab that is waterproofed. The reinforced concrete walls of the building are 34 also waterproofed. The roof is made of 3 in. (7.6 cm) reinforced concrete poured on a steel 35 deck and beam system. 36 When the waste has been sampled and analyzed and found to be acceptable for discharge, it is 37 pumped from the waste holdup tank to the monitor tanks. When one monitor tank is filled, it is 38 isolated, and the waste liquid is recirculated and sampled for radioactive and chemical analysis 39 while the second tank is in service accumulating waste. If the waste material in the filled 40 monitor tank meets release standards, the waste liquid is pumped to the service water 41 discharge for release into the Hudson River. If it does not meet applicable release standards, it 42 is returned to the waste holdup tanks for additional processing. Entergy performs radioactive 43 and chemical analyses to determine the amount of radioactivity released. There is also a December 2010 2-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00053
Plant and the Environment 1 radiation monitor which provides surveillance over the operation to ensure that the discharge is 2 within applicable radiation standards. If the radioactivity in the liquid waste being discharged 3 exceeds the radiation standard, the discharge is terminated. 4 IP1 5 Radioactive waste storage and processing facilities located in IP1 provide additional waste 6 processing services for IP2. IP1 contains four tanks with a capacity of 75,000 gal (284,000 L) 7 each. From these tanks, the liquid can be processed by use of sluicable demineralizer vessels. 8 There is also a portable demineralization system located in the IP1 Chemical System Building to 9 process liquid waste. This system uses a number of inline ion exchanger resin beds and filters 10 to remove radionuclides and chemicals from the waste stream. Once the contents of the waste 11 tanks meet release criteria, the liquid waste is discharged into the river. 12 Liquid Releases 13 Liquid releases to the Hudson River are limited to the extent possible to satisfy the dose design 14 objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. IP2 and IP3 have controls, described in their 15 ODCMs, for limiting the release of radioactive liquid effluents. The controls are based on the 16 concentrations of radioactive materials in liquid effluents and the calculated projected dose to a 17 hypothetical member of the public. Concentrations of radioactive material that may be released 18 in liquid effluents are limited to the concentrations specified by 10 CFR Part 20. For the 19 calendar year, the ODCM limits the dose to a member of the public from liquid effluents to 20 3 millirem (mrem) (0.03 millisievert (mSv)) to the total body and 10 mrem (0.10 mSv) to any 21 organ (Entergy 2007a). 22 Entergy maintains radioactive liquid effluent discharges in accordance with the procedures and 23 methodology described in the ODCM. The liquid radioactive waste processing system is used 24 to reduce radioactive materials in liquid effluents before discharge to meet the as low as 25 reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 26 The NRC staff reviewed the IP2 and IP3 radioactive effluent release reports for 2002 through 27 2006 for liquid effluents (Entergy 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005a, 2006b, 2007c) to determine 28 whether releases were reasonable. In 2006, 5.99x107 gal (2.27x10 8 L) of radiological liquid 29 effluents diluted with 1.47x1012 gal (5.58x10 12 L) of water were discharged from the IP2 and IP3 30 site. The amount of radioactivity discharged in the form of fission and activation products from 31 the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006 totaled 5.92x10-2 curies (Ci) (2.19x10 3 megabecquerels (MBq)). A 32 total of 1.56x103 Ci (5.77x10 7 MBq) of tritium was released from the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006. A 33 total of 3.82x1 0- 1 Ci (1.41x1 04 MBq) of dissolved and entrained gases was released in liquid 34 discharges from the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006 (Entergy 2007c). The liquid discharges for 2006 35 are consistent with the radioactive liquid effluents discharged from 2002 through 2005. In 36 section 2.2.7, NRC staff reviewed the most-recent effluent release reports (2009; Entergy 2010) 37 and confirmed that radioactive wastes reported by Entergy remain reasonable and are within 38 applicable limits. The NRC staff expects variations in the amount of radioactive effluents 39 released from year to year by Entergy based on the overall performance of the plant and the 40 number and scope of maintenance and refueling outages. The liquid radioactive wastes 41 reported by Entergy are reasonable and are within applicable limits, and the NRC staff noted no 42 unusual trends. 43 Though Entergy has indicated that it may replace IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel heads and control 44 rod drive mechanisms during the period of extended operation, such replacement actions are NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-16 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00054
Plant and the Environment 1 not likely to result in a significant increase of liquid radioactive effluents being discharged 2 compared to the amount discharged during normal plant operations. This is based on 3 consideration that liquids generated, processed, and released during the outage will likely be 4 offset by the amount of liquid waste that would not be generated, processed, and released 5 during normal plant operations during the outage period. Based on the NRC staff's evaluation 6 of recent historical releases in the previous paragraph and based on the NRC staff's expectation 7 that no significant increase in liquid effluents from the potential replacement of the reactor heads 8 and control rod drive mechanisms is likely to occur, the NRC staff expects similar quantities of 9 radioactive liquid effluents to be generated during normal operation and outages from IP2 and 10 IP3 during the period of extended operation. 11 Releases to Groundwater 12 In addition to the planned radioactive liquid discharges made through the liquid waste 13 processing system, Entergy identified a new release pathway as a result of the discovery of 14 tritium contamination in the ground outside the IP2 SFP. This release was listed as an 15 abnormal release in the 2006 radioactive effluent release report. The applicant included a 16 detailed radiological assessment of all the liquid effluent releases and the projected doses in its 17 2006 annual radioactive effluent release report (Entergy 2007c). The following information is 18 from that report. 19 The applicant estimated that approximately 0.19 Ci (7.03x10 3 MBq) of tritium migrated directly to 20 the Hudson River by the groundwater flow path in 2006, resulting in an approximate total body 21 dose of 2.1 Ox1 0-6 mrem (2.1 Ox1 0-8 mSv). The amount of tritium released through this pathway 22 is approximately 0.015 percent of the tritium released to the river from routine releases. Tritium 23 releases in total (groundwater as well as routine liquid effluent) represent less than 24 0.001 percent of the Federal dose limits for radioactive effluents from the site. Strontium-90, 25 nickel-63, and cesium-137 collectively contributed approximately 5.70x10-4 Ci (21.1 MBq) from 26 the groundwater pathway, which resulted in a calculated annual dose of approximately 27 1.78x10-3 mrem (1.78x10-5 mSv) to the total body, and 7.21x10-3 mrem (7.21x10-5 mSv) to the 28 critical organ, which was the adult bone (primarily because of strontium-90). Storm drain 29 releases to the discharge canal were conservatively calculated to be approximately 9.40x1 0-2 Ci 30 (3.48x103 MBq) of tritium, resulting in an approximate total body dose of 2.00x10-8 mrem 31 (2.00x10- 10 mSv). Entergy asserts that the annual dose to a member of the public from the 32 combined groundwater and storm water pathways at IP2 and IP3 remains well below NRC and 33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) radiation protection standards (Entergy 2007c). 34 The NRC staff further discusses releases to groundwater, including inspection results, in 35 Section 2.2.7 of this SEIS. 36 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 37 IP2 38 The gaseous radioactive waste processing system and the plant ventilation system control, 39 collect, process, store, and dispose of gaseous radioactive wastes generated as a result of 40 normal operations. During plant operations, gaseous waste is generated by degassing the 41 reactor coolant and purging the volume control tank, displacing cover gases as liquid 42 accumulates in various tanks, equipment purging, and sampling operations and automatic gas 43 analysis for hydrogen and oxygen in cover gases. The majority of the gas received by the December 2010 2-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00055
Plant and the Environment 1 waste disposal system during normal plant operations is cover gas displaced from the chemical 2 and volume control system holdup tanks as they fill with liquid. 3 Vented gases flow to a waste gas compressor suction header. One of two compressors is in 4 continuous operation, with the second unit designed to operate as a backup for peak load 5 conditions. From the compressors, gas flows to one of four large gas decay tanks. The control 6 arrangement on the gas decay tank inlet header allows plant personnel to place one large tank 7 in service and to select a second large tank for backup. When the tank in service becomes 8 pressurized to a preset level, a pressure transmitter automatically opens the inlet valve to the 9 backup tank, closes the inlet valve to the filled tank, and triggers an alarm to alert personnel to 10 select a new backup tank. Gas held in the decay tanks can either be returned to the chemical 11 and volume control system holdup tanks or be discharged to the environment, provided that the 12 gas meets radiation limits. 13 Six additional small gas decay tanks are available for use during degassing of the reactor 14 coolant system before the reactor is brought to a cold shutdown. The reactor coolant fission 15 gas activity is distributed among the six tanks through a common inlet header. A radiation 16 monitor in the sample line to the gas analyzer checks the gas decay tank radioactivity inventory 17 each time a sample is taken for hydrogen-oxygen analysis. An alarm notifies plant personnel 18 when the inventory limit is approached so that another tank can be placed into service. 19 Before a tank's contents can be discharged into the environment, they must be sampled and 20 analyzed to verify that sufficient decay of the radioactive material has occurred and to document 21 the amount of radioactivity that will be released. If appropriate radioactivity criteria are met, the 22 gas is discharged to a plant vent at a controlled rate and checked by a radiation monitor in the 23 vent. In addition to the radiation monitor, gas samples are manually taken and analyzed to 24 ensure that radiation protection limits are maintained. During a release, a trip valve in the 25 discharge line closes automatically when there is an indication of a high radioactivity level in the 26 plant vent (Entergy 2007a). 27 IP3 28 The gaseous radioactive waste processing system and the plant ventilation system control, 29 collect, process, store, and dispose of gaseous radioactive wastes generated as a result of 30 normal operations. During plant operations, gaseous waste is generated by degassing the 31 reactor coolant and purging the volume control tank, displacement of cover gases as liquid 32 accumulates in various tanks, equipment purging, sampling operations and automatic gas 33 analysis for hydrogen and oxygen in cover gases, and venting of actuating nitrogen for pressure 34 control valves. 35 The majority of the gas received by the waste disposal system during normal operations is 36 cover gas displaced from the chemical and volume control system holdup tanks as they fill with 37 liquid. Since this gas must be replaced when the tanks are emptied during processing, facilities 38 are provided to return gas from the decay tanks to the holdup tanks. A backup supply from the 39 nitrogen header is provided for makeup if the return flow from the gas decay tanks is not 40 available. 41 Gases vented to the vent header flow to the waste gas compressor header. One of the two 42 compressors is in continuous operation with the second unit as a backup for peak load 43 conditions. From the compressors, gas flows to one of four large gas decay tanks. The control 44 arrangement on the gas decay tanks inlet header allows for the operation of one tank with a NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-18 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00056
Plant and the Environment 1 second tank as backup. When the tank in service is filled, a pressure transmitter automatically 2 opens the inlet valve to the backup tank and closes the valve of the filled tank and sounds an 3 alarm. Plant personnel then select a new tank to be the backup and repeat the process. 4 Gases are held in the decay tanks to reduce the amount of radioactivity released into the 5 environment. These gases can either be returned to the chemical and volume control system 6 holdup tanks or discharged to the environment if the radioactivity meets radiation standards. 7 There are six additional small gas decay tanks for use during degassing of the reactor coolant 8 before the reactor is brought to a cold shutdown. The reactor coolant fission gas activity 9 inventory is distributed equally among the six tanks through the use of a common header. The 10 total radioactivity in anyone gas decay tank is controlled in order to limit the potential 11 radiological consequences if any tank ruptures. 12 Before a tank's contents can be released into the environment, they must be sampled and 13 analyzed to verify that there was sufficient decay and to provide a record of the type and 14 quantity of radioactivity to be released. Once these steps are completed, the gas may be 15 released to the plant vent at a controlled rate and monitored by a radiation monitor. The 16 radiation monitor, upon detecting high radioactivity levels, can automatically close the discharge 17 line to the plant vent. Samples are also taken manually to document releases (Entergy 2007a). 18 Gaseous Releases 19 Entergy maintains radioactive gaseous effluents in accordance with the procedures and 20 methodology described in the ODCM. The gaseous radioactive waste processing system is 21 effectively used to reduce radioactive materials in gaseous effluents before discharge to meet 22 the ALARA dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 23 The NRC staff reviewed the IP2 and IP3 annual radioactive effluent release reports from 2002 24 through 2006 for gaseous effluents (Entergy 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005a, 2006b, 2007c) to 25 determine whether the releases were reasonable. There were no abnormal gaseous releases 26 from IP2 and IP3 in 2006. The amount of radioactivity discharged in the form of fission and 27 activation gases from the operating reactors at the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006 totaled 2.20x102 Ci 28 (8.14x106 MBq). A total of20.8 Ci (7.69x105 MBq) of tritium was released from the IP2 and IP3 29 site in 2006. A total of7.87x10-4 Ci (29.1 MBq) of radioiodines and 4.76x10-5 Ci (1.76 MBq) of 30 particulates was released from the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006 (Entergy 2007c). The gaseous 31 discharges for 2006 are consistent with the radioactive gaseous effluents discharged from 2002 32 through 2005. In section 2.2.7, NRC staff reviewed the most-recent effluent release reports 33 (2009; Entergy 201 Oa) and confirmed that radioactive releases reported by Entergy remain 34 reasonable and within applicable limits. The NRC staff expects variations in the amount of 35 radioactive effluents released from year to year based on the overall performance of the plant 36 and the number and scope of maintenance and refueling outages. The gaseous radioactive 37 wastes reported by Entergy are reasonable and is within applicable limits, and the NRC staff 38 noted no unusual trends. 39 Though Entergy has indicated that it may replace IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel heads and control 40 rod drive mechanisms during the period of extended operation, such replacement actions are 41 not likely to result in a significant increase in discharges of gaseous radioactive effluents above 42 the amount discharged during normal plant operations. This is based on consideration that any 43 gaseous effluents released during the outage will be offset by the amount of gaseous effluents 44 that would not be generated, processed, and released during normal plant operations. Based on December 2010 2-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00057
Plant and the Environment 1 the NRC staff's evaluation of recent historical releases in the previous paragraph and based on 2 the NRC staff's expectation that no significant increase in gaseous effluents from the potential 3 replacement of the reactor heads and control rod drive mechanisms will occur, the NRC staff 4 expects that similar quantities of radioactive gaseous effluents will be generated during normal 5 operations and outages at IP2 and IP3 during the period of extended operation. 6 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing 7 IP2 and IP3 solid radioactive wastes include solidified waste derived from processed liquid and 8 sludge products; spent resins, filters, and paper; and glassware used in the radiation-controlled 9 areas of the plant. Waste resin is stored in the spent resin storage tank to allow radioactive 10 decay. When a sufficient volume of resin is accumulated, it is moved from storage and placed 11 into a high-integrity container. The wet waste is then dewatered and prepared for transportation 12 in accordance with the plant's process control program. The process control program contains 13 the criteria and requirements that the waste must meet to comply with NRC and U.S. 14 Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for transportation of radioactive waste on the 15 public roads. The other solid radioactive wastes, such as paper, rags, and glassware, are also 16 processed for shipping in accordance with the process control program. Entergy, when 17 possible, sends the solid radioactive waste to a material recovery center or to a facility licensed 18 to incinerate and perform other techniques to reduce the waste volume before disposal. 19 Additional interim radioactive waste storage space is located in the IP1 containment. 20 IP2 21 At IP2, the original four steam generators are stored in the Original Steam Generator Storage 22 Facility. The facility is made of reinforced concrete and is designed to contain contaminated 23 materials and allow for decontamination of materials if necessary. The structure is built to 24 prevent both the intrusion of water into the facility and the leakage of contaminated water from 25 the facility. The floor of the facility is sloped to direct any liquids to a sump. The floor slab and 26 lower portion of the walls have a protective coating to facilitate decontamination, if required. A 27 passive high-efficiency filter is used to prevent airborne contamination from being vented 28 outside the facility. This facility is located within the owner-controlled area outside of the 29 protected area. 30 IP3 31 At IP3, solid radioactive waste (dry activated waste or solidified resins) may be stored in the IP3 32 Interim Radioactive Waste Storage Facility before being shipped off site. The facility is a 33 concrete structure designed to minimize the impact of stored materials on the public and the 34 environment. It is shielded to limit the offsite annual radiation dose to less than 5 mrem 35 (0.05 mSv). As at IP2, a reinforced concrete structure is used to store the original four steam 36 generators, which were removed in 1989. This structure, called the Replaced Steam Generator 37 Storage Facility, is shielded to reduce radiation exposure, and all openings are sealed with no 38 provision for ventilation. There is a locked and locally alarmed labyrinth entrance that allows for 39 periodic surveillance of the steam generators. There are no gaseous or liquid releases from this 40 facility. 41 Solid Waste Shipment 42 IP2 and IP3 radioactive waste shipments are packaged in accordance with NRC and DOT 43 requirements. The type and quantities of solid radioactive waste generated at and shipped from NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-20 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00058
Plant and the Environment 1 the site vary from year to year, depending on plant activities (i.e., refueling outage, maintenance 2 work, and fuel integrity). Entergy ships radioactive waste to the Studsvik facility in Erwin, 3 Tennessee, the Race facility in Memphis, Tennessee, or the Duratek facility in Oak Ridge, 4 Tennessee, where the wastes undergo additional processing before being sent to a facility for 5 disposal. In the recent past, Entergy had shipped waste to the Barnwell facility in Barnwell 6 County, South Carolina, or the Envirocare facility in Clive, Utah, for disposal (Entergy 2007a). 7 In July 2008, however, the State of South Carolina closed access to radioactive waste 8 generators in States that are not part of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. New York is 9 not in this compact. (Envirocare, however, remains open for Class A wastes.) 10 In the near term, Entergy is working to address the loss of the low-level solid radioactive waste 11 disposal repository in Barnwell, South Carolina. During the NRC environmental site audit, IP2 12 and IP3 staff indicated that they would be able to safely store their low-level waste on site in 13 existing onsite buildings. Entergy indicates that it is currently developing a comprehensive plan 14 to address the potential need for long-term storage. The radiation dose from the storage of 15 low-level radioactive waste would be required to continue to result in doses to members of the 16 public that are below the limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190, "Environmental 17 Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal Operations of Activities in the Uranium Fuel 18 Cycle," which apply to all operations and facilities at the site. 19 In 2006, Entergy made a total of 49 shipments of Class A, B, and C solid radioactive waste to 20 offsite processing vendors. The solid waste volumes were 5.31x1 04 cubic feet (1.50x1 03 m3 ) of 21 resins, filters, evaporator bottoms, and dry active waste, with an activity of 9.49x1 02 Ci 22 (3.51x10 7 MBq). Entergy shipped no irradiated components or control rods in 2006 (Entergy 23 2007c). The solid waste volumes and radioactivity amounts generated in 2006 are typical of 24 annual waste shipments made by Entergy. The NRC staff expects variations in the amount of 25 solid radioactive waste generated and shipped from year to year based on the overall 26 performance of the plant and the number and scope of maintenance work and refueling 27 outages. The NRC staff finds that the volume and activity of solid radioactive waste reported by 28 Entergy are reasonable, and no unusual trends were noted. 29 Entergy has indicated that it may replace IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel heads and control rod drive 30 mechanisms during the period of extended operation (Entergy 2008), and such replacement 31 actions are likely to result in a small increase in the amount of solid radioactive waste 32 generated. This is partly because the number of personnel working at the plant will increase, 33 leading to increased use of protective clothing and safety equipment and an increased use of 34 filters. Also, work activities will create a general increase in debris that will have to be disposed 35 of as radioactive waste. However, the increased volume is expected to be within the range of 36 solid waste that can be safely handled by IP2 and IP3 during the period of extended operation. 37 In the GElS (NRC 1996), NRC indicated that doses from onsite storage of assemblies removed 38 during refurbishment would be "very small and insignificant." Retired vessel heads will likely be 39 stored on site in a concrete building (Entergy 2008), subject to regular monitoring and dose 40 limits under 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190. 41 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 42 IP2 and IP3 generate solid, hazardous, universal, and mixed waste from routine facility 43 operations and maintenance activities. December 2010 2-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00059
Plant and the Environment 1 2.1.5.1 Nonradioactive Waste Streams 2 Nonradioactive waste is produced during plant maintenance, cleaning, and operational 3 processes. Most of the wastes consist of nonhazardous waste oil and oily debris and result 4 from operation and maintenance of oil-filled equipment. 5 The facility generates solid waste, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 6 (RCRA), as part of routine plant maintenance, cleaning activities, and plant operations. These 7 solid waste streams include nonradioactive resins and sludges, putrescible wastes, and 8 recyclable wastes. 9 Universal wastes constitute a majority of the remaining waste volumes generated at the facility. 10 Universal waste is hazardous waste that has been specified as universal waste by EPA. 11 Universal wastes, including mercury-containing equipment, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, and 12 pesticides, have specific regulations (40 CFR Part 273, "Standards for Universal Waste 13 Management") to ensure proper collection and recycling or treatment. 14 Hazardous wastes routinely make up a small percentage of the total wastes generated at the 15 IP2 and IP3 facility and include spent and expired chemicals, laboratory chemical wastes, and 16 other chemical wastes (Entergy 2007a). Hazardous waste is nonradioactive waste that is listed 17 by EPA as hazardous waste or that exhibits characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, 18 or toxicity (40 CFR Part 261, "Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste"). RCRA, as well 19 as the NYSDEC regulatory requirements set forth in Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules, and 20 Regulations (NYCRR) Parts 371-376, that regulate storage and handling of hazardous waste 21 and require a hazardous waste permit for facilities that store large quantities of hazardous waste 22 for more than 90 days. 23 Low-level mixed waste (LLMW) is waste that exhibits hazardous characteristics and contains 24 low levels of radioactivity. LLMWat IP2 and IP3 is regulated under RCRA and NYSDEC 25 regulatory requirements as set forth in 6 NYCRR Parts 373 and 374. 26 IP2 has mixed waste storage facilities covered by a Permit, NYD991304411, issued by 27 NYSDEC under 6 NYCRR Part 373, for the accumulation and temporary storage of mixed 28 wastes onsite for more than 90 days. Mixed wastes are temporarily stored onsite for more than 29 90 days at IP3 based on a mixed waste conditional exemption for Permit NYD085503746, per 6 30 NYCRR Part 374-1.9. 31 Some amounts of chemical and biocide wastes are produced at the facility from processes used 32 to control the pH in the coolant, to control scale, to control corrosion, to regenerate resins, and 33 to clean and defoul the condensers. These waste liquids are typically discharged in accordance 34 with the site's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit, NY-0004472, 35 along with cooling water discharges (Entergy 2007a). 36 Hazardous and universal wastes are collected in central collection areas. The materials are 37 received in various forms and are packaged to meet all regulatory requirements before final 38 disposition at an appropriate offsite facility. Entergy tracks wastes like waste oil, oily debris, 39 glycol, lighting ballasts containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fluorescent lamps, 40 batteries, and hazardous wastes (i.e., paints, lead abatement waste, broken lamps, off-41 specification and expired chemicals)-by volume at the facility. The total amount of tracked 42 hazardous and universal wastes for 2006 was 17,987 pounds (lb) (8,158 kilograms (kg)) with 43 waste oil making up 70 percent of the total weight (Entergy 2007a). NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-22 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00060
Plant and the Environment 1 Most sanitary wastewater from the IP2 and IP3 facility operations is transferred to the Village of 2 Buchanan publicly owned treatment works system. A few isolated areas at the facility have their 3 own septic tanks. Although the sanitary wastewaters are nonradioactive, a radiation monitoring 4 system continuously monitors the effluent from the protected area (Entergy 2007a). 5 The testing of the emergency generators and boiler operations generates nonradioactive 6 gaseous effluents. Emissions are managed in accordance with IP2 and IP3 air quality permits, 7 3-5522-00011/00026 and 3-5522-00105/00009, respectively (Entergy 2007a). 8 2.1.5.2 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 9 Entergy's Waste Minimization Plan describes programs that have been implemented at the 10 facility. This plan is used in conjunction with other waste minimization procedures, waste 11 management procedures (including on-site recycling), chemical control procedures, and other 12 site-specific procedures to reduce waste generation (Entergy 2007a). 13 2.1.6 Facility Operation and Maintenance 14 Maintenance activities conducted at IP2 and IP3 include inspection, testing, and surveillance to 15 maintain licensing requirements and to ensure compliance with environmental and safety 16 requirements. Various programs and activities currently exist at the facility to maintain, inspect, 17 test, and monitor the performance of facility equipment. These maintenance activities include 18 inspection requirements for reactor vessel materials, in-service inspection and testing of boilers 19 and pressure vessels, the maintenance structures monitoring program, and water chemistry 20 maintenance. 21 Additional programs include those implemented to meet technical specification surveillance 22 requirements, those implemented in response to the NRC generic communications, and various 23 periodic maintenance, testing, and inspection procedures. Certain program activities are 24 performed during the operation of the unit, while others are performed during scheduled 25 refueling outages. As mentioned in Section 2.1.2, Entergy typically refuels IP2 and IP3 on 26 24-month cycles. 27 2.1.7 Power Transmission System 28 The applicant has identified two 345-kV transmission lines that connect IP2 and IP3 to the Con 29 Edison electrical transmission grid. Feeder W95 and feeder W96 deliver power from IP2 and 30 IP3, respectively, to the Buchanan substation located across Broadway near the entrance to the 31 IP2 and IP3 site. Other than these two transmission lines, no other lines or facilities were 32 constructed specifically to connect the two generating units to the existing transmission grid. 33 Because the Buchanan substation and the regional transmission system to which it connects 34 were designed and constructed before IP2 and IP3 (Entergy 2007a; NRC 1975; USAEC 1972), 35 they are beyond the scope of this evaluation. 36 Each of the W95 and W96 lines is approximately 2000 ft (610 m) long. The lines are within the 37 site except for the terminal 100-ft (30.5-m) segments that cross Broadway and enter the 38 substation. In addition to transmitting the output power from IP2 and IP3 off site, the 39 transmission system also provides IP2 and IP3 with the auxiliary power necessary for startup 40 and normal shutdown. Offsite (standby) power is supplied to IP2 and IP3 by 138-kV input lines December 2010 2-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00061
Plant and the Environment 1 that use the same transmission towers as the W95 and W96 output lines (Entergy 2005b; 2 NRC 1975). The W95 and W96 lines are each within a separate right-of-way (ROW), so the 3 ROWs total approximately 4000 ft (1220 m) in length. About 500 ft (150 m) of this ROW length 4 is vegetated; the remainder crosses roads, parking lots, buildings, and other facilities. In the 5 vegetated segments, the NRC staff observed that the ROW is approximately 150 ft (46 m) wide, 6 the growth of trees is prevented, and a cover of mainly grasses and forbs is maintained. 7 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment 8 2.2.1 Land Use 9 Within the 239-acre (97-ha) Indian Point site, IP2 and IP3 (see Figure 2-3) are located north and 10 south, respectively, of IP1, which is in SAFSTOR until it is eventually decommissioned. The 11 developed portion of the IP2 and IP3 site is approximately 124.3 acres (50.3 ha), or over half 12 the site (see Figure 2-3). The remaining portions of the site are unused, undeveloped, and 13 include fields and forest uplands (approximately 112.4 acres (45.5 ha) and wetlands, streams, 14 and a pond (2.4 acres (0.97 ha)). Much of the site (approximately 159 acres (64.3 ha)) has 15 been disturbed at some time during the construction and operation of the three units (ENN 16 2007b). 17 The immediate area around the station is completely enclosed by a fence with access to the 18 station controlled at a security gate. The plant site can be accessed by road or from the Hudson 19 River. Land access to the plant site is from Broadway (main entrance). The existing wharf is 20 used to receive heavy equipment as needed, although access to the site from the river is 21 controlled by site access procedures. The plant site is not served by railroad. The exclusion 22 area, as defined by 10 CFR 100.3, "Definitions," surrounds the site as shown in Figure 2-3 23 (Entergy 2007a). 24 2.2.2 Water Use 25 The Hudson River is an important regional resource of significant aesthetic value in addition to 26 providing transportation, recreation, and water supply. The Hudson River at IP2 and IP3 is 27 tidally influenced and becomes increasingly so as it proceeds south. IP2 and IP3 have a once-28 through condenser cooling system that withdraws water from the Hudson River. The same 29 amount of water that is withdrawn for condenser cooling is discharged. However, the 30 discharged water is at an elevated temperature and, therefore, can induce some additional 31 evaporation. The NRC staff conservatively estimates that this induced evaporation from 32 elevated discharge temperature is less than 60 cfs (1.7 m3 /s). The remaining consumptive 33 water uses are insignificant relative to induced evaporation. 34 2.2.3 Water Quality 35 Being tidally influenced, the salinity of the Hudson River varies as upstream flows and tides 36 fluctuate. The salinity decreases when stream flows increase and tides drop. The salinity 37 increases during periods of low flow and high tides. The periodic higher salinity levels limit 38 some of the uses that a lower salinity river might support (e.g., drinking water supply). I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-24 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00062
Plant and the Environment 1 Discharges to the Hudson River are regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA is 2 administered by EPA. EPA has delegated responsibility for administration of the National 3 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to NYSDEC. The IP2 and IP3 ownership submitted 4 timely and sufficient applications to renew its SPDES permits before the expiration of those 5 permits in 1992. The 1987 SPDES permit for the facility remains in effect while NYSDEC 6 administrative proceedings continue. Pursuant to the New York State Administrative Procedure 7 Act, the facility SPDES permit does not expire until NYSDEC makes its final determination. To 8 date, this final determination has not been made. In 1991, NYSDEC, the facility owners, and 9 several stakeholder groups entered December 2010 2-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00063
Plant and the Environment 1
..,
"
"'.....: ....
indian P; '.',
./
~ ...:.:.
I
,/
/
I 2 Source: Maptech, Inc. 3 4 Figure 2-9. Topographic features surrounding IP2 and IP3 5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-26 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00064
Plant and the Environment 1 into a consent order (issued pursuant to the Hudson River Settlement Agreement; see 2 Section 2.2.5.3 for more information) to mitigate impacts of the thermal plume entering the 3 Hudson River from the plant's discharge. On April 2,2010, the New York State Department of 4 Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issued a Notice of Denial regarding the IP2 and IP3 5 Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Entergy has since requested a 6 hearing on the issue, and the matter will be decided through NYSDEC's hearing process. 7 IP2 and IP3 do not intentionally discharge contaminants in a manner that would contaminate the 8 groundwater beneath the site. However, in 2005, tritium was located beneath the IP2 and IP3 9 site. During a subsequent subsurface monitoring program at the site, radioactive forms of 10 cesium, cobalt, nickel, and strontium also were found. The radiological impact of these leaks on 11 groundwater is discussed in Section 2.2.7 of this SEIS (the leaks are also mentioned in 12 Section 2.1.4.1 of this SEIS). 13 2.2.4 Meteorology and Air Quality 14 2.2.4.1 Climate 15 IP2 and IP3 are located in the Village of Buchanan, New York, in Westchester County on the 16 eastern bank of the Hudson River at approximately RM 43 (RKM 69). The river bisects the area 17 within a 6-mi (9.7-km) radius of the site and geographically separates Westchester County from 18 Rockland County to the west. The Hudson River flows northeast to southwest at the site but 19 turns sharply northwest approximately 2 mi northeast of the plant. The western bank of the 20 Hudson River is flanked by the steep, heavily wooded slopes of the Dunderberg and West 21 Mountains to the northwest (elevations 1086 and 1257 ft (331 and 383 m) above mean sea level 22 (MSL), respectively) and Buckberg Mountain to the west-southwest (elevation 793 ft (242 m) 23 above MSL). These peaks extend to the west and gradually rise to slightly higher peaks 24 (Entergy 2007a). 25 The climate is continental, characterized by rapid changes in temperature, resulting in hot 26 summers and cold winters. The area, being adjacent to the St. Lawrence River Valley storm 27 track, is subject to cold air masses approaching from the west and north. It has a variable 28 climate, characterized by frequent and swift changes. The climate is also subject to some 29 modification by the Atlantic Ocean. The moderating effect on temperatures is more pronounced 30 during the warmer months than in winter when bursts of cold air sweep down from Canada. In 31 the warmer seasons, temperatures rise rapidly in the daytime. However, temperatures also fall 32 rapidly after sunset so that the nights are relatively cool. Occasionally, there are extended 33 periods of oppressive heat up to a week or more in duration. Winters are usually cold and 34 sometimes fairly severe. Furthermore, the area is also close to the path of most storm and 35 frontal systems that move across the North American continent. Weather conditions often 36 approach from a westerly direction, and the frequent passage of weather systems often helps 37 reduce the length of both warm and cold spells. This is also a major factor in keeping periods of 38 prolonged air stagnation to a minimum (NOAA 2004). 39 The State of New York has a climate that varies greatly. For example, the average January 40 temperature ranges from 14° Fahrenheit (F) (-10° Celsius (C)) in the central Adirondack 41 Mountains to 30°F (-1.1 0C) on Long Island. The average July temperature in the central 42 Adirondacks is 66°F (19°C), and 74°F (23°C) on Long Island. The highest temperature ever 43 recorded in the State was 108°F (42°C) at Troy on July 22, 1926. The lowest recorded December 2010 2-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00065
Plant and the Environment 1 temperature, -52°F (-4rC), occurred at Old Forge, in the Fulton Chain of Lakes area, on 2 February 18, 1979 (World Book Encyclopedia 2006). In Westchester County, where IP2 and 3 IP3 are located, temperatures are mild in the summer and cold in the winter. Buchanan, New 4 York, has a mean daily maximum temperature range from 28°F (-2.2°C) in winter to 8rF 5 (31°C) in summer. The mean daily minimum temperatures range from about 20°F (-6.rC) in 6 winter to about 72°F (22°C) in summer (Indian Point Energy Center 2004). 7 Precipitation varies considerably in New York. The areas of Tug Hill, the southwestern slopes 8 of the Adirondacks, the central Catskills, and the southeast areas usually receive 44 in. 9 (110 cm) of rain a year, while other portions of the State get only 36 in. (91 cm). The Great 10 Lakes, with their broad expanse of open water, supply moisture for abundant winter snowfall. 11 Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo routinely receive annual snowfalls that are the highest for any 12 major city in the United States (World Book Encyclopedia 2006). Most of the precipitation in this 13 area is derived from moisture-laden air transported from the Gulf of Mexico and cyclonic 14 systems moving northward along the Atlantic coast. The annual rainfall is rather evenly 15 distributed over the year. Also, being adjacent to the track of storms that move through the 16 Saint Lawrence River Valley, and under the influence of winds that sweep across Lakes Erie 17 and Ontario to the interior of the State, the area is subject to cloudiness and winter snow 18 flurries. Furthermore, the combination of a valley location and surrounding hills produces 19 numerous advection fogs which also reduce the amount of sunshine received (NOAA 2004). 20 In the IP2 and IP3 Buchanan area, precipitation averages 37 in. (94 cm) per year and is 21 distributed rather evenly throughout the 12-month period. The lowest amount is in February, 22 and the highest is in May (Indian Point Energy Center 2004). Although the Village of Buchanan 23 area is subject to a wide range of snowfall amounting to as little as 20 in. (51 cm) or as much as 24 70 in. (180 cm), Westchester County snowfall amounts typically average between approximately 25 25 to 55 in. (64 to 140 cm) per year (NRCC 2006). 26 Wind velocities are moderate. The north-south Hudson River Valley has a marked effect on the 27 lighter winds, and in the warm months, average wind direction is usually southerly. For the most 28 part, the winds at Buchanan have northerly and westerly components. Destructive winds rarely 29 occur. Tornadoes, although rare, have struck the area, causing major damage (NOAA 2004). 30 On average, seven tornadoes strike New York every year (USDOC 2006a). Westchester 31 County has had a total of eight tornadoes since 1950, seven of which have been F1 or less 32 ("weak" tornadoes). The eighth tornado, which struck portions of Westchester County on 33 July 12, 2006, was rated as an F2 at its maximum intensity (briefly a "strong" tornado) but was 34 an F1 for most of its existence. Based on climatic data compared to other regions of the United 35 States, the probability of a tornado striking the IP2 and IP3 site is small, and tornado intensities 36 in Westchester County are relatively low (USDOC 2006b). 37 2.2.4.2 Meteorological System 38 Entergy's meteorological system consists of three instrumented towers, redundant power and 39 ventilation systems, redundant communication systems, and a computer processor/recorder. 40 Entergy describes the primary system as a 122-m (400-ft) instrumented tower located on the 41 site that provides the following: 42
- wind direction and speed measurement at a minimum of two levels, one of which is 43 representative of the 10-m (33-ft) level NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-28 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00066
Plant and the Environment 1
- standard deviations of wind direction fluctuations as calculated at all measured levels 2
- vertical temperature difference for two layers (122-10 m (400-33 ft) and 60-10 m (197-3 33 ft))
4
- ambient temperature measurements at the 10-m (33-ft) level 5
- precipitation measurements near ground level 6
- Pasquill stability classes as calculated from temperature difference (Indian Point Energy 7 Center 2005) 8 The meteorological measurement system is located in a controlled environmental housing and 9 connected to a power supply system with a redundant power source. A diesel generator 10 provides immediate power to the meteorological tower system within 15 seconds after an 11 outage trips the automatic transfer switch. Support systems include an uninterruptible power 12 supply, dedicated ventilation systems, halon fire protection, and dedicated communications 13 (Indian Point Energy Center 2005).
