ML12178A472
| ML12178A472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/2012 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML12178A472 (55) | |
Text
IPRenewal NPEmails From: Wentzel, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:46 PM To: Gray, Dara F
Subject:
Indian Point Draft Supplement Attachments: NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 4 DFC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, DFC(ML12174A244).pdf
- Dara, I just wanted to let you know, the draft supplement will be issued shortly. Ive attached a copy for your use. If you have any questions, please let me know.
- Thanks, Mike Michael Wentzel Project Manager NRR/DLR/RPB2 (301) 415-6459 michael.wentzel@nrc.gov 1
Hearing Identifier: IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number: 3523 Mail Envelope Properties (C0A338EE37A11447B136119705BF9A3F0136FFA351CC)
Subject:
Indian Point Draft Supplement Sent Date: 6/26/2012 1:45:45 PM Received Date: 6/26/2012 1:45:48 PM From: Wentzel, Michael Created By: Michael.Wentzel@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Gray, Dara F" <DGray@entergy.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 350 6/26/2012 1:45:48 PM NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 4 DFC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, DFC(ML12174A244).pdf 705970 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
NUREG-1437 Supplement 38, Vol.4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Draft Report for Comment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
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://www.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 atC 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 20852B2738
- 1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP These standards are available in the library for Washington, DC 20402B0001 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, fromC
- 2. The National Technical Information Service American National Standards Institute nd Springfield, VA 22161B0002 11 West 42 Street www.ntis.gov New York, NY 10036B8002 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000 www.ansi.org 212B642B4900 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 Publications Branch NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in Washington, DC 20555-0001 contractor-prepared publications in this series are not E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES@NRC.GOV necessarily those of the NRC.
Facsimile: 301B415B2289 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 (NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs (NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences are updated periodically and may differ from the last (NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from printed version. Although references to material found international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) on a Web site bear the date the material was brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), 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 (NUREGB0750).
NUREG-1437 Supplement 38, Vol. 4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Draft Report for Comment Manuscript Completed: June 2012 Date Published: June 2012 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
1 Proposed Action Issuance of renewed operating licenses DPR-26 and DPR-64 for Indian 2 Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, in Buchanan, NY 3
4 Type of Statement Supplement to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 5
6 Agency Contact Michael Wentzel 7 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8 Mail Stop O-11F1 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Washington, DC 20555-0001 11 Telephone: 301-415-6459 12 E-mail: michael.wentzel@nrc.gov 13 14 Comments Any interested party may submit comments on this supplement to the 15 final supplemental environmental impact statement. Please specify 16 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Volume 4, draft supplement to final, in 17 your comments. Comments must be received by August 20, 2012.
18 Comments received after the expiration of the comment period will be 19 considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC cannot assure that 20 consideration of late comments will be given. Comments may be 21 submitted electronically by searching for docket ID NRC-2008-0672 at the 22 Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments 23 may also be mailed to the following address:
24 25 Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch 26 Division of Administrative Services 27 Office of Administration 28 Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M 29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 30 Washington, DC 20555-0001 31 32 Please be aware that any comments that you submit to the U.S. Nuclear 33 Regulatory Commission will be considered a public record and entered 34 into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. Do 35 not provide information you would not want to be publicly available.
1 ABSTRACT 2 This supplement to the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for the 3 proposed license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 incorporates 4 new information that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has obtained since 5 the publication of the FSEIS in December 2010.
6 This supplement includes corrections to impingement and entrainment data presented in the 7 FSEIS, revised conclusions regarding thermal impacts based on newly available thermal plume 8 studies, and an update of the status of the NRCs consultation under section 7 of the 9 Endangered Species Act with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the shortnose 10 sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus).
iii
CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. iii CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. v FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... vii TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
............................................................................................................. ix ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS .................................................................... xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT DATA CORRECTIONS ............................................ 3 2.1 Corrections to Section 4.1.2, Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Lifestages, and Its Related Appendices ............................................................................ 3 2.2 Corrections to Section 4.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Its Related Appendices ......................................................................... 7 3.0 ASSESSMENT OF THERMAL IMPACTS ........................................................................... 17 4.0 SECTION 7 CONSULTATION ............................................................................................. 23 4.1 Corrections to Section 4.6.1, Aquatic Special Status Species ....................................... 23 4.2 History of Section 7 Consultation for Shortnose Sturgeon ............................................... 24 4.3 Summary of the National Marine Fisheries Services Biological Opinion for Shortnose Sturgeon .......................................................................................................... 25 4.4 Reinitiation of Consultation Due to NMFSs Listing of Atlantic Sturgeon ......................... 26
5.0 REFERENCES
..................................................................................................................... 27 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................... 33 v
1 FIGURES 2 Figure 4-3. Percentage of entrainment composed of RIS fish and total identified 3 fish relative to the estimated total entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined 4 (data from Entergy 2007b) .................................................................................... 4 5 Figure H-5. Percentage of entrainment composed of RIS fish and total identified 6 fish relative to the estimated total entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined 7 (data from Entergy 2007b) .................................................................................... 5 8 TABLES 9 Table I-39. Percentage of Each Life Stage Entrained by Season and the 10 Contribution of Major Taxa Represented in the Samples. ..................................... 6 11 Table I-42 Annual Estimated Number of RIS Entrained at IP2 and IP3 (millions 12 thousands of fish) .................................................................................................. 7 13 Table 4-4. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY 14 RIS .......................................................................................................................... 9 15 Table H-16. Weight of Evidence for the Strength-of-Connection Line of Evidence 16 for YOY RIS Based on the Monte Carlo Simulation ........................................... 10 17 Table H-17. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River 18 YOY RIS ............................................................................................................ 11 19 Table I-40. Method for Estimating Taxon-Specific Entrainment Mortality Rate 20 (EMR) Based on River Segment 4 Standing Crop for the Strength of 21 Connection Analysis ............................................................................................ 12 22 Table I-41 Estimated Annual Standing Crop of Eggs, Larvae, and Juvenile RIS 23 Within River Segment 4 (millions thousands of fish)............................................. 12 24 Table I-43. Estimate of the River Segment 4 Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR) 25 and the 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Riverwide Entrainment 26 CMR (1974-1997) ................................................................................................ 13 27 Table I-46. Parameter Values Used in the Monte Carlo Simulation ...................................... 14 28 Table I-47. Quartiles of the Relative Difference in Cumulative Abundance and 29 Conclusions for the Strength-of-Connection from the Monte Carlo 30 Simulation ............................................................................................................ 15 31 Table 6-1. List of Preparers ................................................................................................... 33 vii
1 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2 BACKGROUND 3 By letter dated April 23, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an 4 application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue renewed operating 5 licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) for additional 6 20-year periods.
7 Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.20(b)(2) and the National 8 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the renewal of a power reactor 9 operating license requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a 10 supplement to an existing EIS. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the NRC shall prepare 11 an EIS, which is a supplement to the Commissions NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental 12 Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, issued May 1996.
13 The NRC published its final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for IP2 and 14 IP3 in December 2010. After the NRC published the FSEIS, the staff identified new information 15 that necessitated changes to its assessments in the FSEIS. This new information is derived 16 from the following:
17 y Entergy provided comments on the FSEIS that included new information on 18 the entrainment and impingement field data units of measure, 19 y Entergy provided comments on the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment that 20 also included new information on the data units of measure, and 21 y Entergy completed and submitted to the New York State Department of 22 Environmental Conservation a new study that characterizes the IP2 and IP3 23 thermal plume.
24 To address this new information, the NRC staff has prepared this supplement to the FSEIS in 25 accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(a)(2) and (c), which address preparation of a supplement to a 26 final environmental impact statement for proposed actions that have not been taken, under the 27 following conditions:
28 y There are new and significant circumstances or information relevant to 29 environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, or 30 y The NRC staff determines, in its opinion, that preparation of a supplement will 31 further the purposes of NEPA.
32 In addition to supplementing the FSEIS for the reasons stated above, the NRC is also taking 33 this opportunity to document the completion of the consultation process under section 7 of the 34 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), with the National Marine Fisheries 35 Service (NMFS) regarding the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the subsequent 36 reinitiation of consultion due to NMFSs listing of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 37 oxyrinchus) population in the New York Bight as endangered.
38 PROPOSED ACTION 39 The proposed action remains the same as that stated in the FSEIS (at pages 1-6-1-7):
40 The proposed Federal action is renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and 41 IP3 (IP1 was shut down in 1974). IP2 and IP3 are located on approximately ix
Executive Summary 1 239 acres of land on the east bank of the Hudson River at Indian Point, 2 Village of Buchanan, in upper Westchester County, New York, approximately 3 24 miles north of the New York City boundary line. The facility has two 4 Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors. IP2 is currently licensed to 5 generate 3216 megawatts thermal (MW(t)) (core power) with a design net 6 electrical capacity of 1078 megawatts electric (MW(e)). IP3 is currently 7 licensed to generate 3216 MW(t) (core power) with a design net electrical 8 capacity of about 1080 MW(e). IP2 and IP3 cooling is provided by water from 9 the Hudson River to various heat loads in both the primary and secondary 10 portions of the plants. The current operating license for IP2 expires on 11 September 28, 2013, and the current operating license for IP3 expires on 12 December 12, 2015. By letter dated April 23, 2007, Entergy submitted an 13 application to the NRC (Entergy 2007a) to renew the IP2 and IP3 operating 14 licenses for an additional 20 years.
15 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 16 The purpose and need for action remains the same as stated in the FSEIS (at page 1-7):
17 Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor 18 beyond the term of the existing operating license, the possession of that 19 license is just one of a number of conditions that must be met for the licensee 20 to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once an 21 operating license is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of 22 the plant will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate 23 based on factors such as the need for power or matters within the States 24 jurisdictionincluding acceptability of water withdrawal, consistency with 25 State water quality standards, and consistency with State coastal zone 26 management plansor the purview of the owners, such as whether 27 continued operation makes economic sense.
28 Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following 29 definition of purpose and need (GEIS Section 1.3):
30 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an 31 operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power 32 generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power 33 plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, 34 as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where 35 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers.
36 This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commissions recognition 37 that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic 38 Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or findings in the NEPA environmental 39 analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the 40 NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State 41 regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant 42 should continue to operate. From the perspective of the licensee and the 43 State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing the operating licenses is 44 to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy 45 requirements beyond the current term of the plants licenses.
x
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS
°C degree(s) Celsius
°F degree(s) Fahrenheit ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System BSS Beach Seine Survey CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHGEC Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation CMR conditional mortality rate DPS distinct population segment EIS environmental impact statement EMR entrainment mortality rate Entergy Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended FSEIS final supplemental environmental impact statement FSS Fall Shoals Survey ft feet GEIS NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants IMR impingement mortality rate IP2 and IP3 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 LOE line of evidence LRS Long River Survey m meter(s)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYCRR New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation RIS representative important species SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement SOC strength of connection SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WOE weight of evidence YOY young of year xi
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff prepared this supplement to the final 3 supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for Indian Point Nuclear Generating 4 Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 5 (10 CFR) 51.92(a)(2) and (c), which address the preparation of a supplement to an FSEIS for 6 proposed actions that have not been taken, if the following conditions apply:
7 y There are new and significant circumstances or information relevant to 8 environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, or 9 y The NRC staff determines, in its opinion, that preparation of a supplement will 10 further the purposes of NEPA.
11 The NRC staff prepared this supplement to the FSEIS because it received new data, analyses, 12 and comments from several sources that potentially changed, and in some cases did change, 13 the staffs conclusions in the FSEIS. This supplement contains the text, tables, and figures that 14 changed as the result of this new information.
15 Three sources provided information that changed the staffs conclusions in the FSEIS.
16 First, in comments to the NRC dated March 29, 2011, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
17 (Entergy) (Entergy 2011b, AKRF 2011b) provided new information regarding the entrainment 18 and impingement field data that it had previously provided to the NRC for its aquatic resource 19 impact assessment in Entergy (2007), a December 2007 supplement to its license renewal 20 application. In its letter dated March 29, 2011, Entergy (2011b) said that these changes would:
21 not alter, but rather confirm, NRCs ultimate conclusion in the FSEIS that 22 potential impacts to aquatic species as a result of theoretical entrainment and 23 impingement at IPEC are no more than MODERATE.
24 Second, comments submitted on behalf of Entergy (Goodwin Proctor 2011, AKRF 2011a) on 25 the FSEIS and the NRC staffs Essential Fish Habitat Assessment contained related new 26 information. When the NRC staff considered this information, the staff found that the 27 information necessitated some minor changes to the aquatic ecology findings in Sections 4.1.2 28 through 4.1.3 of the FSEIS and Appendices H and I. Chapter 2 of this supplement provides 29 corrected tables and conclusions resulting from the NRC staffs analysis of the new information.
30 Where specific changes or corrections to FSEIS information occur, this supplement references 31 the affected FSEIS section, page, and line numbers.
32 Third, since the publication of the FSEIS, Entergy submitted to the New York State Department 33 of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) a triaxial plume study (Swanson et al. 2011a) as part 34 of its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit renewal application.
35 Entergy undertook this study in response to the NYSDECs 2010 Notice of Denial 36 (NYSDEC 2010). Based on this new information, as well as Entergys response to the 37 NYSDEC staffs comments on the study (Mendelsohn et al. 2011, Swanson et al. 2011b) and 38 the NYSDEC staffs conclusions regarding its review of the study and response to comments 39 (NYSDEC 2011), the NRC staff has revised its conclusions regarding the impacts of heat shock 40 to aquatic species. Chapter 3 of this supplement presents these revised conclusions.