14 Entergy indicates that the meteorological system transmits 15-minute average data 15 simultaneously to two loggers at the primary tower site. One data logger transmits to a 16 computer that determines joint frequency distributions, and the second transmits to a computer 17 in the Buchanan Service Center that allows remote access to the data. Meteorological data can 18 be transmitted simultaneously to emergency responders and the NRC in a format designated by 19 NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1. Fifteen-minute averages of meteorological parameters for the 20 preceding 12 hours0.5 days <br />0.0714 weeks <br />0.0164 months <br /> are available from the system (Indian Point Energy Center 2005). 21 The backup meteorological system is independent of the primary system and consists of a 22 backup tower located approximately 2700 ft (833 m) north of the primary tower and a data 23 acquisition system located in the Emergency Operations Facility. The backup system provides 24 measurements at the 10-m (33-ft) level of wind direction and speed and an estimate of 25 atmospheric stability (Pasquill category using sigma theta, which is a standard deviation of wind 26 fluctuation). The backup system provides information in real-time mode. Changeover from the 27 primary system to the backup system occurs automatically. In the event of a failure of the 28 backup meteorological measurement system, a standby backup system exists at the 10-m 29 (33-ft) level of the Buchanan Service Center building roof. It also provides measurements of the 30 10-m (33-ft) level of wind direction and speed and an estimate of atmospheric stability (Pasquill 31 category using sigma theta, which is a standard deviation of wind fluctuations). The changeover 32 from the backup system to the standby system also occurs automatically. As in the case of the 33 primary system, the backup meteorological measurement system and associated controlled 34 environmental housing system are connected to a power system which is supplied from 35 redundant power sources. In addition to the backup meteorological measurement system, a 36 backup communications line to the meteorological system is operational. During an interim 37 period, the backup communications are provided via telephone lines routed through a telephone 38 company central office separate from the primary circuits (Indian Point Energy Center 2005). 39 2.2.4.3 Air Quality 40 Under the Clean Air Act, EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 41 specific concentrations of certain pollutants, called criteria pollutants. Areas in the United States 42 having air quality as good as or better than these standards (i.e., pollutant levels lower than the December 2010 2-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00067
Plant and the Environment 1 NAAQS) were designated as attainment areas for the various pollutants. Areas with monitored 2 pollutant levels greater than these standards are designated as nonattainment areas. Areas in 3 the United States whose pollutant levels were greater than the NAAQS and are now lower than 4 the NAAQS are designated as maintenance areas. 5 Four states are located within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the site. These include Pennsylvania's, 6 Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The 50-mi (80-km) radius includes nonattainment 7 areas for the ozone (03) 8-hour standard, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 8 (PM1Q), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2 .5 ). The portion of 9 Pennsylvania (Pike County) located within the 50-mi (80-km) radius is in attainment for all 10 criteria pollutants. 11 The currently designated nonattainment areas for Connecticut counties within a 50-mi (80-km) 12 radius of the site are as follows: 13
- Fairfield and New Haven*-03 and PM 2 .5 14
- Litchfield-03 15 The currently designated nonattainment areas for New Jersey counties within a 50-mi (80-km) 16 radius of the site are as follows:
17
- Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union*-03 and PM 2 .5 18
- Sussex*-03 19 The currently designated nonattainment areas for New York counties within a 50-mi (80-km) 20 radius of the site are as follows:
21 Bronx, Kings, Nassau, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester*-03 22 and PM 2 .5 23
- Dutchess and Putnam-03 24
- New York*-03, PM1Q, and PM 2 .5 25 Note that the counties labeled with an "*,, are part of the EPA-designated "New York-New 26 Jersey-Long Island Nonattainment Area" (EPA 2006a).
27 New York State air permits for IP2 and IP3, 3-5522-00011/00026 and 3-5522-000105/00009, 28 respectively, regulate emissions from boilers, turbines, and generators. These permits restrict 29 nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions to 23.75 tons (t) (22 metric tons (MT)) per year per station by 30 restricting engine run time and fuel consumption. IP2 and IP3 are not subject to the Risk 31 Management Plan (RMP) requirements described in 40 CFR Part 68, as no RMP-regulated 32 chemicals stored on site exceed the threshold values listed in 40 CFR Part 68 (Entergy 2007a). 33 There are no Mandatory Class I Federal areas designated by the National Park Service, U.S. 34 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), or the U.S. Forest Service within 50 mi (80 km) of the site. 35 Class I areas are locations in which visibility is an important attribute. As defined in the Clean 36 Air Act, they include several types of areas that were in existence as of August 7, 1977-37 national parks over 6000 acres (2430 ha), national wilderness areas, and national memorial 38 parks over 5000 acres (2020 ha), and international parks (NPS 2006a). The closest Class I I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-30 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00068
Plant and the Environment 1 Area is Lye Brook Wilderness Area, Vermont, approximately 150 mi (240 km) east-northeast of 2 IP2 and IP3 (NPS 2006b). 3 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources 4 In this section, the NRC staff describes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of 5 the Hudson River estuary. In addition, the NRC staff describes the major anthropogenic events 6 that have influenced the estuary and the history of regulatory action over the past 50 years. 7 2.2.5.1 The Hudson River Estuary 8 Watershed Description 9 The Hudson River originates at Tear-of-the-Clouds in the Adirondack Mountains of northern 10 New York State. From its source, the river flows south 315 mi (507 km) to its mouth at the 11 Battery, at the south end of the island of Manhattan. The Hudson River basin extends 128 mi 12 (206 km) from east to west and 238 mi (383 km) from north to south and drains an area of 13 13,336 square miles (sq mi) (34,540 sq km), with most of this area located in the eastern-central 14 part of New York State and small portions in Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New 15 Jersey (Abood et al. 2006). The basin is bounded by the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain 16 drainage basins to the north; the Connecticut and Housatonic River basins to the east; the 17 Delaware, Susquehanna, Oswego, and Black River basins to the west; and the basins of small 18 tributaries and New York Harbor on the south. From the Troy Dam to the Battery, the lower 19 Hudson River basin is about 154 mi (248 km) long and drains an area of about 5277 sq mi 20 (13,670 sq km). The average slope of the lower Hudson River, defined in terms of the half-tide 21 level, is about 0.6 m (2 ft) over 150 mi (240 km) (Abood et al. 2006). During the development of 22 the multi-utility studies in the 1970s, the lower portion of the Hudson River from the Troy Dam to 23 the Battery was divided into 13 study areas (river segments), depicted in Figure 2-10. The 24 study area and river segment designations identified in the figure will be used to discuss 25 monitoring results and data collection locations throughout this document. 26 Lower Hudson River Basin Habitats 27 The lower Hudson River estuary contains a variety of habitats, including tidal marshes, intertidal 28 mudflats, and subtidal aquatic beds. These habitats exist throughout the length of the river and 29 can be freshwater, brackish, or saline. The freshwater communities are generally located north 30 of Newburgh (CHGEC 1999), with brackish communities found farther south. There are four 31 locations within the estuary designated as National Estuarine Research Reserve System Sites 32 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NYSDEC, including, from 33 north to south, Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bay, lona Island, and Piermont Marsh (NOAA 2008), as 34 shown in Figure 2-11. The lower Hudson River basin also contains Haverstraw Bay, shown in 35 Figure 2-11, a significant nursery area for a variety of fish, including striped bass, white perch, 36 Atlantic tomcod, and Atlantic sturgeon, and a wintering area for the federally listed endangered 37 shortnose sturgeon (FWS 2008a). 38 December 2010 2-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00069
Plant and the Environment
.~ 1\ ;
STUDY AREA KMP RIVER MILE ALBANY -":.7'"",,, Troy Dam L, ..
~-------------------- Ji Green Island i I d '
I BEC '----~~ /
~
);
I ALBANY (AL) (201-245) (125-152) f\,
'I
!1 Ii I-------------------------~
I (107-124)
//
CATSKILL (CS) (172-200) ~/ l---------------------~:- ;
',_fv!~s_s_ __
SAUGERTIES (SG) (151-171) i (94-106) Jj
~!--------------------~--- ii KINGSTON (KG) (138-150) ;___ ~8_~~:L __________ J~--
j Yl HYDE PARK (HP) (124-137) i~-"l (77-85) I ------
. i DANSKAMM~B..J>:~,.
~, -. .....~
'+ POUGHKE:EPSIE
[ ! ROSETON ;---==-1; POUGHKEEPSIE (PK) (100-123)! (62-76) ,// CORNWALL (CW) (90-99) ! l-------------------~tf---- (56-61) <U. t------------------------- WEST POINT (WP) (77-89) J (47-55)';)" . INDIAN POINT (IP) f--------~m~~JrC___J (63-76) l--@~~~2.[ BOWLlNEl~'.=f~-=----' INDIAN P,OINT '
- i 1 L--_=.:...:..:=..r- \ -, :
CROTON-HAVERSTRAW (CH) (55-62) l--@+/-~~L-------------.:'\).\ ~\v0" i~~~f1, h \ J 'o~~~v TAPPAN ZEE (TZ) (39-54) L__~_~~~~ __ ---~;:~~:..-,.J?- '. '~0~ YONKERS (YK) (19-38) ! (12-23) '/;i..J II YO~KtRS (""~ _
~0\ >' I l-----.. ------.. ---~f-~j"' tfIl~-,J )~-0j l
'i) }/I,~'Vc"'i ,(,NEw-YORK ~I BATTERY (BT) (0-18) !j (0-11) i~'\ li)/ ('DETAIL AREA I LEGEND:
I--~r=- POWER PLANT iFt"? 1:::';'J"-.4 i.,~\.. ",,---J~
~\
-"'v I
0'- KPM = KILOMETER POINT ;rif{ / '-J~~'Z or RM = RIVER MILE ",JV' Atlantic Ocean
\
1 Source: Abood et al. 2006 2 Figure 2-10. Hudson study area and river segments 3 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-32 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00070
Plant and the Environment
*N::~¥;!~ejtg~-~
,.
"-;::r
........................................... , ~.-- ' '.:;:.:;.;:.;;..;-;:.;;.;;:]
i* ","',..:- .' --- :------.,,,,"',.,,,
. .......
~ 10,m i~iiClml MHl M<lH;h >"'w,.,,<
...... ~ ........ ~ ......................................' /./ . *. ----.-~---------------
~/ ..'. ". . <i*i;~;~*;*~i~;~;;;;*ii;:1*1
/,:"'<' ** ------------~------------------------
*.> -, <":.
rp~-~;:;n:;~~t-~1;-~;-hl-,
------.;.-----~------~~.:----------------", "'
"" ....
o 10 20 40
~1"""""I~_iiiiiiiiiii~-~-iiiiiiiiiii~~~~~1 Miles 1 Figure 2-11. Hudson river area and national estuarine research sites 2
December 2010 2-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367 A_00071
Plant and the Environment 1 Community type and habitat characteristics are influenced by the extent of tidal excursions, 2 which are controlled by tidal stage and river flow. During drought periods, the 100 milligrams 3 per liter (mg/L) (0.1 parts per thousand (ppt)) salinity front can extend up to 130 km (81 mi) 4 above the ocean entrance (Abood et al. 2006). 5 In general, narrow, shallow river reaches with high current flow have extensive bottom scour 6 and low organic carbon levels. The coarse gravel substrate provides spawning habitat for some 7 species. Similar characteristics can also be found where tributaries to the main river stem join 8 the Hudson. High current speeds through deep basins can generate turbulent flow that keeps 9 weakly swimming zoo- and icthyoplankton suspended in the water column and away from silty 10 nearshore locations and potential predators. Shallow, shore-zone habitats often support 11 submerged aquatic vegetation that provides habitat and protection for juvenile fish and other 12 aquatic communities. Broad, shallow basins often create depositional environments where fine 13 sediments, high levels of organic carbon, and nutrients are present. These environments are 14 generally highly productive and may serve as nursery areas for juvenile fish species (CHGEC 15 1999). 16 Human activities, however, have significantly affected the lower Hudson River estuary. 17 Increasing human populations along the estuary throughout recent history have contributed to 18 increased habitat alteration. Section 2.2.5.2 examines human influences in greater detail. 19 The construction of railroad lines along the banks of the river disrupted the connection of the 20 river to marshland and wetland habitats. Construction of causeways interfered with or 21 completely blocked tributary inlets, disrupting sediment transport and other natural phenomena. 22 Anthropogenic activities also resulted in the dredging of some habitats and the filling of others. 23 The historical impacts to the lower Hudson River habitats are discussed later in this section. 24 To describe the predominant habitat features associated with the lower Hudson River estuary, 25 Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation (CHGEC; 1999) divided the lower river from the 26 Troy Dam to the Battery into five subsections of roughly comparable volume consisting of one or 27 more of the regions and river segments identified in Figure 2-10. Beginning at the Troy Dam, 28 the first subsection extends from RM 152 to 94 (RKM 245 to 151) and includes the Albany, 29 Catskill, and Saugerties study areas. This subsection of the river is relatively narrow and has 30 extensive shoals and numerous tributaries. Within this subsection and approximately 6.2 mi 31 (10 km) south of the Troy Dam, the river is about 574ft (175 m) wide-the narrowest part of the 32 lower Hudson (Abood et al. 2006). The slope of the river is also greatest in this subsection and 33 generates current velocities greater than in other areas. 34 The second subsection of the river defined by CHGEC (1999) extends from RM 93 to 56 35 (RKM 150 to 90) and includes the Kingston, Hyde Park, Poughkeepsie, and Cornwall study 36 areas. This subsection contains a series of progressively deeper basins, and the volume of this 37 area is approximately 1.5 times larger than that of the adjacent upriver areas. Shallow shoreline 38 and shoal areas are common only in the southernmost end of this subsection. 39 The third subsection of the river defined by CHGEC (1999) extends from RM 55 to 39 (RKM 89 40 to 63), and includes the West Point and IP2 and IP3 study areas. At this location, the Hudson 41 Highlands land mass forced glaciers through a narrow constriction, resulting in the deepest and 42 most turbulent flow observed in the lower Hudson. Within this subsection, the river channel 43 narrows abruptly, bends sharply to the east, and reaches a depth of over 150 ft (46 m). At the 44 lower portions of this subsection, the river bottom consists of a series of progressively shallower NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-34 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00072
Plant and the Environment 1 gouges that result in a corrugated bottom that ends in shallow water behind the Hudson 2 Highlands. The IP2 and IP3 and Bowline Point power stations (along with the no-Ionger-3 operating Lovett station) are located within this river subsection. 4 The fourth subsection of the river defined by CHGEC (1999) is located from RM 38 to 24 5 (RKM 62 to 39) and includes the Croton-Haverstraw and Tappan Zee study areas (Figure 2-10). 6 This is the widest and shallowest portion of the lower Hudson River and has the most extensive 7 shoal and shore zone areas. The presence of slow-moving currents and shoal areas results in 8 the deposition of suspended sediment, organic carbon, and nutrients. The major source of 9 suspended sediment to the Hudson is associated with watershed basin runoff and erosion, and 10 basin-wide loads have been estimated at 800,000 tons per year (t/yr; 726,000 MT/yr) (Abood et 11 al. 2006). The presence of slow-moving currents, shoal and shore-zone habitat, and high 12 carbon and nutrient inputs makes this a highly productive portion of the lower Hudson River and 13 provides important spawning and nursery areas for juvenile fish. 14 The fifth subsection of the river defined by CHGEC (1999) begins at RM 24 (RKM 38) and 15 extends to the river's entrance into New York Harbor, encompassing the Yonkers and Battery 16 study areas. In this subsection, the river again constricts and gradually deepens as it enters 17 New York Harbor. In this location, the river is generally straight and contains few shoal areas or 18 shore-zone habitats. The final 12 mi (19 km) of the lower Hudson have extensive armoring and 19 contain little remaining natural shoreline (CHGEC 1999). 20 Sampling Strata Definitions 21 In order to effectively sample and study the lower Hudson, researchers have attempted to 22 define specific zones, habitats, or locations within the river. These specific locations, often 23 called strata, provide researchers with a quantitative way to sample the environment and 24 integrate the resulting information. A variety of attempts have been made to define the channel 25 morphology and thus the potential strata of the lower Hudson. Miller et al. (2006) describe three 26 major habitat areas in the lower Hudson: 27 (1) Intertidal: Areas exposed at low tide and submerged at high tide that include mud flats, 28 sand, broadleaf marsh, and emergent intertidal vegetation. 29 (2) Shallows: Areas of the river less than 6.6 ft (2.0 m) deep at mean low tide. This habitat 30 supports submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V) in the river and is considered one of the 31 most productive habitats in the estuary and of great ecological importance. 32 (3) Deepwater: Areas of the river greater than 6.6 ft (2.0 m) deep at mean low tide. This 33 area represents the limit of light penetration and generally does not support SAV. 34 During the development of the Hudson River Utilities studies of the lower Hudson River in the 35 1970s, the study areas and river segments were divided into four primary strata to support fish 36 and plankton investigations. These strata provide a geomorphological basis for partitioning the 37 river and are still used to define sampling locations (ASA 2007): 38 (4) Shore: The portion of the Hudson River estuary extending from the shore to a depth of 39 10 ft (3.0 m). This area was primarily sampled by beach seine. 40 (5) Shoal: The portion of the Hudson River extending from the shore to a depth of 20 ft 41 (6.1 m) at mean low tide. December 2010 2-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00073
Plant and the Environment 1 (6) Bottom: The portion of Hudson River extending from the bottom to 10ft (3.0 m) above 2 the bottom where the river depth is greater than 20 ft (6.1 m) mean low tide. 3 (7) Channel: The portion of the Hudson River not considered bottom where river depth is 4 greater than 20 ft (6.1 m) at mean low tide. 5 Hydrodynamics and Flow Characteristics 6 In the lower Hudson River, freshwater flow is one of the most important factors in determining 7 and influencing the physical, chemical, and biological processes in the estuary and the resulting 8 interactions within the food web. Hydrodynamics and flow characteristics are controlled by a 9 complex series of interactions that include short- and long-term fluctuations in meteorological 10 conditions, precipitation and runoff in the upstream portion of the watershed, the influence of 11 tides and currents in downstream portions of the river, and the presence of a "salt wedge" that 12 moves up- or downstream depending on river flow and tidal fluctuation (Blumberg and 13 Hellweger 2006). Freshwater flow varies throughout the year, with maximum flow occurring 14 during the months of March through May, with low-flow conditions beginning in June and 15 continuing until November (Abood et al. 2006). Under normal conditions, approximately 16 75 percent of the total freshwater flow enters the lower Hudson River at Troy, with the remaining 17 portion contributed by tributaries discharging into the upper reach of the estuary (CHGEC 1999; 18 Abood et al. 2006). Because of tidal oscillation in the estuary, it is not possible to accurately 19 measure freshwater flow in the lower estuary. Freshwater flow is, however, monitored by the 20 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at Green Island, the farthest downstream USGS gauge above 21 tidewater (CHGEC 1999; Abood et al. 2006). Data recorded from this gauge from 1948 to 2006 22 show that the mean annual flow was approximately 14,028 cfs (397.23 m3/s). The lowest 23 recorded annual flow was 6400 cfs (180 m3/s ) in 1965; the highest was 22,100 cfs (626 m3 /s ) 24 in 1976. Measured flows from Green Island from 1996 to 2006 ranged from 11,400 cfs 25 (323 m3/s) in 2002 to over 18,000 cfs (510 m3 /s) in 1996 (USGS 2008). 26 Salinity 27 CHGEC (1999) describes four salinity habitat zones in the Hudson River: 28 (8) polyhaline (high salinity): RM 1-19 (RKM 1-31) 29 (9) mesohaline (moderate salinity): RM 19-40 (RKM 31-64) 30 (10) oligohaline (low salinity): RM 40--68 (RKM 64-109) 31 (11) tidal freshwater: RM 68-152 (RKM 109-245) 32 The IP2 and IP3 and Bowline Point facilities are located in the oligohaline zone and generally 33 experience salinities of 0.5 to 5 ppt. The actual salinity present at a given time and place can 34 vary considerably in the lower regions of the river because of salinity intrusion, which occurs 35 throughout the year. The typical tidal excursion in the lower Hudson River is generally 3 to 6 mi 36 (5 to 10 km), but can extend up to 12 mi (19 km) upstream. During the spring, the salt front is 37 located between Yonkers and Tappan Zee and moves upstream to just south of Poughkeepsie 38 during the summer (Blumberg and Hellweger 2006). Abood et al. (2006) report that, during 39 drought periods, the salt front (defined as water with a salinity of 100 mg/L (0.1 ppt)) can extend 40 up to RM 81. Stratification also occurs within this salt-intruded reach. Studies by Abood et al. 41 (2006) suggest that from 1997-2003, salinity in the Hudson River has increased approximately 42 15 percent for a given flow rate. The authors suggest that this conclusion be viewed with NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-36 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00074
Plant and the Environment 1 caution and that further analysis is required to confirm this finding. Real-time monitoring of the 2 salt front position on the lower Hudson River is provided by USGS and can be accessed via its 3 Web site (USGS 2008). 4 Temperature 5 Water temperatures in the Hudson River vary seasonally, with a maximum temperature of 25°C 6 (7rF) occurring in August and a minimum temperature of 1°C (34°F) occurring in January-7 February. The magnitude and distribution of water temperatures in the estuary are influenced 8 by a variety of factors and complex relationships. Abood et al. (2006) identified four categories 9 of parameters that playa significant role in water temperature-(1) atmospheric conditions, 10 including radiation, evaporation, and conduction, (2) hydrodynamic conditions, including channel 11 geometry, flow, and dispersion, (3) boundary conditions associated with the temperature of the 12 ocean and freshwater, and (4) anthropogenic inputs, including those associated with activities 13 that use river water for cooling purposes. The four parameters are interrelated and collectively 14 influence temperature ranges and distributions in the estuary. Anthropogenic influences are of 15 particular concern because they generally represent a constant influence on the system that 16 may be controlled or managed, unlike those influences associated with climate, river 17 morphology/geometry, and natural interactions between the river and ocean. Abood et al. 18 (2006) indicate that the greatest percentage of artificial (anthropogenic) heat input into the lower 19 Hudson River estuary is associated with the use of river water for condenser cooling in support 20 of electrical power generation. The authors indicate that there are currently six power plants 21 operating in the lower Hudson River estuary, with a total electrical generation of approximately 22 6000 MW(e), that use the Hudson River as cooling water. These plants collectively use 4.6 23 million gpm (290 m3/s) and produce approximately 8x10 11 British thermal units per day (Btu/day) 24 (2.3x10 8 kilowatt-hours per day (kWh/day), or 9800 MW of thermal power output). 25 Anthropogenic activities can also result in a net cooling effect on the river. An example given by 26 Abood et al. (2006) suggests that a 1-million-gallon-per-day (mgd) (3800-m3/day) sewage 27 effluent facility discharging water at 18°C (64 ° F) during the summer would cool the river 28 because river ambient temperatures are higher. 29 Attempts to determine long-term changes to the temperature of the lower Hudson River are 30 often confounded by changes in measurement locations and procedures, especially in long-term 31 studies. 32 An analysis of long-term temperature trends in the lower Hudson River was attempted by 33 Ashizawa and Cole (1994), using data obtained from the Poughkeepsie Water Works (PWW), 34 which processes drinking water. This facility is located in the Poughkeepsie study area 35 approximately 30 mi (48 km) upstream from IP2 and IP3 (Figure 2-10). A nearly continuous 36 data set is available from PWW, beginning in 1908 and continuing to the present day. The data 37 set represents water withdrawn from the Hudson River approximately 14 ft (4.3 m) below low 38 tide. The results of the study show that the overall mean annual water temperature at the intake 39 location was 12.2°C (54°F), and that water temperatures were highly correlated with air 40 temperature during the winter and spring months. Although the overall trends in temperature 41 suggested a gradual warming, the authors concluded that the relationship was not monotonic 42 (i.e., showing change in only one direction over time). Rather, there were periods of both 43 increasing and decreasing temperatures, with episodes of statistically significant warming 44 occurring approximately 22.7 percent of the time and episodes of significant cooling occurring 45 11.5 percent of the time. During the period from 1918 to 1990, the authors observed a December 2010 2-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00075
Plant and the Environment 1 significant increase in temperature, with a rate of warming of 0.12°C (0.22°F) per decade. The 2 sharpest increase during that time occurred from 1971 to 1990 at 0.46°C (0.83°F) per decade; 3 the sharpest cooling occurred from 1908 to 1923 at 0.79°C (1.42°F) per decade. The authors 4 noted that there has been only one cooling event since 1923 (1968 to 1977), which occurred 5 during a time of greater than average rainfall and record-setting freshwater flows, illustrating the 6 complex relationships between weather, river flow, hydrodynamic connections, and 7 anthropogenic effects discussed earlier. 8 Dissolved Oxygen 9 As discussed above, obtaining reliable data and trends associated with temperature and 10 dissolved oxygen (DO) can be problematic in dynamic, open-ended systems. Measurements 11 obtained during routine sampling within the river provide only a snapshot of actual conditions; 12 measurements taken continuously from fixed, known locations provide long-term records, but 13 only for the point or area of interest. Declines in DO can be caused by both natural and 14 anthropogenic activities and may be transient or persist episodically or continually through time. 15 In some cases, observed declines in DO at specific times and locations in the Hudson River 16 have been at least partially attributed to the appearance of invasive species, such as zebra 17 mussels (Caraco et al. 2000). Even episodic events can have serious implications for fish and 18 invertebrate communities and dramatically alter marine and estuarine food webs. To evaluate 19 long-term DO trends in the lower Hudson River, Abood et al. (2006) examined two long-term 20 data sets of DO observations collected by the New York City Department of Environmental 21 Protection (NYCDEP) and covering the lower reaches of the river. Measurements of DO taken 22 in August from 1975 to 2000 during the Long River Surveys indicate the lowest percent 23 saturation (less than 75 percent) at West Point and the highest (greater than 90 percent) at the 24 Kingston and Catskill reaches (Figure 2-10). Percent saturation at the river segment 25 encompassing IP2 and IP3 was approximately 76 percent. Based on the NYCDEP data set, the 26 authors concluded that there has been a substantial increase in DO since the early 1980s, 27 probably resulting from the significant upgrades to the Yonkers and North River Sewage 28 Treatment Plants in the lower reach of the Hudson. 29 Organic Matter 30 Organic matter can enter and influence a food web from two sources-autochthonous inputs, 31 which are produced within the aquatic system, and allochthonous inputs, which are imported to 32 the aquatic system from the surrounding terrestrial watershed (Caraco and Cole 2006). In the 33 lower Hudson River, autochthonous sources of carbon originating within the river are associated 34 with the primary production of phytoplankton and macrophyte communities. Studies by Caraco 35 and Cole (2006) of the Hudson River from Albany to Newburgh during May-August 1999 and 36 2000 concluded that runoff from the upper Hudson and Mohawk River watershed was 37 responsible for the majority of the allochthonous sources of carbon, represented as dissolved 38 organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon (POC). Inputs from sewage, adjoining 39 marshes, and tributaries accounted for less than 25 percent of the inputs. Total organic carbon 40 (TOC) inputs were on average highest at the uppermost stretch of the Hudson and decreased 41 down river by over twofold. Allochthonous loads were approximately fourfold lower in 1999 than 42 in 2000 for all three river sections studied. The authors noted that the importance of 43 allochthonous and autochothonous loads varied more than thirtyfold across space and time and 44 that the variation was related to hydrologic inputs. During the summer of 1999 (the driest in NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-38 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00076
Plant and the Environment 1 15 years), loadings of allochthonous inputs were low, but phytoplankton biomass and primary 2 productivity were high. The resulting ratio of autochthonous/allochthonous inputs was tenfold 3 greater than that measured during the summer of 2000 (the wettest in 15 years). These data 4 suggest to the NRC staff that variations in sources and the importance of carbon inputs can be 5 influenced by a variety of nonanthropogenic factors and result in changes to food web structure 6 and function that directly impact higher trophic levels. 7 Nitrogen loading to rivers and estuaries comes primarily from forest and agricultural drainage, 8 discharge from sewage treatment plants, and from nonpoint sources associated with 9 urbanization. The most common forms of nitrogen in these systems are amino compounds 10 originating from plant and animal proteins (CHGEC 1999). In the Hudson River, nitrate is the 11 major contributor to the total nitrogen load, and in the lower Hudson River, approximately half of 12 the total inorganic nitrogen loading is attributed to wastewater treatment systems and urban 13 runoff (CHGEC 1999). 14 Total nitrogen and ammonia concentrations in the Hudson from Troy to Yonkers (obtained from 15 EPA STORET) show differing trends from 1975 through 1992. Total nitrogen concentrations 16 appear to vary without trend, while ammonia concentrations appear to be highest in river 17 stretches near Yonkers and at locations upstream of Poughkeepsie (CHGEC 1999). 18 Phosphorus, in the form of phosphates, enters river systems as leachates from rock formations 19 and soil. Additional inputs are associated with wastewater treatment plant discharges. 20 Inorganic phosphates are used by plants and converted to organic forms that are used by 21 animals (CHGEC 1999). Total phosphorus concentrations in the Hudson River during August 22 1974 suggest that the highest concentrations are associated with the lower 25 RM (40 RKM). 23 Ortho-phosphorus concentrations from the EPA STORET database from 1975 through 1992 24 suggest that the highest concentrations are associated with the Yonkers-Piermont and 25 Glenmont-Troy areas of the upper river. 26 The distribution and ratios of allochthonous and autochthonous nutrient inputs form the basis of 27 complex food webs that can have large influences on upper trophic levels. Macronutrients such 28 as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicon are used by plants as raw materials to produce 29 new biomass through photosynthesis. In some freshwater systems, the lack or excess of a 30 specific macronutrient can limit growth or contribute to eutrophication and result in basinwide 31 impacts to aquatic resources. 32 2.2.5.2 Significant Environmental Issues Associated with the Hudson River Estuary 33 Early Settlement 34 Anthropogenic impacts to the Hudson River ecosystem have existed for many centuries, with a 35 possible origin approximately 11,000 years ago, after the retreat of the Wisconsin-stage ice 36 sheet (CHGEC 1999). Swaney et al. (2006) categorized changes in watershed characteristics 37 and effects based on four broad time scales-pre-European settlement, precolonial and colonial 38 settlement, 19th century, and 20th century (Table 2-1). To put the scale of the anthropogenic 39 impacts to the Hudson River watershed in context, the human population within the watershed 40 has grown from approximately 230,000 at the time of the first census in 1790 to approximately 5 41 million today (not including parts of the boroughs of New York City outside the watershed, such 42 as Queens). In 1609, the Hudson River watershed was almost entirely forested; by 1880, 43 68 percent of the watershed was farmland. Available records show that from the early 18th 44 century to 1993, nearly 800 dams were constructed in the watershed, ranging in height from 2 to December 2010 2-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00077
Plant and the Environment 1 700 ft (0.6 to 213 meters) (Swaney et al. 2006). A brief chronology of significant events that 2 occurred from pre-European settlement to modern times is presented below. 3 Before settlement by European explorers, impacts associated with aboriginal populations were 4 restricted to those from activities associated with hunting and gathering, and localized fires. 5 During precolonial and colonial settlement, immigrants cleared large portions of forest cover to 6 accommodate agriculture. These activities altered watershed dynamics and increased 7 settlement loads and temperature in streams and rivers. Dramatic anthropogenic impacts 8 occurred during the 19th century as populations along rivers, streams, and coastal areas 9 increased, land clearing continued, and construction of roads, bridges, railroads, canals, and 10 industrial centers occurred to support the emerging industrial revolution. The emergence of 11 tanning and logging activities resulted in large-scale clearing of forests, construction of roads 12 that were later expanded into highways and railroad lines, and the development of dams and 13 canals to control floods and divert water for human needs. All of these activities resulted in 14 profound changes to the dynamics of the Hudson River watershed. In some cases, the 15 presence of railroad lines or highways effectively isolated nearby wetland communities from the 16 main stem of the river; in other cases, wetland and marsh areas were filled and destroyed. 17 Dredging and dam development significantly altered the flow characteristics of the Hudson River 18 and influenced the migratory patterns of many species (Swaney et al. 2006). 19 During the latter part of the 19th century, the growing human population created increased 20 pollution and nutrient loading, which remained unregulated until the mid-20th century. 21 Anthropogenic impacts occurring during the 20th century include the expansion of human 22 population centers, further development of infrastructure to support industrial development 23 (highways, roads, rail lines, factories), and a gradual shift in agricultural practices from 24 traditional methods to new technologies that used specialized fertilizers, pesticides, and other 25 agrochemicals. Industrialization during the 19th and 20th centuries also provided pathways for 26 invasive species and nuisance organisms to colonize new habitats via canals, ship ballast 27 water, and accidental or deliberate agricultural introductions (Swaney et al. 2006). 28 During the latter part of the 20th century, environmental awareness of degraded conditions 29 resulted in the creation of important environmental laws and monitoring programs and 30 significant improvements to wastewater treatment facilities. The laws and activities resulted in 31 significant improvements to some water-quality parameters and a new awareness of emerging 32 threats (e.g., the presence of endocrine-disrupting pharmaceuticals, nanomaterials, and other 33 contaminants or constituents). A brief description of some of the significant environmental 34 issues and anthropogenic events is presented below (Swaney et al. 2006). 35 Dredging, Channelization, and Dam Construction 36 As described above, dredging, channelization, and dam construction within the Hudson River 37 watershed has occurred for over 200 years. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has 38 maintained a shipping channel from the ocean to the Port of Albany since the late 18th century 39 and dredges the channel on an as-needed basis (CHGEC 1999). Dredging in some river 40 segments occurs every 5 years (Miller et al. 2006). In some cases, dredging has significantly 41 changed the hydrodynamic characteristics of the river and resulted in significant losses of 42 intertidal and shallow water nursery habitats for fish (Miller et al. 2006). As described above, 43 from the early 18th century to 1993, nearly 800 dams were constructed in the watershed, 44 ranging in height from 2 to 700 ft (0.6 to 213 m) (Swaney et al. 2006). A study of the inorganic NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-40 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00078
Plant and the Environment 1 and organic content of marshes within the watershed by Peteet et al. (2006) revealed a pattern 2 of decreasing inorganic content with the arrival of the Europeans to the present day that was 3 probably the result of the construction of tributary dams. The presence of dams, river 4 channelization, and shoreline armoring to protect road and rail lines disconnects or interferes 5 with normal river processes and often results in an overall decrease of sediment transport into 6 and through the estuary. Because these structures are now an existing part of the landscape, in 7 most cases, it is extremely difficult or impossible to restore historical river structure and function. 8 Industry and Water Use Impacts 9 As described above, anthropogenic impacts on the watershed from aboriginal cultures were 10 generally small and restricted to effects associated with hunter-gatherer community activities 11 and the presence of fires. Before the 1900s, the dominant industries were those of the primary 12 sector (agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining). During the 1900s, there was an increase in 13 the use of the Hudson River to provide transportation, drinking water, and water for industrial 14 activities. During the development of industrial activity, there was a progressive increase in 15 secondary sector industries, including the manufacture of food products, textiles, pulp and paper 16 products, chemical, machinery, and transportation-related goods (CHGEC 1999). 17 The Hudson River was and is used as a source of potable water, a location for permitted waste 18 disposal, a mode of transportation, and a source of cooling water by industry and municipalities. 19 As of 1999, at least five municipalities use the lower Hudson as a source of potable water, and 20 Rohmann et al. (1987) identified 183 separate industrial and municipal discharges to the 21 Hudson and Mohawk rivers. The chemical industry has the greatest number of industrial users, 22 followed by oil, paper, and textile manufacturers; sand, gravel, and rock processors; power 23 plants; and cement companies (CHGEC 1999). 24 December 2010 2-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00079
Plant and the Environment 1 2 Table 2-1. Historical Impacts on the Hudson River Watershed 3 Pre-European Settlement Aboriginal agriculture Localized fires and associated changes in biomass, habitat, and nutrient dynamics Precolonial and Colonial Settlement Land clearing Removal of forest cover and changes in habitat and streamflow characteristics th 19 Century Tanning Preferential clearing of forests leading to increased sediment and organic loads to water bodies Logging Extensive clearing of forests that affects water quality and habitat Agriculture Clearing of forests, use of fertilizers and nitrogen-fixing crops Canal and dam development Increase of waterborne invasive species, wetland drainage, flow alterations, habitat fragmentation Railroad development Increased access to forests leading to risk of fire; terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitat loss Road development Increases in impervious surfaces and runoff Urbanization and Increased pollution from unregulated sewage and industrialization factory waste discharges Dam development for water Changes in flow regime and sediment transport supply infrastructure needs Highway and road development Increase in impervious surfaces and runoff, impacts to terrestrial communities Agriculture decline Changes in land use practices (reforestation or increased land development) Changing agricultural practices Increased inorganic nutrients (fertilizers) and changes in organic (manure) loads Urban development and sprawl Impervious surface impacts, increased runoff, construction impacts, stream channelization Adapted from: Swaney et al. 2006 4 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-42 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00080
Plant and the Environment 1 At present, there are 11 facilities along the lower Hudson River with water discharges of 50 mgd 2 (189,000 m3/day) or greater (Table 2-2). Of these, two are associated with wastewater 3 discharge, and nine are associated with power generation. Between Poughkeepsie and 4 Yonkers (RM 24-77 (RKM 39-124)), there are four steam power generating stations that use 5 water from the Hudson River for condenser cooling (Danskammer Point, Roseton, IP2 and IP3, 6 and Bowline Point). Of these, IP2 and IP3 have traditionally used the greatest quantity of water 7 for cooling (2800 mgd, or 10.6 million m3/day), and Danskammer Point the least. Presently, 8 Roseton operates intermittently, based on energy needs and the current prices of oil and natural 9 gas. Excluding the water use of Roseton, the IP2 and IP3 facility accounts for 60 percent of the 10 water use from RM 24-77 (RKM 39-124). Impacts associated with industrial water use can 11 include impingement or entrainment of fish, larval forms, and invertebrates from water intake; 12 heat or cold shock associated with water discharges; and the cumulative effects of the 13 discharge of low levels of permitted chemicals (CHGEC 1999). 14 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants 15 Wastewater collection and sewage treatment construction began in New York City in the late 16 17th century, and many of the sewer systems were connected in lower and central Manhattan 17 Island between 1830 and 1870. The first wastewater treatment system was constructed in 1886 18 and included a screen system designed to protect bathers on Coney Island (Brosnan and 19 O'Shea 1996.) 20 In 2004, the NYSDEC identified 610 municipal wastewater treatment plants in New York State 21 (NYSDEC 2004a). These facilities produce a total discharge flow of approximately 3694 mgd 22 (13.98 million m3 /day). In the lower Hudson River basin, there are 78 secondary treatment 23 facilities with a total flow of 556 mgd (2.1 million m3 /day), 41 tertiary facilities with a total flow of 24 11 mgd (42,000 m3/day), and 10 other/unknown facilities with a total flow of approximately 25 1 mgd (3800 m3/day). The total flow associated with all 129 facilities is approximately 568 mgd 26 (2.15 million m3/day). There are 33 facilities that use what is described as less than primary, 27 primary, or intermediate treatment. A total of 404 facilities employ secondary treatment, and 28 173 employ tertiary treatment (NYSDEC 2004a). 29 As discussed above, the increasing populations along the Hudson River and within the 30 watershed resulted in an increased discharge of sewage into the Hudson and an overall 31 degradation of water quality. Beginning in 1906 with the creation of the Metropolitan Sewerage 32 Commission of New York, a series of studies was conducted to formulate plans to improve 33 water quality within the region (Brosnan and O'Shea 1996). In the freshwater portion of the 34 lower Hudson River, the most dramatic improvements in wastewater treatment were made 35 between 1974 and 1985, resulting in a decrease in the discharge of suspended solids by 36 56 percent. 37 Improvements in the brackish portion of the river were even greater. In the New York City area, 38 the construction and upgrading of water treatment plants reduced the discharge of untreated 39 wastewater from 450 mgd (1.7 million m3 /day) in 1970 to less than 5 mgd (19,000 m3/day) in 40 1988 (CHGEC 1999). The discharge of raw sewage was further reduced between 1989 and 41 1993 by the implementation of additional treatment programs (Brosnan and O'Shea 1996). 42 During the 1990s, three municipal treatment plants located in the lower Hudson River converted 43 to full secondary treatment-North River (1991), North Bergen MUA-Woodcliff (1991), and 44 North Hudson Sewerage Authority West New York (1992). In addition, the North Hudson December 2010 2-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00081
Plant and the Environment 1 Sewerage Authority-Hoboken plant, located on the western bank of the Hudson River opposite 2 Manhattan Island, went to full secondary treatment in 1994 (CHGEC 1999). Upgrades to the 3 Yonkers Joint Treatment plant in 1988 and the Rockland County Sewer District #1 in 1989 also 4 resulted in improvements in water quality in the brackish portion of the Hudson River. In the 5 mid-1990s, the Rockland County Sewer District #1 and Orangetown Sewer District plants were 6 also upgraded(CHGEC 1999). 7 Table 2-2. Facilities Discharging at Least 50 mgd (190,000 m 3/day) 8 into the Lower Hudson River Location Discharge Facility Activity Region RM RKM (mgd) th 59 Street Station Power generation Battery (BT) 7 11 70 Wastewater North River Battery (BT) 10 16 170 discharge Wastewater Yonkers Yonkers (YK) 17 27 92 discharge Bowline Point Power generation Croton-Haverstraw (CH) 37 60 912 Lovett Power generation Indian Point 42 68 496 Indian Point Power generation Indian Point 43 69 2,800 Westchester Resource Power generation Indian Point 43 69 55 Recovery Danskammer Power generation Poughkeepsie (PK) 66 106 457 Point a Roseton Power generation Poughkeepsie (PK) 67 108 926 Bethlehem Power generation Albany (AL) 140 225 515 Empire State Power generation Albany (AL) 146 235 108 Plaza a Roseton currently operates intermittently based on availability and cost of oil and natural gas. Adapted from: Entergy 2007a 9 10 A review of long-term trends in DO and total coliform bacteria concentrations by Brosnan and 11 O'Shea (1996) has shown that improvements to water treatment facilities have improved water 12 quality. The authors noted that, between the 1970s and 1990s, DO concentrations in the 13 Hudson River generally increased. The increases coincided with the upgrading of the North 14 River plant to secondary treatment in spring 1991. DO, expressed as the average percent 15 saturation, exceeded 80 percent in surface waters and 60 percent in bottom waters during 16 summers in the early 1990s. DO minimums also increased from less than 1.5 mg/L in the early 17 1979s to greater than 3.0 mg/L in the 1990s, and the duration of low DO (hypoxia) events was 18 also reduced (Brosnan and O'Shea 1996). Similar trends showing improvements in DO were 19 noted by Abood et al. (2006) from an examination of two long-term data sets collected by 20 NYCDEP in the lower reaches of the river. Brosnan and O'Shea (1996) also noted a strong NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-44 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00082
Plant and the Environment 1 decline in total coliform bacteria concentrations that began in the 1970s and continued into the 2 1990s, coinciding with sewage treatment plant upgrades. 3 Chemical Contaminants 4 The lower Hudson River currently appears on the EPA 303-d list as an impaired waterway 5 because of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the need for fishing 6 restrictions (EPA 2004). The following is a description of the chemical contaminants in the river. 7 Chemical contaminants in the Hudson River and surrounding watershed generally fall into three 8 major categories-(1) pesticides and herbicides, including dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane 9 (DDT) and its metabolites, aldrin, lindane, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene, (2) 10 heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, inorganic and methylated 11 mercury, lead, and zinc, and (3) other organic contaminants, including PCBs, and polycyclic 12 aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (CHGEC 1999). In addition, there is a growing concern that the 13 discharge of pharmaceuticals and hormones via wastewater may pose a risk to aquatic biota 14 and human communities (NOAA 2008b). There is also a concern that waste products or 15 residuals associated with the emerging nanotechnology market could create a new source of 16 environmental risk (EPA 2007b). 17 Pesticides and herbicides generally enter the Hudson River via runoff from agricultural activities 18 in the upper watershed and have a high affinity to binding with organic carbon. In the Hudson 19 and Raritan River basins, the use of DDT, once a common pesticide, peaked in 1957 and 20 subsequently decreased until the compound was banned in the early 1970s (Phillips and 21 Hanchar 1996). Sediment contaminant trends suggest that the concentration of DDT in 22 sediment has generally decreased since the 1970s and is currently at or near the effects-range-23 median (ER-M), which is the median sediment concentration for a particular chemical or 24 contaminant at which adverse biological effects have been observed (Steinberg et al. 2004). In 25 the lower Hudson River, comparison of the EPA-sponsored regional environmental monitoring 26 and assessment program (R-EMAP) results from 1993 to 1994 and 1998 show that the 27 concentrations of the metals cadmium, nickel, lead, and silver have generally declined and are 28 at or below ER-M. The concentrations of mercury, however, continue to be above ER-M at 29 many locations in the lower river (Steinberg et al. 2004). 30 Contamination of the sediment, water, and biota of the Hudson River estuary resulted from the 31 manufacture of capacitors and other electronic equipment in the towns of Fort Edward and 32 Hudson Falls, New York, from the 1940s to the 1970s. Investigations conducted by EPA and 33 others over the past 25 years have delineated the extent and magnitude of contamination, and 34 numerous cleanup plans have been devised and implemented. Recently, EPA Region 2 35 released a "Fact Sheet" describing a remedial dredging program designed to remove over 36 1.5 million cubic yards (1.15 million m3 ) of contaminated sediment covering 400 acres (160 ha) 37 extending from the Fort Edwards Dam to the Federal Dam at Troy (EPA 2008a). Phase 1 of the 38 project was completed in October 2009, and resulted in the removal of 293,000 cubic yards of 39 PCB-contaminated sediment from the river. While this volume exceeded established goals for 40 Phase 1, removal was completed for only 10 of 18 targeted areas due to the presence of 41 contamination in some areas that was deeper than expected, and the presence of woody debris 42 and PCB oil in the sediment that complicated the removal effort. Phase 2 of the project will 43 begin with removal actions at areas that were not completed under Phase 1 (EPA 2009). 44 Concentrations of PCBs in river sediments below the Troy Dam are much lower. Work December 2010 2-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00083
Plant and the Environment 1 summarized by Steinberg et al. (2004) suggests that the sediment-bound concentrations of 2 PCBs and dioxins have generally declined in the lower Hudson River since the 1970s and are 3 now at or below ER-M limits. 4 Chemical contaminants present in the tissues of fish in the Hudson River estuary have been 5 extensively studied for many years and resulted in the posting of consumption advisories by the 6 States of New York and New Jersey. Current information summarized in Steinberg et al. (2004) 7 suggests that many recreationally and important fish and shellfish still contain levels of metals, 8 pesticides, PCB, and dioxins above U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) guidance values for 9 commercial sales. Tissue concentrations of mercury were of concern only for striped bass; 10 other fish and shellfish, including flounder, perch, eels, blue crab, and lobster, contained 11 concentrations of mercury in their tissues well below the FDA limit for commercial sale of 2 parts 12 per million (ppm). Concentrations of chlordane in white perch, American eels, and the 13 hepatopancreas (green gland) of blue crab were also above FDA guidelines. Concentrations of 14 DDT in the tissues of most recreationally and commercially valuable fish and shellfish in the 15 estuary were below the 2 ppm FDA limit with the exception of American eel. The concentrations 16 of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (commonly referred to as dioxin) and total PCBs in fish and shellfish tissues 17 were often above FDA guidance limits, suggesting that fish and shellfish obtained from some 18 locations within the estuary should be eaten in moderation or not at all. A detailed list of fish 19 consumption advisories for both New York and New Jersey may be found in the Health of the 20 Harbor report published by the Hudson River Foundation in 2004 (Steinberg et al. 2004). 21 Steinberg et al (2004) found that although a wide variety of contaminants still exists in sediment, 22 water, and biota in the lower Hudson River, the overall levels appear to be decreasing because 23 of the imposition of strict discharge controls by Federal and State regulatory agencies and 24 improvements in wastewater treatment. These trends appear to be confirmed by the results of 25 a NOAA-sponsored toxicological evaluation of the estuary in 1991, as described in Wolfe et al. 26 (1996). Employing a combination of bioassay tests using amphipods, bivalve larvae, and 27 luminescent bacteria and measurements of contaminants in a variety of environmental media, 28 the NOAA study showed that spatial patterns of toxicity generally corresponded to the 29 distributions of toxic chemicals in the sediments. Areas that exhibited the greatest sediment 30 toxicity were the upper East River, Arthur Kill, Newark Bay, and Sandy Hook Bay. The lower 31 Hudson River adjacent to Manhattan Island, upper New York Harbor, lower New York Harbor off 32 Staten Island, and parts of western Raritan Bay generally showed lower toxicity. The supporting 33 sediment chemistry, including acid-volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals, 34 suggests that metals were generally not the cause of the observed toxicity, with the possible 35 exception of mercury. Among all contaminants analyzed, toxicity was most strongly associated 36 with PAHs, which were substantially more concentrated in toxic samples than in nontoxic 37 samples, and which frequently exceeded sediment quality criteria (Wolfe et al. 1996). 38 There is continuing concern, however, that legacy PCB waste may still pose a threat to 39 invertebrate, fish, and human populations. A study by Achman et al. (1996) suggests that PCB 40 concentrations in sediment measured at several locations in the lower Hudson River from the 41 mouth to Haverstraw Bay are above equilibrium with overlying water and may be available for 42 transfer within the food web. The authors concluded in some locations within the lower Hudson 43 River, the sediments could act as a source of PCBs and pose a long-term chronic threat, but 44 that fate and transport modeling would be required to fully understand the implications of this 45 potential contaminant source. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-46 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00084
Plant and the Environment 1 Nonpoint Pollution 2 Nonpoint pollution can include the intentional or unintentional discharges of chemicals and 3 constituents into rivers, streams, and estuaries. This section briefly summarizes three types of 4 nonpoint pollution that may affect fish and shellfish resources in the Hudson River estuary-5 coliform bacteria that affect shellfish resources or swimmers, floatable debris, and surface 6 slicks. All information is derived from Steinberg et al. (2004). 7 Levels of coliform bacteria in the Hudson River estuary have generally decreased from 1974 to 8 1998, primarily in response to wastewater treatment improvements. At present, only stretches 9 of the river near the southern end of the island of Manhattan have geometric mean coliform 10 concentrations of 201-2000 coliform cells/100 mL. The incidence of shellfish-related illness in 11 New York State has also decreased from a high of over 100 reported cases per year in 1982 to 12 only a few in 1999. Steinberg et al. (2004) caution, however, that the incidence of shellfish-13 related illness is probably underreported and likely misdiagnosed when reported. 14 Common floatable debris found on New York beaches includes cigarette butts, food containers 15 and wrappings, plastic and glass, and medical waste. The amount of debris removed from New 16 York Harbor annually has generally exceeded 5000 t (4500 MT) since 1988, with no apparent 17 downward trend. The presence of surface slicks in the harbor has appeared to decline since 18 1994. 19 Invasive or Exotic Species 20 The presence of invasive or exotic species in the Hudson River estuary has been documented 21 for over 200 years and probably began occurring after the Wisconsin-stage ice sheet receded 22 over 10,000 years ago. In a compilation of information concerning the distribution of exotic 23 organisms in the freshwater portions of the Hudson River basin, Mills et al. (1996) determined 24 that at least 113 nonindigenous species of vertebrates, plants, and invertebrates have 25 established populations in the Hudson River Basin. The list would undoubtedly be larger if 26 better information was available concerning the historical populations of small invertebrates and 27 algae. Most invasive species arrive through unintentional releases (e.g., from ship ballast water 28 or agricultural cultivation activities) or via vectors introduced by the construction of canals. 29 While the presence of new or exotic species can result in a benefit (e.g., the largemouth and 30 small mouth bass recreational fishery), many have had a negative impact on their new 31 environment. A classic example of the latter is the appearance of the zebra mussel in the 32 freshwater portion of the Hudson River in 1991. Beginning in early fall 1992, zebra mussels 33 have been dominant in the freshwater tidal Hudson, constituting more than half of heterotrophic 34 biomass and filtering a volume of water equal to all of the water in the estuary every 1-4 days 35 during the summer (Strayer 2007). The impacts of this species on the freshwater portions of the 36 Hudson River are presented in Section 2.2.5.6. 37 The impacts of other invasive aquatic species are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. The 38 issue is of magnitude significant enough to result in Federal actions to control future 39 introductions. In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed an amendment to Public Law 101-646, the 40 "Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Act," extending some of the Great Lakes-oriented 41 provisions of that Act and the regulations that followed from it to the Hudson River. In particular, 42 as of late 1994, vessels entering the Hudson River with foreign ballast water must have 43 exchanged that water in midocean and must arrive with a salinity of at least 30 ppt (Mills et al. 44 1996). December 2010 2-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00085
Plant and the Environment 1 2.2.5.3 Regulatory Framework and Monitoring Programs 2 The regulatory framework, actions, and authorities governing environmental permitting and 3 monitoring on the Hudson River are complex and have evolved significantly over time. The 4 following is a chronological description of the major activities that have occurred over the past 5 four decades. 6 Early Environmental Investigations 7 Early biological studies of the Hudson River began as a river survey program known as the 8 Hudson River Fisheries Investigation (HRFI) which occurred from 1965 to 1968 under the 9 direction of the Hudson River Policy Committee (HRPC) (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988). 10 The investigations were intended to address the potential entrainment impacts of the proposed 11 Cornwall pumped storage facility on striped bass. The objective of the HRFI program was to 12 define the spatial and temporal distribution of striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles in relation 13 to the intake to better understand the potential impacts of facility operation. The summary 14 report produced by HRPC concluded that entrainment impacts associated with the operation of 15 the Cornwall facility would be negligible, and this conclusion formed the basis of the decision by 16 the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to license the facility in 1971. These conclusions were 17 challenged on the grounds that an erroneous method had been used to estimate striped bass 18 entrainment. This challenge ultimately resulted in a halt to the construction of the Cornwall 19 facility in 1974 pending resolution of this issue (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988; Christensen 20 and Englert. 1988). 21 During this period, IP1 was in operation, IP2 and IP3 were under construction, and a modest 22 fish sampling program was being conducted in the area of Indian Point by New York University 23 and Raytheon (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988). The enactment of the National 24 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) on January 1,1970, and the interpretation that it 25 required the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to explicitly consider nonradiological impacts in 26 its licensing decisions had immediate and dramatic impacts on IP2 and IP3. During the 27 permitting process for IP2, the major point of contention again centered on whether facility 28 operation would significantly affect striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles because of 29 entrainment. The Consolidated Edison Company of New York, the owner of IP2 at the time, 30 concluded in its ER that entrainment impacts would be insignificant. The environmental impact 31 statement (EIS) prepared by the AEC staff in 1972 expressed concern about the impacts of 32 thermal discharges, entrainment, and impingement associated with cooling system operation 33 and concluded that "The operation of IP1 and IP2 with the present once-through cooling system 34 has the potential for a long-term environmental impact on the aquatic biota inhabiting the 35 Hudson River which [sic] would result in permanent damage to and severe reduction in the fish 36 population, particularly striped bass, in the Hudson River, Long Island Sound, the adjacent New 37 Jersey coast, and the New York Bight" (USAEC 1972). The final conclusion reached by AEC 38 for IP2 was a recommendation that an operating license be issued with the following conditions 39 to protect the environment-( 1) once-through cooling was permitted only until January 1, 1978, 40 and thereafter a closed-cycle system would be required, (2) the applicant would evaluate the 41 economic and environmental impacts of an alternative closed-cycle system and submit this 42 evaluation to AEC by July 1, 1973, (3) after approval by AEC, the required closed-cycle system 43 would be designed, built, and placed in operation no later than January 1, 1978 (USAEC 1972). I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-48 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00086
Plant and the Environment 1 The USAEC results published in 1972 were influenced to a great extent by the results of an 2 entrainment model developed by C.P. Goodyear of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 3 (described in Hall 1977), and during subsequent years, the use of numerical simulation models 4 to assess the impacts of entrainment from once-through facilities received a great deal of 5 attention. As the models were developed, there was much debate concerning the assumptions 6 used by the modelers, and the predictive ability of the models was the subject of numerous 7 scientific symposia, peer-reviewed journal articles, and hearings. This information formed the 8 basis of the decisions handed down by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in 1973 and the 9 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board in 1974. These decisions stipulated that IP2 would 10 be allowed to operate using once-through cooling but only until May 1, 1979. Unless the 11 operator of the facility could demonstrate through new studies that the environmental impacts of 12 once-through cooling were negligible, cooling towers would have to be installed (Barnthouse et 13 al. 1984). 14 In late 1974, FPC held hearings to reconsider the Cornwall facility application. Recent data and 15 numerical models that had been developed for IP2 were also evaluated. Because the 16 information and assessment presented at the hearings provided conflicting conclusions 17 concerning impacts, FPC was unable to determine the magnitude of potential environmental 18 impacts, and the hearings were adjourned without resolution concerning plant licensing. In 19 1975, the NRC, the successor agency to AEC, published an EIS for IP3 that once again 20 expressed concern associated with the impacts of the once-through cooling system, including 21 impacts associated with entrainment, impingement, and thermal releases. Using a combination 22 of entrainment modeling and an improved striped bass life-cycle model, the NRC concluded that 23 impingement and entrainment impacts were "likely to result in a substantial decrease in the 24 Hudson River spawned striped bass population" (NRC 1975). The NRC indicated that the 25 applicant, who had used different parameters in its impingement and entrainment simulation 26 modeling, did not share this conclusion. The NRC agreed to allow IP3 to operate as a once-27 through facility but required the applicant to comply with a variety of technical specifications 28 including the collection of additional environmental data to evaluate the impact of entrainment, 29 impingement, and thermal discharges. The applicant was also required to comply with the 30 license conditions agreed to in 1974 that required a cessation of once-through cooling by 1979 31 unless new evidence demonstrated that environmental impacts were negligible (NRC 1975; 32 Barnthouse et al. 1984). 33 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting 34 On October 28, 1975, EPA gave its approval to NYSDEC to issue SPDES permits in the State 35 of New York. Before that time, national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) (the 36 federally administered analog to SPDES for States in which EPA has not granted authority to 37 discharge to waters of the United States) permits were issued directly by EPA. Issues 38 considered by EPA before the issuance of the 1975 permits included the thermal impacts of 39 once-through cooling and fish mortalities associated with the cooling water intakes. During this 40 time, scientists representing both the applicants and the regulatory agencies had embarked on 41 ambitious programs to better understand the impacts of once-through cooling systems on 42 sensitive fish species. This included a large-scale field program and the use and refinement of 43 numerical simulation models to better understand entrainment impacts. 44 Depending on the model used and the assumptions employed, the impacts of once-through 45 cooling ranged from negligible to catastrophic (Barnthouse et al. 1984). Further, although field December 2010 2-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00087
Plant and the Environment 1 collections were occurring, the amount of information available to be used as input data or to 2 calibrate model output was limited. As a result, the EPA deemphasized the use of simulation 3 modeling to estimate entrainment impacts and, in 1975, issued permits for IP2 and IP3, Bowline 4 Units 1 and 2, and Roseton Unit 1 that required the construction of cooling towers. The utility 5 companies contested the permits and requested adjudicatory hearings. In 1977, the owners of 6 IP2 and IP3, Bowline, and Roseton facilities sought an administrative adjudicatory hearing 7 against the EPA NPDES permits issued in 1975 to overturn the cooling water intake conditions 8 and other requirements. The EPA hearings began in 1977 and ended in 1980 with the Hudson 9 River Settlement Agreement (HRSA). 10 Hudson River Settlement Agreement 11 After a number of years of adjudicatory proceedings, the owners of IP2 and IP3, Roseton, and 12 Bowline facilities signed the HRSA. The 10-year agreement was intended to resolve the 13 disputes related to the issuance of the 1975 NPDES permits and provide the necessary funding 14 to support a long-term investigation of the lower Hudson River estuary. Parties to the 15 agreement, which was effective for the 10-year period from May 10, 1981, to May 10, 1991, 16 included EPA, the New York State Attorney General, NYSDEC, the Scenic Hudson 17 Preservation Conference (Scenic Hudson), the Hudson River Fishermen's Association (the 18 predecessor to Riverkeeper), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NYSDEC 2003a). 19 HRSA provided for mitigative measures to reduce fish mortalities at each generation station 20 from impingement and entrainment during once-through cooling operation, seasonal outages 21 during sensitive aquatic life stages, and the installation of variable speed pumps at IP2 and IP3 22 within 3% years of the effective date of the agreement to allow for more efficient use of cooling 23 water. In addition, HRSA established a biological monitoring program of fish species at various 24 life stages within the lower Hudson River to better understand spatial and temporal trends. 25 In 1982, NYSDEC, under authority from EPA, issued SPDES permits to each of the facilities 26 covered by HRSA. The permits included limitations on thermal releases and incorporated the 27 terms of HRSA in the permit language to ensure that the environmentally protective mitigative 28 measures stipulated in the agreement were included as conditions. These permits expired in 29 1987, and NYSDEC issued SPDES permit renewals to each of the three HRSA facilities. 30 Permits for IP2 and IP3, Bowline Point 1 and 2, and Roseton 1 and 2 became effective on 31 October 1,1987, and have been administratively continued by the NYSDEC since 32 October 1,1992 (NYSDEC 2003a). HRSA conditions were incorporated into the permit 33 language as before. Before the permits expired in 1992, NYSDEC received timely renewal 34 applications, and the department and the applicants executed an agreement on May 15, 1991, 35 to continue the mitigative measures described in HRSA until the SPDES renewal permits were 36 issued. The agreement also stipulated that the parties would negotiate in good faith to resolve 37 issues associated with impingement, entrainment, and thermal discharges, and to resolve 38 issues associated with mitigation and alternatives (NYSDEC 2003a). 39 In response to a lawsuit filed in 1991 by Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson, and the Natural 40 Resources Defense Council, a consent order was signed by all parties on March 23, 1992, 41 which stipulated that the operators of IP2 and IP3, Roseton, and Bowline would continue the 42 HRSA mitigative measures, such as timed outages to reduce impacts to fish, and continue to 43 fund the ongoing environmental studies of the lower Hudson River. The 1992 consent order 44 was extended by the parties on four separate occasions, with the fourth extension expiring on 45 February 1, 1998. At present, there has been no agreement on a fifth consent order because of NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-50 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00088
Plant and the Environment 1 the ongoing SPDES renewal process, but the operators of IP2 and IP3, Roseton, and Bowline 2 have agreed to continue the mitigative measures included in their existing SPDES permit and to 3 follow the provisions of the fourth consent order until new SPDES permits are issued (NYSDEC 4 2003b). The major monitoring and assessment programs conducted under HRSA that form the 5 basis for the staff's assessment of impacts are discussed below. 6 Environmental Studies in the Lower Hudson Estuary 7 Numerous environmental studies were conducted in the Hudson River in support of HRSA and 8 by other organizations to develop a baseline and to assess changes to key components of the 9 ecosystem over time. A general description of the studies evaluated during the development of 10 this SEIS is presented in Table 2-3. Other studies are cited throughout the description and 11 historical assessment of impacts; however, only the data obtained from these studies were 12 made available for further analysis. 13 Impingement losses associated with IP2 and IP3 were studied annually from 1975 to 1990. 14 Data from 1975 to 1980 provided for analysis were weekly estimates of the total number 15 impinged, organized by operating unit and taxon. From 1979 to 1980, estimates were further 16 delineated by life stage (young of the year, yearling, yearling or older). Data from 1981 to 1990 17 included seasonal estimates of the total number impinged by operating unit, taxon, and life 18 stage. 19 As a part of the HRSA, IP2 and IP3 were required to replace the existing debris screens in 12 of 20 the intake bays with angled screens and fish bypass systems. A subsequent analysis, however, 21 showed that the angled screen system did not significantly reduce impingement mortality, and 22 so the HRSA settlement parties rejected this mitigation option (Fletcher 1990). Con Edison and 23 the New York Power Authority elected to install and test a Ristroph screen system at IP2 and 24 IP3. The trial machine, referred to as "screen version 1" by Fletcher (1990), was installed in a 25 single intake bay of IP2 and IP3 and evaluated from January 16 to April 19, 1985. At the 26 request of the Hudson River Fishermen's Association, Fletcher (1990) evaluated the design of 27 the trial machine, conducted flume tests, and suggested improvements to the design that were 28 incorporated into "screen version 2." This final design, also known as a modified Ristroph 29 screen, was installed in all intake bays of IP2 and IP3. As it was not required by the NYSDEC, 30 no further studies were conducted after the installation of the modified Ristroph system at 31 IP2and IP3 to determine actual mortality of key species, and no additional impingement 32 monitoring was conducted. 33 Ichthyoplankton entrainment losses associated with IP2 and IP3 were studied between May and 34 August in 1981,1983 through 1985, and in 1987, as well as between January and August 1986. 35 Data provided for this analysis were the combined IP2 and IP3 weekly mean densities 36 (number/1000 m3 ) of each life stage (egg, yolk-sac larvae, post-yolk-sac larvae, and juvenile) by 37 taxon. 38 Data from the three field surveys from the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program were also 39 provided for this analysis (Long River Survey (LRS), Fall Juvenile Survey (FJS), and the Beach 40 Seine Survey (BSS)). All three data sets include the annual total catch and volume sampled per 41 taxon from 1974 through 2005, the annual abundance index per taxon and life stage from 1974 42 through 2005, and the weekly regional density of each life stage by taxon from 1979 through 43 2005. 44 December 2010 2-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00089
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-3. Hudson River Environmental Studies Table 2 (Information used in SEIS to assess impacts; data provided by Entergy) Study Study Dates Information Available Impingement 1975-1990 Number of fish impinged at IP2 and IP3. Abundance 1 Entrainment 1981 Entrainment density by species and life stage Abundance Studies 1983-1987 for IP2 and IP3 combined. Standing crop, temporal and geographic distributions, and growth rates for Longitudinal River ichthyoplankton forms of fish species, with an Ichthyoplankton 1974-2004 emphasis on Atlantic tomcod, American shad, Surveys striped bass, white perch, and bay anchovy. Sampling generally occurred in spring, summer, and fall. Standing crop and temporal and geographic indices for young-of-the-year fish in shoal, bottom, and channel habitats in the estuary Fall Juvenile Surveys 1974-2005 with an emphasis on Atlantic tomcod, American shad, striped bass, and white perch. Surveys generally conducted in midsummer and fall. Abundance and distribution of young-of-the-year fish in the shore-zone habitat in the estuary, with an emphasis on American shad, Beach Seine Surveys 1974-2005 Atlantic tomcod, striped bass, and white perch. Surveys generally conducted in summer and fall. 3 2.2.5.4 Potentially Affected Fish and Shellfish Resources 4 The Hudson River estuary is home to a large and diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish. 5 Species richness and abundance vary according to season and location and can be influenced 6 by climatological changes that affect water temperature, salinity, and sediment load. Waldman 7 et al. (2006) report that 212 species of fish have been recorded north of the southern tip of 8 Manhattan Island, with the largest contributions associated with temperate marine strays (65), 9 introduced species (28), and freshwater species surviving the Pleistocene glaciations in the 10 Atlantic coast refugia (21). The authors also note that only 10 diadromous (traveling between 11 fresh- and salt-water) species are known to occur in the Hudson River Estuary. 12 The NRC staff identified 18 aquatic representative important species (RIS) to use in assessing 13 the impacts of IP2 and IP3 (Table 2-4). This list contains RIS identified in past analyses 14 conducted by NYSDEC, the NRC, and the current and past owners of IP2 and IP3. The aquatic 15 RIS identified in this section are meant to represent the overall aquatic resource and reflect the 1 Entergy re-submitted this data to NRC on November 24, 2009, because the data Entergy initially provided to NRC staff contained errors that caused some impingement numbers to appear artificially high. The new data are publicly available through ADAMS at ML093420528. NRC staff relied on the new impingement data - along with the other data listed in Table 2 for its analysis in this SEIS. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-52 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00090
Plant and the Environment 1 complexity of the Hudson River ecosystem by encompassing a broad range of attributes, such 2 as biological importance, commercial or recreational value, trophic position, commonness or 3 rarity, interaction with other species, vulnerability to cooling system operation, and fidelity or 4 transience in the local community. Table 2-5 provides the locations in the Hudson River estuary 5 where specific RIS and life stages represented at least 10 percent of the total number collected 6 in reference surveys or studies. 7 What follows is a discussion of life histories, abundance data, and other information for each 8 aquatic RIS. Unless otherwise noted, information on impingement or entrainment trends are 9 from electronic data provided to NRC staff by Entergy or its contractors. The significance of 10 impingement and entrainment, and the presence of other potential environmental stressors on 11 aquatic RIS is discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendixes H and I. 12 Table 2-4. Aquatic Representative Important Species Common Occurrence Scientific Name Predator/Prey Relationships Name and Status Alewife A/osa Anadromous Juveniles eat insect larvae and amphipods; pseudoharengus adults eat zooplankton, small fish, and fish eggs. Species is prey of bluefish, weakfish, and striped bass. Atlantic Brevoortia Permanent or Juveniles and adults eat phytoplankton, menhaden tyrannus seasonal resident zooplankton, copepods, and detritus. Species is prey of bluefish and striped bass. American A/osa Anadromous Juveniles and adults primarily eat shad sapidissima zooplankton, small crustaceans, copepods, mysids, small fish, and fish eggs. Species is prey of oceanic species. Atlantic Acipenser Candidate for sturgeon oxyrinchus Federal Juveniles and adults are bottom feeders, endangered subsisting on mussels, worms, shrimp, and status; small fish. Anadromous Atlantic Microgadus Anadromous Diet includes crustaceans, polychaete tomcod tomcod permanent or worms, mollusks, and small fish. Juveniles seasonal resident are prey of striped bass when anchovies are scarce. Bay Anchoa mitchilli Estuarine Species primarily eats zooplankton and is anchovy prey of YOY bluefish and striped bass. Blueback A/osa aestivalis Anadromous Species' diet includes insect larvae and herring copepods It is prey of bluefish, weakfish, and striped bass. Bluefish Pomatomus Permanent or Juveniles eat bay anchovy, Atlantic sa/tatrix seasonal resident silverside, striped bass, blueback herring, Atlantic tomcod, and American shad. Species is prey of a variety of birds. December 2010 2-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00091
Plant and the Environment Gizzard Dorosoma Freshwater Juveniles eat daphnids, cladocerans, adult shad cepadianum copepods, rotifers, algae, phytoplankton, and detritus; adults eat phyto- and zooplankton. Species is prey of striped bass, other bass species, and catfish. Hogchoker Trinectes Estuarine Adults are generalists and eat annelids, maculates arthropods, and tellinid siphons. Species is prey of striped bass. Rainbow Osmerus mordax Anadromous Larval and juvenile smelt eat planktonic smelt crustaceans; larger juveniles and adults feed on crustaceans, polychaetes, and fish. Adults eat anchovies and alewives. Species is prey of striped bass and bluefish. Shortnose Acipenser Federally Juveniles feed on benthic insects and sturgeon brevirostrum endangered; crustaceans. permanent or seasonal resident Spottail Notropis Freshwater Species eats aquatic insect larvae, shiner hudsonius zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and the eggs and larvae of fish, including their own species. Species is prey of striped bass. Striped Morone saxatilis Anadromous Species eats menhaden. river herring, bass tomcod, and smelt. Larvae are prey of spottail shiner, white perch, striped bass, bluegill, and white catfish. Weakfish Cynoscion regalis Permanent or Small weakfish feed primarily on seasonal resident crustaceans, while larger weakfish feed primarily on anchovies, herrings, spot. Species is prey of bluefish, striped bass, and other weakfish. White Ameiurus catus Freshwater Juveniles eat midge larvae. Adults are catfish omnivores, feeding on anything from fish to insects to crustaceans. White Morone Estuarine Species eat eggs of other fish and larvae perch americana of walleye and striped bass. Prey of larger piscivorous fish and terrestrial aquatic vertebrates. Blue Crab Callinectes Estuarine Zoea eat phytoplankton, and sapidus dinoflagellates; adults opportunistic. Larval crabs are the prey of fish, shellfish, jellyfish; juvenile and adult blue crabs are prey of a wide variety of fish, birds, and mammals. 1 2-54 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 December 2010 OAGI0001367 A_00092
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-5. Locations in the Hudson River Estuary (see Figure 2-10) Where the Presence 2 of Aquatic RIS Life Stages Represented at Least 10 Percent of the Total Number 3 Collected in Referenced Surveys or Studies (adapted from ASA 2007; river segment 4 abbreviations from Figure 2-10) River Segments Species Lifestage BT YK TZ CH IP WP CW PK HP KG SG CS AL Eggs Il.RS(Q) YSL(d) legs Alewife PYSL(e) egS YOy(f) ~ss(a) I~$$ I~$S Year +(g) Eggs YSL Atlantic menhaden(h) PYSL YOY A$M~()~OO$~ Year + Eggs IURS YSL legs American shad PYSL gf"{$ YOY I~$$ l.iS Igf"{$/~$$ I~$$ Year + Eggs YSL Atlantic PYSL sturgeon YOY Year + IFJI~JI~I~cij5fiSh Eggs YSL Atlantic tomcod PYSL gf"{$ YOY (f"{$lgQ$ ICf"{$lgJ$ I~J$ Year + g8S Ig8S 5 December 2010 2-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00093
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-5 (continued)
~ ~;~s Lifestage BT I YK I TZ CH IP WP CW PK HP KG SG CS AL Eggs Il.RS YSL IWfR$
Bay anchovy PYSL IWg$ YOY IWfR$IS$$ Year + IS$S Eggs URS YSL WfR$ Blueback herring PYSL IWg$ YOY Lg$JSS$ Year + Eggs YSL Bluefish PYSL YOY IS$$ Year + Eggs YSL Gizzard PYSL shad YOY S$$ S$$ la$$ Year + a$$ a$$ 2 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-56 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00094
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-5 (continued) BT YK TZ CH IP WP CW PK HP KG SG CS AL YSL Hogchoker PYSL YOY Year + YSL Rainbow PYSL smelt YOY Year + YSL Shortnose sturgeon PYSL r-------r_~r_~----r_~--_+--_+--~----r_--r_~--_+----r_~ YOY Spottail shiner PYSL YOY Year + YSL Striped bass PYSL YOY Year + 2 December 2010 2-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_0009S
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-5 (continued)
.:.