41 In addition to supplementing the FSEIS for the reasons stated above, the staff is also taking this 42 opportunity to update the status of consultations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 43 of 1973, as amended (ESA) with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Chapter 4 of 44 this supplement updates the information contained in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS to document 1
Introduction 1 the completion of consultation regarding the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and 2 summarizes the biological opinion and associated incidental take statement (NMFS 2011e) that 3 NMFS issued in October 2011 as a result of that consultation. Additionally, Chapter 4 of this 4 supplement provides a summary of the reinitiation of consultation regarding the Atlantic 5 sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) that resulted from NMFSs February 2012 listing of 6 Atlantic sturgeon as an endangered species under the ESA.
7 Where appropriate, bold text indicates specific text corrections or additions to the FSEIS and 8 bold strikeout indicates deletions from the text.
2
1 2.0 IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT DATA CORRECTIONS 2 2.1 Corrections to Section 4.1.2, Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early 3 Lifestages, and Its Related Appendices 4 In a letter to the NRC dated March 29, 2011 (Entergy 2011b; AKRF 2011b), Entergy provided 5 new information supplementing the entrainment and impingement field data that it had 6 previously provided to the NRC for its aquatic resource impact assessment. This new 7 information appears in Technical Review of FSEIS for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 8 Nos. 2 and 3 (AKRF 2011b). In its technical review, AKRF (2011b) stated that the units of the 9 entrainment catch densities provided by Entergy are expressed as the number caught per 10 1,000 cubic meters (m3). Because Entergy did not originally provide the units used in the FSEIS 11 to assess impacts, the NRC staff believed the units to be the number caught/m3 based on 12 historical documents provided by Entergy, comments by Entergy and its consultants on the draft 13 SEIS, and phone conversations among Entergy, Entergys consultants, and NRC staff. Thus, 14 the entrainment losses the FSEIS reported for each of the representative important species 15 (RIS) used in the NRC staffs analysis are too large by a factor of 1,000.
16 In the FSEIS, the NRC staff estimated the number entrained for a given week as the product of 17 the mean density entrained and the combined weekly flow for IP2 and IP3. The error in the 18 entrainment catch density directly affects Figure 4-3 in Section 4.1.2, and the error is repeated 19 in Figure H-5 in Appendix H. In these figures, the total number entrained on the right axis 20 should be in units of numbers x 108 instead of numbers x 1011. The corrected 21 Figures 4-3 and H-5 appear below. In addition, these changes affect two portions of text in the 22 FSEIS.
23 Lines 2 and 3 of page 4-14 in the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
24 The total number of identified fish entrained has decreased at a rate of 187 25 billion million fish per year since 1984.
26 Lines 1-3 of page H-22 in the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
27 Linear regression (n=6; p<0.01) indicated that the number of identified fish 28 entrained decreased at a rate of 187 billion million fish per year, a result 29 consistent with the decrease observed in the number of fish impinged.
30 The change in units of the entrainment catch densities also affects the 75th percentile of the 31 number of each life stage entrained and the annual estimate of the number entrained presented 32 in Tables I-39 and I-42 of Appendix I. In Table I-39, the units should be numbers x 103 instead 33 of numbers x 106. In Table I-42, the units should be numbers in the thousands instead of 34 numbers in the millions. The corrected tables appear below.
3
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections 1 Figure 4-3 on page 4-15 in the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
100% 35 90%
30 80%
Percentage Entrained out of Total 70% 25 Total Entrained (x 10(x 10 10 8))
8 11 60%
Total Entrained 20 50%
15 40%
30% 10 20%
5 10%
0% 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
% RIS Fish % Total Identified Fish Total Number Entrained 2
3 Figure 4-3. Percentage of entrainment composed of RIS fish and total identified fish 4 relative to the estimated total entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined 5 (data from Entergy 2007b) 6 4
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections 1 Figure H-5 on page H-23 in the FSEIS is identical to Figure 4-3 in the FSEIS and is corrected 2 as follows:
100% 35 90%
30 80%
Percentage Entrained out of Total 70% 25 Total Entrained (x 10(x 10 10 8))
8 11 60%
Total Entrained 20 50%
15 40%
30% 10 20%
5 10%
0% 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
% RIS Fish % Total Identified Fish Total Number Entrained 3
4 Figure H-5. Percentage of entrainment composed of RIS fish and total identified fish 5 relative to the estimated total entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined 6 (data from Entergy 2007b) 7 8
5
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections 1 Table I-39 on page I-54 in the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
2 Table I-39. Percentage of Each Life Stage Entrained by Season and the Contribution of 3 Major Taxa Represented in the Samples.
4 Calculations are based on the 75th percentile over years (1981 and 1983-1987) of each 5 seasons number of fish entrained. No entrainment sampling occurred in October-December.
Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 75th Percentile over Life Stage Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Years EGG 3% 20% 78% 210,801x 106 103 Rainbow Smelt 99% 2% 0%
Bay Anchovy 0% 92% 100%
White Perch 0% 4% <1%
Alosa species 1% 2% 0%
YOLK-SAC LARVA 8% 89% 3% 23,140x106 103 Atlantic Tomcod 100% 0% 0%
Herring Family 0% 91% <1%
Bay Anchovy 0% 2% 94%
Striped Bass 0% 5% 1%
Hogchoker 0% 0% 3%
POST YOLK-SAC LARVA <1% 52% 48% 618,393x106 103 Atlantic Tomcod 100% <1% 0%
Alosa species 0% 37% <1%
Bay Anchovy 0% 11% 58%
Anchovy Family 0% 2% 39%
White Perch 0% 12% 1%
Striped Bass 0% 17% 1%
Herring Family 0% 20% <1%
JUVENILE 2% 44% 54% 10,989x106 103 White Perch 96% 10% 10%
Atlantic Tomcod 0% 67% 2%
Weakfish 0% 1% 50%
Bay Anchovy 0% 1% 17%
Rainbow Smelt 0% 9% 3%
Striped Bass 0% 6% 5%
Anchovy Family 0% 1% 4%
Alosa species 0% 2% 2%
White Catfish 4% <1% 0%
Blueback Herring 0% <1% 3%
UNDETERMINED STAGE 10% 77% 13% 4,469x106 103 Atlantic Tomcod 100% <1% 0%
Morone species 0% 88% 2%
Bay Anchovy 0% 9% 83%
Anchovy Family 0% 0% 10%
Alosa species 0% 0% 4%
6
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections 1 The title of Table I-42 on page I-58 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
2 Table I-42 Annual Estimated Number of RIS Entrained at IP2 and IP3 3 (millions thousands of fish) 4 The contents of the table remain accurate and, therefore, are not duplicated in this supplement.
5 2.2 Corrections to Section 4.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and 6 Entrainment, and Its Related Appendices 7 In a letter to the NRC dated March 29, 2011, Entergy (2011b) provided new information (in 8 AKRF 2011b) regarding the units associated with the catch density data from the Long River 9 Survey (LRS) and the Fall Shoals Survey (FSS) that Entergy (2007) had previously submitted to 10 the NRC for its aquatic resource impact assessment. In AKRFs (2011b) technical review, the 11 units of the catch densities are expressed as the number caught/1,000 m3. Entergy did not 12 provide the units for these densities when it originally submitted the data to the NRC. The NRC 13 staff based the units it used in the FSEIS to assess impacts (i.e., number caught/m3) on 14 information in the mathematical construction of these measures provided in Central Hudson 15 Gas and Electric Corporation (CHGEC) et al. (1999). Thus, the NRC staff overestimated the 16 annual standing crop from the LRS and FSS in the FSEIS for each of the representative 17 important species (RIS) by a factor of 1,000. The NRC staff then used the estimates of the 18 annual standing crop and the estimated entrainment losses to estimate a conditional 19 entrainment mortality rate (EMR), a parameter in the models used in the strength-of-connection 20 (SOC) analysis.
21 The NRC staff described the calculation of the standing crop from the LRS and FSS in 22 Appendix I,Section I.2.2, of the FSEIS. The NRC staff estimated the LRS and FSS weekly 23 standing crop as the weekly density of fish caught multiplied by the IP2 and IP3 region river 24 volume. The error in the density units for the LRS and FSS produced incorrect estimates of the 25 combined standing crop used in the denominator of the estimated EMR in the FSEIS. The NRC 26 staff also used entrainment losses as input to the numerator and the denominator of the EMR 27 estimates. Because both the numerator and the denominator of the estimated EMR were too 28 large by a factor of 1,000, only those estimates for two RIS (spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) 29 and white catfish (Ameiurus catus)), in which the Beach Seine Survey (BSS) contributed more 30 of the standing crop, were seriously affected. For the remaining RIS, to which the BSS 31 contributed little, the errors in units largely cancelled because of the construction of the EMR as 32 a ratio of the number entrained (which was 1,000 times too large) to the number at risk (number 33 in the river plus the number entrained, both of which were 1,000 times too large). The amount 34 and direction of change in the EMR depends on the relative contributions from the three 35 sampling programsBSS, FSS, and LRS.
36 The NRC staff used the EMR in its assessment of the SOC and, ultimately, to determine the 37 final weight-of-evidence (WOE) assessment of the combined effects of impingement and 38 entrainment from IP2 and IP3. The unit of measure error affects the staffs conclusion of High 39 SOC for spottail shiner, but not the conclusion of Low SOC for white catfish. The NRC staff 40 reran the SOC Monte Carlo simulations using the corrected EMRs, and, based on the corrected 41 data, now finds a Low SOC for the spottail shiner. Further, based on the WOE assessment of 42 the combined effects of impingement and entrainment from IP2 and IP3, the NRC staff 43 concludes that the impacts of impingement and entrainment on the spottail shiner are SMALL 44 rather than LARGE.
45 The changes to the SOC analysis affect FSEIS Table 4-4 (presented below) and several lines of 46 text in Section 4.1.3.3. However, Section 4.1.3.5 is not affected by these changes.
7
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections 1 Lines 41-43 on page 4-20 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
2 Based on the WOE assessment (Table 4-4), the NRC staff concludes that 3 impacts to American shad, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic 4 tomcod, bay anchovy, bluefish, gizzard shad, shortnose sturgeon, spottail 5 shiner, striped bass, white catfish, and blue crab are SMALL.
6 Lines 1-3 on page 4-21 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
7 The NRC staff concludes that impacts to alewife, rainbow smelt, and weakfish 8 are MODERATE. The staff concludes that impacts to blueback herring, 9 hogchoker, spottail shiner, and white perch are LARGE.
10 Lines 30-41 on page 4-21 of the FSEIS are removed as follows:
11 Spottail Shiner 12 The NRC staff concludes that a Large impact is present for YOY spottail 13 shiner because a detectible population decline occurred in the river-wide (1 14 of 3) and river segment (1 of 1) data sets, and the strength of connection 15 with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system is high. The habitat for the spottail 16 shiner includes small streams, lakes, and large rivers, including the 17 Hudson. This species feeds primarily on aquatic insect larvae, 18 zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish eggs and larvae, and is the 19 prey of striped bass. Spottail shiners spawn from May to June or July 20 (typically later for the northern populations) over sandy bottoms and 21 stream mouths (Smith 1985; Marcy et al. 2005); water chestnut (Trapa 22 natans) beds provide important spawning habitat (CHGEC 1999).
23 Individuals older than 3 years are rare, although some individuals may live 24 4 or 5 years (Marcy et al. 2005). Spottail shiner is not a marine or 25 anadromous species, so coastal population trend data are not available.
26 8
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections 1 Table 4-4 on page 4-23 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
2 Table 4-4. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY RIS Impacts of IP2 and IP3 Population Trend Strength of Connection Species Cooling Systems on Line of Evidence Line of Evidence YOY RIS Alewife Variable High Moderate American Shad Detected Decline Low Small Atlantic Menhaden Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Tomcod Detected Decline Low Small Bay Anchovy Undetected Decline High Small Blueback Herring Detected Decline High Large Bluefish Detected Decline Low Small Gizzard Shad Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Hogchoker Detected Decline High Large Rainbow Smelt Variable High Moderate-Large(c)
Shortnose Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Spottail Shiner Detected Decline High Low Large Small Striped Bass Undetected Decline High Small Weakfish Variable High Moderate White Catfish Variable Low Small White Perch Detected Decline High Large Blue Crab Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small (a) Population trend could not be established because of a lack of river survey data.
(b) Monte Carlo simulation could not be conducted because of the low rate of entrainment and impingement; a Low Strength of connection was concluded.
(c) Section 4.1.3.3 provides supplemental information.
3 Because of the new information regarding the units of the data for entrainment density and the 4 density of fish caught during the LRS and FSS, the NRC staff corrected the estimates of EMR 5 for American shad (Alosa sapidissima), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), hogchoker (Trinectes 6 maculates), white catfish, and white perch (Morone americana) reported in Appendices H and I.
7 The staffs conclusions of the SOC for these RIS, however, remain unchanged. These changes 8 affect several lines of text in Sections H.1.3.2 and H.1.3.3 and Tables H-16 and H-17, as 9 described below.
10 Lines 11-12 on page H-47 in Section H.1.3.2 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
11 The results of this analysis indicated a High strength of connection for nine eight 12 species (Table H-16).
13 Lines 15-16 on page H-47 in Section H.1.3.2 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
14 For four five RIS, the strength of connection was Low (minimal evidence of 15 connection).
16 Lines 5-10 on page H-49 in Section H.1.3.3 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
17 Based on the WOE assessment (Table H-17), the NRC staff concludes that the 18 impact levels are Small for eleven 12 species: American shad, Atlantic 19 menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, bluefish, gizzard 20 shad, shortnose sturgeon, spottail shiner, striped bass, white catfish, and blue 21 crab. Further, the staff concludes that the impacts are Moderate for three 22 species: alewife, rainbow smelt, and weakfish. Finally, the staff concludes that 9
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections 1 the impacts are Large for four three species: blueback herring, hogchoker, 2 spottail shiner; and white perch.