~ I:"* Ie BT YK TZ CH IP WP CW PK HP KG SG CS AL Eggs YSL Weakfish PYSL YOY IF.J$
Year + IF.J$ F.J$ Eggs YSL White PYSL catfish YOY FJ$ IFJ$ Year + F.J$ IFJ$ Eggs 11_8$ YSL WfR$ White perch PYSL WfR$ YOY S$$ Lg$ 1$$$ Year + S$$ 1$$$ Eggs Zoea ************************* Blue crab(l) Megalops ************************* Juvenile ************************* Year + *************************************************** 2 \0) BSS. Beach Seine Survey (1974 - 2005) ************************************************* 3 (b) FJS: Fall Juvenile Survey (also known as Fall Shoals Survey) (1979-2004) 4 (c) LRS: Long River Survey (1974-2004) 5 (d) YSL: yolk-sac larvae 6 (e) PYSL: post-yolk-sac larvae 7 (I) YOY: young of year 8 (g) Year +: yearling and older 9 (h) Obtained from ASMFC 2006a distribution 10 (I) Obtained from ASMFC 2006a distribution 11 Source: NYSDEC 2004b 12 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-58 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00096
Plant and the Environment 1 Alewife 2 The alewife (A/osa pseudoharengus, family Clupeidae) is a pelagic, anadromous species found 3 in riverine and estuarine habitats along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to South Carolina; 4 landlocked populations have also been introduced in the Great Lakes and Finger Lakes. The 5 species is historically one of the most commercially important fish species in Massachusetts and 6 continues to be harvested as a source of fish meal, fish oil, and protein for animal food 7 industries (Fay et al. 1983). The commercial fishing industry does not differentiate between the 8 alewife and the blueback herring (A/osa aestiva/is) and refers to the two species collectively as 9 river herring. Commercial landings of river herrings peaked in the 1950s at approximately 10 34,000 MT (37,500 t) and then declined to less than 4000 MT (4400 t) in the 1970s (Haas-11 Castro 2006a). Between 1996 and 2005, landings of river herring ranged from 300 to 900 MT 12 (330 to 990 t) annually, with 90 percent of landings in Maine, North Carolina, and Virginia 13 (Haas-Castro 2006a). The river herring fishery is one of the oldest fisheries in the United 14 States; however, no commercial fisheries for river herring exist in the Hudson River today. 15 River herring are often taken as bycatch in the offshore mackerel fishery; within New York and 16 New Jersey, river herring accounted for 0.3 percent of annual landings on the Atlantic coast 17 (CHGEC 1999). 18 Spawning adults enter the Hudson River from the Atlantic Ocean in early spring and spawn 19 once per year between late May and mid-July in shallow, freshwater tributaries with low current 20 at temperatures between 11°C (52°F) and 2rC (81°F) (Everly and Boreman 1999; Fay et al. 21 1983). Females first spawn at 3 to 4 years of age and produce 60,000 to 100,000 eggs. 22 Alewives spawn 3 to 4 weeks before blueback herring in areas where the two species occur 23 sympatrically, and the peak spawning of each species occurs 2 to 3 weeks apart from one 24 another (Fay et al. 1983). Within the Hudson River estuary, peak abundance of river herring 25 eggs generally occurs within the Catskill region of the upper estuary during mid-May (CHGEC 26 1999). Incubation time varies inversely with water temperature and ranges from 2 to 15 days, 27 and eggs are semidemersal and are easily carried by currents (Fay et al. 1983; CHGEC 1999). 28 The yolk sac larvae (YSL) stage lasts approximately 2 to 5 days, and the post-yolk-sac larvae 29 (PYSL) stage lasts until transformation to the juvenile stage at approximately 20 millimeters 30 (mm) (0.78 in.). Full development occurs at approximately 45 mm (1.8 in.) at the age of about 31 1 month (Fay et al. 1983; CHGEC 1999). 32 Young-of-the-year (YOY) have been found in both lower and upper regions of the river 33 (Table 2-5). Juveniles migrate to the ocean between July and November of their first year. At 34 sexual maturity, alewives weigh 153 to 164 grams (g) (0.34 to 0.36 pounds (lb)) and can weigh 35 325 to 356 g (0.72 to 0.78 Ib) by their seventh year; the average length for males is 29 cm and 36 for females is 31 cm (Fay et al. 1983). Alewives in the Hudson River estuary have a life span of 37 up to 9 years (Haas-Castro 2006a). Juveniles in the lower Hudson River have been reported to 38 feed on chironomid larvae and amphipods, and the diet of adult alewives consists primarily of 39 zooplankton, amphipods, mysids, copepods, small fish, and fish eggs. After spawning, alewives 40 feed heavily on shrimp (Fay et al. 1983; CHGEC 1999). The species fulfills an important link in 41 the estuarine food web between zooplankton and top piscivores. Juvenile and adult alewife is 42 prey for gulls, terns, and other coastal birds, as well as bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix), weakfish 43 (Cynoscion rega/is), and striped bass (Morone saxati/is) (CHGEC 1999). December 2010 2-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00097
Plant and the Environment 1 The annual abundance in the Hudson River of YOY alewifes has been estimated to range from 2 110,000 to 690,000 individuals (CHGEC 1999). For each annual cohort, entrainment mortality 3 for the combined abundance of alewife and blueback herring for all water withdrawal locations 4 within the Hudson River varies widely, ranging from 8 to 41 percent for data taken between 5 1974 and 1997, while impingement mortality of the alewife is low, ranging from 1.1 to 6 1.9 percent for the same time period (CHGEC 1999). The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 7 Commission (ASMFC) implemented a Fisheries Management Plan for the American shad and 8 river herring in 1985. Restoration efforts under the plan include habitat improvement, fish 9 passage, stocking, and transfer programs; however, the abundance of river herring still remains 10 well below historic estimates (Haas-Castro 2006a). River herring were present in both 11 impingement and entrainment samples obtained from IP2 and IP3. 12 Atlantic Menhaden 13 The Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus, family Clupeidae) is a euryhaline species found in 14 inland tidal waters along the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to Florida (MRC 2006). Menhaden 15 is commercially harvested as a high-grade source of omega-3 fatty acid, which is used in 16 pharmaceuticals and processed food production (ASMFC 2006a). Atlantic menhaden make up 17 between 25 and 40 percent of the combined annual landings of menhaden species along the 18 Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). The Atlantic menhaden 19 was first commercially fished in the late 1600s and early 1700s for use in agricultural fertilizer, 20 and the species was later harvested for oil beginning in the early 1800s (Rogers and Van Den 21 Avyle 1989). Fish meal from menhaden also became a staple component in swine and 22 ruminant feed beginning in the mid-1900s and began to be used in aquaculture feed in the 23 1990s (ASM FC 2006a). 24 Atlantic menhaden migrate seasonally and exhibit north-south and inshore-offshore movement 25 in large schools composed of individuals of a similar size and age (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 26 1989). Migration patterns are linked to spawning habits, and the species spawns year-round 27 throughout the majority of its range, with spawning peaks in the spring and fall in mid-Atlantic 28 and northern Atlantic regions (MRC 2006). Menhaden reach sexual maturity at lengths of 18 to 29 23 cm (7.1 to 9.1 in.), and female fecundity ranges from 38,000 eggs for a small female to 30 362,000 eggs for a large female (ASMFC 2006a; MRC 2006). Eggs are pelagic and hatch 31 offshore in 2.5 to 2.9 days at an average temperature of 15.5°C (59.9°F) (ASMFC 2006a; 32 Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). Larvae absorb the yolk sac within approximately 4 days of 33 hatching and begin to feed on zooplankters (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). 34 The survival of larvae is a function of temperature and salinity, with the highest survival rates 35 occurring in laboratory experiments at temperatures greater than 4°C (39°F) and salinities of 10 36 to 20 ppt (ASMFC 2006a). Larvae migrate shoreward into estuaries at 1 to 3 months of age at a 37 size of 14 to 34 mm (0.55 to 1.3 in.) (ASMFC 2006a). Metamorphosis to the juvenile stage 38 occurs at approximately 38 mm (1.5 in.), and menhaden begin to filter feed on phytoplankton, 39 zooplankton, copepods, and detritus (MRC 2006). Juveniles move into shallow portions of 40 estuaries and are generally more abundant in areas of lower salinity (less than 5 ppt) and 41 waters above the brackish-freshwater boundary in rivers. Juveniles leave estuaries in dense 42 schools between August and November at lengths of 55 to 140 mm (2.2 to 5.5 in.) and migrate 43 southward along the North Carolina coast as far south as Florida in late fall and early winter 44 (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). During the following spring and summer, menhaden move 45 northward, redistributing in schools consisting of similarly sized individuals (ASMFC 2006a). NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-60 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00098
Plant and the Environment 1 Most menhaden reach maturity at 2 years of age, at which point approximately 90 percent of 2 individuals are capable of spawning (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). Menhaden lose their 3 teeth as juveniles, and adults are strictly filter feeders, feeding on planktonic organisms (ASMFC 4 2006a). Atlantic menhaden can live 8 to 10 years; however, fish over 4 years of age are 5 uncommon in commercial catches. Maximum adult length is 500 mm (19.7 in.) and maximum 6 weight is 1500 g (3.3 Ib) (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). Menhaden are prey for a number 7 of piscivorous fish, including bluefish (P. sa/tatrix), striped bass (M. saxatilis), bluefin tuna 8 (Thunnus thynnus), as well as birds and marine mammals because of their abundance in 9 nearshore and estuarine waters (ASMFC 2006a; Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). 10 Atlantic menhaden were not a focus of the Hudson River monitoring programs; therefore, 11 historical records for the Hudson River population trends are unavailable. However, based on 12 tagging studies, the Atlantic menhaden population appears to be composed of a single 13 population that undergoes extensive seasonal migration (ASMFC 2006a). Menhaden are 14 primarily harvested via reduction purse-seine fishing, and Virginia and North Carolina are the 15 only States that currently permit this type of fishing for this species (ASMFC 2006a). Menhaden 16 landings peaked during the late 1950s at an annual average of over 600,000 t (544,000 MT) 17 and then declined during the 1960s from 576,000 t (523,000 MT) in 1961 to 162,000 t 18 (147,000 MT) in 1969. Landings rose in the 1970s as the stock rebuilt, maintained moderate 19 levels during the 1980s, and declined again in the 1990s. Landings have varied in the 2000s 20 with average annual landings of 184,900 t (168,000 MT) from 2000 to 2004, and 146,900 t 21 (133,000 MT) landed in 2005. Landings from the reduction purse-seine fishery accounted for 22 79 percent of total landings along the Atlantic coast in 2005 (ASMFC 2006a). Atlantic 23 menhaden are also harvested for bait in many Atlantic coast States; however, no data are 24 available for these landings as they are taken via cast net, pound net, gill net, and as bycatch. 25 Atlantic menhaden were generally not present in entrainment samples from IP2 and IP3, but 26 were present in impingement samples. 27 American Shad 28 The American shad (A/osa sapidissima, family Clupeidae) is the largest of the anadromous 29 herring species found in the Hudson River estuary and ranges from Newfoundland to northern 30 Florida. The species is most abundant between Connecticut and North Carolina. The stock 31 was introduced along the Pacific coast in the Sacramento and Columbia Rivers in 1871, and the 32 population is now established from Cook Inlet, Alaska, to southern California (Facey and Van 33 Den Avyle 1986). American shad has been commercially harvested via gillnets for meat and 34 roe since the late 17th century (Haas-Castro 2006b). Before World War II, American shad was 35 the most valuable fish along the east coast (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). 36 American shad spend most of their life at sea and only return to their natal rivers at sexual 37 maturity (at the age of about 5 years) to spawn. Adult American shad have an average length 38 of 30 in. (76.2 cm), weigh up to 12 Ib (5.4 kg), and have a life span in the Hudson River of about 39 11 years (CHGEC 1999). Shad eggs have a high mortality rate, and fecundity of females 40 changes with latitude, decreasing from south to north. Females in southern rivers produce 41 300,000 to 400,000 eggs, and females in northern rivers produce an average of 125,000 eggs 42 (Haas-Castro 2006b). Spawning occurs at night in shallow waters of moderate current in sand, 43 gravel, or mud substrates (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). The species can repeat annual 44 spawning up to five times within their lifetime in northeastern rivers; however, most shad from 45 southeastern rivers die after spawning (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986; CHGEC 1999). Egg December 2010 2-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00099
Plant and the Environment 1 abundance in the Hudson River peaks in May, and once hatched, YSL transform into PYSL 2 within 4 days to 1 week in waters at a temperature of 1rC (63°F) (Everly and Boreman 1999; 3 CHGEC 1999). Larvae inhabit riffle pools of moderate depth near spawning grounds and 4 develop into juveniles 4 to 5 weeks after hatching when they are approximately 25 mm (1 in.) in 5 length (Everly and Boreman 1999; Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). American shad eggs, YSL, 6 PYSL, and YOY are generally found between Kingston and Albany (Table 2-5), probably in 7 response to food availability (Limburg 1996). Juveniles travel downriver in schools between 8 June and July (Everly and Boreman 1999), utilize the middle estuary by September, and move 9 to the lower estuary by late October (Limburg 1996). Adults spend the summer months in the 10 northwestern Atlantic waters off the Gulf of Maine, the Bay of Fundy, and the coast of Nova 11 Scotia. In the fall months, individuals migrate southward as far as North Carolina (CHGEC 12 1999). 13 Shad stop eating before running and spawning and resume feeding after spawning during their 14 downriver migration back to the Atlantic Ocean (Everly and Boreman 1999). Larvae feed on 15 Bosmina spp., cyclopoid copepodites, and chironomid larvae. Juveniles are opportunistic 16 feeders and consume free-swimming organisms at the surface as well as insects (CHGEC 17 1999). The principal food source of the adult American shad is zooplankton, though the species 18 also consumes small crustaceans, copepods, mysids, small fish, and fish eggs (Facey and Van 19 Den Avyle 1986). The American eel (Anguilla rostrata) and catfish (Icta/urus spp.) prey upon 20 American shad eggs, and bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix) prey upon larvae (CHGEC 1999). 21 Once juveniles migrate to the Atlantic Ocean, likely predators include sharks, tuna, and 22 porpoises; adult shad are not thought to have many predators (Facey and Van Den Avyle 23 1986). 24 The estimated population of American shad in the Hudson River has declined from 2.3 million in 25 1980 to 404,000 in 1996 (ASMFC 1998). The decline of the species in the Hudson and 26 Connecticut Rivers in the past century is attributed to overfishing, degradation of riverine 27 habitat, and dam construction (Haas-Castro 2006b). ASMFC implemented a Fisheries 28 Management Plan for the American shad and river herring in 1985. Restoration efforts under 29 the plan include habitat improvement, fish passage, stocking, and transfer programs; however, 30 abundance of American shad remains well below historic estimates (Haas-Castro 2006b). Low 31 DO conditions can affect the migration patterns of American shad and limit spawning. 32 Improvements in sewage treatment facilities along the Hudson River in the late 1960s have 33 eliminated the low DO conditions that were problematic in waters south of Albany and have 34 allowed adult shad to spawn farther upriver (CHGEC 1999). According to CHGEC (1999), 35 entrainment mortality has caused a 23.8 percent annual decrease in abundance of juvenile 36 American shad, and impingement may reduce the population by an additional 1 percent 37 annually. The majority of entrainment mortality is believed to occur in the Albany region as a 38 result of the Albany Steam Station and Empire State Plaza (CHGEC 1999). American shad 39 were present in both impingement and entrainment samples obtained from IP2 and IP3. 40 Atlantic Tomcod 41 The demersal, anadromous Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod, family Gadidae) is found in 42 northwest Atlantic estuarine habitats, with a range extending from southern Labrador and 43 northern Newfoundland to Virginia (Stewart and Auster 1987). The species is nonmigratory and 44 inhabits brackish waters, including estuarine habitats, salt marshes, mud flats, eel grass beds, 45 and bays. The species is short-lived, with an estimated mortality rate ranging from 81 to NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-62 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_001 00
Plant and the Environment 1 98 percent by the age of 2 years (McLaren et al. 1988). Mean lifespan within the Hudson River 2 is 3 years, though populations north of the Hudson River tend to be longer lived (Stewart and 3 Auster 1987). Most tomcod within the Hudson River are thought to remain within the estuary for 4 life; however, a small number of individuals have been marked and recaptured in the lower New 5 York Bay, the East River, and western Long Island Sound (Klauda et al. 1988). The tomcod has 6 not been a commercially important species in the northeast within the past century, and no 7 catch statistics have been recorded since the 1950s, as the species is generally a target for 8 winter sport fishing only along the New England coast (Stewart and Auster 1987). Tomcod are 9 particularly vulnerable to impingement and entrainment because of their high concentration near 10 the lower portion of the Hudson River estuary (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988; Boreman and 11 Goodyear 1988) (Table 2-5). 12 Spawning occurs under ice between December and January in shallow stream mouths (Stewart 13 and Auster 1987). In the Hudson River, tom cod aged 11 to 13 months contribute approximately 14 85 to 97 percent of annual egg production, and the majority of tom cod in the Hudson River 15 spawn only once in their lifetime (McLaren et al. 1988). Females produce an average of 16 20,000 eggs, and incubation time correlates inversely with salinity and ranges from 24 to 17 63 days (Dew and Hecht 1994; Stewart and Auster 1987). Once hatched, larvae float to the 18 surface and are swept by currents into estuaries, where they develop into juveniles. YSL are 19 found throughout the lower half of the estuary, and PYSL are concentrated in the Yonkers and 20 Tappan Zee regions of the estuary (CHGEC 1999) (Table 2-5). Adults are found at all levels of 21 salinity, but larvae and juvenile densities are highest within the 4.5 to 6.7 ppt salinity range 22 (Stewart and Auster 1987). The Hudson River represents the southernmost major spawning 23 area of the species, and the tomcod is the only major species within the freshwater region of the 24 Hudson River to hatch between February and March (Dew and Hecht 1994). Because the 25 species hatches earlier than herring species within the Hudson and larvae and juveniles are 26 able to tolerate low temperatures, tomcod experience little interspecific competition for food until 27 the fall of their first year (McLaren et al. 1988). Tomcod are found at temperatures as low as - 28 1.2°C (30°F) and have not been observed to inhabit waters at temperatures higher than 26°C 29 (79 ° F) (Stewart and Auster 1987). The species has also been observed at a wide range of 30 depths varying from the surface to 69 m (226 ft) (Froese and Pauly 2007a). Tomcod have three 31 visible stages of first year growth within the Hudson River population. Juveniles show rapid 32 growth during the spring, little to no growth during the summer, and rapid growth again in the 33 fall, which is highly correlated with prevailing water temperatures (McLaren et al. 1988). Growth 34 has been found to slow at temperatures above 19°C (66 ° F), and growth essentially ceases at 35 temperatures above 22°C (72°F) (CHGEC 1999). 36 The diet of tomcod consists primarily of small crustaceans but also may include polychaete 37 worms, mollusks, and small fish. Because tomcod have a lipid-rich liver and prey on many 38 benthic organisms, they are especially sensitive to contaminants in highly polluted waterways, 39 including PCBs and other chlorinated hydrocarbons (Levinton and Waldman 2006). Recent 40 work by Wirgin and Chambers (2006) has reported evidence of induction of hepatic expression 41 of cytochrome P4501A 1 and messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) in Hudson River tomcod, 42 suggesting a potential for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage, somatic mutations, and 43 initiation of carcinogenesis consistent with chemical exposure. Within the Hudson River 44 estuary, juvenile tom cod serve as alternate prey in the summer months for yearling striped bass 45 (M. saxatilis) during years when juvenile striped bass's main prey, the bay anchovy (A. mitchilll), December 2010 2-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_001 01
Plant and the Environment 1 is scarce (Dew and Hecht 1976 cited in Stewart and Auster 1987). Juvenile tomcod are also the 2 prey of large juvenile bluefish (P. sa/tatrix) (Juanes et al. 1993). 3 The Hudson River tom cod population exhibits wide fluctuations in annual abundance because 4 the species is relatively short lived, and a yearly population is generally composed of only one 5 age class (Levinton and Waldman 2006). The population of tomcod aged 11 to 13 months has 6 been estimated to vary year-to-year between 2 to 5 million individuals, and numbers of tomcod 7 aged 23 to 25 months may vary from 100,000 to 900,000 individuals. A combined abundance 8 index suggests that a population decline has occurred since 1989 (CHGEC 1999). Recent 9 information provided by Entergy (2006c) estimated the population of Atlantic tomcod spawning 10 in the Hudson River during the winter of 2003-2004 to be 1.7 million fish, with 95 percent 11 confidence limits of 1.0 and 2.9 million fish. This estimate, derived by a Petersen mark-12 recapture technique, is based on the number of tomcod caught and marked between RM 25 13 and 76 (RKM 40 to 122) in box traps between December 15, 2003, and February 1,2004, and 14 recaptured in trawls in the Battery region from January 5 through April 11, 2004. The estimated 15 2003-2004 Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River is the ninth lowest 16 observed among 20 recent years of Petersen estimates (Entergy 2006c). Atlantic tomcod were 17 present in both impingement and entrainment samples obtained from IP2 and IP3. 18 Bay Anchovy 19 The bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli, family Engraulidae) occurs along the Atlantic coastline from 20 Maine to the Gulf of Mexico and the Yucatan Peninsula (Morton 1989) and is a common 21 shallow-water fish in the Hudson River estuary. No commercial fishery for the bay anchovy 22 exists on the Hudson River, but it is preyed upon by other fish, such as the striped bass (M. 23 saxatilis), which is recreationally important on the Hudson River. Unless otherwise noted, the 24 information below is from Morton (1989). 25 Considered a warm water migrant, the bay anchovy uses the Hudson River estuary for 26 spawning and as a nursery ground. Adults are found in a variety of habitats, including shallow 27 to moderately deep offshore waters, nearshore waters off sandy beaches, open bays, and river 28 mouths. Studies conducted in the Hudson River from 1974-2005 suggest that eggs, YSL, 29 PYSL, YOY, and older individuals occur in greatest abundance from the Battery to IP2 and IP3 30 (Table 2-5, Figure 2-10). There is also evidence from recent work by Dunning et al. (2006a) 31 that the peak standing crops of bay anchovy eggs and larvae in New York Harbor, the East 32 River, and Long Island Sound are approximately eight times larger than the population 33 estimates for the lower Hudson River, probably because of the larger water volumes in those 34 areas and the salinity preference of the species. Spawning generally occurs at water 35 temperatures between 9 and 31°C (48 and 88°F). The spawning period for the species is long, 36 typically ranging from May through October. Spawning generally occurs in the late evening or 37 at night, and the eggs are pelagic. Schultz et al. (2006) has reported that anchovies that spawn 38 in the Hudson River are mostly 2 years old, whereas yearlings predominate in other locations, 39 such as Chesapeake Bay. Eggs are usually concentrated in salinities of 8 to 15 ppt and, at 40 temperatures around 2rC (81°F), hatch in 24 hours1 days <br />0.143 weeks <br />0.0329 months <br />. At hatching, the YSL are about 1.8 to 41 2.0 mm (0.07 to 0.08 in.) long. Within 24 hours1 days <br />0.143 weeks <br />0.0329 months <br /> of hatching, YSL consume the yolk sac and 42 become PYSL. Fins begin to develop during the PYSL stage. Larvae are transparent and 43 become darker as they develop into juveniles. PYSL eat copepod larvae and other small 44 zooplankton. I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-64 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_001 02
Plant and the Environment 1 Larvae metamorphose to juveniles at about a length of 16 mm (0.63 in.). Juveniles and adults 2 travel and hunt in large schools. Juveniles acquire adult characteristics at about 60 mm (2.4 in.) 3 in length and gain a silvery lateral band. Adults have a relatively high tolerance to fluctuations in 4 both river temperature and salinity, and there is evidence in the Hudson River that early-stage 5 anchovies migrate up-estuary at a rate or 0.6 km/day (0.4 milday) and are capable of periodic 6 vertical migration (Schultz et al. 2006). Adult and juvenile bay anchovy feed primarily on mysid 7 shrimp, copepods, other small crustaceans, small mollusks, other plankton, and larval fish 8 (Hartman et al. 2004). Important predators include birds, bluefish (P. sa/tatrix), weakfish (C. 9 rega/is), summer flounder (Para/ichthys dentatus), and striped bass (M. saxiti/is) (CHGEC 10 1999). The population trend in the Hudson River appears to show a population decline, 11 although exact population counts are not available (Tipton 2003). Tipton (2003) also speculates 12 that the reduction in bay anchovy may be linked to increased predation and overall populations 13 of striped bass, bluefish, or other important commercial fish. Fishery statistics are not available 14 for this species from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) because of the lack of 15 commercial and recreational fishing. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has not 16 identified bay anchovy as a managed species. Bay anchovy were present in impingement 17 samples, and represented a sizable portion in entrainment samples obtained from IP2 and IP3 18 during 1981, and 1983-1987. 19 Blueback Herring 20 The blueback herring (A/osa aestiva/is, family Clupeidae) is an anadromous species found in 21 riverine and estuarine waters along the Atlantic coast ranging from Nova Scotia to St. Johns 22 River, Florida. As noted in the life history of the alewife (A. pseudoharengus), commercial 23 fisheries do not differentiate between the blueback herring (A. aestiva/is) and alewife, and the 24 two species are collectively referred to as river herring. River herring are harvested for fish 25 meal, fish oil, and protein for animal food industries (Fay et al. 1983). Commercial landings of 26 river herrings peaked in the 1950s at approximately 34,000 MT (37,000 t) and then declined to 27 less than 4000 MT (4400 t) in the 1970s. Between 1996 and 2005, landings of river herring 28 ranged from 300 to 900 MT (330 to 990 t) annually, with the majority of the landings in Maine, 29 North Carolina, and Virginia (Haas-Castro 2006a). The river herring fishery is one of the oldest 30 fisheries in the United States; however, no commercial fisheries for river herring exist in the 31 Hudson River today. River herring are often taken as by catch in the offshore mackerel fishery. 32 Within New York and New Jersey, river herring accounted for 0.3 percent of annual landings on 33 the Atlantic coast (CHGEC 1999). 34 Blueback herring spawn once per year between late May and mid-July in the main channels of 35 estuaries or relatively deep freshwater with swift currents on sand or gravel substrate at 36 temperatures between 14°C (5rF) and 2rC (81°F) (Everly and Boreman 1999; Fay et al. 37 1983). Female egg production varies greatly, ranging from 46,000 to 350,000 eggs per female 38 (Fay et al. 1983), and incubation time is approximately 6 days (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). 39 Blueback herring spawn 3 to 4 weeks after alewives in areas where the two species occur 40 sympatrically, and the peak spawning of each species occurs 2 to 3 weeks apart from one 41 another (Fay et al. 1983). In the Hudson, blueback herring spawn most commonly within the 42 Mohawk River and upper Hudson River (CHGEC 1999). The YSL stage exists 2 to 3 days 43 before yolk-sac absorption, and the PYSL stage lasts until larvae reach approximately 20 mm 44 (0.79 in.), with full development occurring at 45 mm (1.8 in.) (Fay et al. 1983). Eggs, YSL, 45 PYSL, and YOY are generally found between Poughkeepsie and Albany (Table 2-5). Juvenile December 2010 2-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_001 03
Plant and the Environment 1 blueback herring assume adult characteristics within a month of hatching, at which point growth 2 slows. Peak abundance of juveniles occurs during late June within the upper estuary (CHGEC 3 1999) (Table 2-5). Migration downriver to the Atlantic Ocean occurs in October, which is 4 generally later than peak migration for both the American shad and the alewife within the 5 Hudson River estuary (Fay et al. 1983). Some blueback herring do not migrate and tend to stay 6 within the lower reaches of the estuary during their first 1 to 2 years (CHGEC 1999). Average 7 length for males is 23 cm (9.1 in.) and for females is 26 cm (10 in.) (Collette and Klein-8 MacPhee 2002). 9 Adult blueback herring feed mainly on copepods but also eat amphipods, shrimp, fish eggs, 10 crustacean eggs, insects, and insect eggs. The diet of blueback herring in the lower Hudson 11 River consists primarily of chironomid larvae and copepods. As described for the alewife, 12 blueback herring is an important link in the estuarine food web between zooplankton and top 13 piscivores. The blueback herring is prey for gulls, terns, and other coastal birds, as well as for 14 bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and striped bass (Morone 15 saxatilis) (CHGEC 1999). 16 Annual abundance of blueback herring YOY in the Hudson River estuary has been estimated to 17 range from 1.2 million to 50.1 million individuals from sampling conducted with a Tucker trawl 18 since 1979 (CHGEC 1999). According to CHGEC (1999), entrainment mortality for the 19 combined abundance of blueback herring and alewife for all water withdrawal locations within 20 the Hudson River varies widely, ranging from 8 to 41 percent in data taken between 1974 and 21 1997, while impingement mortality of the two species was low, ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 percent 22 for the same time period. Blueback herring were present in both impingement and entrainment 23 samples obtained from IP2 and IP3. 24 Bluefish 25 The bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix, family Pomatomidae) is a migratory, pelagic species that 26 occurs in temperate and tropical waters worldwide on the continental shelf and in estuaries. 27 Along the Atlantic coast, the bluefish ranges from Nova Scotia to the Gulf of Mexico (Pottern et 28 al. 1989). Bluefish are a highly sought-after sport fish along the North Atlantic Coast, and State 29 and Federal regulations on the commercial catch of the species began in the early 1970s 30 (CHGEC 1999; Pottern et al. 1989). The majority of the Atlantic coast bluefish catch occurs 31 between New York and Virginia, and recreational fishing has accounted for 80 to 90 percent of 32 the total bluefish catch in the past, with a peak in 1981 and 1985 of over 43,000 MT (47,000 t). 33 Landings have since decreased, reaching a low of 3300 MT (3600 t) in 1999; landings in 2005 34 totaled 3500 MT (3300 t) (Shepherd 2006a). The bluefish is also harvested commercially for 35 human consumption, and during peak years in 1981 to 1983, average annual landings were 36 7.4 million kg (16.3 million Ib), accounting for 0.5 percent of the total Atlantic coast commercial 37 finfish and shellfish landings (Pottern et al. 1989). 38 North American bluefish populations range from New England to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 39 in the summer, and migrate to Florida and the Gulf Stream during the winter. Fisheries data 40 also indicate the existence of small nonmigratory populations in southern Florida waters and the 41 Gulf of Mexico (Pottern et al. 1989). Bluefish are generally not found in waters colder than 14 to 42 16°C (57.2 to 60.8°F) and exhibit signs of stress at temperatures below 11.8°C (53.2°F) and 43 above 30.4°C (86.rF) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-66 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_001 04
Plant and the Environment 1 Generally, bluefish have two major spawnings per year. The first spawning occurs during the 2 spring migration as bluefish move northward to the South Atlantic Bight between April and May; 3 the second spawning occurs in the summer in offshore waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight 4 between June and August. Two distinct cohorts of juvenile bluefish in the fall result from the two 5 spawning events, which mix during the year creating a single genetic pool (Shepherd 2006a). 6 Females can produce 600,000 to 1.4 million eggs (CHGEC 1999). Larvae hatch in 46 to 7 48 hours2 days <br />0.286 weeks <br />0.0658 months <br /> at temperatures of 18 to 22°C (64.4 to 71.6°F) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). 8 Newly hatched larvae are pelagic and stay in offshore waters for the first 1 to 2 months of life 9 before migrating shoreward to shallower waters (CHGEC 1999). Beach seine survey results 10 indicate YOY bluefish are generally found between Yonkers and Croton-Haverstraw (Table 2-5). 11 YSL typically consume the yolk sac by the time they reach 3 to 4 mm (0.12 to 0.16 in.) in length 12 (Pottern et al. 1989). Bluefish larvae grow rapidly; spring-spawned juveniles reach lengths of 25 13 to 50 mm (0.99 to 2 in.) once they move to mid-Atlantic bays in the summer, grow to lengths of 14 175 to 200 mm (6.9 to 7.9 in.) by late September when migration begins, and reach lengths of 15 about 260 mm (10.2 in.) by the following spring. Summer-spawned juveniles exhibit slower 16 growth because they are unable to inhabit bays and estuaries until after their first migration, 17 though summer-spawned juvenile growth rates exceed those of spring-spawned juveniles 18 during the second year, at which point differences between the two stocks are less pronounced 19 (Pottern et al. 1989). Adult bluefish can live up to 12 years and reach weights of 14 kg (31 Ib) 20 and lengths of 100 cm (39 in.) (Shepherd 2006a). 21 Bluefish are avid predators, and the Atlantic coast population is estimated to consume eight 22 times its biomass in prey annually. Larvae feed on zooplankton and larvae of other pelagic-23 spawning fish (Pottern et al. 1989). In the Hudson River estuary, YOY feed on bay anchovy 24 (A. mitchilll), Atlantic silverside (M. menidia), striped bass (M. saxatilis), blueback herring 25 (A. aestivalis), Atlantic tomcod (M. tomcod), and American shad (A. sapidissima) (CHGEC 26 1999; Juanes et al. 1993). Adult bluefish diets are dominated by squids, clupeids, and 27 butterfish. YOY bluefish are prey for birds including Atlantic puffin (Fratercu/a arctica arctica), 28 Arctic tern (Sterna paradioaea), and roseate tern (Sterna dougal/i dougal/I) (Collette and Klein-29 MacPhee 2002). Sharks also prey on bluefish; species include the bigeye thresher (A/opias 30 superciliosus), white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), longfin 31 mako (I. paucus), tiger shark (Ga/eocerdo cuvier), blue shark (Prionace g/auca), sandbar shark 32 (Carcharhinus p/umbeus), smooth dogfish (Muste/us canis), spiny dogfish (Squa/us acanthias), 33 and angel shark (Squatina spp.) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). 34 The bluefish population data from the Hudson River estuary show a declining trend since the 35 population peaked in 1981 and 1982 (CHGEC 1999). Bluefish populations along the east coast 36 have historically fluctuated widely, though analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service 37 (NMFS) of data between 1974 and 1986 did not find evidence of a systematic decline of the 38 species (CHGEC 1999). According to CHGEC (1999), bluefish have not been found in 39 entrainment samples from power plants along the Hudson River, which include Roseton Units 1 40 and 2, IP2 and IP3, or Bowline Point Units 1 and 2 (CHGEC 1999). CHGEC (1999) also stated 41 that juvenile bluefish may be impinged, but the numbers are estimated to be relatively small. 42 Electronic data obtained from Entergy (Entergy 2007b) showed that bluefish eggs and larvae 43 were infrequently observed in entrainment samples, but were common in impingement samples 44 from IP2 and IP3 (NL-09-160). December 2010 2-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_001 05