3 Lines 26-38 on page H-50 in Section H.1.3.3 of the FSEIS are removed as follows:
4 Spottail Shiner 5 The NRC staff concludes that a Large impact is present for YOY spottail 6 shiner because a detectible population decline occurred in the river-wide (1 7 of 3) and river segment (1 of 1) data sets, and there was a high strength of 8 connection with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system. The habitat for the spottail 9 shiner includes small streams, lakes, and large rivers, including the 10 Hudson. This species feeds primarily on aquatic insect larvae, 11 zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish eggs and larvae, and is the 12 prey of striped bass. Spottail shiners spawn from May to June or July 13 (typically later for the northern populations) over sandy bottoms and 14 stream mouths (Smith 1985; Marcy et al. 2005); water chestnut (Trapa 15 natans) beds provide important spawning habitat (CHGEC 1999).
16 Individuals older than 3 years are rare, but there is evidence of individuals 17 living four or five years (Marcy et al. 2005). Coastal population trend data 18 were not available for this species.
19 Table H-16 on page H-48 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
20 Table H-16. Weight of Evidence for the Strength-of-Connection Line of Evidence for YOY 21 RIS Based on the Monte Carlo Simulation Strength of Strength of RIS RIS Connection Connection Alewife High Hogchoker High American Shad Low Rainbow Smelt High Atlantic Menhaden Cannot be Modeled(a) Shortnose Sturgeon Cannot be Modeled(a)
Atlantic Sturgeon Cannot be Modeled(a) Spottail Shiner High Low Atlantic Tomcod Low Striped Bass High Bay Anchovy High Weakfish High Blueback Herring High White Catfish Low Bluefish Low White Perch High Gizzard Shad Cannot be Modeled(a) Blue Crab Cannot be Modeled(a)
(a)
Estimates for model parameters were unavailable or information was lacking. Strength of connection assumed to be Low based on review of impingement and entrainment data.
22 10
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections 1 Table H-17 on page H-49 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
2 Table H-17. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY RIS Strength of Impacts of IP2 and IP3 Population Trend Species Connection Cooling Systems on YOY Line of Evidence Line of Evidence RIS Alewife Variable High Moderate American Shad Detected Decline Low Small Atlantic Menhaden Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Tomcod Detected Decline Low Small Bay Anchovy Undetected Decline High Small Blueback Herring Detected Decline High Large Bluefish Detected Decline Low Small Gizzard Shad Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Hogchoker Detected Decline High Large Rainbow Smelt Variable High Moderate-Large(c)
Shortnose Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Spottail Shiner Detected Decline High Low Large Small Striped Bass Undetected Decline High Small Weakfish Variable High Moderate White Catfish Variable Low Small White Perch Detected Decline High Large Blue Crab Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small (a)
Population LOE could not be established using WOE; therefore, population LOE could range from small to large.
(b)
Strength of connection could not be established using Monte Carlo simulation; therefore, strength of connection was based on the rate of entrainment and impingement.
(c)
Section 4.1.3.3 provides supplemental information.
3 In addition to Tables I-39 and I-42, presented earlier, the new information about the units of 4 measure affects tables in Appendix I. The corrected Table I-40, Table I-41, Table I-43, 5 Table I-46, and Table I-47 in Appendix I of the FSEIS appear on the following pages.
6 11
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections 1 Table I-40 on page I-56 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
2 Table I-40. Method for Estimating Taxon-Specific Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR) 3 Based on River Segment 4 Standing Crop for the Strength of Connection 4 Analysis Property of Method Number Entrained River Segment 4 Standing Crop LRS density (by life stage) mean density organisms FSS density of YOY 3
entrained by IP2 and IP3 (# per 1000 m )
(# per 1000 m3) BSS density of YOY Variables (# per haul)
Input Data Volume of cooling water River Segment 4 volume (m )
3 withdrawn by IP2 and IP3 River Segment 4 shorezone (1000 m3/min) surface area (m2)
Frequency Per week of sampling Per week of sampling Sum of weekly estimates of Seasonal (Year Sum of weekly standing crop number of organisms entrained specific) estimates by IP2 and IP3 Sum of Season 1, 1986 with Sum of seasonal standing crop Annual each years totals from Season 2 Summary estimates for River Segment 4 and Season 3 Statistics 75th Percentile Annual Number Entrained EMR th 75 Percentile (Annual Number Entrained + Annual Standing Crop)
Units of numerator and
- of organisms denominator of EMR Years of Data 1981 and 1983-1987 1981 and 1983-1987 Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles Life Stages Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles (YOY)
Alewife, blueback herring, and unidentified alosids treated collectively as river herring Taxonomic Substitutions Unidentified anchovy spp. (species, plural) allocated to bay anchovy Unidentified Morone spp. allocated proportionally to striped bass and white perch 5
6 The title of Table I-41 on page I-57 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
7 Table I-41 Estimated Annual Standing Crop of Eggs, Larvae, and Juvenile RIS Within 8 River Segment 4 (millions thousands of fish) 9 The contents of the table remain accurate and, therefore, are not duplicated in this supplement.