Plant and the Environment 1 Gizzard Shad 2 The gizzard shad (Oorosoma cepedianum, family Clupeidae) is a pelagic herring species that is 3 found in the waters of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains streams as well as in freshwater lakes 4 and reservoirs ranging from New York to Mexico (MDNR 2007a). Gizzard shad are found 5 mainly in freshwater rivers, reservoirs, lakes, and swamps, and in slightly brackish waters of 6 estuaries and bays (Froese and Pauly 2007b). The gizzard shad is a relatively recent immigrant 7 to the Hudson River estuary, though it is now considered a permanent resident, and the species 8 is continuing to expand its range throughout the northeastern United States (CHGEC 1999; 9 Levinton and Waldman 2006). No commercial or sport fishery for gizzard shad exists on the 10 Hudson River (CHGEC 1999). Larvae have been observed in the tidal waters of the Hudson 11 River since 1989 (Levinton and Waldman 2006). A spawning population is believed to exist in 12 the Mohawk River, but no spawning has been observed in the Hudson River (CHGEC 1999). 13 Adult gizzard shad grow to 23 to 36 cm (9 to 14 in.) in length with an average weight of 907 g 14 (2 Ib) and an average life span of 7 years in northern populations (CHGEC 1999; Morris 2001). 15 Both males and females mature between 2 and 3 years of age, and females spawn between 16 April and June in shallow waters between 10 and 21°C (50 and 70°F) (CHGEC 1999; MDNR 17 2007a). Fecundity is thought to be highly variable but does appear to increase with size of the 18 female (CHGEC 1999). Females can produce between 50,000 and 379,000 eggs (MDNR 19 2007a). Eggs hatch in 1.5 to 7 days, depending on water temperature (CHGEC 1999). YSL 20 transform into PYSL within 5 days of hatching and begin to feed on microzooplankton until they 21 reach 2.5 cm (1 in.) in length. At this point, development of the digestive system supports a diet 22 including plant material; juveniles eat a variety of daphnids, cladocerans, adult copepod, rotifers, 23 algae, phytoplankton, and detritus (CHGEC 1999). Gizzard shad grow rapidly during the first 5 24 to 6 weeks of life, at which point growth slows; individuals reach a length of 10 to 25 cm (4 to 25 10 in.) by their first summer (CHGEC 1999). Adults are filter feeders, eating a variety of 26 phytoplankton and zooplankton. Larvae are not an important prey species because of their 27 size, but age 0 gizzard shad are consumed by a number of species including striped bass, 28 largemouth bass (Micropterus sa/moides), white crappie (Pomoxis annu/aris), black crappie 29 (Pomoxis nigromacu/ates), white bass (Morone chrysops), and spotted bass (Micropterus 30 punctu/atus) (CHGEC 1999). Predators of adult gizzard shad include catfish (order 31 Siluriformes) and striped bass (M. saxatilis) (Morris 2001). 32 Abundance data are not available for the gizzard shad from the Hudson River sampling 33 programs because of the low capture rate of the species in these programs (CHGEC 1999). 34 Beach seine surveys from 1974 to 2005 suggest YOY and older gizzard shad occur primarily 35 from Cornwall north to Albany (Table 2-5). Impingement data are available at three power 36 stations along the Hudson River (Danskammer, Roseton Units 1 and 2, and the now-shuttered 37 Lovett Generating Station) and indicate year-to-year fluctuations with a general trend of 38 increasing impingement and peak adult impingement during the winter months. According to 39 CHGEC (1999), entrainment of early life stages is thought to be low, and small gizzard shad are 40 rare in utility ichthyoplankton surveys. Gizzard shad eggs and larvae were not observed in 41 entrainment samples from IP2 and IP3 during evaluations in 1981 and 1983-1987, but were 42 commonly observed in impingement samples. I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-68 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_001 06
Plant and the Environment 1 Hogchoker 2 The hogchoker (Trinectes macu/atus, family Soleidae) is a right-eyed flatfish species found 3 along the Atlantic coast in bays and estuaries from Maine to Panama (Dovel et al. 1969). The 4 hogchoker is common in the Hudson River estuary and surrounding bays and coastal waters, 5 and abundance indices from the annual Fall Juvenile Survey (also known as the Fall Shoals 6 Survey) channel sampling in the Hudson River from 1974 to 1997 indicate that the hogchoker 7 population has remained relatively stable with a nonsignificant 1 percent increase per year 8 (CHGEC 1999). Because of its small size (adults range from 6 to 15 cm (2.4 to 5.9 in.) with a 9 maximum size of 20 cm (7.9 in.)), the hogchoker is not commercially harvested in any area 10 within its geographic range (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). CHGEC (1999) indicates that 11 hogchoker larvae are found mainly within deeper channel waters and are not often captured 12 during the Longitudinal River Survey; low numbers of juveniles are captured during the Beach 13 Seine and Fall Juvenile Surveys, and yearlings and adults are generally not exposed to Hudson 14 River generating stations because they remain in the waters below RM 34 (CHGEC 1999). 15 However, the Fall Juvenile Survey information reviewed by the NRC staff suggests that YOY 16 and older hogchokers have been collected from Tappan Zee to Poughkeepsie-an area that 17 includes IP2 and IP3 (Table 2-5). 18 The majority of hogchokers in the Hudson River reach sexual maturity at the age of 2 years, 19 though some faster growing males have been observed to spawn at age 1 year (Koski 1978). 20 Spawning occurs in estuaries between May and October in the Hudson River estuary, which is 21 a 5-week longer spawning period than that of the Chesapeake Bay population (Collette and 22 Klein-MacPhee 2002; Koski 1978). Spawning occurs in waters 20 to 25°C (68 to 7rF) and a 23 salinity of 10 to 16 ppt (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Eggs are observed in greatest 24 numbers from the last week in May through July in lower estuary waters. Egg production is 25 positively correlated with size, and females can produce between 11,000 and 54,000 eggs. 26 Within the Hudson River, eggs are most common between RM 12 and 24 (RKM 19 and 39). 27 Eggs hatch in 24 to 36 hours1.5 days <br />0.214 weeks <br />0.0493 months <br /> at temperatures between 23.3 and 24.5°C (73.9 and 76.1 OF). 28 YSL absorb the yolk sac within 48 hours2 days <br />0.286 weeks <br />0.0658 months <br /> of hatching, and eye migration occurs within 34 days of 29 hatching or at lengths of 0.2 to 0.4 in. (0.51 to 0.02 cm) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002; 30 CHGEC 1999). Larvae have been observed to congregate upstream in waters with lower 31 salinity than their hatching ground (Dovel et al. 1969). Within the Hudson River, YSL are most 32 abundant between RM 24 and 33 (RKM 39 and 53), and PYSL are most abundant from RM 24 33 through RM 55 (RKM 39 and 89). Juveniles are found above RM 39 (RKM 63), while yearling 34 and older individuals are found below RM 34 (RKM 55) (CHGEC 1999). Adult individuals 35 inhabit nonvegetated waters with sandy or silty bottoms (Whiteside and Bonner 2007). 36 Adult hogchokers feed mainly on annelids, arthropods, and tellinid siphons (Derrick and 37 Kennedy 1997). The species is a generalist and may also prey on midges, ostracods, aquatic 38 insects, annelids, crustaceans, and foraminiferans (Whiteside and Bonner 2007). Larger striped 39 bass (M. saxatilis) prey on yearling and older hogchokers within the Hudson River estuary, 40 which may affect the abundance of those age groups (CHGEC 1999). The Northeast Fisheries 41 Science Center also found the smooth dogfish (Muste/us canis) to be a predator of hogchoker 42 (Roundtree 1999 as cited in Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Hogchokers were observed in 43 both impingement and entrainment samples from IP2 and IP3. 44 December 2010 2-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_001 07
Plant and the Environment 1 Rainbow Smelt 2 Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax, family Osmeridae) is an anadromous species once found 3 along the Atlantic coast from Labrador to the Delaware River, although the southern end of the 4 range is now north of the Hudson River. NOAA (2007) lists rainbow smelt as a Species of 5 Concern. Unless otherwise noted, information below comes from Buckley (1989). 6 Adult rainbow smelt along the east coast move into saltwater in summer, where they are found 7 in waters less than 1 mi (1.6 km) from shore and usually no deeper than 6 m (20 ft). In spring, 8 spawning adults typically move up the estuaries before ice breaks up to spawn above the head 9 of tide in water temperatures of 4.0 to 9.0°C (39 to 48°F). They have been found to run up into 10 coastal streams to spawn at night and then return to the estuary during the day. Females, 11 depending on size, produce about 7,000 to 75,000 eggs (summarized in NOAA 2007a), which 12 are from 1.0 to 1.2 mm (about 0.04 in.) in diameter. Eggs are typically deposited over gravel, 13 and egg survival appears to be influenced by water flow, substrate type, and egg density. 14 Exposure to salt or brackish water can cause egg mortality, as can sudden increases in 15 temperature, diseases, parasites, contaminant exposure, and predation by other fish species. 16 Incubation times can be 8 to 29 days and decrease with increasing water temperature. 17 Common mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) and fourspine stickleback (Apeltes quadracus) 18 are reported to be major predators of smelt eggs. 19 YSL are 5 to 6 mm (0.20 to 0.24 in.) long at hatching. The yolk sac is absorbed by the time the 20 larvae reach 7 mm (0.28 in.) and enter the PYSL stage. The larvae initially concentrate near the 21 surface and drift downstream. As they grow, they seek deeper water and congregate near the 22 bottom. Vertical migration begins, and they move to the surface to feed during the day and 23 deeper at night. The vertical migration patterns may maintain their position in two-layered 24 estuarine systems. Larval and small juvenile smelt eat copepods and other small planktonic 25 crustaceans as well as fish. In turn, larval and juvenile smelt are probably eaten by most 26 estuarine piscivores. 27 Smelt grow fairly rapidly and begin to school when they reach a length of 19 mm (0.75 in.). As 28 the smelt grow, they move down estuaries into higher salinity and, as adults, migrate to sea. 29 They are mature and participate in spawning runs at age 1. Adults grow to average 30 approximately 25.4 cm (10 in.) in length. Larger juveniles and adults feed on euphausiids, 31 amphipods, polychaetes, and fish such as anchovies (family Engraulidae) and alewives (A. 32 pseudoharengus). Adults also eat other fish species, including common mummichog, cunner 33 (Tautogo/abrus adspersus), and Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia). Bluefish (P. saltatrix), 34 striped bass (M. saxatilis), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and other large piscivores eat adult 35 smelt. 36 Once a prevalent fish in the Hudson River, an abrupt smelt population decline in the Hudson 37 River was observed from 1994 to , and the species may now have no viable population within 38 the Hudson River. The last tributary run of rainbow smelt was recorded in 1988, and the 39 Hudson River Utilities' Long River Ichthyoplankton Survey show that PYSL essentially 40 disappeared from the river after 1995 (Daniels et al. 2005). When present, the largest 41 abundances of eggs and YSL occurred from Poughkeepsie to the Catskills, and the largest 42 abundances of PYSL, YOY, and older individuals were distributed from approximately Yonkers 43 to Hyde Park (Table 2-5, Figure 2-6). Rainbow smelt runs in the coastal streams of western 44 Connecticut declined at about the same time as in the Hudson River (Daniels et al. 2005). NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-70 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_001 08
Plant and the Environment 1 Smelt landings in waters south of New England have dramatically decreased, although the 2 reasons for this are unknown. Daniels et al. (2005) note slowly increasing water temperatures 3 in the Hudson River and suggest that the disappearance of rainbow smelt from the Hudson 4 River may be a result of global warming. Rainbow smelt were observed in both impingement 5 and entrainment samples obtained from IP2 and IP3. 6 Spottail Shiner 7 The spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius, family Cyprinidae) is a freshwater species which occurs 8 across much of Canada, south to the Missouri River drainage, and in Atlantic States from New 9 Hampshire to Georgia, with habitat ranging from small streams to large rivers and lakes, 10 including Lake Erie (Smith 1985a). One of the most abundant fishes in the Hudson River, 11 spottail shiners are commonly 3.9 in. (100 mm) in length, which is large for shiner species 12 (Smith 1985a). The maximum length is approximately 5.8 in. (147 mm) (Schmidt and Lake 13 2006; Smith 1985a; Marcy et al. 2005a). 14 Spottail shiners spawn from May to June or July (typically later for the northern populations) 15 over sandy bottoms and stream mouths (Smith 1985a; Marcy et al. 2005a); water chestnut 16 (Trapa natans) beds provide important spawning habitat (CHGEC 1999). Individuals older than 17 3 years are seldom found, but there is evidence of individuals living up to 4 or 5 years (Marcy et 18 al. 2005a). Fecundity is a factor of age: the ovaries of younger females contain 1400 eggs, and 19 ovaries of older females contain from 1300 to 2600 eggs; a correlation between fecundity and 20 size does not appear to exist (Marcy et al. 2005a). In the Hudson River Estuary, beach seine 21 survey data from 1974 to 2005 showed the largest abundances ofYOY and Year 1+ individuals 22 occurred from Poughkeepsie north to Albany (Table 2-5). 23 Spottail shiners are opportunistic feeders, typically eating insects, bivalve mollusks, and 24 microcrustaceans throughout the water column (Marcy et al. 2005a). Aggregations of spottail 25 shiners have been observed preying on eggs of alewives (Alosa psedoharengus) and mayflies 26 (Marcy et al. 2005a). Striped bass (M. saxatilis) larvae are also prey for spottail shiners 27 (McGovern and Olney 1988), as are spottail eggs and larvae (Smith 1985a). Spottail shiners 28 are frequently used as bait (Smith 1985a), and they are an important prey species for some fish, 29 including walleye (Sander vitreus), channel catfish (I. punctatus), northern pike (Esox lucius), 30 and small mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) (lDFG 1985). The Hudson River population of 31 spottail shiners is known to be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at water intakes, 32 and this could be affecting the survivorship of most life stages (CHGEC 1999). Eggs and larval 33 forms of spottail shiner were infrequently observed in entrainment samples from IP2 and IP3, 34 but were commonly impinged. 35 Striped Bass 36 The striped bass (Morone saxatilis, family Moronidae) is an anadromous species, with a range 37 extending from St. Johns River, Florida, to St. Lawrence River, Canada (ASMFC 2006b). 38 Individual stocks of striped bass spawn in rivers and estuaries from Maine to North Carolina. 39 When adults leave the estuaries to go to the Atlantic, the stocks mix; striped bass return to their 40 natal rivers and estuaries to spawn. The Atlantic coast striped bass fishery has been one of the 41 most important commercial fisheries on the east coast for centuries and has been regulated 42 since European settlement in North America (ASMFC 2006b). In 1982, overfishing depleted the 43 striped bass population to fewer than 5 million fish. Since that time, the Atlantic coast 44 population has been restored to 65 million in 2005 (ASMFC 2006b). Striped bass have been December 2010 2-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_001 09
Plant and the Environment 1 important in both commercial and recreational fisheries, and while the majority of the stock 2 spawns in the Chesapeake Bay, the Hudson River contributes to the stock as well. Fabrizio 3 (1987) reported that of the age 2-5 individuals sampled from the Rhode Island commercial trap-4 net fishery in November 1982,54 percent were from the Chesapeake Bay stock and 46 percent 5 were from the Hudson River stock. Wirgin et al. (1993) estimated that the Chesapeake Bay and 6 Hudson River stocks combined contributed up to 87 percent of the mixed fishery stock on the 7 Atlantic coast. 8 The striped bass is a long-lived species, reaching 30 years of age, and spends the majority of 9 its life in coastal estuaries and the ocean. Females reach maturity between 6 and 9 years, and 10 then produce between 0.5 million and 3 million eggs per year, which are released into riverine 11 spawning areas (ASMFC 2006b). The males, reaching maturity between 2 and 3 years, fertilize 12 the eggs as they drift downstream (ASMFC 2006b). The eggs hatch into larvae, which absorb 13 their yolk and then feed on microscopic organisms. PYSL mature into juveniles in the nursery 14 areas, such as river deltas and inland portions of coastal sounds and estuaries, where they 15 remain for 2 to 4 years, before joining the coastal migratory population in the Atlantic (ASMFC 16 2006b). Recent field investigations by Dunning et al. (2006b) have suggested that dispersal of 17 age 2+ striped bass out of the Hudson River may be influenced by cohort abundance. In the 18 spring or summer, adults migrate northward from the mouth of their spawning rivers up the 19 Atlantic coast, and in the fall or winter they return south, in time to spawn in their natal rivers 20 (Berggren and Lieberman 1978; ASMFC 2006b). Work by Wingate and Secor (2007), using 21 remote biotelemetry on a total of 12 fish, suggested that specific homing patterns are possible 22 for this species, and these patterns may influence their susceptibility to localized natural and 23 anthropogenic stressors. Based on long-term monitoring data, various life-stages associated 24 with this species are found in the Hudson River from Tappan Zee to Albany (Table 2-5). 25 Several factors playa role in spawning, including water temperature, salinity, total dissolved 26 solids concentration, and water velocity and flow. Peak spawning occurs in water temperatures 27 of 15 to 20°C (59 to 68°F) but can occur between 10 and 23°C (50 and 73°F) (Shepherd 28 2006b). Striped bass reach 150 cm (59 in.) in length and 25 to 35 kg (55 to 77 Ib) in weight 29 (Shepherd 2006b). Adult striped bass are omnivores and prey on invertebrates and fish, 30 especially clupeids, including menhaden (B. tyrannus) and river herring (Alosa spp.) (Shepherd 31 2006b). Diets vary by season and location, typically including whatever species are available 32 (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). YOY striped bass diet is made up of fish and mysid shrimp 33 (Walter et al. 2003). 34 Compared to other anadromous species, striped bass appear to spend extended periods in the 35 Hudson River, contributing to their PCB body burdens. In 1976, the Hudson River commercial 36 fishery was closed because of PCB contamination, although shad fishermen continue to catch 37 striped bass in their nets (CHGEC 1999). Commercial restrictions on harvesting the Atlantic 38 coastal fishery, in part supported by the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984 39 (16 U.S.C. 5151-5158), which allows coastal States to cooperatively regulate and manage the 40 stock, have led to the declaration of full recovery of the population in 1995 (ASMFC 2006b). 41 Abundance levels have continued to increase in the Atlantic population. Restrictions on both 42 commercial and recreational fisheries have been relaxed because of the recovery of the 43 population (ASMFC 2006b), but the fisheries continue to be limited to State waters (within 44 3 nautical miles of land), and New York State's commercial fishery remains completely closed. 45 While commercial landings have remained lower than the levels seen in the early 1970s, NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-72 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00110
Plant and the Environment 1 recreational landings have increased, and in 2004 made up 72 percent of the total weight 2 harvested from the Atlantic stock (Shepherd 2006b). Recreational fishing in the Hudson River 3 during the spring generally occurs north of the Bear Mountain Bridge (RKM 75 (RM 46)) (Euston 4 et al. 2006). Striped bass were commonly found in entrainment and impingement samples 5 obtained from IP2 and IP3. 6 Weakfish 7 The weakfish (Cynocsion rega/is, family Sciaenidae) is a demersal species found along the 8 Atlantic coast ranging from Massachusetts Bay to southern Florida and is occasionally found as 9 far north as Nova Scotia and as far south as the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Mercer 1989). The 10 weakfish is one of the most abundant fish species along the Atlantic coast and is fished 11 recreationally as well as commercially via gill-net, pound-net, haulseine, and trawl (Mercer 12 1989). ASMFC considers weakfish to be composed of one stock based on genetic analysis; 13 however, more recent tagging studies have indicated that weakfish may return to their natal 14 estuary to spawn (ASMFC 2006c). The stock as a whole is thought to be declining as 15 evidenced by decreased landings in recent years. Landings peaked in 1981 and 1982 at 16 12,500 MT (13,800 t), declined from 1989 through 1993, peaked again in 1998 at over 5000 MT 17 (5500 t), and then declined from 1999 through 2004, at which point a record low of less than 18 1000 MT (1100 t) was reported (ASM FC 2006c). Entrainment of eggs and larvae at power 19 plants within the Hudson River is not common because weakfish spawn in waters with higher 20 salinity, though movement of juveniles into the Hudson River estuary during late winter and 21 early spring results in some entrainment of young juveniles and impingement of larger juveniles 22 (CHGEC 1999). 23 Weakfish are found at a depth range of 10 to 26 m (33 to 85 ft) and temperatures between 24 17 and 2rC (63 and 81°F) (Froese and Pauly 2007c). Adults favor shallow coastal waters with 25 sandy substrate and a salinity of 10 ppt or higher, though they are found in a variety of estuarine 26 environments (CHGEC 1999). Adult weakfish vary greatly in size, ranging from 6 to 31 in. (15 27 to 79 cm) in length, with a maximum weight of 20 Ib (9.1 kg), and can live up to 11 years 28 (CHGEC 1999). Most weakfish mature at the age of 2 during the late summer months, and 29 almost all weakfish are mature by the end of their third summer (CHGEC 1999). Size at 30 maturity varies with latitude: in northern populations, females have been observed to mature at 31 256 mm (10.1 in.) and males at 251 mm (9.9 in.), while in North Carolina populations, females 32 have been observed to spawn at 230 mm (9.1 in.) and males at 180 mm (7.1 in.) (Mercer 1989). 33 Weakfish migrate southward in the fall to the coastal waters of North Carolina and Virginia and 34 then move northward in the spring to spawn (ASMFC 2006c). 35 Spawning takes place along the northeastern coast of the Atlantic between the Chesapeake 36 Bay and Montauk, Long Island, New York, in nearshore coastal and estuarine waters during the 37 spring and summer (CHGEC 1999). Within the New York Bight, two spawning peaks occur in 38 mid-May, consisting of larger individuals that migrate northward earlier, and in June, consisting 39 of smaller individuals (Mercer 1989). Fecundity estimates vary widely, though fecundity can be 40 generally correlated with size and geographic area (from 4593 eggs for a 203-mm (8-in.) female 41 to 4,969,940 eggs for a 569-mm (22.4-in.) female and from 306,159 eggs for a northern female 42 to 2,051,080 eggs for a similarly sized female in North Carolina) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 43 2002). Eggs can tolerate a temperature range of 12 to 31.5°C (53.6 to 88.rF) and a salinity 44 range of 10 to 33 ppt (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Larvae hatch within 36 to 40 hours1.667 days <br />0.238 weeks <br />0.0548 months <br /> at 45 temperatures of 20 to 21°C (68 to 69.8°F) (Mercer 1989). Larvae move into bays and estuaries December 2010 2-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00111
Plant and the Environment 1 after hatching; in the Hudson River estuary, larvae are rarely observed north of the George 2 Washington Bridge because of the lower salinity of these waters (CHGEC 1999). Larvae feed 3 primarily on cyclopoid copepods, as well as calanoid copepods, tintinnids, and polychaete 4 larvae (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Weakfish juveniles grow rapidly during their first 5 year and reach lengths of 7.6 to 15.2 cm (3 to 6 in.) by the end of the summer (CHGEC 1999). 6 Juveniles are typically distributed from Long Island to North Carolina in late summer and fall in 7 waters of slightly higher salinity, sand or sand-grass substrates, and depths of 9 to 26 m (30 to 8 85 ft) (Mercer 1989). Juveniles are considered adults at approximately 30 mm (1.2 in.) (Collette 9 and Klein-MacPhee 2002). 10 Adult weakfish feed on a variety of organisms, and their diet varies with locality and availability 11 of food sources. Smaller weakfish (less than 20 cm (7.9 in.)) feed primarily on crustaceans, 12 while larger weakfish feed primarily on anchovies, herrings, spot, and other fish (CHGEC 1999; 13 Mercer 1989). Adult weakfish of all sizes also prey on decapod shrimps, squids, mollusks, and 14 annelid worms (CHGEC 1999; Mercer 1989). Bluefish (P. sa/tatrix), striped bass (M. saxatilis), 15 and older weakfish prey on younger weakfish, while weakfish of larger size are preyed on by 16 dusky sharks (Carcharhinus obscurus), spiny dogfish (Squa/us acanthias), smooth dogfish 17 (Muste/us canis), clearnose skate (Raja eg/anteria), angel sharks (Squatina spp.), goosefish 18 (family Lophiidae), and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 19 2002). 20 YOY and older weakfish are generally found from Yonkers to West Point (Table 2-5). Weakfish 21 abundance fluctuated from 1979 to 1990, and abundance was relatively low between 1990 and 22 1997; overall, abundance declined 6 percent between 1979 and 1997 (CHGEC 1999). The 23 weakfish stock as a whole declined suddenly in 1999 and approached even lower levels by 24 2003, which ASMFC determined to be the result of higher natural mortality rates rather than the 25 result of fishing mortality (ASMFC 2007b). A leading hypothesis suggests that insufficient prey 26 species and increased predation by striped bass may contribute significantly to rising natural 27 mortality rates in the weakfish population (ASMFC 2007b). Weakfish were commonly found in 28 both impingement and entrainment samples obtained from IP2 and IP3. 29 White Catfish 30 The white catfish (Icta/urus catus, family Ictaluridae) is a demersal species found in estuarine 31 and freshwater habitats along the Atlantic coast from the lower Hudson River to Florida, though 32 it has been introduced in other areas, including Ohio and California (Smith 1985b). The natural 33 distribution of the species is thought to be in coastal streams from the Chesapeake Bay to 34 Texas; limited recreational fishing for this species occurs in the Hudson River (CHGEC 1999). 35 White catfish are the least common species of catfish in New York waters (NYSDEC 2008a). 36 The New York State Department of Health has issued a fish advisory for the species because of 37 the potential for elevated levels of PCBs (NYSDOH 2007). Additionally, the New Jersey 38 Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has issued a health advisory for the white 39 catfish downstream of the New York-New Jersey border, which includes portions of the Hudson 40 River and Upper New York Bay (NJDEP and NJDHSS 2006). 41 The white catfish is of intermediate size compared with other species in the family; adults grow 42 to lengths of 8.3 to 24 in. (21 to 62 cm) and reach weights of 0.6 to 2.2 Ib (0.25 to 1.0 kg) (Marcy 43 et al. 2005b). The species has been reported to live 11 or more years as evidenced by 44 individuals observed in South Carolina (Marcy et al. 2005b). White catfish prefer fresh or NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-74 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00112
Plant and the Environment 1 brackish water and, in the upper Hudson River, are most commonly found in channel borders, 2 shoals, and vegetated backwaters (Marcy et al. 2005b). Though the white catfish is more salt 3 tolerant than most catfish species, it is not typically found in waters with salinities above 8 ppt 4 (CHGEC 1999; NJDEP 2005). Fall Juvenile Survey data from 1979 to 2004 suggests that YOY 5 and older individuals were generally found from the Saugerties to Albany segments of the 6 Hudson River (Figure 2-10, Table 2-5). 7 White catfish are sexually mature between 3 to 4 years of age at the size of 7 to 8 in. (18 to 8 20 cm). Adults move upstream for spawning between late June and early July when Hudson 9 River water temperatures reach approximately 70°F (21°C) (CHGEC 1999). Before spawning, 10 both males and females construct nests on sand or gravel bars, and males protect the nest 11 once females lay eggs. Females that are 11 to 12 in. (28 to 30 cm) can lay 3200 to 3500 eggs. 12 Eggs hatch in 6 to 7 days at temperatures between 75 to 85°F (24 to 29°C) (CHGEC 1999; 13 Smith 1985b). Males continue to protect young until the juveniles form large schools and 14 disperse from the nest (MDNR 2007b). YOY migrate downstream to deeper waters in 15 September and October, and generally, yearling and older white catfish move out of the upper 16 Hudson River estuary once the water temperatures drop below 59°F (15°C) to overwinter in the 17 lower estuary. (Smith 1985b, CHGEC 1999). 18 White catfish have an especially varied diet. Adults collected from the North Newport River in 19 Georgia were found to consume over 50 different species of prey (Marcy et al. 2005b). 20 Juveniles and smaller adults feed primarily on midge larvae and macroinvertebrates, while 21 larger adults have a more diverse diet, which may consist of midge larvae, crustaceans, algae, 22 fish eggs, and a number of fish species, including herring (Clupea spp.), menhaden (Brevoortia 23 spp.), gizzard shad (Oorosoma cepedianum), and bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus) (CHGEC 24 1999; Smith 1985b). Amphipods are widely consumed by adult catfish and make up a large 25 percentage (up to 80 percent) of the volume of food eaten (CHGEC 1999). 26 The white catfish population is considered stable throughout the majority of its range, though the 27 Hudson River population appears to have been in decline since 1975 (CHGEC 1999). The 28 decline may partially be a result of food-limited growth and survival of larvae and YOY as a 29 result of resource depletion by PYSL and YOY striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (CHGEC 1999). 30 According to CHGEC (1999), early life stages of this species are generally not at risk of 31 entrainment because spawning and early development occurs upstream near nests, which adult 32 white catfish guard. CHGEC (1999) also states that juvenile and adult white catfish are 33 infrequently impinged; the species has been recorded to consist of 0.42 percent of total fish 34 impinged at IP2 and IP3. White catfish were not commonly observed in entrainment samples 35 but were common in impingement samples obtained from IP2 and IP3. 36 White Perch 37 White perch (Morone americana) is endemic to the North American eastern coastal areas and 38 range from Nova Scotia to South Carolina. It is not actually a perch, but a member of the 39 temperate bass family Percichthyidae, along with striped bass (M. saxatilis). White perch are 40 year-round residents in the Hudson River between New York City and the Troy Dam near 41 Albany. They have never been a recreationally or commercially important resource for the 42 Hudson River, and commercial fishing was closed in 1976 because of PCB contamination, but 43 they are well represented in impingement collections of Hudson River power plants. In other 44 parts of its range, white perch is intensively fished (Klauda et al. 1988). December 2010 2-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00113
Plant and the Environment 1 Spawning habitats vary and can be clear or turbid, fast or slow, in water less than 7 m (23 ft) 2 deep (Stanley and Danie 1983). In the Hudson River, most spawning occurs in the upper 3 reaches (RKM 138 to 198 (RM 86 to 123)) in shallow embayments and tidal creeks, and adults 4 move offshore and downriver after spawning (Klauda et al. 1988). Spawning in the Hudson 5 River begins in late April when water temperatures reach 10 to 12°C (50 to 54°F) and can 6 continue until late Mayor early June when temperatures reach 16 to 20°C (61 to 68°F) (Klauda 7 et al. 1988). Fecundity depends on age and size of the females and ranges from about 5,000 to 8 over 300,000 eggs (Stanley and Danie 1983). The eggs are adhesive and sink and may stick to 9 the substrate or each other. 10 Hatching takes place between 1 and 6 days following fertilization, and the incubation period is 11 inversely related to water temperature but relatively unaffected by salinity and silt levels 12 (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002; Stanley and Danie 1983). Newly hatched YSL are about 13 2 mm (0.08 in.) long, and after 5 to 6 days, the yolk sac is absorbed (Collette and Klein-14 MacPhee 2002). The YSL generally remain in the same area where they hatched for 4 to 15 13 days (Stanley and Danie 1983). PYSL eat zooplankton and grow rapidly. Juveniles eat 16 larger zooplankton. In the spring as water temperature rises, adults, which can reach maximum 17 lengths of 495 mm (19.5 in.), begin their spawning migration and start to move upstream into 18 shallower, fresher waters and into tidal streams. 19 Juveniles tend to stay in inshore areas of the estuary and in creeks until they are about a year 20 old and 20 to 30 cm (8 to 12 in.) in length and then tend to move downstream to brackish areas 21 (Stanley and Danie 1983). Although they may move offshore during the day, they tend to return 22 to shoal areas at night. Most males and females mature at 2 years. After spawning, they return 23 to deeper waters. In summer, large schools of white perch tend to move slowly without 24 direction, and they tend not to travel very far. (Stanley and Danie 1983) 25 White perch are opportunistic feeders and have a broad range of prey. Young adults in 26 freshwater environments feed on aquatic insects, crustaceans, and other smaller fishes (Stanley 27 and Danie 1983). In brackish and estuarine environments, the white perch feed on fish eggs, 28 the larvae of walleye (Sander vitreus) and striped bass, and other smaller adult fish 29 (Chesapeake Bay Program 2006). Young adult white perch also consume amphipods, snails, 30 crayfish, crabs, shrimp, and squid where available. White perch larger than 22 cm (9 in.) feed 31 almost exclusively on other fish. White perch are consumed by many larger predatory fish 32 species. White perch were commonly observed in both entrainment and impingement samples 33 obtained from IP2 and IP3. 34 Blue Crab 35 Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus, family Portunidae) is an important commercial and recreational 36 resource throughout much of its range, which in the western Atlantic is from Nova Scotia 37 through the Gulf of Mexico to northern Argentina. The life history of blue crab in the Hudson 38 River estuary is largely based on the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, where the most relevant 39 information in the United States has been gathered. Unless otherwise noted, information below 40 is from Perry and Mcilwain (1986). 41 Spawning and mating in blue crabs occur at different times. Mating takes place when female 42 crabs are in the soft condition after their terminal, or last, molt. Males then carry the soft-shelled 43 females until their shell hardens. Females store the sperm, which is used to fertilize the eggs 44 for repeated spawnings. After the shell hardens, the females move downstream to the mouths NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-76 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00114