10 12
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections 1 Table I-43 on page I-59 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
2 Table I-43. Estimate of the River Segment 4 Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR) and the 95 3 Percent Confidence Limits for the Riverwide Entrainment CMR (1974-1997)
Riverwide CMR 75th Percentile 75th Percentile for Entrainment Annual Number of Number at at IP2 and IP3 Taxa EMR Entrained Risk Lower 95% Upper 95%
(number x 109 106) (number x 109 106) Confidence Confidence Limit Limit Alewife and 94.9 1003 0.095 0.00747 0.0324 Blueback Herring 0.042 American Shad 0.357 8.43 9.26 0 0.016696 0.039 Atlantic Menhaden 0 NA NA Not Modeled Atlantic Sturgeon 0 NA NA Not Modeled Atlantic Tomcod 7.65 210 0.036 0.152 0.234 0.213 Bay Anchovy 439 2064 2065 0.0925 0.140 0.212 Bluefish 0.00291 1.13 0.003 Not Modeled Gizzard Shad 0 NA NA Not Modeled 0.386 Hogchoker 1.87 4.83 4.84 Not Modeled 0.385 Rainbow Smelt 7.07 27.4 0.258 Not Modeled Shortnose Sturgeon 0 NA NA Not Modeled 0.352 Spottail Shiner 0.00295 0.00838 0.0937 0.0802 0.104 0.031 Striped Bass 71.4 676 0.106 0.181 0.276 Weakfish 3.90 7.17 0.544 Not Modeled 0.114 White Catfish 0.00965 0.0848 0.0388 Not Modeled 0.249 0.076 White Perch 63.5 840 841 0.0568 0.108 0.075 4
5 13
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections 1 Table I-46 on page I-61 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
2 Table I-46. Parameter Values Used in the Monte Carlo Simulation Upper 95%
Linear Error Mean CV of Survey Confidence RIS Slope Square from Density Data EMR IMR Used Limit (r) Regression (1979-1990) of the Slope Alewife BSS -0.030 -0.014 0.570 1.245 0.095 0.0020 0.042 American Shad BSS -0.069 -0.059 0.350 0.744 0.0005 0.39 Atlantic Tomcod FSS -0.040 -0.026 0.490 1.035 0.036 0.0300 0.213 Bay Anchovy FSS -0.075 -0.061 0.505 0.598 0.0040 0.212 Blueback Herring BSS -0.024 -0.009 0.530 1.488 0.095 0.0040 Bluefish BSS -0.038 -0.022 0.580 0.692 0.003 0.0005 0.386 Hogchoker FSS -0.034 -0.018 0.580 1.679 0.0005 0.385 Rainbow Smelt FSS 0.012 0.041 0.576 1.452 0.258 0.0005 0.352 Spottail Shiner BSS -0.017 -0.005 0.430 1.293 0.0070 0.031 Striped Bass BSS 0.040 0.052 0.420 0.528 0.106 0.0080 Weakfish FSS -0.047 -0.031 0.560 1.085 0.544 0.0005 0.114 White Catfish FSS 0.007 0.010 0.100 3.520 0.0005 0.249 0.076 White Perch BSS -0.062 -0.045 0.610 0.848 0.0320 0.075 3
14
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections 1 Table I-47 on page I-63 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
2 Table I-47. Quartiles of the Relative Difference in Cumulative Abundance and 3 Conclusions for the Strength-of-Connection from the Monte Carlo Simulation Number N0 = 1000 N0 = 1 x 108 Strength of Taxa of Median Q1 Q3 Median Q1 Q3 Connection Years Conclusion 20 0.33 0.11 0.59 0.32 0.06 0.55 Alewife High 27 0.36 0.15 0.56 0.33 0.14 0.53 0.07 -0.04 0.18 0.09 -0.02 0.20 20 American 0.08 -0.03 0.20 0.08 -0.03 0.19 Low Shad 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.00 27 -0.01 0.16 0.07 0.15 0.07 -0.01 Atlantic 20 0.14 -0.04 0.32 0.17 -0.01 0.38 Low Tomcod 27 0.18 0.04 0.32 0.18 0.02 0.33 0.21 0.09 0.32 20 0.20 0.08 0.31 0.19 0.08 0.31 Bay Anchovy High 0.18 0.26 0.10 0.27 27 0.10 0.18 0.19 0.28 0.09 0.28 Blueback 20 0.30 0.02 0.60 0.28 0.02 0.60 High Herring 27 0.43 0.16 0.67 0.40 0.14 0.64 20 0.13 -0.04 0.29 0.14 -0.03 0.30 Bluefish Low 27 0.14 0.02 0.29 0.16 0.01 0.30 0.71 0.39 1.05 0.74 0.41 1.10 20 0.72 0.37 1.06 0.76 0.42 1.09 Hogchoker High 0.81 0.53 1.10 0.77 0.46 1.06 27 0.76 0.50 1.09 0.84 0.56 1.13 Rainbow 20 0.77 0.33 1.25 0.81 0.35 1.34 High Smelt 27 0.93 0.52 1.38 1.03 0.63 1.46 0.59 0.33 0.88 0.58 0.23 0.90 20 0.20 -0.07 0.43 0.18 -0.06 0.42 Spottail Shiner High Low 0.61 0.36 0.88 0.62 0.35 0.87 27 0.22 0.01 0.42 0.23 0.01 0.46 20 0.45 0.09 0.76 0.45 0.12 0.78 Striped Bass High 27 0.62 0.27 1.02 0.66 0.31 1.01 20 0.62 0.39 0.87 0.66 0.42 0.90 Weakfish High 27 0.63 0.43 0.84 0.64 0.43 0.83 0.19 -0.36 0.76 0.05 -0.46 0.66 20 0.40 -0.20 0.98 0.37 -0.18 1.00 White Catfish Low 0.09 -0.41 0.58 0.09 -0.43 0.58 27 0.39 -0.15 0.91 0.37 -0.19 0.99 0.16 0.01 0.32 0.20 0.04 0.35 20 0.18 0.03 0.35 0.19 0.03 0.34 White Perch High 0.18 0.06 0.31 0.20 0.07 0.31 27 0.19 0.07 0.30 0.17 0.06 0.30 15
1 3.0 ASSESSMENT OF THERMAL IMPACTS 2 In the FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the potential impacts of the cooling water discharge 3 from IP2 and IP3 on aquatic species could range from SMALL to LARGE because the staff did 4 not have enough information to quantify the extent and magnitude of the IP2 and IP3 thermal 5 plume. Since publication of the FSEIS, the NRC has obtained additional information from 6 Entergy regarding the thermal plume that enables the staff to make a more informed conclusion 7 regarding thermal impacts.
8 In January 2011, Entergy submitted to the NYSDEC a preliminary report on a triaxial plume 9 study (Swanson et al. 2011a) as part of its SPDES permit renewal application. Entergy 10 undertook this study in response to the NYSDECs 2010 Notice of Denial (NYSDEC 2010),
11 which noted that Entergys previous thermal study (Swanson et al. 2010) did not directly 12 address the period of highest river temperatures, and as such, would require additional 13 confirmatory monitoring to determine whether any modeled results accurately show compliance 14 with thermal standards. The NYSDEC provided Entergy with comments on the new Swanson et 15 al. (2011a) study in March 2011. Within the same month, Mendelsohn et al. (2011) and 16 Swanson et al. (2011b) prepared responses to the NYSDEC staffs review of the study. In a 17 letter dated May 16, 2011, NYSDEC (2011) notified NYSDEC Judges M.E. Villa and D.P.
18 OConnell that it had finished reviewing the data and information contained in both the study and 19 the response to NYSDECs comments and that, based on this information and applicable 20 regulations, the NYSDEC staff had determined the following:
21 a thermal mixing zone in the Hudson River near Indian Point not to exceed 22 a maximum of seventy-five (75) acres in total size during any time of a given 23 year (6 NYCRR §704.3) will provide reasonable assurance of compliance 24 with water quality standards and criteria for thermal discharges set forth in 6 25 NYCRR §§704.1 and 704.2, respectively.
26 Based on Swanson et al.s (2011a) triaxial thermal plume study, Mendelsohn et al. (2011) and 27 Swanson et al.s (2011b) responses to NYSDEC staff comments on the study, and NYSDEC 28 staffs (2011) conclusions regarding the study, the NRC staff has revised its discussion of and 29 conclusions regarding thermal impacts to aquatic species, which appear in Section 4.1.4 of the 30 FSEIS.