Plant and the Environment 1 of estuaries to spawn. Females extrude fertilized eggs and attach them on the underside of 2 their bodies as a bright orange "sponge" consisting of up to 2 million eggs. The eggs become 3 darker as they mature, and the sponge is almost black at the time of hatching. The eggs hatch 4 and release the first zoea stage after about 2 weeks. 5 Larval crabs go through seven zoeal stages (and sometimes eight) in 31 to 49 days, depending 6 on temperature and salinity. The zoeae are planktonic and live in the ocean near shore. Zoeae 7 eat small zooplankton, such as rotifers. The last zoeal stage metamorphoses with its molt to a 8 mega lops larva, which persists from 6 to 20 days. Megalops larvae have more crab-like 9 features than zoeae and are initially planktonic but gradually become more benthic. Megalops 10 larvae inhabit the lower estuary and nearshore areas (ASMFC 2004) and have been found as 11 far as 40 mi (64 km) offshore. Winds, tides, and storms transport the larvae back in towards 12 shore (Kenny 2002). Among others, jellyfish are predators on crab larvae. 13 The megalops larvae molt and metamorphose into the first crab stage, which has all the 14 features of a blue crab, and, like all crustaceans, grows by molting. The early crab stages, 15 which are 10 to 20 mm (0.4 to 0.8 in.) carapace width in size, migrate to fresher water. 16 Although benthic, blue crabs are good swimmers. They feed less and cease molting as winter 17 nears and bury themselves in the mud in winter. Because the Hudson River is at the northern 18 end of the blue crab's range, severe winters may affect over-winter survival (Kenney 2002). 19 In the Chesapeake Bay, blue crabs mature in 18 to 20 molts, at which time females undergo a 20 final, or terminal, molt, and males continue to grow and molt (Kenney 2002). In the Hudson 21 River, most females make the terminal molt before they reach a carapace width of about 22 125 mm (4.92 in.) (Kenney 2002). Adult males prefer the low salinity areas of upper estuaries, 23 while females, after mating, move to and remain in the higher salinity areas of the lower estuary. 24 Blue crabs can live about 3 or 4 years, although most probably do not live past the age of 2. 25 Adult blue crabs are benthic predators that will lie in wait to catch small fish. They also eat other 26 crabs and crustaceans, mollusks, dead organisms, zebra mussels, aquatic plants, and organic 27 debris. They will also eat other blue crabs. Young and adult blue crabs are prey for many 28 predators, including a variety of birds, including herons and diving ducks; humans; raccoons; 29 and fish, including various members of the sciaenid (drum) family, American eel, and striped 30 bass. Cannibalism is thought to be a major source of mortality. Environmental factors thought 31 to affect juvenile and adult blue crab populations include drought, winter mortality, hypoxia, 32 hurricanes, and the effects of human development (ASMFC 2004). 33 New York has a relatively small blue crab fishery, which reported a large decrease in landings in 34 1997; since then, the harvest has been about a million pounds a year (ASMFC 2004). Blue 35 crab fishing in the Hudson River Estuary occurs mostly in the summer and fall (Kenney 2002). 36 Egg-bearing females are returned to the river to help protect spawning stock (Kenney 2002). 37 Blue crab have been impinged on the screens of IP2 and IP3. 38 2.2.5.5 Special Status Species and Habitats 39 Atlantic Sturgeon 40 The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus, family Acipenseridae) is an anadromous 41 species, with a range extending from St. Johns River, Florida, to Labrador, Canada. 42 Considered the "cash crop" of Jamestown before tobacco, the Atlantic sturgeon has been 43 harvested for its flesh and caviar, as well as its skin and swim bladder. A long-lived, slowly 44 maturing species, the Atlantic sturgeon can reach 60 years of age (ASMFC 2007c; Gilbert December 2010 2-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00115
Plant and the Environment 1 1989). Maturity is reached at 7 to 30 years for females, and 5 to 24 for males, with fish in the 2 southern range maturing earlier than those inhabiting the northern range (ASMFC 2007c). 3 Fecundity is correlated with age and size, ranging from 400,000 to 8 million eggs per female 4 (NMFS 2007). Individuals reach lengths of about 79 in. (200 cm), while the largest recorded 5 sturgeon was 15 ft (4.5 m) and 811 Ib (368 kg) (ASMFC 2007c). 6 In the spring, adult Atlantic sturgeons migrate to freshwater to spawn, with males arriving a few 7 weeks before the females. In the Hudson River, the males' migration occurs when water 8 temperatures reach 5.6 to 6.1 °C (42 to 43 ° F); the females appear when water temperatures 9 warm to 12.2 to 12.8°C (54 to 55°F). Spawning occurs a few weeks later (Gilbert 1989). Eggs 10 are deposited on hard surfaces on the river bottom, and hatch after 4 to 6 days (Shepherd 11 2006c). Individuals do not spawn annually-spawning intervals range from 1 to 5 years for 12 males and 2 to 5 years for females (NMFS 2007). Females typically leave the estuary 4 to 13 6 weeks after spawning, but the males can remain in the estuary until the fall. Larvae feed from 14 their yolk sac for 9 to 10 days, and then the PYSL begin feeding on the river bottom (Gilbert 15 1989). In the fall, the juveniles move downstream from freshwater to the estuaries, where they 16 remain for 3 to 5 years, and then migrate to the ocean as adults (Shepherd 2006c). Individuals 17 return to their natal river for spawning, and so the species is divided into five distinct population 18 segments (ASSRT 2007). Juveniles and adults are bottom feeders, subsisting on mussels, 19 worms, shrimp, and small fish (Gilbert 1989; ASMFC 2007c). 20 Before 1900, landings of Atlantic sturgeon reached 3500 MT (3860 t) per year. This number 21 dropped in the 20th century, and from 1950 to 1990, landings ranged from 45 to 115 MT (50 to 22 127 t) per year (Shepherd 2006c). ASMFC placed a moratorium on harvesting wild Atlantic 23 sturgeon for the entire coast in 1997, in an attempt to allow the population to recover. In 1999, 24 the Federal Government banned the possession and harvest of sturgeon in the Exclusive 25 Economic Zone (Shepherd 2006c; ASMFC 2007c). Using a Petersen mark-recapture 26 population estimator, Peterson et al. (2000) estimated that the Hudson River population of age 1 27 Atlantic sturgeon had declined about 80 percent between 1977 and 1985. The authors 28 suggested that the then-current recruitment could be too low to sustain the population. As of 29 October 2006, NMFS has listed Atlantic sturgeon as a candidate species for listing under the 30 Endangered Species Act (71 Federal Register (FR) 61022). Threats such as bycatch, water 31 quality, and dredging continue to affect Atlantic sturgeon (ASMFC 2007c). In the Hudson River, 32 the Federal Dam (the southernmost obstruction in the river) is upstream of the northern extent 33 of the Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat and therefore is not a limiting factor (ASSRT 2007). 34 Average levels of PCBs in Hudson River sturgeon tissue exceeded FDA guidelines for human 35 consumption in the 1970s and 1980s; since then, levels of PCBs have dropped below FDA 36 guidelines (ASSRT 2007). Although the State placed a moratorium on harvesting Atlantic 37 sturgeon in 1996 when it became apparent that the Hudson River stock was overfished, the 38 American shad gill net fishery continues to take subadult sturgeon as bycatch. The Review 39 Team for Atlantic Sturgeon concluded in 2007 (ASSRT 2007) that the Hudson River 40 subpopulation has a moderate risk (less than 50 percent) of becoming endangered in the next 41 20 years as a result of the threat of commercial bycatch. Despite this, the Hudson River 42 supports the largest subpopulation of spawning adults and juveniles, and some long-term 43 surveys indicate that the abundance has been stable since 1995 or is even increasing (ASSRT 44 2007). Recent work by Sweka et al. (2007) has suggested that a substantial population of 45 juvenile Atlantic sturgeon are present in Haverstraw Bay and that future population monitoring NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-78 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00116
Plant and the Environment 1 should focus on this area to obtain the greatest statistical power for assessing population 2 trends. Eggs and larval forms of Atlantic sturgeon were not observed in entrainment samples 3 collected from IP2 and IP3 in 1981 and 1983-1987, but sturgeon were present in impingement 4 samples. 5 Shortnose Sturgeon 6 The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum, family Acipenseridae) is amphidromous, with 7 a range extending from St. Johns River, Florida, to St. John River, Canada. Unlike anadromous 8 species, shortnose sturgeons spend the majority of their lives in freshwater, moving to saltwater 9 periodically, without relation to spawning (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). From colonial 10 times, shortnose sturgeons have rarely been the target of commercial fisheries but have 11 frequently been taken as incidental by catch in Atlantic sturgeon and shad gillnet fisheries 12 (Shepherd 2006c; Dadswell et al. 1984). The shortnose sturgeon was listed on March 11,1967, 13 as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. In 1998, a recovery 14 plan for the shortnose sturgeon was finalized by NMFS (NMFS 1998). The threats to the 15 species include dams, water pollution, and destruction or degradation of habitat (Shepherd 16 2006c). 17 Shortnose sturgeon can grow up to 143 cm (56 in.) in total length, and can weigh up to 23 kg 18 (51 Ib). Females are known to live up to 67 years, while males typically do not live beyond 19 30 years (Dadswell et al. 1984). As young adults, the sex ratio is 1:1; however, among fish 20 larger than 90 cm (35 in.), measured from nose to the fork of the tail, the ratio of females to 21 males increases to 4: 1. Throughout the range of the shortnose sturgeon, males and females 22 mature at 45 to 55 cm (18 to 22 in.) fork length, but the age at which this length is achieved 23 varies by geography. At the southern extent of the sturgeon's range, males reach maturity at 24 age 2, and females reach maturity at 6 years or younger; in Canada, males can reach maturity 25 as late as age 11, and females at age 13 (Dadswell et al. 1984; OPR undated). One to two 26 years after reaching maturity, males begin to spawn at 2-year intervals, while females may not 27 spawn for the first time until 5 years after maturing, and thereafter spawn at 3- to 5-year 28 intervals (Dadswell et al. 1984; OPR undated). Shortnose sturgeon migrate into freshwater to 29 spawn during late winter or early summer. Eggs adhere to the hard surfaces on the river bottom 30 before hatching after 4 to 6 days. Larvae consume their yolk sac and begin feeding in 8 to 12 31 days, as they migrate downstream away from the spawning site (Kynard 1997; Collette and 32 Klein-MacPhee 2002). The juveniles, who feed on benthic insects and crustaceans, do not 33 migrate to the estuaries until the following winter, where they remain for 3 to 5 years. As adults, 34 they migrate to the nearshore marine environment, where their diet consists of mollusks and 35 large crustaceans (Shepherd 2006c; OPR undated). 36 In the Hudson River, shortnose sturgeon use the lower Hudson and are dispersed throughout 37 the river estuary from late spring to early fall and then congregate to winter near Sturgeon Point 38 (RKM 139 (RM 86)). They then spawn in the spring, just downstream of the Federal Dam at 39 Troy. The population of shortnose sturgeons in the Hudson River has increased 400 percent 40 since the 1970s, according to Cornell University researchers (8ain et al. 2007). Recent work by 41 Woodland and Secor (2007) estimates a fourfold increase in sturgeon abundance over the past 42 three decades, but reports that the population growth slowed in the late 1990s, as evidenced by 43 the nearly constant recruitment pattern at depressed levels relative to the 1986-1992 year 44 classes. Although the Hudson River appears to support the largest population of shortnose 45 sturgeons, 8ain et al. (2007) report that other populations along the Atlantic coast are also December 2010 2-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00117
Plant and the Environment 1 increasing, and some appear to be nearing safe levels, suggesting that the overall population 2 could recover if full protection and management continues. NMFS (2009) recently suggested to 3 NRC Staff that the shortnose sturgeon population estimates for the Hudson River of 60,000 fish 4 presented in Bain et al. (2007) are likely overestimates, and that 30,000 is a more appropriate 5 estimate. Eggs and larval forms of shortnose sturgeon were not observed in entrainment 6 samples from IP2 and IP3 in 1981 and 1983-1987, but sturgeon were present in impingement 7 samples. 8 2.2.5.6 Other Potentially Affected Aquatic Resources 9 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton 10 Phytoplankton and zooplankton communities often form the basis of the food web in rivers and 11 estuaries. The phytoplankton in the Hudson River generally fall into three major categories-12 diatoms, green algae, and blue-green algae. Diatoms are abundant through most of the year, 13 but reach peak densities when water temperatures are low and watershed runoff and river flows 14 are high. Green algae are present in highest abundances during the summer, when river flows 15 are low and water temperatures are relatively high. Blue-green algae are generally present in 16 late summer and early fall (CHGEC 1999). 17 Zooplankton populations in the Hudson River are divided into two major categories-18 holoplankton, which spend their entire live cycle as plankton, and meroplankton, which include 19 the eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish that spend only a part of their life cycle in the planktonic 20 community. Holoplankton in the brackish areas of the Hudson River from approximately IP2 21 and IP3 downstream (RM 40 (RKM 64)) are generally dominated by marine species; 22 holoplankton from Poughkeepsie north (RM 68 (RKM 109)) are generally dominated by 23 freshwater forms (Figure 2-10). Zooplankton sampling from Haverstraw Bay to Albany from 24 April to December 1987-1989 identified five numerically dominant taxa-the cyclopoid copepod, 25 Oiacyc/ops bicuspidatus thomasi; the cladoceran, Bosmina /ongirostris; and the rotifers 26 Keratella spp., Po/yarthra spp., and Trichocera spp. (CHGEC 1999). Work by Lonsdale et al. 27 (1996) suggests that larger (greater than 64 microns (0.0025 in.)) zooplankton species that 28 include both mesozooplankton and micrometazoa have a minimal role in controlling total 29 phytoplankton biomass in the lower Hudson River estuary. Grazing pressure sufficient to 30 contribute to the decline of the phytoplankton standing crop occurred only during the month of 31 October. 32 Phytoplankton communities in the freshwater portion of the Hudson River are susceptible to 33 predation by the zebra mussel, Oreissena po/ymorpha. Work by Roditi et al. (1996) suggests 34 that the mussels are able to remove Hudson River phytoplankton effectively in the presence of 35 sediment and can do so at rapid rates. The authors indicate that, based on their measurements 36 and unpublished estimates of the size of the zebra mussel population, the mussels present in 37 the upper stretches of the river can filter a volume equivalent to the entire freshwater portion of 38 the Hudson River every 2 days. Strayer suggests that they filter a volume of water equal to all 39 of the water in the estuarine Hudson every 1-4 days during the summer (2007). Significant 40 declines in zooplankton biomass were also reported after the introduction of the mussel (Pace 41 et al. 1998). Work by Strayer et al. (2004) suggests that the long-term impacts of zebra mussel 42 removal of phytoplankton and zooplankton have profoundly affected the food web in the Hudson 43 River, resulting in a shift of open-water species to downriver locations away from the mussels 44 and a shift of littoral species upriver. The resulting changes affected a variety of commercially NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-80 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00118
Plant and the Environment 1 and recreationally important species, including American shad and black bass, illustrating the 2 importance of zooplankton and phytoplankton in food webs associated with the freshwater 3 portion of the Hudson River (Strayer et al. 2004). 4 Aquatic Macrophyte Communities 5 Aquatic macrophyte communities provide food and shelter to a variety of fish and invertebrate 6 communities and are an important component of the Hudson River ecososystem. Macrophyte 7 communities are generally divided into three broad groups that include emergent macrophytes, 8 floating-leaved macrophytes, and submerged macrophytes (also known as SAV). Emergent 9 macrophytes in the Hudson River generally occur near the shoreline to a water depth of about 105ft (1.5 m) and have leaves that rise out of the water. Floating leaved macrophytes are 11 attached to the bottom and have floating leaves and long, flexible stems. Submerged 12 macrophytes are found beneath the water surface at a depth related to the clarity of the water 13 (CHGEC 1999). The composition and distribution of aquatic macrophyte communities vary 14 along the river and are controlled by physical characteristics and season. Work by Findlay et al. 15 (2006) shows that the densities of macroinvertebrates in SA V beds were more than three times 16 as high as densities on unvegetated sediments, suggesting that SAV beds may be the richest 17 feeding grounds in the Hudson River estuary for fish. Further, the authors also noted that many 18 species of macroinvertebrates that are common in aquatic macrophyte beds are rare or absent 19 from unvegetated sites. 20 SAV beds in the Hudson are represented by two predominant species-the native submerged 21 eel grass, Vallisneria americana and the introduced water chestnut, Trapa natans (Findlay et al. 22 2006). CHGEC (1999) identified 18 species of submergent aquatic vegetation between 23 Kingston and Nyack, including nine species of Potamogeton (pondweed), and Elodea sp. 24 (common pondweeds used in aquaria), and a variety of other species. Historical and recent 25 work has shown that SAV occupies major portions of some reaches of the Hudson River, when 26 present, and can cover as much as 25 percent of the river bottom (Findlay et al. 2006). New 27 York State has been studying the SAV in the Hudson River estuary from the Troy Dam south to 28 Yonkers since 1995. Using true color aerial photography, researchers from Cornell University 29 and the New York Sea Grant Extension inventoried the spatial extent of the SAV and water 30 chestnut beds from 1995 to 1997 and in 2002. They determined that vegetated area constitutes 31 roughly 8 percent of total river surface area with eel grass three times as abundant as water 32 chestnut. Plant coverage over the entire study area from the Troy Dam to Yonkers was about 33 6 percent of the river bottom area for eel grass and 2 percent for water chestnut, although the 34 distribution of both plants varies greatly among reaches of the tidal freshwater Hudson River 35 (Nieder et al. 2004). According to NYSDEC (2007a), there has been a 9-percent decline in all 36 SAV and a 7-percent gain in water chestnut. 37 Coastal Marshes, Wetlands, and Riparian Zones 38 Coastal marshes, tidal wetlands, and associated riparian zones are found along the lower 39 Hudson River. Vegetation in these areas includes emergent grasses, sedges, and other plants 40 adapted to nearshore conditions that often experience changes in runoff, salinity, and 41 temperature. FWS has identified the area extending from the Battery north to Stony Point at the 42 northern end of Haverstraw Bay as Lower Hudson River Estuary Complex #21 (FWS 2008a). 43 Within this complex there are many significant wetland habitats, including a regionally significant December 2010 2-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAG10001367A_00119
Plant and the Environment 1 nursery and wintering habitat for a variety of anadromous, estuarine, and marine fish, as well as 2 a migratory area for birds and fish that feed on abundant prey items. 3 Recognizing the importance of coastal wetlands, tidal marshes, and riparian zones, NOAA, 4 partnering with NYSDEC, identified four locations along the lower Hudson River estuary for 5 inclusion in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System in 1982 (NOAA 2008a). The 6 areas, from north to south, are Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bay, lona Island, and Piermont Marsh; 7 they collectively represent over 4800 acres (1900 ha) of protected habitat. 8 Stockport Flats is the northernmost site in the Hudson River Reserve and is located on the east 9 shore of the river in Columbia County near the city of Hudson. This site is a narrow, 5-mi-long 10 landform that includes Nutten Hook, Gay's Point, Stockport Middle Ground Island, the Hudson 11 River Islands State Park, a portion of the upland bluff south of Stockport Creek, and dredge 12 spoils and tidal wetlands between Stockport Creek and Priming Hook. The dominant features of 13 Stockport Flats include freshwater tidal wetlands that contain subtidal shallows, intertidal 14 mudflats, intertidal shores, tidal marshes, and floodplain swamps (NOAA 2008a). 15 Tivoli Bay extends for 2 mi along the east shore of the Hudson River between the villages of 16 Tivoli and Barrytown, in the Dutchess County town of Red Hook. The site includes two large 17 coves on the east shore-Tivoli North Bay, a large intertidal marsh, and Tivoli South Bay, a 18 large, shallow cove with mudflats. The site also includes an extensive upland buffer area 19 bordering North Tivoli Bay. Habitats at this site include freshwater intertidal marshes, open 20 waters, riparian areas, shallow subtidal areas, mudflats, tidal swamps, and mixed forest uplands 21 (NOAA 2008a). 22 lona Island is located near the Town of Stony Point in Rockland County, 6 mi south of West 23 Point. This bedrock island is located in the vicinity of the Hudson Highlands and is bordered to 24 the west and the southwest by Salisbury and Ring Meadows. In the early 20th century, filling 25 activities connected Round Island to the south end of lona Island. There is approximately 1 mi 26 of marsh and shallow water habitat between lona Island and the west shore of the Hudson 27 River, and the area includes brackish intertidal mudflats, brackish tidal marsh, freshwater tidal 28 marsh, and deciduous forested uplands. 29 Piermont Marsh lies at the southern edge of the village of Piermont, 4 mi south of Nyack. The 30 marsh is located on the west shore of the Tappan Zee region near the town of Orangetown in 31 Rockland County. The site includes 2 mi of shoreline south of the mile-long Erie Pier and the 32 mouth of Sparkill Creek. Habitats at this location include brackish tidal marshes, shallows, and 33 intertidal mud flats. 34 2.2.5.7 Nuisance Species 35 Zebra Mussel 36 In the early 1990s, the nonnative zebra mussel, Oreissena polymorpha, made its first 37 appearance in the freshwater portions of the Hudson River estuary. Beginning in early fall 38 1992, zebra mussels have been dominant in the freshwater tidal Hudson, constituting more than 39 half of heterotrophic biomass, and filtering a volume of water equal to all of the water in the 40 estuary every 1-4 days during the summer (Strayer 2007). The mussel's range extends from 41 Poughkeepsie to the Troy Dam, with the highest densities occurring between Saugerites and 42 Albany (CHGEC 1999; Strayer et al. 2004; Caraco et al. 1997). The presence of the mussels 43 resulted in a decrease in phytoplankton biomass of 80 percent (Caraco et al. 1997) and a NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-82 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00120
Plant and the Environment 1 decrease of zooplankton abundance of 70 percent (Pace et al. 1998). Water chemistry was 2 also altered, as phosphate and nitrate concentrations increased and DO concentrations 3 decreased after the mussels were established (CHGEC 1999; Caraco et al. 2000). Caraco et 4 al. (2000) indicated that these effects fundamentally changed food web relationships in the river 5 and may have had a significant impact on many fish species. 6 Work by Strayer et al. (2004) found that open-water species such as Alosa spp. (shad and 7 herring) exhibited a decreased abundance in response to Zebra mussel introduction, while the 8 abundance of littoral species such as centrarchids (sunfish) increased. The median decrease in 9 abundance of open-water species was 28 percent, and the median increase in abundance of 10 littoral species was 97 percent. The authors also noted that populations of open-water species 11 shifted downriver, away from the zebra mussel population, while littoral species shifted upriver. 12 Growth rates of open-water and littoral species were also affected by the mussels. Strayer and 13 Smith (1996) found impacts to unionid bivalve mussels (Elliptio complanata, Anodonta implicata, 14 Leptodea ochracea) such as decreasing densities and incidences of infestations. After the 15 arrival of the zebra mussel, the authors reported that densities of these three unionid clam 16 species fell by 56 percent, recruitment of YOY unionids fell by 90 percent, and the biological 17 condition of unionids fell by 20-50 percent, with E. complanata less severely affected than the 18 other two. Strayer and Smith (1996) suggest that the impacts to these species may be 19 associated with both competition for food and biofouling by zebra mussels. 20 The work of Strayer, Caraco, Pace, and others has raised important questions and issues 21 concerning the nature of impacts to fish communities from exotic or introduced species, the 22 management of fish populations affected by these species, and the need to carefully consider 23 all potential environmental stressors present when assessing the reasons for fish or invertebrate 24 population declines. Changes in abundance and distribution in the freshwater portion of the 25 Hudson River estuary involved many recreationally and commercially important species, 26 including striped bass (M. saxatilis), American shad (A. sapidissima), redbreast sunfish, and 27 black bass (Micropterus spp.). The changes Strayer et al. (2004) documented since 1992 28 include overall decreases in abundance, redistribution of species up- or downriver in relation to 29 the mussels and fundamental changes to food webs because of the physical presence of the 30 mussels and their filtration activity. 31 Recent work by Strayer and Malcom (2006) suggests that there are still significant gaps in 32 understanding about the biology and life cycle of the zebra mussel in the Hudson River. The 33 researchers used a combination of long-term data and simulation modeling. The authors 34 evaluated mussel population size, adult growth, and body condition and found considerable 35 interannual variation in these factors that was not strongly correlated with phytoplankton 36 population. The data suggested a 2- to 4-year population cycle that was driven by large 37 interannual variations in recruitment. Strayer and Malcolm's (2006) work indicates that a 38 complete understanding of the potential effects of this species on aquatic food webs, and thus 39 recreationally, commercially, or ecologically important fish and invertebrate species and 40 communities requires a better understanding of the factors affecting the zebra mussel life cycle 41 in the Hudson River than currently exists. 42 Water Chestnut 43 The water chestnut was first observed in North America in 1859 near Concord, Massachusetts 44 (FWS 2004). Currently, the plant is found in Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and December 2010 2-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00121
Plant and the Environment 1 Pennsylvania. The most problematic populations are found in the Connecticut River Valley, 2 Lake Champlain region, and the Hudson, Potomac and Delaware Rivers (FWS 2004). Water 3 chestnut impacts to water bodies can include increasing sedimentation and reducing Dissolved 4 Oxygen (DO), as well as developing dense mats that cause competition for nutrients and space 5 with other species (lPCNYS 2008). 6 According to CHGEC (1999), the water chestnut was introduced into the upper Hudson River in 7 the late 1880s and was established by the 1930s. An eradication program was begun by the 8 NYSDEC using the herbicide 2,4-0, but the program was discontinued in 1976. Since 1976, the 9 water chestnut beds have expanded into dense stands in available habitat in the fresh and low-10 salinity brackish areas of the estuary, and as of 1999, the exotic water chestnut was the 11 dominant form of rooted vegetation in shallow areas of the estuary upstream of Constitution 12 Island (RM 53 (RKM 85)). CHGEC (1999) indicates that water chestnut beds in some parts of 13 the Hudson River are now so dense that they have adversely affected water circulation, lowered 14 DO concentrations, and altered fish communities. 15 Ctenophores 16 Members of the phylum Ctenophora, variously known as comb jellies, sea gooseberries, sea 17 walnuts, or Venus's girdles, are genatinous marine carnivores that are present in marine and 18 estuarine waters from the sea surface to depths of several thousand meters. Ctenophores are 19 characterized by eight rows of cilia that are used for locomotion. Cilia rows are organized into 20 stacks of "combs" or "ctenes"; hence the name comb jellies. Ctenophore morphology can range 21 from simple sac-like shapes without tentacles, to large, multilobed individuals equipped with 22 adhesive cells called colloblasts. Worldwide, there are probably 100 to 150 species, but most 23 are poorly known and are challenging to collect and study because of their fragility (Haddock 24 2007). 25 As members of the zooplankton community, ctenophores influence marine and estuarine food 26 webs by preying on a variety of eggs and larvae. Predator-prey relationships between the 27 ctenophore Mnemiopsis /eidyi and eggs of the bay anchovy (A. mitchel/i) have been described 28 by Purcell et al. (1994) in the Chesapeake Bay, and Deason (1982) described a similar 29 relationship between M. /eidyi and Acartia tonsa, a copepod prey species. Similarly, the NRC 30 staff finds it possible that during certain times of the year, ctenophore predation may influence 31 zooplankton abundance in the higher salinity portions of the Hudson River. Laboratory studies 32 evaluating the feeding and functional morphology of M. mccradyi by Larson (1988) provided 33 new information concerning how prey are captured by ctenophores, but there is little field 34 information available on predator-prey dynamics in natural systems, primarily because of the 35 difficulties associated with field collections. At present, the impact of ctenophores on 36 zooplankton, eggs, and larvae in the lower portions of the Hudson River is unknown. 37 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 38 This section describes the terrestrial resources of the IP2 and IP3 site and its immediate vicinity, 39 including plants and animals of the upland areas, an onsite freshwater pond, and riparian areas 40 along the river shoreline. I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-84 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00122
Plant and the Environment 1 2.2.6.1 Description of Site Terrestrial Environment 2 As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the IP2 and IP3 site includes 239 acres (96.7 ha) 3 on the east bank of the Hudson River. The property is bordered by the river on the west and the 4 north (Lents Cove), a public road (Broadway) on the east, and privately owned industrial 5 property on the south. The site is hilly, with elevations rising to about 150 ft (46 m) above the 6 level of the river at the highest point. The site is enclosed by a security fence that follows the 7 property line. Developed areas covered by facilities and pavement occupy over half of the site 8 (134 acres (54.2 ha)), predominantly in the central and southern portions. Outside the central 9 portion of the site where the reactors and associated generator buildings are located, small 10 tracts of forest totaling approximately 25 acres (10 ha) are interspersed among the paved areas 11 and facilities. Maintained areas of grass cover about 7 acres (2.8 ha) of the site. The northern 12 portion of the site is covered by approximately 70 acres (28 ha) of forest (Entergy 2007a). 13 Within this forested area is a 2.4-acre (0.97-ha) freshwater pond (Entergy 2007a; NRC 1975). 14 The New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Westchester County indicates that there are 15 no streams or wetlands on the site (NYSDEC 2004c). 16 The site is within the northeastern coastal zone of the eastern temperate forest ecoregion (EPA 17 2007a). The forest vegetation of the site and adjacent areas was characterized by a survey 18 performed in the early 1970s, before the completion of construction of IP3 (NRC 1975). At that 19 time, the canopy of this forest included a mixture of hardwoods such as red oak (Quercus 20 rubra), white oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), chestnut oak (Q. prinus), shagbark hickory 21 (Carya ovata), black cherry (Prunus serotina), tulip tree (Liriodendron tuJipifera), river birch 22 (Betula nigra), and maple (Acer spp.), as well as conifers such as eastern hemlock (Tsuga 23 canadensis) and white pine (Pinus strobus). The subcanopy included sassafras (Sassafras 24 albidum) and sumac (Rhus spp.). The shrub layer included swamp juneberry (Ame/anchier 25 intermedia), summer grape (Vitis aestivaJis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Virginia 26 creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefoJia); and the herbaceous layer included forbs such as 27 wildflowers and ferns (NRC 1975). This forest community covers the riverfront north of the 28 reactor facilities, surrounds the pond in the northeast corner of the site, and exists in fragmented 29 stands in the eastern and southern areas of the site. The vegetation in the developed areas of 30 the site consists mainly of turf grasses and planted shrubs and trees around buildings, parking 31 areas, and roads. 32 The animal community of the site has not been surveyed but likely consists of fauna typical of 33 mixed hardwood forest habitats in the region. Birds that have been observed breeding in the 34 area of northwestern Westchester County and that utilize habitats such as the forest, pond, and 35 riverfront habitats present on and adjacent to the site include the great blue heron (Ardea 36 herodias), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), wood duck (Aix 37 sponsa), wild turkey (Me/eagris gal/opavo), Cooper's hawk (Accipitercooperil), pileated 38 woodpecker (Oryocopus pi/eatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American robin (Turdus 39 migratorius), and scarlet tanager (Piranga oJivacea) (NYSDEC 2005, Dunn and Alderfer 2006). 40 Numerous waterfowl utilize the lower Hudson River in winter. In the region of southeastern New 41 York that includes Westchester County, waterfowl counts in January 2007 identified at least 22 42 species of ducks and geese, as well as loons, grebes, and cormorants (NYSOA 2007). In 43 addition to the waterfowl that use the Hudson River, raptors also forage and nest along the river. 44 For example, the bald eagle (HaJiaeetus leucocephalus), which preys on fish and waterfowl, 45 congregates along the lower Hudson River in winter (NYSDEC 2008b, 2008c), and the December 2010 2-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00123
Plant and the Environment 1 peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), which preys on waterfowl and other birds, nests on bridges 2 over the lower Hudson (NYSDEC 2008d, 2008e). 3 Mammals likely to occur in the forest habitats on and adjacent to the site include the gray fox 4 (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), mink (Muste/a vison), raccoon (Procyon lotof), Virginia opossum 5 (Didelphis viginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoi/eus virginianus), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus 6 hudsonicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and northern short-tailed shrew 7 (Blarina brevicauda). Aquatic mammals that may occur along and within the river include the 8 river otter (Lutra canadensis) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) (NYSDEC 2007b; Whitaker 9 1980). 10 Reptiles and amphibians likely to occur on and in the vicinity of the site include species that 11 typically inhabit upland forest habitats of the region, including the black rat snake (Elaphe 12 obso/eta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and American toad (Bufo americanus). 13 Species likely to inhabit aquatic habitats such as the 2.4-acre (0.97-ha) pond and river shoreline 14 include the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (NYSDEC 15 2007b, Conant and Collins 1998). The pond historically was used for fishing and is likely to 16 contain minnows (family Cyprinidae) and sunfishes (family Centrarchidae). 17 There are no State or Federal parks, wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas, or other State 18 or Federal lands adjacent to the site. The closest such lands to the site are two State parks, 19 Bear Mountain State Park and Harriman State Park, which are located across the Hudson River 20 approximately 1 mi and 2 mi, respectively, northwest of the site at their closest points (Entergy 21 2007a). In addition, a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, referred to as "Hudson RM 22 44-56," begins approximately 1 mi north of the site and extends upriver. Significant Coastal 23 Fish and Wildlife Habitats are designated by the New York Department of State, Division of 24 Coastal Resources. Hudson RM 44-56 provides important habitat for wintering bald eagles as 25 well as waterfowl (NYSDOS 2004). 26 Of the total 4000 ft (1220 m) of transmission line, approximately 3500 ft (1070 m) traverses 27 buildings, roads, parking lots, and other developed areas. As a result, the total length of the 28 ROWs that is vegetated is only about 500 ft (150 m). The ROWs are approximately 150 ft 29 (46 m) wide, and the vegetation within the ROWs is mainly grasses and forbs. The 30 transmission lines included in this SEIS are those that were originally constructed for the 31 purpose of connecting IP2 and IP3 to the existing transmission system. These two lines are 32 described in more detail in Section 2.1.7. Each line is approximately 2000 ft (610 m) in length, 33 all of which is within the site except for a terminal, 100-ft (30-m) segment of each that crosses 34 the facility boundary and Broadway to connect to the Buchanan substation (Entergy 2005b; 35 NRC 1975). 36 2.2.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species 37 Two species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, and one candidate species, 38 have been identified by FWS as known or likely to occur in Westchester County. These are the 39 endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the threatened bog turtle (C/emmys muhlenbergil), 40 and the candidate New England cottontail (Sylvi/agus transitionalis) (FWS 2008b). In addition, 41 194 species that are listed by the State of New York as endangered, threatened, species of 42 special concern (animals), or rare (plants) have a potential to occur in Westchester County 43 based on recorded observations or their geographic ranges. The identities, listing status, and 44 preferred habitats of these federally and State-listed species are provided in Table 2-6. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-86 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00124
Plant and the Environment 1 Federally Listed Species 2 The three federally listed and candidate species are discussed below. In addition to these 3 species that currently have a Federal listing status, a recently delisted species, the bald eagle, 4 also occurs in Westchester County. On July 9,2007, FWS issued a rule in the Federal Register 5 (72 FR 37346) removing the bald eagle from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 6 Wildlife, effective August 8,2007. As discussed in Section 2.2.6.1, bald eagles winter in 7 substantial numbers in the vicinity of the site, particularly in a Significant Coastal Fish and 8 Wildlife Habitat area upstream of the site from RM 44 to 56 (RKM 70 to 90) (NYSDOS 2004). 9 Bald eagles also have nested in recent years at locations along the Hudson River in the vicinity 10 of the site. In New York, the breeding season generally extends from March to July, and in the 11 southeastern part of the state, wintering eagles begin to arrive in November and congregate in 12 greatest numbers in February. Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and tail and 13 a yellow bill. Juveniles are completely brown with a gray bill until they are mature at about 14 5 years of age. The bald eagle feeds primarily on fish but also preys on waterfowl, shorebirds, 15 small mammals, and carrion (NYSDEC 2008b). 16 Indiana Bat 17 The Indiana bat (Myotis soda/is) currently is listed as endangered under the Endangered 18 Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Critical habitat for the Indiana bat 19 was designated in 1976 (41 FR 41914) at eleven caves and two mines in six States (Missouri, 20 Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia). There is no designated critical 21 habitat in New York. 22 The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat with a head and body length slightly under 2 in. (5.1 cm), 23 a wing span of 9 to 11 in. (23 to 28 cm), a weight of approximately 0.3 ounces (8.5 g), and a life 24 span of about 10 years (FWS 2002, FWS 2007a). It feeds on flying insects captured in flight at 25 night as it forages in forested areas, forest edges, fields, riparian areas, and over water. Indiana 26 bats are migratory and hibernate in large colonies in caves or mines (hibernacula). Hibernacula 27 may support from fewer than 50 to more than 10,000 Indiana bats (FWS 2007a). In New York, 28 hibernation may last from September to May. After emerging in spring, the bats may migrate 29 hundreds of miles to summer habitats, where they typically roost during the day under bark 30 separating from the trunks of dead trees or in other tree crevices (FWS 2007a). Reproductive 31 females congregate in maternity colonies of up to 100 or more bats, where they give birth and 32 care for their single young until it can fly, usually at 1 to 2 months of age (FWS 2007a). Males 33 and nonreproductive females generally roost individually or in small colonies and may remain 34 near their hibernaculum rather than migrating (FWS 2007a). 35 The Indiana bat may occur in 20 States in the eastern United States from New England to the 36 Midwest, mainly within the central areas of this region from Vermont to southern Wisconsin, 37 eastern Oklahoma, and Alabama. In summer, Indiana bat maternity colonies and individuals 38 may occur throughout this range. In winter, populations are distributed among approximately 39 280 hibernacula in 19 States (FWS 2007a). New York has a total of 10 known hibernacula in 40 caves and mines in Albany, Essex, Jefferson, Onondaga, Ulster, and Warren Counties (NYNHP 41 2008a). The nearest of these counties to the site is Ulster County, which is about 20 mi (32 km) 42 to the north of the site at its closest point. The two largest hibernating colonies in New England 43 (estimated populations in 2005 of over 11,300 and 15,400) are in two abandoned mines located 44 in Ulster County approximately 45 mi (72 km) north of the site near the Town of Rosendale December 2010 2-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00125
Plant and the Environment 1 (FWS 2007a; Sanders and Chenger 2001). The larger of these is among the 10 largest Indiana 2 bat hibernacula in the country (NYNHP 2008a). There are 13 general areas in the State where 3 maternity and bachelor colonies are known to occur in summer. Hibernacula, maternity 4 colonies, and bachelor colonies are not known to be present in Westchester County or the 5 vicinity of the site, although Westchester County is within the potential range of the Indiana bat 6 in New York (NYNHP 2008a). Given the presence of large hibernacula within migration 7 distance of the site and the presence of suitable foraging habitat and possible roosting trees in 8 the forest at the north end of the site, the NRC staff finds it possible that Indiana bats may use 9 this area as summer habitat. 10 Bog Turtle 11 The northern population of the bog turtle (C/emmys muhlenbergil), which occurs in Connecticut, 12 Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, was federally 13 listed as threatened in 1997 under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 ef seq.). The southern population 14 was listed as threatened because of its similarity of appearance to the northern population. The 15 two populations are discontinuous. The southern population occurs mainly in the Appalachian 16 Mountains from southern Virginia through the Carolinas to northern Georgia and eastern 17 Tennessee (FWS 2001). In New York, the bog turtle occurs in the central and southeastern 18 parts of the State, primarily in the Hudson Valley region (NYSDEC 2008f, 2008g). 19 The bog turtle is one of the smallest turtles in North America. Its upper shell is 3 to 4 in. (7.6 to 20 10 cm) long and light brown to black in color, and each side of its black head has a distinctive 21 patch of color that is bright orange to yellow. Its life span may be 40 years or longer. The bog 22 turtle is diurnal and semiaquatic; it forages on land and in water for its varied diet of insects and 23 other invertebrates, frogs, plants, and carrion (FWS 2001; NYNHP 2008b). In southeastern 24 New York, the bog turtle usually is active from the first half of April to the middle of September, 25 and hibernates the remainder of the year underwater in soft mud and crevices (FWS 2001). 26 Northern bog turtles primarily inhabit wetlands fed by groundwater or associated with the 27 headwaters of streams and dominated by emergent vegetation. These habitats typically have 28 shallow, cool water that flows slowly and vegetation that is early successional, with open 29 canopies and wet meadows of sedges (Carex spp.). Other herbs commonly present include 30 spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.) and bulrushes (Juncus spp. and Scirpus spp.) (FWS 2001). Bog 31 turtle habitats in the Hudson River Valley also frequently include sphagnum moss (Sphagnum 32 spp.) and horsetail (Equisefum spp.) (NYNHP 2008b). Commonly associated woody plants 33 include alders (Alnus spp.) and willows (Salix spp.) (FWS 2001; NYNHP 2008b). 34 Of the 74 historic bog turtle locations recorded in New York, over half still may provide suitable 35 habitat. However, populations are known to exist currently at only one-fourth of these locations, 36 principally in southeastern New York (NYSDEC 2008f). The New York Natural Heritage 37 Program (NYNHP) database contains locations in northwestern Westchester County where the 38 bog turtle has been recorded as occurring historically. Although there were a few records 39 during the 1990s of bog turtles in Westchester County, the NYNHP states that "it is not known if 40 any extant populations remain in this county" (NYNHP 2008b). According to the data collected 41 for the New York State Reptile and Amphibian Atlas for the period 1990 to 2007, the only 42 reported occurrence of the bog turtle in Westchester County was near the eastern border of the 43 State (NYSDEC 2008g). The New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Westchester 44 County (NYSDEC 2004c) indicates that there are no wetlands on the IP2 and IP3 site. The 45 nearest offsite wetland, which is adjacent to the north end of the site, is located on the east side NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-88 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00126
Plant and the Environment 1 of Broadway and drains under the roadway to Lent's Cove. Its potential to provide bog turtle 2 habitat was not evaluated. The 2.4-acre (0.97-ha) pond in the northern portion of the site is 3 surrounded by mature forest with a closed canopy and does not provide the highly specialized 4 wetland habitat (early successional wet meadows) required by the bog turtle. 5 While acknowledging that the wetland nearest to the site has not been evaluated for the 6 presence of the bog turtle, the NRC staff notes that there is no suitable habitat on the site and 7 there are no recently recorded occurrences of the bog turtle in portions of Westchester County 8 near the plant site. Thus, the NRC staff finds that the bog turtle is unlikely to occur on the site or 9 in the immediate vicinity of the site. 10 New England Cottontail Rabbit 11 The New England cottontail rabbit (Sy/vi/agus transitionalis) is a Federal candidate for listing as 12 an endangered or threatened species (72 FR 69034) and is State-listed as a species of special 13 concern in New York (NYSDEC 2008h). It is similar in appearance to the more common and 14 widespread eastern cottontail (S. floridanus). The New England cottontail can often be 15 distinguished from the eastern cottontail by its slightly smaller size, shorter ears, darker fur, 16 black spot between the ears, and black line at the front edge of the ears (NYNHP 2008c). 17 Cottontails have short life spans and reproduce at an early age. Breeding season for the New 18 England cottontail typically is from March to September (NYNHP 2008c). There may be two to 19 three litters per year, with a usual litter size of five young and a range from three to eight (FWS 20 2007b). The diet of the species consists mainly of grasses and other herbaceous plants in 21 spring and summer and the bark, twigs, and seedlings of shrubs and other woody plants in 22 autumn and winter (NYNHP 2008c). 23 The New England cottontail is native only to the northeastern United States. Populations 24 historically were found throughout New England. The range of this species has become 25 fragmented and currently is approximately 14 percent of its historical extent (72 FR 69034). In 26 New York, the New England cottontail currently is thought to occur only in separate populations 27 east of the Hudson River within Columbia, Dutchess, Putnam, and Westchester Counties 28 (NYNHP 2008c). The dramatic decreases in population and range are primarily the result of 29 loss of suitable habitat. The New England cottontail requires a specialized habitat of early 30 successional vegetative growth such as thickets, open wooded areas with a dense understory, 31 and margins of agricultural fields (NYNHP 2008c). Land development associated with the 32 growth of urban and suburban areas and the maturation of early successional forests have been 33 the primary causes of the loss of these types of habitat (69 FR 39395). 34 The known locations of the New England cottontail in Westchester County are in the central and 35 northeastern areas of the county (NYNHP 2008c), not in the northwestern area where the IP2 36 and IP3 site is located. The forests on the site consist mainly of mature hardwoods and do not 37 contain early successional habitats, such as thickets, that are required by the New England 38 cottontail. Therefore, the New England cottontail is considered unlikely to occur on or in the 39 immediate vicinity of the site. 40 State-Protected Species 41 The only State-listed terrestrial species identified by NYNHP as currently occurring in the vicinity 42 of the IP2 and IP3 site is the bald eagle (NYSDEC 2007c). The only other documented 43 occurrences in the NYNHP database for the site vicinity were historical records for four plant 44 species that have not been documented in the site vicinity since 1979 or earlier (NYSDEC December 2010 2-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00127
Plant and the Environment 1 2007c). None of the State-listed species potentially occurring in Westchester County 2 (Table 2-6) are on the site or have been found there. 3 Table 2-6. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially 4 Occurring in Westchester County Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Amphibians Ambystoma Jefferson sse Deciduous woodlands with a closed jeffersonianum salamander canopy and riparian habitats (1) Ambystoma blue- sse Marshes, swamps, and adjacent laterale spotted upland areas with loose soils (1) salamander Ambystoma marbled sse Near swamps and shallow pools, opacum salamander rocky hillsides and summits, and wooded sandy areas (1) Rana southern sse Wet, open areas such as sphenocephala leopard frog grasslands, marshes, and swales utricularus with slow-flowing water (2) Reptiles Carphophis eastern sse Mesic, wooded or partially wooded amoenus worm snake areas, often near wetlands or farm fields (1) Clemmys guttata spotted sse Small ponds surrounded by turtle undisturbed vegetation, marshes, swamps, and other small bodies of water (1) Clemmys wood turtle sse Hardwood forests, fields, wet insculpta pastures, woodland marshes, and other areas adjacent to streams (1) Clemmys bog turtle FT SE Wet meadows with an open canopy muhlenbergii or open boggy areas (2) Crotalus horridus timber ST Mountainous or hilly areas with rocky rattlesnake outcrops and steep ledges in deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forests (2) Heterodon eastern sse Open woods and margins, platyrhinos hog nose grasslands, agricultural fields, and snake other habitats with loose soils (1) Sceloporus northern ST Open, rocky areas on steep slopes undulatus fence lizard surrounded by oak-dominated forests (2) 5 2-90 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00128
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Terrapene eastern box sse Forests, grasslands, and wet carolina turtle meadows (1) Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper's sse Mixed hardwood-coniferous forests, hawk commonly near water (1) Accipiter gentilis northern sse Mature mixed hardwood-coniferous goshawk forests (1) Accipiter striatus sharp- sse Forests, open woods, and old fields (1) shinned hawk Ammodramus seaside sse Coastal tidal marshes with emergent maritimus sparrow vegetation (2) Ammodramus grasshoppe sse Grasslands and abandoned fields (1) savannarum r sparrow Buteo lineatus red- sse Open, moist forests and swamp shouldered margins (3) hawk Caprimulgus whip-poor- sse Dry to moist open forests (1) vociferous will Chordeiles minor common sse Open coniferous woods, grasslands, nighthawk and near populated areas (1) Circus cyaneus northern ST Salt and freshwater marshes, harrier shrubland, and open grassy areas (2) Cistothorus sedge wren ST Moist meadows with small bushes, platensis boggy areas, and coastal brackish marshes (2) Dendroica cerulean sse Wet, mature hardwood forests with a cerulea warbler dense canopy (1) Falco peregrinus peregrine SE Holes or ledges in the rock on cliff falcon faces, and on top of brid9:es or tall buildings in urban areas 2) Haliaeetus bald eagle ST Shorelines of large water bodies, leucocee.halus such as lakes, rivers, and bays (2) 2 December 2010 2-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAG10001367A_00129
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6. (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c)
/cteria virens yellow- sse Thickets, overgrown pastures, breasted woodland understory, margins of chat ponds and swamRs, and near populated areas 1)
/xobrychus exi/is least bittern ST Large marshes with stands of emergent vegetation (2)
Me/anerpes red-headed sse Open forests and developed areas erythrocepha/us woodpecker with trees, such as parks and gardens (1) Pandion Osprey sse Large bodies of water such as lakes, haliaetus rivers, and seacoasts (1) Podi/ymbus pied-billed ST Marshes and shorelines of ponds, podiceps grebe shallow lakes or slow-moving streams in areas with emergent vegetation and open water ) Rallus e/egans king rail ST Shallow fresh to salt marshes with substantial emergent vegetation (2) Vermivora golden- sse Recently abandoned agricultural chrysoptera winged fields surrounded by trees, open warbler areas of dense herbaceous vegetation (1) Mammals Myotis sodalis Indiana bat FE SE Wooded areas with living, dying, and dead trees during the summer; caves and mines in the winter (2) Sy/vi/agus New Fe sse Disturbed areas, open woods, areas transitionalis England with shrubs and thickets, marshes (2) cottontail rabbit Insects Callophrys Henry's elfin sse Borders and clearings of pine-oak henrici woods (4) Erynnis persius Persius SE Stream banks, marshes, bogs, duskywing mountain prairies, and sand plains (4) 2 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-92 December 2010 OAGI0001367 A_00130
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Pontia proto dice checkered sse Dry, open habitats such as fields, white roads, railroad tracks, weedy vacant lots, and sandy areas (4) Speyeriaida/ia regal SE Wet fields and meadows, marshes (4) fritillary Tachopteryx gray sse Rocky gorges in forests with small thoreyi petaltail streams fed by seepage areas or fens (2) Plants Acalypha Virginia SE Dry upland forests, thickets, and virginica three- prairies (5) seeded mercury Agastache yellow giant ST Open wooded areas, roadsides, nepetoides hyssop railroads, thickets, and fencerows (2) Ageratina small white SE Upland forests, roadsides, aromatica var. snakeroot fencerows, and old fields (6) aromatica Agrimonia woodland ST Slopes, streambanks, and thickets in rostel/ata agrimony rich, mesic forests and wooded pastures (2) Amaranthus sea beach SE Sparsely vegetated areas of barrier pumilus amaranth island beaches and inlets (1) Aplectrum Puttyroot SE Upland to swampy forests (2) hyemale Arethusa bulbosa dragon's ST Sphagnum swamps and wet mouth meadows (2) orchid Aristolochia Virginia SE Well-drained, rocky slopes of rich serpentaria snakeroot wooded areas (2) Asclepias white SE Open wooded areas and thickets (7) variegata milkweed Asclepias green ST Dry, rocky hillsides, grasslands, and viridiflora milkweed open areas (2) Bidens beckii water ST Slow-moving or still waters (6) marigold 2 December 2010 2-93 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367 A_00131
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Bidens Delmarva SR Borders of freshwater tidal marshes bidentoides beggar-ticks and mudflats (2) Bidens /aevis smooth bur- ST Freshwater to brackish tidal marshes marigold and mudflats (2) B/ephilia ciliata downy SE Shallow soils of disturbed areas wood mint such as fields and powerline ROWs (2) Bo/boschoenus seaside SE Alkaline or saline marshes, pond maritimus bulrush edges, and transient wet areas (8) pa/udosus Bo/boschoenus saltmarsh SE Brackish tidal marshes (2) novae-angliae bulrush Botrychium blunt-lobe SE Rich, moist soils of deciduous oneidense grape fern forests (2) Boute/oua side-oats SE Dry, open areas and disturbed lands curtipendu/a var. grama such as powerline ROWs, pastures, curtipendu/a and bluffs along rivers (2) Callitriche terrestrial ST Exposed, muddy ground in pastures, terrestris starwort forests, and on the banks of ponds (2) Cardamine /ongii Long's ST Shady tidal creeks, swamps, and bittercress mudflats (2) Carex abscondita thicket ST Swamps, wooded streambanks, sedge mesic forests, and shrublands (2) Carex arcta northern SE Edges of reservoirs and rivers, clustered wooded swamps, swales, and wet sedge meadows (2) Carex bicknellii Bicknell's ST Open woods, dry to mesic prairies, sedge rocky areas with sparse vegetation (6) Carex conjuncta soft fox SE Edges of streams, thickets, swales, sedge and wet meadows (2) Carex cumu/ata clustered ST Open rocky areas with shallow soils, sedge such as powerline ROWs, recently burned areas, or other successional habitats (2) 2 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-94 December 2010 OAGI0001367 A_00132
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Carex davisii Davis' ST Near rivers, on open gravel bars of sedge large rivers, in wet meadows, and disturbed areas (2) Carex marsh straw ST Coastal salt and brackish tidal hormathodes sedge marshes, swales on beaches, edges of swamps, and wet forests near the coast (2) Carex false hop SR Swamps, marshes, and floodplain
/upuliformis sedge forests (2)
Carex midland SE Dry prairies, oak forests, and mesochorea sedge roadsides (2) Carex Mitchell's ST Edges of streams and ponds, mitchelliana sedge swamps, and wet meadows (2) Carex mo/esta troublesome ST Open wooded areas and fields (2) sedge Carex black edge SE Dry to mesic rocky areas in nigromarginata sedge deciduous forests (2) Carex retrof/exa reflexed SE Rocky ledges, openings and edges sedge of dry to mesic deciduous forests, and along paths and railroads (2) Carex seorsa weak ST Hardwood or conifer swamps and stellate thickets (6) sedge Carex straminea straw sedge SE Edges of swamps and marshes (2) Carex sty/of/exa bent sedge SE Wet areas of streambanks, thickets, and pine barrens; swampy woods (2) Carex typhina cattail ST Wetlands, floodplain forests, sed~e sedge meadows, and flats along rivers ( ) Carya /aciniosa big ST Rich soils in floodplains and along shellbark the banks of rivers and marshes ) hickory Castilleja scarlet SE Open areas, including on limestone coccinea Indian bedrock in prairies, and fields with paintbrush moist, sandy soils (2) Ceratophyllum prickly ST Quiet lakes, ponds, streams, and echinatum hornwort swamps (1) 2 December 2010 2-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367 A_00133
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Chamaelirium fairy wand ST Moist woodlands, thickets, meadows,
/uteum and swamps (2)
Cheilanthes woolly lip SE Dry areas on rock outcrops and
/anosa fern ledges (2)
Chenopodium large calyx SE Coastal sands and beaches (6) ber/andieri var. goosefoot macroca/ycium Chenopodium red pigweed ST Brackish marshes and developed rubrum lands (5) Crassu/a water SE Rocky shores of rivers, marshes, and aquatica pigmyweed tidal mudflats (2) Crota/aria Rattlebox SE Sandy soils in pastures and pine sagittalis plantations (2) Cyperus globose SE Inland disturbed areas such as echinatus flatsedge roadsides and pastures (6) Cyperus yellow SE Wet, sandy soils of roadsides, flavescens flatsedge coastal pond margins, and salt marshes (2) Cyperus retrorse SE Moist to dry sandy soils in open retrorsus var. flatsedge woods and thickets (6) retrorsus Cypripedium small yellow SE Rich humus and decaying leaves on parviflorum var. ladyslipper wooded slopes and river bluffs, parviflorum moist swales, and creek margins (1) Desmodium little ST Dry upland forests and ciliare leaf glades (5) tick-trefoil Desmodium spreadi SE Dry, sandy soils in open pine humifusum ng tick- and oak forests (9) trefoil Desmodium smooth tick- SE Dry, upland forests (5)
/aevigatum trefoil Desmodium Nuttall's SE Dry, upland forests; acidic nuttallii tick-trefoil gravel seeps; and dry to mesic grasslands (5) 2 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-96 December 2010 OAGI0001367 A_00134
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Desmodium stiff tick- SE Open woods, old fields, and obtusum trefoil grasslands (2) Desmodium small- SE Upland forests (5) pauciflorum flowered tick-trefoil Dichanthe/ium few- SE Upland forests, prairies, lake o/igosanthes var. flowered margins, and glades (5) o/igosanthes panic grass Digitaria filiformis slender ST Sandy soils in dry forests and crabgrass prairies, sandstone glades, and agricultural fields (5) Diospyros Persimmon ST Rocky slopes, dry woodlands, virginiana open pastures, and swamp margins (8) Draba reptans Carolina ST Open areas with limestone whitlow outcrops, dry sandy soils, and grass cedar glades (2) Ec/ipta prostrata false daisy SE Lake margins, mesic to wet prairies, and fields and other developed lands (5) Eleocharis knotted ST Shallow ponds in coastal areas (2) equisetoides spikerush Eleocharis ovata blunt SE Marshy areas near rivers, shallow spikerush ponds (2) Eleocharis angled SE Lake margins and shallow ponds (2) quadrangulata spikerush Eleocharis three-ribbed SE Wet depressions, edges of ponds, tricostata spikerush pine barrens, and grasslands (6) Eleocharis long- ST Lake margins, ponds, streams, tuberculosa tubercled marshes, grasslands, and disturbed spikerush lands (6) Equisetum marsh ST Wet areas such as marshes, stream palustre horsetail margins, meadows, and wooded areas (2) Equisetum meadow ST Rocky soils, riverbanks, roadsides, pratense horsetail and railroad ditches (2) 2 December 2010 2-97 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367 A_00135
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Euonymus American SE Wooded areas, stream banks, and american us strawberry thickets in sandy soils (8) bush Fimbristylis marsh ST Brackish and salt marshes (6) castanea fimbry Fuirena pumila dwarf SR Pond margins, seeps, and wet umbrella grasslands and swales (6) sedge Gamochaeta purple SE Open, disturbed areas such as purpurea everlasting fields, roadsides, and edges of forests (6) Geranium Carolina ST Dry upland forests and prairies, carolinianum var. cranesbill limestone glades, agricultural fields, sphaerospermum and pastures (5) Geum vernum spring SE Organic soils of forested hillsides, avens thickets, and floodplains (1) Geum rough avens SE Hardwood forests, roadsides, virginianum wooded swamps, and riverbanks (2) Hottonia inflata Featherfoil ST Ponds and swales in coastal areas (2) Houstonia purple SE Well-drained hillsides in mesic purpurea var. bluets forests (10) purpurea Hylotelephium live forever SE Rocky cliffs and outcrops (7) telephioides Hypericum shrubby St. ST Disturbed areas such as roadsides prolificum John's wort and powerline ROWs, fields, thickets, and margins of swamps (2) Iris prismatica slender blue ST Rich, mucky soils (6) flag Jeffersonia twin leaf ST Calcareous soils in mesic forests, diphyl/a semishaded rocky hillsides, and exposed limestone (2) Lechea pulchel/a bead SE Dry to mesic upland forests (5) var. moniliformis pinweed Lechea Illinois SR Infertile or sandy soils (11) racemulosa pinweed 2 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-98 December 2010 OAGI0001367 A_00136
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Lechea tenuifolia slender ST Dry, open, grassy areas, wooded pinweed areas with pines or oaks, roCkr: hillsides, and disturbed areas 2) Lemna perpusil/a minute SE Still waters in ponds and lakes (6) duckweed Lespedeza narrow- SR Dry sandy soil (12) angustifolia leaved bush clover Lespedeza trailing bush SR Dry upland forests and dry to mesic repens clover grasslands (5) Lespedeza velvety ST Dry, rocky areas in woodlands and stuevei bush clover clearings, old fields, and roadsides (1) Lespedeza violet bush SR Dry to mesic grasslands, thickets, vio/acea clover and upland forests (5) Liatris scariosa northern ST Dry, sandy grasslands, rocky var. novae- blazing star hilltops, and sandy roadsides (2) angliae Li/aeopsis eastern ST Margins of peaty or rocky intertidal chinensis grasswort and brackish marshes (2) Limosel/a Mudwort SR Edges of freshwater pools and australis intertidal fresh to brackish water bodies (1) Linum striatum stiff yellow SR Sandy soils in mesic to wet forests, flax swamps, seeps, and lake margins (5) Liparis liliifolia large SE Peaty soils in hardwood swamps, twayblade dry wooded slopes, and railroad ditches (2) Lipocarpha dwarf SE Sandy soils along pond margins and micrantha bulrush riverbanks (2) Listera broad- SE Wet sandx soils in white cedar conval/arioides lipped swamps () twayblade Ludwigia globe- ST Margins of shallow ponds and sphaerocarpa fruited wetland channels in pine barrens, ludwigia clearings in shrub swamps (2) Lycopus rubel/us gypsy wort SE Marshes and inundated swamps (2) 2 December 2010 2-99 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367 A_00137
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Lysimachia lance- SE Wet upland and floodplain forests, hybrida leaved wet prairies, lake margins, swamps, loosestrife and seeps (5) Magnolia sweetbay SE Along bays; in swamps; in wet, virginiana magnolia forested lowlands; and in grasslands (6) Melanthium Virginia SE Railroad ditches, grasslands, virginicum bunchflower marshes, and wet wooded areas (6) Mimulus alatus winged SR Muddy shores of lakes, swamps, monkey- and wet forests (5) flower Monarda basil balm SE Ravines in mesic forests, thickets, clinopodia and lakeshores (5) Oldenlandia clustered SE Sandy soils in swamps, bogs, and uniflora bluets margins of streams and reservoirs (13) Oligoneuron stiff leaf ST Dry open areas such as rocky rigidum var. goldenrod slopes, thickets, edges of forests, rigidum and grasslands (2) Onosmodium Virginia SE Open coastal uplands, inland rocky virginianum false wooded areas in dry soils (2) gromwell Orontium golden club ST Freshwater swamps and tidal aquaticum marshes, and sphagnum swamps, fens, and coastal ponds (2) Oxalis violacea violet wood ST Rich, rocky soils on steep hillsides sorrel and open summits (2) Panicum tall flat SE Mesic flatwoods and forested rigidulum var. panic grass lowlands, prairies, and edges of elongatum lakes (5) Paspalum laeve field SE Sandy soils in open woodlands and beadgrass prairies (1) Pinus virginiana Virginia pine SE Areas of poor soils such as maritime oak forests, pine/oak barrens, and rocky summits (2) 2 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-100 December 2010 OAGI0001367 A_00138
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) P/atanthera orange SE Wide range of habitats from wet, rich ciliaris fringed soils to dry, rocky mountainous orchid areas (1) P/atanthera Hooker's SE Pine or poplar forests with open hookeri orchid understories in dry to moist soils (2) Podostemum Riverweed ST In fast-flowing streams and rivers ceratophyllum with rocky bottoms (2) Po/yga/a /utea orange SE Wet, sandy soils and marshes in milkwort pine barrens (14) Po/ygonum Douglas' ST Disturbed, dry areas such as rocky doug/asii knotweed outcrops with sandy soils (6) doug/asii Po/ygonum erect SE Developed areas such as roadsides, erectum knotweed sidewalks, and lawns and floodplain forests (5) Po/ygonum sea beach SR Coastal beaches (6) g/aucum knotweed Po/ygonum tenue slender SR Dry, acidic soils in open areas such knotweed as rocky summits, scrubby wooded sites, and abandoned agricultural fields (5) Potamogeton water SE Marshes and pond margins (2) diversifolius thread pondweed Potamogeton spotted ST Ponds, marshes, and slow-moving pulcher pondweed streams and rivers (2) Pferospora giant pine SE Thick humus of coniferous forests (14) andromedea drops Pycnanthemum basil SE Rocky soils in dry forests and clinopodioides mountain grasslands (2) mint Pycnanthemum blunt ST Wet sandy soils in coastal swales, muticum mountain pond margins, swamps, and mint roadside thickets (2) Pycnanthemum Torrey's SE Dry, open areas of rocky hilltops, torrei mountain roadside ditches, and red cedar mint barrens (2) 2 December 2010 2-101 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367 A_00139
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Ranunculus small- ST Partially shaded summits in micranthus flowered forests (2) crowfoot Rhynchospora long-beaked SR Wet, sandy soils of pond margins in scirpoides beakrush coastal pine barrens (2) Sabatia angularis rose pink SE Rocky soils in open woods, sandy soils, and pond margins (5) Sagittaria spongy ST Mudflats in freshwater to brackish montevidensis arrowhead tidal marshes (2) var. spongiosa Salvia Iyrata lyre leaf SE Rich, rocky soils in open forests; sage pastures with sandy soils (14) Scirpus Georgia SE Moist grasslands and borders of wet georgianus bulrush forests and marshes (2) Scleria pauciflora few- SE Mesic to wet woods, grasslands, and var. carolinian a flowered bogs (6) nutrush Scutellaria hyssop SE Fields and clearings in upland integrifolia skullcap forests, roadside ditches, swamps, and pond margins (2) Sericocarpus flax leaf ST Open woods, roadside ditches, and linifolius whitetop fields (6) Sisyrinchium Michaux's SE Fields, roadside ditches, edges of mucronatum blue-eyed forests, and coastal grasslands (2) grass Smilax Jacob's SE Rich, limestone soils in woods and pulverulenta ladder thickets (6) Solidago coastal SE Coastal freshwater to brackish latissimifolia goldenrod swamps and thickets (6) Solidago seaside SE Sand dunes and brackish marsh sempervirens goldenrod margins (6) var. mexican a Sporobolus rough rush SE Sandy soils in open forests, prairies, clan destin us grass and limestone bluffs (5) Suaeda linearis narrow leaf SE Beaches and salt marshes (6) sea blite 2 I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-102 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00140
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Symphyotrichum northern ST Fens, clearings within coniferous boreale bog aster swamps, meadows, shores of ponds and lakes (2) Symphyotrichum saltmarsh ST Saltwater marshes, margins of tidal subulatum var. aster creeks and salt ponds, and brackish subulatum swales among sand dunes (2) Trichomanes Appalachian SE Protected cracks and crevices in intricatum bristle fern rock (1) Trichostema tiny blue SE Dry forests, old fields, rocky setaceum curls outcrops, and coastal sandy soils (13) Tripsacum northern ST Mesic grasslands and mar~ins of dactyloides gamma streams and salt marshes ) grass Trollius laxus spreading SR Limestone soils in meadows and globeflower open swamps (6) utricularia minor lesser ST Wet meadows and still waters of bladderwort shallow ponds (5) utricularia radiata small ST Ponds and slow-moving waters (2) floating bladderwort Veronica strum Culver's ST Moist prairies and woods, meadows, virginicum root and banks of streams (1) Viburnum southern ST Moist soils in open woods and edges den tatum var. arrowwood of streams (8) venosum Viburnum nudum possum SE Hardwood swamps (13) var. nudum haw Viola brittoniana coast violet SE Wet soils in borders of woodlands, meadows, and near coastal streams and rivers (1) Viola hirsutula southern SE Shallow, rocky soils in rich woods (15) wood violet Viola primulifolia primrose ST Sandy soils in marsh edges, leaf violet meadows (5) 2 December 2010 2-103 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAG10001367A_00141
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Vilis vulpine winter grape SE Mesic to wet forests, lakeshores, agricultural fields (5) 2 (a1Federallisting status definitions: FC = Federal Candidate Species, FE = Federally Endangered, FT = Federally 3 Threatened (FWS 2008b) 4 (b) State listing status definitions: SE = State Endangered, SC = Species of Special Concern in New York, SR = State 5 Rare, ST = State Threatened (NYSDEC 2008h; NYNHP 2007) 6 (c) Habitat information sources: 7 1 NatureServe 2007 8 2 NYNHP 2008d 9 3 NYSDEC 2008i 10 4 Opler et al. 2006 11 5 Iverson et al. 1999 6 12 FNA Editorial Committee 1993+ 7 13 Nieri ng and 01 mstead 1979 8 14 NRCS 2008 9 15 CPC 2008 16 10 NCSU 2008 11 17 Nearctica 2008 18 12 Britton and Brown 1913 19 13 KSNPC 2008 20 14 Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Native Plant Information Network (NPIN) 2008 21 15 Pullen Herbarium 2008 22 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts 23 The following discussion focuses on the radiological environmental impacts and the dose 24 impacts to the public from normal plant operations at the IP2 and IP3 site. Radiological 25 releases, doses to members of the public, and the resultant environmental impacts, are 26 summarized in two IP2 and IP3 reports-the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report and 27 the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Limits for all radiological releases are 28 specified in the IP2 and IP3 ODCM and are used by Entergy to meet Federal radiation 29 protection limits and standards. 30 Radiological Environmental Impacts 31 Entergy conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) in which radiological 32 impacts to the environment and the public around the IP2 and IP3 site are monitored, 33 documented, and compared to NRC standards. Entergy summarizes the results of its REMP in 34 an Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (Entergy 2007d; all items in this section 35 are from Entergy 2007d). The objectives of the IP2 and IP3 REMPs are the following: 36