31 Lines 16-26 on page 4-30 in Section 4.1.4.3 of the FSEIS are changed as follows:
32 Entergy has been engaged in discussions with the NYSDEC concerning 33 the thermal impacts of IP2 and IP3 cooling water system operation. As 34 a result of those discussions, the NRC staff notes that Entergy recently 35 performed a triaxial thermal study of the Hudson River from September 36 9 to November 1 of 2009 (Entergy 2010). Given the months involved in 37 this study, the study period did not include days with the highest 38 average annual water temperature. Entergy has indicated that it will 39 perform modeling of the river based on its field data in order to 40 determine whether the power plant is in compliance with conditions of 41 its permit; it also indicated that it may conduct additional monitoring in 42 2010. The NYSDEC, in its recent Notice of Denial of Water Quality 43 Certification, indicated that additional verification of any modeled 44 results would be necessary (NYSDEC 2010). Entergy did conduct 45 additional studies in 2010. This issue continues to be subject to 46 NYSDEC authority and review.
17
Assessment of Thermal Impacts 1 In February 2010, Entergy submitted to NYSDEC a preliminary report 2 (Swanson et al. 2010) on a triaxial thermal study of the Hudson River 3 performed during the period of September 9 to November 1, 2009.
4 Because the study did not directly address the period of highest river 5 temperatures, the NYSDEC directed Entergy to perform additional 6 confirmatory monitoring to determine whether any modeled results 7 accurately show compliance with thermal standards (NYSDEC 2010). In 8 January 2011, Entergy submitted to the NYSDEC a new triaxial plume 9 study (Swanson et al. 2011a).
10 In the new study, Swanson et al. (2011a) reported that the extent and 11 shape of the thermal plume varied greatly, primarily in response to tidal 12 currents. For example, the plume (illustrated as a 4°F (2.2°C) 13 temperature increase or T isotherm in Figure 5-6 of Swanson et al.
14 2011a) generally followed the eastern shore of the Hudson River and 15 extended northward from IP2 and IP3 during flood tide and southward 16 from IP2 and IP3 during ebb tide. Depending on tides, the plume can be 17 reasonably easily identified and can reach a portion of the near-shore 18 bottom or be largely confined to the surface of the river.
19 Temperature measurements reported by Swanson et al. (2011a) 20 generally show that the warmest water in the thermal plume is close to 21 the surface, and plume temperatures tend to decrease with depth. A 22 cross-river survey conducted in front of IP2 and IP3 captured one such 23 incident during spring tide on July 13, 2010 (Figure 3-28 in Swanson et 24 al. 2011a). Across most of the river, water temperatures were close to 25 82°F (28°C), often with warmer temperatures near the surface and 26 cooler temperatures near the bottom. The IP2 and IP3 thermal plume at 27 that point was clearly defined and extended about 1,000 feet (ft) 28 (300 meters (m)) from shore on a cross-river transect of about 3800 ft 29 (1150 m) (interpreted from the figure). Surface water temperatures in 30 the plume reached about 85°F (29°C). Maximum river depth along the 31 measured transect is approximately 50 ft (15 m).
32 A temperature contour plot at a cross-river transect at IP2 and IP3 33 illustrates a similar condition on July 11, 2010, during slack before flood 34 tide (Figure 1-10 in Swanson et al. 2011b). Here, the thermal plume is 35 evident to about 2,000 ft (600 m) from the eastern shore (the location of 36 the IP2 and IP3 discharge) and extends to a depth of about 35 ft (11 m) 37 along the eastern shore. The river here is more than 4,500 ft (1,400 m) 38 wide. Bottom temperatures above 82°F (28°C) were confined to about 39 the first 250 ft (76 m) from shore. In that small area, bottom water 40 temperatures might also exceed 86°F (30°C); elsewhere, bottom water 41 temperatures were about 80°F (27°C). The NRC staff notes, however, 42 that these limited-area conditions would not last long, as they would 43 change with the tidal cycle.
44 In response to NYSDEC's review of the IP2 and IP3 thermal studies 45 (Swanson et al. 2011a), Mendelsohn et al. (2011) modeled the maximum 46 area and width of the thermal plume (defined by the 4°F (2.2°C) T 47 isotherms) in the Hudson River. Mendelsohn et al. (2011) reported that 48 for four cross-river transects near IP2 and IP3, the maximum cross-river 49 area of the plume would not exceed 12.3 percent of the river cross-18
Assessment of Thermal Impacts 1 section, and the maximum cross-river width of the plume would not 2 exceed 28.6 percent of the river width (Table 3-1 in Mendelsohn et al.
3 2011).
4 Swanson et al. (2011a) concluded that IP2 and IP3 are in compliance 5 with NYSDEC water quality standards set forth at 6 NYCRR Part 704.
6 After line 43 on page 4-31 of Section 4.1.4.4 of the FSEIS, the following text is to be added:
7 In response to the NYSDECs 2010 Notice of Denial (NYSDEC 2010),
8 Entergy submitted a new triaxial plume study (Swanson et al. 2011a) to 9 the NYSDEC in January 2011. NYSDEC provided Entergy with 10 comments on the new study (Swanson et al. 2011a) in March 2011.
11 Within the same month, Mendelsohn et al. (2011) and Swanson et al.
12 (2011b) prepared responses to the NYSDEC staffs review of the study.
13 In a May 2011 letter (NYSDEC 2011), NYSDEC staff notified NYSDEC 14 Judges M.E. Villa and D.P. OConnell that NYSDEC staff had finished 15 reviewing the data and information contained in both the study and the 16 response to NYSDECs comments and that, based on this information 17 and applicable regulations, NYSDEC staff had determined the following:
18 a thermal mixing zone in the Hudson River near Indian Point not 19 to exceed a maximum of seventy-five (75) acres in total size 20 during any time of a given year (6 NYCRR §704.3) will provide 21 reasonable assurance of compliance with water quality 22 standards and criteria for thermal discharges set forth in 6 23 NYCRR §§704.1 and 704.2, respectively.
24 Lines 2-26 on page 4-32 in Section 4.1.4.5 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
25 In the absence of a completed thermal study proposed by NYSDEC (or 26 an alternative proposed by Entergy and accepted by NYSDEC), existing 27 information must be used to determine the appropriate thermal impact 28 level to sensitive life stages of important aquatic species. Since 29 NYSDEC modeling in the FEIS (NYSDEC 2003a) indicates that 30 discharges from IP2 and IP3 could raise water temperatures to a level 31 greater than that permitted by water quality criteria that are a 32 component of existing NYSDEC permits, the staff must conclude that 33 adverse impacts are possible. Cold water fish species such as Atlantic 34 tomcod and rainbow smelt may be particularly vulnerable to 35 temperature changes caused by thermal discharges. The population of 36 both species has declined, and rainbow smelt may have been extirpated 37 from the Hudson River. The NYSDECs issuance of a SPDES permit 38 provides a basis to conclude that the thermal impacts of IP2 and IP3 39 discharges could meet applicable regulatory temperature criteria. The 40 NYSDECs recent pronouncements and its ongoing re-examination of 41 this issue create uncertainty, and this issue is currently being 42 addressed in NYSDEC administrative proceedings. Accordingly, in the 43 absence of specific studies, and in the absence of results sufficient to 44 make a determination of a specific level of impact, the NRC staff 45 concludes that thermal impacts from IP2 and IP3 potentially could range 46 from SMALL to LARGE depending on the extent and magnitude of the 47 thermal plume, the sensitivity of various aquatic species and life stages 48 likely to encounter the thermal plume, and the probability of an 19
Assessment of Thermal Impacts 1 encounter occurring that could result in lethal or sublethal effects. This 2 range of impact levels expresses the uncertainty accruing from the 3 current lack of studies and data. Either additional thermal studies or 4 modeling and verification of Entergys 2009 thermal study might 5 generate data to further refine or modify this impact level. For the 6 purposes of this Final SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that the impact 7 level could range from SMALL to LARGE. This conclusion is meant to 8 satisfy NRCs NEPA obligations and is not intended to prejudice any 9 determination the NYSDEC may reach in response to new studies and 10 information submitted to it by Entergy.