- to enable the identification and quantification of changes in the radioactivity of the area 37
- to measure radionuclide concentrations in the environment attributable to operations of 38 the IP2 and IP3 site 39 Environmental monitoring and surveillance have been conducted at IP2 and IP3 since 1958, 40 4 years before the startup of IP1. The preoperational program was designed and implemented 41 to determine the background radioactivity and to measure the variations in activity levels from NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-104 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00142
Plant and the Environment 1 natural and other sources in the vicinity, as well as fallout from nuclear weapons tests. The 2 preoperational radiological data include both natural and manmade sources of environmental 3 radioactivity. These background environmental data permit the detection and assessment of 4 current levels of environmental activity attributable to plant operations. 5 The REMP at IP2 and IP3 directs Entergy to sample environmental media in the environs 6 around the site to analyze and measure the radioactivity levels that may be present. The REMP 7 designates sampling locations for the collection of environmental media for analysis. These 8 sampling locations are divided into indicator and control locations. Indicator locations are 9 established near the site, where the presence of radioactivity of plant origin is most likely to be 10 detected. Control locations are established farther away (and upwind/upstream, where 11 applicable) from the site, where the level would not generally be affected by plant discharges or 12 effluents. The use of indicator and control locations enables the identification of potential 13 sources of detected radioactivity as either background or from plant operations. The media 14 samples are representative of the radiation exposure pathways to the public from all plant 15 radioactive effluents. A total of 1342 analyses was performed in 2006. This amount is higher 16 than required because of the inclusion of additional sample locations and media. 17 The REMP is used to measure the direct radiation and the airborne and waterborne pathway 18 activity in the vicinity of the IP2 and IP3 site. Direct radiation pathways include radiation from 19 buildings and plant structures, airborne material that may be released from the plant, or from 20 cosmic radiation, fallout, and the naturally occurring radioactive materials in soil, air, and water. 21 Analysis of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), which measure direct radiation, indicated 22 that there were no increased radiation levels attributable to plant operations. 23 The airborne pathway includes measurements of air, precipitation, drinking water, and broad leaf 24 vegetation samples. The airborne pathway measurements indicated that there was no 25 increased radioactivity attributable to 2006 IP2 and IP3 station operation. 26 The waterborne pathway consists of Hudson River water, fish and invertebrates, aquatic 27 vegetation, bottom sediment, and shoreline sediment Measurements of the media comprising 28 the waterborne pathway indicated that, while some very low levels of plant discharged 29 radioactivity were detected, there was no adverse radiological impact to the surrounding 30 environment attributed to IP2 and IP3 operations (Entergy 2007d). 31 2006 REMP Results 32 The following is a detailed discussion of the radionuclides detected by the 2006 REMP that may 33 be attributable to current plant operations (all information summarized from Entergy 2007d). 34 During 2006, cesium-137, strontium-90, and tritium were the only potentially plant-related 35 radionuclides detected in some environmental samples. Tritium may be present in the local 36 environment because of either natural occurrence, other manmade sources, or plant operations. 37 Small amounts of tritium were detected in one of four quarterly composite samples from the 38 discharge mixing zone (386 picocuries per liter (pCilL) (14.28 becquerel per liter (8q/L)). This 39 composite sample was detected at a value much lower than the required lower limit of detection 40 (LLD) of 3000 pCilL (111 8q/L). 41 In 2006, the detected radionuclide(s) attributable to past atmospheric weapons testing consisted 42 of cesium-137 and strontium-90 in some media. The levels detected for cesium-137 were 43 consistent with the historical levels of radionuclides resulting from weapons tests as measured December 2010 2-105 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00143
Plant and the Environment 1 in previous years. Before 2006, strontium-90 analysis had not been conducted since 1984, so 2 comparison to recent historical levels is not possible. However, the low levels detected in the 3 environment are consistent with decayed quantities of activity from historic atmospheric 4 weapons testing. Strontium-90 was detected in four fish and invertebrate samples, three in the 5 control samples and one in the indicator samples. Since the levels detected were comparable 6 in the indicator and control location samples, atmospheric weapons testing is the likely cause. 7 Of 18 special water samples,S indicated strontium-90 at levels close to the level of detection, at 8 an average of 0.78 pCilL (0.028 Bq/L). All of these detections are considered to be residual 9 levels from atmospheric weapons tests. 10 lodine-131 is also produced in fission reactors but can result from nonplant-related manmade 11 sources (e.g., medical administrations). lodine-131 was not detected in 2006. Cobalt-58 and 12 cobalt-60 are activation/corrosion products also related to plant operations. They are produced 13 by neutron activation in the reactor core. As cobalt-58 has a much shorter half-life, its absence 14 "dates" the presence of cobalt-60 as residual. When significant concentrations of cobalt-60 are 15 detected but no cobalt-58, there is an increased likelihood that the cobalt-60 results from 16 residual cobalt-60 from past operations. There was no cobalt-58 or cobalt-60 detected in the 17 2006 REMP, though cobalt-58 and cobalt-60 have been observed in previous years. 18 Data resulting from analysis of the special water samples for gamma emitters, tritium analysis, 19 and strontium-90 show that 18 samples were analyzed for strontium-90, and 5 of them showed 20 detectable amounts of strontium-90. All of the results were very low (with a range of 0.49-21 1.26 pCilL (0.018-0.046 Bq/L)) and within the range considered to be residual levels from 22 atmospheric weapons tests. Other than the above, only naturally occurring radionuclides were 23 detected in the special water samples. 24 The results of the gamma spectroscopy analyses of the monthly drinking water samples and 25 results of tritium analysis of quarterly composites showed that, other than naturally occurring 26 radionuclides, no radionuclides from plant operation were detected in drinking water samples. 27 The data indicate that operation of IP2 and IP3 had no detectable radiological effect on drinking 28 water. 29 The results of the analysis of bottom sediment samples for cesium-137 showed that it was 30 detected at 7 of 10 indicator station samples, and at 1 of 3 control station samples. Cesium-134 31 was not detected in any bottom sediment samples. The lack of cesium-134 suggests that the 32 primary source of the cesium-137 in bottom sediment is from historical plant releases at least 33 several years old and from residual weapons test fallout. 34 While not required by the ODCM, strontium-90 analysis was conducted at three indicator 35 locations and one control location in August 2006. Strontium-90 was not identified in any of the 36 samples. The detection of cesium-137 in bottom sediment has been generally decreasing over 37 the last 10 years, and cesium-134 has not been detected in bottom sediment since 2002. The 38 data for 2006 are consistent with but slightly lower than historical levels. 39 In summary, IP2- and IP3-related radionuclides were detected in 2006; however, residual 40 radioactivity from atmospheric weapons tests and naturally occurring radioactivity were the 41 predominant sources of radioactivity in the samples collected. The 2006 levels of radionuclides 42 in the environment surrounding IP2 and IP3 are well below the NRC's reporting levels as a 43 result of IP2 and IP3 operations. The radioactivity levels in the environment were within the 44 historical ranges (i.e., previous levels resulting from natural and manmade sources for the NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-106 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00144
Plant and the Environment 1 detected radionuclides). Further, IP2 and IP3 operations did not result in an adverse impact to 2 the public greater than environmental background levels. (Entergy 2007d) 3 2009 REMP Results 4 Because of the time period between the Staff's original review of the REMP data and the 5 issuance of the final SEIS, the Staff extended the scope of its review to include the most current 6 available data from the 2009 REMP report (all data from Entergy 2010b). 7 The following is a summary of the results of 2009 radiological environmental monitoring 8 program contained in the applicant's annual REMP report. 9 Direct Radiation 10 The 2009 and previous years' data show that there is no measurable direct radiation in the 11 environment due to the operation of the Indian Point site. 12 Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine 13 No airborne radioactivity attributable to the operation of Indian Point was detected in 2009. 14 Hudson River Water 15 No radionuclides other than those that are naturally occurring were detected in the Hudson 16 River Water samples. 17 Drinking Water 18 The data indicates that operation of the Indian Point units had no detectable radiological impact 19 on drinking water. 20 Hudson River Shoreline Soil 21 Cs-137 has been and continues to be present in this media, both at indicator and control 22 locations, at a consistent level over the past ten years. 23 Broad Leaf Vegetation 24 The detection of low levels of Cs-137 has occurred sporadically at both indicator and control 25 locations at relatively low concentrations for the past ten years and not at all in the last five 26 years; however, Cs-137 was not detected in 2009. 27 Fish and Invertebrates 28 The fish and invertebrate sample analysis results showed there were no plant related gamma 29 emitting radionuclides detected in 2009. However, the results for Sr-90 in fish and invertebrate 30 samples were reported as not reliable and under review. When the results are available and 31 certified, Entergy will submit them as an addendum to the REMP report. The NRC staff 32 reviewed the 2008 results for Sr-90 in fish and invertebrates, in place of the 2009 results. As in 33 2009, no plant related gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in the samples. Sr-90 was 34 found in two or six indicator samples (8.8 pCilkg average) in the vicinity of the plant. Sr-90 was 35 also found in two of six control samples (16.3 pCilkg average) located approximately 20 miles 36 upriver from the plant. The lower limit of detection (i.e., sensitivity of the analysis) was 37 approximately 5 pCilkg. The NRC's reporting level (i.e., the concentration value in an 38 environmental sample, if exceeded, which must be reported to the NRC) for Sr-90 in fish 39 samples is 40 pCilkg. December 2010 2-107 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00145
Plant and the Environment 1 Aquatic Vegetation 2 Positive results for Cs-137 (17.3 +/- 4.1 pCilkg) were reported for the sampling location at Lents 3 Cove. However, the amount was at a level below the lower limit of detection of the measuring 4 instrument. At his level even activity-free samples would, about 5% of the time, show a positive 5 result due to normal background statistical fluctuations. In the historical record, a 17 pCilkg 6 result was reported for a 2005 aquatic vegetation sample. There are about five samples per 7 year, varying from 3 to 10, going back to 2005. No 1-131 was detected. 8 Hudson River Bottom Sediment 9 Cs-137 was detected at six of six indicator station samples and at one of two control station 10 samples. This frequency of detection is not unusual. Cs-134 was not detected in any bottom 11 sediment samples. The lack of Cs-134 suggests that the primary source of the Cs-137 in bottom 12 sediment is from historical plant releases over the years and from residual weapons test fallout. 13 Notably, the discharge canal bottom sediments were 232 pCilkg and 1810 pCi.kg on samples 14 taken three months apart. There is nothing in effluent release data and in monitoring well data 15 that corresponds to this difference, yet the larger result is significantly different from other 16 indicator and control locations from 2009 and the historical record. The average in 2009 is 493 17 pCilkg. This is consistent with historical annual average concentration for indicator locations. 18 Samples taken in 2010 will be examined for their corroborative value. The detection of Cs-137 19 in bottom sediment generally decreased from an average of 1200 pCilkg in the early 1990s to 20 500 pCilkg in the mid-1990s to a recent value of 250 pCilkg over the last three years. Cs-134 21 has not been detected in bottom sediment since 2002. 22 Precipitation 23 Other than naturally occurring radionuclides, no radionuclides were detected in precipitation 24 samples. A review of historical data over the last 10 years indicates tritium had been detected in 25 both indicator and control precipitation samples in 1999; however, there have been no instances 26 of positive values since that time. 27 Soil 28 Other than naturally occurring radionuclides, no plant-related activity was detected in any of the 29 soil samples. 30 Groundwater 31 Tritium was detected at very low concentrations in seven of the 40 groundwater samples 32 analyzed. The amount detected ranged from 193 to 329 pCilL and averaged 244 pCilL - which 33 are well below the required LLD of 3000 pCilL. Other than tritium, there were no potentially 34 plant-related radionuclides detected in the groundwater samples. 35 Land Use Census 36 A census was performed in the vicinity of Indian Point in 2009. This census consisted of a milch 37 animal and a residence census. The results of the 2009 census were generally same as the 38 2007 census results. The New York Agricultural Statistic Service showed there were no animals 39 producing milk for human consumption found 4-8 within 5 miles (8 km) of the plant. Field 40 observations also yielded no milching animal locations within five miles. The 2009 land use 41 census indicated there were no new residences that were closer in proximity to IPEC. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-108 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00146
Plant and the Environment 1 Conclusion 2 The applicant concludes that the 2009 REMP results demonstrate the relative contributions of 3 different radionuclide sources, both natural and anthropogenic, to the environmental 4 concentrations. The results indicate that the fallout from previous atmospheric weapons testing 5 continues to contribute to detection of Cs-137 in some environmental samples. There are 6 infrequent detections of plant related radionuclides in the environs; however, the radiological 7 effects are very low and are significantly less than those from natural background and other 8 anthropogenic sources (Entergy 2010b). 9 The NRC staff reviewed the IP2 and IP3 annual radiological environmental operating reports for 10 2002 through 2006 and 2009 and looked for any significant impacts to the environment or any 11 unusual trends in the data. A multi-year period provides a representative data set that covers a 12 broad range of activities that occur at IP2 and IP3 such as, refueling outages, non-refueling 13 outage years, routine operation, and years where there may be significant maintenance 14 activities 15 Based on the NRC Staff's review of the applicant's historical and 2009 REMP data, no unusual 16 trends were observed, and the data showed that there was no significant radiological impact to 17 the environment from operations at the IP2 and IP3 site. Small amounts of radioactive material 18 (i.e., tritium, cesium-137, iodine-131, and strontium-90) were detected that are below NRC's 19 reporting values for radionuclides in environmental samples. Overall, the results were 20 comparable to historical REMP results. 21 New York State Department of Health Monitoring 22 The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) also performs sampling and analysis of 23 selected independent environmental media around IP2 and IP3. The NYSDOH environmental 24 radiation monitoring program collects various types of samples to measure the concentrations of 25 selected radionuclides in the environment. Samples of air, water, milk, sediment, vegetation, 26 animals, and fish are typically obtained. In addition, TLDs are used to measure environmental 27 gamma radiation levels in the immediate proximity of IP2 and IP3. The NRC staff reviewed the 28 published data for the years 1993 and 1994, the most current publicly available reports. The 29 data indicated that the radiation levels observed in the environment around IP2 and IP3 were 30 low, or consistent with background radiation, and some samples were below the detection 31 sensitivity for the analysis. No samples exceeded any of the New York State guidelines. 32 The following information was reported in the 1993 report (NYSDOH 1994): 33
- Radioactivity in air samples showed low levels of gross beta activity and levels of 34 iodine-131 were usually below detection levels.
35
- No milk sample was collected, as the remaining nearby dairy farm had closed.
36
- Radioactivity in water samples showed low levels of gross beta activity.
37
- Tritium levels were at typical background levels.
38
- The levels for other radioisotopes were low with most samples below minimum 39 detectable levels.
December 2010 2-109 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAG10001367A_00147
Plant and the Environment 1
- Direct environmental radiation shows that the TLD data are typical of the normal 2 background level in this area.
3 The following information was reported in the 1994 report (NYSDOH 1995): 4
- Radioactivity in air samples showed low levels of gross beta activity, and levels of 5 iodine-131 were below detection levels.
6
- No milk samples were collected in 1994, as the last dairy farm closed in 1992.
7
- Radioactivity in water samples showed low levels of gross beta activity.
8
- Tritium levels were at typical background levels.
9
- The levels for other radioisotopes were low with most samples below minimum 10 detectable levels.
11
- Radioactivity in fish samples showed that naturally occurring potassium-40 is 12 responsible for most of the activity. All other isotopes are below detectable levels.
13
- Direct environmental radiation values for the TLD data are typical of the normal 14 background level in this area.
15 Groundwater Contamination and Monitoring 16 In August of 2005, Entergy discovered tritium contamination in groundwater outside the IP2 17 spent fuel pool (SFP). As a result, Entergy began an on-site and off-site groundwater 18 monitoring program (in September of 2005) in addition to the routine REMP. Entergy used this 19 monitoring program to characterize the on-site contamination, to quantify and determine its on-20 site and off-site radiological impact to the workers, public and surrounding environment, and to 21 aid in identification and repair of any leaking systems, structures or components (Entergy 22 2006d). 23 In Section 5.1 of its ER, Entergy identified the release of radionuclides to groundwater as a 24 potentially new issue based on NRC staff analysis in a previous license renewal proceeding. In 25 its discussion of the issue, Entergy concluded that the radionuclide release does not affect the 26 onsite workforce, and that Entergy anticipated the leakage would not affect other environmental 27 resources, such as water use, land use, terrestrial or aquatic ecology, air quality, or 28 socioeconomics. In addition, Entergy asserted that no NRC dose limits have been exceeded, 29 and EPA drinking water limits are not applicable since no drinking water exposure pathway 30 exists (Entergy 2007a). 31 Entergy has taken measures to control releases from the IP1 and IP2 SFPs using waste 32 management equipment and processes. Additional monitoring actions have also been 33 developed as part of the site's groundwater monitoring program, which supplements the existing 34 REMP to monitor potential impacts of site operations throughout the license renewal term and to 35 monitor potential impacts of site operations and waste and effluent management programs 36 (Entergy 2007a). 37 In addition to Entergy's assertions in the IP2 and IP3 ER, Entergy provided the NRC additional 38 information, by report dated January 11, 2008, that included the conclusions of a 2-year 39 investigation of onsite leaks to groundwater that it had initiated following the 2005 discovery of NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-110 December 2010 OAG10001367A_00148
Plant and the Environment 1 SFP leakage. Entergy stated that it had characterized and modeled the affected groundwater 2 regime, and that it had identified sources of leakage and determined the radiological impacts 3 resulting from this leakage. In the same letter, Entergy reported that it had begun a long-term 4 groundwater monitoring program and initiated a remediation program to address the site 5 groundwater conditions. Entergy also stated that it had performed radiological dose impact 6 assessments and that it will continue to perform them, and report results to the NRC in each 7 annual Radiological Effluent Release Report. Radiological Effluent Release Reports are 8 publically available through the NRC. Entergy's investigation indicates that the only noteworthy 9 dose pathway resulting from contaminated groundwater migration to the Hudson River is 10 through the consumption of fish and invertebrates from the river. According to Entergy, the 11 resultant calculated dose to a member if the public is below 1/100 of the federal limits (Entergy 12 2008c). 13 As part of the NRC's ongoing regulatory oversight program, the NRC staff performed an 14 extensive inspection of Entergy's actions to respond to the abnormal leakage as well Entergy's 15 groundwater monitoring program. This inspection focused on assessing Entergy's groundwater 16 investigation to evaluate the extent of contamination, as well as the effectiveness of actions 17 taken or planned to effect mitigation and remediation of the condition. The NRC staff adopts the 18 findings and content of the inspection report, released by letter dated May 13, 2008, in this SEIS 19 (NRC 2008). The inspection findings include the following key points (NRC 2008): 20 (12) Currently, there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the 21 contaminated groundwater conditions at the IP2 and IP3 site. Potable water sources in 22 the area of concern are not presently derived from groundwater sources or the Hudson 23 River, a fact confirmed by the New York State Department of Health. The principal 24 exposure pathway to humans is from the assumed consumption of aquatic foods (i.e., 25 fish or invertebrates) taken from the Hudson River in the vicinity of Indian Point that has 26 the potential to be affected by radiological effluent releases. However, no radioactivity 27 distinguishable from background was detected during the most recent sampling and 28 analysis of fish and crabs taken from the affected portion of the Hudson River and 29 designated control locations. 30 (13) The annual calculated exposure to the maximum exposed hypothetical individual, based 31 on application of Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 32 Routine Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluation Compliance with 10 33 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," relative to the liquid effluent aquatic food exposure pathway is 34 currently, and expected to remain, less than 0.1 % of the NRC's "As Low As is 35 Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)" guidelines of Appendix I of Part 50 (3 mrem/yr (0.03 36 mSv/yr) total body and 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) maximum organ), which is considered to 37 be negligible with respect to public health and safety, and the environment. 38 Finally, by letter dated May 15, 2008, Entergy reaffirmed its January 11th letter and provided the 39 NRC a list of commitments for further actions to address groundwater contamination (Entergy 40 2008d). Entergy indicated that it would remove spent fuel from the IP1 SFP, process remaining 41 water and "bottoms" from the IP1 SFP, and incorporate aspects of the long-term groundwater 42 monitoring program in the site's ODCM and associated procedures. To date, NRC staff has 43 observed that Entergy has removed all spent fuel from the IP1 SFP and drained the pool, as 44 well as incorporated aspects of the monitoring program into the ODCM and associated 45 procedures. As of October, 2009, Entergy had drained and cleaned the IP1 SFP (NRC 2009). December 2010 2-111 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001367A_00149
Plant and the Environment 1 Also, NRC findings since the 2008 inspection reports have been consistent with the 2008 2 inspection report. 3 New York State Groundwater Investigations 4 New York State performed its own groundwater investigation of the tritium leakage at Indian 5 Point and reported its findings in a Community Fact Sheet (NYSDEC 2007d) as follows: 6 The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the 7 New York State Department of Health (DOH) have been participating in the 8 ongoing groundwater investigation of radionuclide contamination in groundwater 9 under the plant, and the release of that water to the Hudson River. The purpose 10 of our involvement is to protect the interests of the citizens and the environment 11 of the State of New York by helping to ensure that Entergy performs a timely, 12 comprehensive characterization of site groundwater contamination, takes 13 appropriate actions to identify and stop the sources of the leak, and undertakes 14 any necessary remedial actions. 15 The key findings reported by New York State are listed below: 16
- There are no residential or municipal drinking water wells or surface reservoirs near the 17 plant.
18
- There are no known impacts to any drinking water source.
19
- No contaminated groundwater is moving toward surrounding properties.
20
- Contaminated groundwater is moving into the Hudson River.
21
- Public exposure can occur from the groundwater entering the Hudson River through 22 consumption of fish.
23
- NYSDOH has confirmed Entergy's calculated dose to humans from fish.
24
- Strontium-90 levels in fish near the site (18.8 pCilkg (0.69 8q/kg)) are no higher than in 25 those fish collected from background locations across the State.
26
- Recent strontium-90 data in fish are limited. (The State plans to conduct additional 27 sampling.)
28 Dose Impacts to the Public 29 The results of the IP2 and IP3 radiological releases into the environment are summarized in the 30 IP2 and IP3 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports. Limits for all radiological releases 31 are specified in the IP2 and IP3 ODCMs and used to meet Federal radiation protection 32 standards. In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff performed a review of historical radiological release 33 data during the period 2002 through 2006 and the resultant dose calculations revealed that the 34 calculated doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 were a small 35 fraction of the limits specified in the IP2 and IP3 ODCM to meet the dose design objectives in 36 Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, as well as the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and EPA's 37 40 CFR Part 190, as indicated in the following summary list. The NRC staff has reviewed data 38 from 2009 and confirmed that calculated doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-112 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00150
Plant and the Environment 1 of IP2 and IP3 remained a small fraction of these same limits. The current results are described 2 in "Indian Point Units 1,2, and 3-2009 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report" (Entergy 3 2010a). A breakdown of the calculated maximum dose to an individual located at the IP2 and 4 IP3 site boundary from liquid and gaseous effluents and direct radiation shine from IP1 and the 5 two operating reactor units during 2009 is summarized below: 6
- The calculated maximum whole-body dose to an offsite member of the general public 7 from liquid effluents was 9.00x10-4 mrem (9.00x10-6 mSv) for IP1 and IP2 and 8 2.49x10-4 mrem (2.49x10-6 mSv) for IP3, well below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose design 9 objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
10
- The calculated maximum organ dose to an off-site member of the general public from 11 liquid effluents was 1.71x10-3 mrem (1.71x10-5 mSv) for IP1 and IP2 (child bone) and 12 4.59x10-4 mrem (4.59x10-6 mSv) for IP3 (adult GI tract), well below the 10 mrem 13 (0.10 mSv) dose design objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
14
- The calculated maximum gamma air dose at the site boundary from noble gas 15 discharges was 1.14x10-4 millirad (mrad) (1.14x10-6 milligray (mGy)) for IP1 and IP2 and 16 6.82x10-5 mrad (6.82x10- 7 mGy) for IP3, well below the 10 mrad (0.10 mGy) dose design 17 objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
18
- The calculated maximum beta air dose at the site boundary from noble gas discharges 19 was 1.77x10-4 mrad (1.77x10-6 mGy) for IP1 and IP2 and 1.77x10-4 mrad (1.77x10-6 mGy) 20 for IP3, well below the 20 mrad (0.20 mGy) dose design objective in Appendix I to 21 10 CFR Part 50.
22
- The calculated maximum organ dose to an offsite member of the general public from 23 gaseous iodine, tritium, and particulate effluents was 2.1 Ox1 0-3 mrem (2.1 Ox1 0-5 mSv) to 24 the child liver for IP1 and IP2 and 3.18x1 0-3 mrem (3.18x1 0-5 mSv) to the child liver for 25 IP3, well below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) dose design objective in Appendix I to 26 10 CFR Part 50.
27
- The calculated maximum total whole-body dose to an offsite member of the general 28 public from the site's combined groundwater and storm drain pathways is 29 2.56x10-4 mrem (2.56x10-6 mSv).
30
- The calculated maximum organ (adult bone) dose to an offsite member of the general 31 public from the site's combined groundwater and storm drain pathways is 32 1.03x10-3 mrem (1.03x10-5 mSv).
33
- The calculated maximum total body dose to an offsite member of the public from all 34 radioactive emissions (radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents, direct radiation shine, 35 and new liquid effluent release pathway) from the IP2 and IP3 site was 5.11 mrem 36 (5.11 x10- 2 mSv), well below EPA's 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) limit in 40 CFR Part 190.
37 The NRC staff reviewed the 2006 and 2009 Radioactive Effluent Release Report and found that 38 the 2006 and 2009 radiological data are consistent, with reasonable variation as the result of 39 operating conditions and outages, with the 5-year historical radiological effluent releases and December 2010 2-113 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAGI0001367A_00151
Plant and the Environment 1 resultant doses. These results, including those from the new issue concerning a new liquid 2 effluent release pathway, confirm that IP2 and IP3 is operating in compliance with Federal 3 radiation protection standards contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 20, and 4 40 CFR Part 190. As noted in Section 2.1.4 of this SEIS, the applicant does not anticipate any 5 significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or exposure pathways from IP2 and IP3 6 operations during the license renewal term, and, therefore, the NRC staff expects that impacts 7 to the environment are not likely to change. 8 Entergy has indicated that it may replace IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel heads and control rod drive 9 mechanisms during the period of extended operation. Such an action is not expected to change 10 the applicant's ability to maintain radiological doses to members of the public well within 11 regulatory limits. This is based on the absence of any projected significant increases in the 12 amount of radioactive liquid, gaseous, or solid waste as a result of the replacements, as 13 discussed in Section 2.1.4 of this SEIS. Thus, the staff concludes that similar small doses to 14 members of the public and small impacts to the environment are expected during the period of 15 extended operations. 16 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 17 This section describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or 18 indirectly affected by changes in IP2 and IP3 operations. IP2 and IP3 and the communities that 19 support them can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide 20 the people, goods, and services required by IP2 and IP3 operations. IP2 and IP3 operations, in 21 turn, create the demand and pay for the people, goods, and services in the form of wages, 22 salaries, and benefits for jobs and dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of 23 the communities' ability to support the demands of IP2 and IP3 depends on their ability to 24 respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions. 25 The socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined by the areas where IP2 and IP3 26 employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby 27 affecting the economic conditions of the region. The IP2 and IP3 ROI consists of a four-county 28 area (Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties) where approximately 84 percent 29 of IP2 and IP3 employees reside. The following sections describe the housing, public services, 30 offsite land use, visual aesthetics and noise, population demography, and the economy in the 31 ROI surrounding IP2 and IP3. 32 Entergy employs a permanent workforce of approximately 1255 employees (Entergy 2007a). 33 Approximately 90 percent live in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, and Westchester 34 Counties, New York, and Bergen County, New Jersey (Table 2-7). The remaining 10 percent of 35 the workforce is divided among 36 counties in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New 36 York, and elsewhere with numbers ranging from 1 to 15 employees per county. Given the 37 residential locations of IP2 and IP3 employees, the most significant impacts of plant operations 38 are likely to occur in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties. The focus of the 39 socioeconomic impact analysis in this SEIS is therefore on the impacts of IP2 and IP3 on these 40 four counties. 41 Refueling outages at IP2 and IP3 occur at 24-month intervals for each unit, which results in an 42 outage each year for one or the other units. During refueling outages, site employment I NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-114 December 2010 OAGI0001367A_00152
Plant and the Environment 1 increases by 950 workers for approximately 30 days (Entergy 2007a). During outages, most of 2 these workers are likely to reside in the four-county ROI. 3 Table 2-7. IP2 and IP3 Employee Residence by County in 2006 Number of IP Energy Percentage County Center Personnel of Total Bergen, NJ 17 1.4 Dutchess, NY 528 42.1 Orange, NY 243 19.4 Putnam, NY 78 6.2 Rockland, NY 28 2.2 Ulster, NY 31 2.5 Westchester, NY 206 16.4 Other 124 9.9 Total 1255 100.1 Source: Entergy 2007a 4 2.2.8.1 Housing 5 Table 2-8 lists the total number of occupied housing units, vacancy rates, and median value in 6 the ROI in 2006. According to the 2000 Census, there were over 613,000 housing units in the 7 ROI, of which approximately 584,000 were occupied. The median value of owner-occupied 8 units ranged from $141,500 in Orange County to $285,800 in Westchester County. The 9 vacancy rate was the lowest in Westchester County (3.5 percent) and highest in Putnam County 10 (6.6 percent). 11 In 2006, the estimated total number of housing units in Westchester County grew by more than 12 6,000 units to 355,581, and the total number of occupied units declined by 4000 units to 13 333,114. As a result, the number of available vacant housing units increased by more than 14 10,200 units to 22,467, or 6.3 percent of the available units. In addition, the estimated number 15 of available housing units also increased in Dutchess, Orange, and Putnam Counties (USCB 16 2008a). December 2010 2-115 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 I OAGI0001367A_00153}}