11 NRC regulations for license renewal environmental reviews establish 12 the primary role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (or 13 States, when applicable) in water quality regulations as they relate to 14 impacts on aquatic species. As such, the assessment of impacts from 15 heat shock is within the purview of the responsible government agency.
16 In the case of IP2 and IP3, NYSDEC is the responsible agency.
17 NYSDEC regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 704 establish specific standards 18 that apply to thermal discharges within the State of New York. The 19 standards are set to assure the protection and propagation of a 20 balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on 21 the body of water to which heated water is discharged 22 (6 NYCRR 704.1(a)). Section 4.1.4.4 of this FSEIS supplement describes 23 the thermal plume studies (Swanson et al. 2010, 2011a) that Entergy 24 submitted to NYSDEC and NYSDECs (2011) conclusions regarding 25 these studies. NYSDEC concluded that the results of the thermal plume 26 studies provide reasonable assurance that the IP2 and IP3 discharge is 27 in compliance with NYSDECs water quality standards and criteria for 28 thermal discharges.
29 Based on Entergys thermal plume studies and NYSDECs conclusions, 30 the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from heat shock to aquatic 31 resources of the lower Hudson River would be SMALL.
32 This change in the NRC staffs conclusion regarding thermal impacts (heat shock) also affects 33 the Abstract, Executive Summary, Alternatives, and Summary sections of the FSEIS. The NRC 34 staff has revised parts of these sections, as described below.
35 Line 37 on page iii through line 2 on page iv of the FSEIS Abstract are changed as follows:
36 Overall effects from entrainment and impingement are likely to be 37 MODERATE, and impacts from heat shock are likely to be SMALL. Impacts 38 from heat shock potentially range from SMALL to LARGE depending on 39 the conclusions of thermal studies proposed by the New York State 40 Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
41 Lines 33-39 on page xviii of the FSEIS Executive Summary are changed as follows:
42 The NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental effects for most of 43 these issues are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set 44 forth in the GEIS with three two exceptionsentrainment, and impingement, 45 and heat shock from the facilitys heated discharge. The NRC staff jointly 46 assessed the impacts of entrainment and impingement to be MODERATE 47 based on NRCs analysis of representative important species. Impacts from 20
Assessment of Thermal Impacts 1 heat shock potentially range from SMALL to LARGE depending on the 2 conclusions of thermal studies conducted by Entergy and submitted to 3 the NYSDEC.
4 Line 43 on page 8-8 through line 3 on page 8-9 of Section 8.1.1.2 are changed as follows:
5 Because the closed-cycle cooling system discharges a smaller volume of 6 water, and because the water is cooler than in a once-through system, the 7 extent of thermal impacts - which could range from SMALL to LARGE for 8 the current once-through system, given uncertainty in the facilitys 9 thermal impacts - would remain SMALL be reduced. Thus, the effects 10 of thermal shock also decline.
11 Lines 35-40 on page 9-4 of Section 9.1 are changed as follows:
12 The NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental effects for 9 10 of 13 the 12 categorized issues are of SMALL significance in the context of the 14 standards set forth in the GEIS. The NRC staff concludes that the combined 15 impacts from impingement and entrainment (each a separate issue) are 16 MODERATE. Impacts from heat shock could range from SMALL to 17 LARGE, based on the large uncertainties discussed in Chapter 4.
18 Lines 8-13 on page 9-5 of Section 9.1 are changed as follows:
19 For issues of MODERATE or LARGE significance (i.e., issues related to aquatic ecology),
20 mitigation measures are addressed both in Chapter 4 and in Chapter 8 as alternatives based on 21 determinations in the draft New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 22 (NYSDEC) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit proceeding, Clean 23 Water Act Section 401 proceeding, and in draft policy statements published by the State.
21
1 4.0 SECTION 7 CONSULTATION 2 At the time the NRC staff published the FSEIS, the NRC and NMFS had not completed section 3 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) for the shortnose 4 sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). During the course of the section 7 consultation, the NRC 5 staff obtained more studies and information on the thermal plume (previously discussed in 6 Chapter 3 of this document). As a result, the NRC staff has revised its conclusions regarding 7 thermal impacts to the shortnose sturgeon based on this new thermal modeling information.
8 Section 2.2.5.5 of the FSEIS, which includes the shortnose sturgeons life history, remains 9 unchanged. The staff identified one correction to Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS, shown below.
10 In addition to supplementing the FSEIS for the reasons stated in Chapter 1 of this supplement, 11 the staff is also taking this opportunity to provide an update on the status of its consulation with 12 NMFS related to Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). This chapter 13 provides an update on the section 7 consultation history provided in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS, 14 as well as a summary of the biological opinion that NMFS issued in October 2011 as a result of 15 consultation. This chapter also provides a summary of the reinitiation of consultation regarding 16 the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Consultation with NMFS regarding the 17 Atlantic sturgeon was reinitiated as a result of NMFSs February 2012 listing of Atlantic sturgeon 18 as an endangered species under the ESA.
19 4.1 Corrections to Section 4.6.1, Aquatic Special Status Species 20 In the FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the potential impacts of heated discharge from IP2 21 and IP3 on shortnose sturgeon could not be determined because the staff did not have enough 22 information to quantify the extent and magnitude of the IP2 and IP3 thermal plume. Since 23 publication of the FSEIS, the NRC staff has obtained additional information on the IP2 and IP3 24 thermal plume. Chapter 3 of this document describes the new thermal plume information.
25 Based on Swanson et al.s (2011a) triaxial thermal plume study, Mendelsohn et al. (2011) and 26 Swanson et al. (2011b)s responses to NYSDEC staff comments on the study, and NYSDEC 27 staffs (2011) conclusions regarding the study, the NRC staff has revised its discussion 28 regarding thermal impacts to shortnose sturgeon, which appears in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS.
29 Lines 40-43 on page 4-58 in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS are changed as follows:
30 The potential impacts of thermal discharges on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon cannot 31 determined at this time because additional studies are required to quantify the extent and 32 magnitude of the thermal plume, as discussed in Section 4.1.4 of this SEIS.
33 In July 2011, the NRC (2011c) supplemented its analysis of the thermal effects from IP2 34 and IP3 on the shortnose sturgeon that was presented in NRCs (2010) December 2010 35 revised biological assessment. The NRC staffs (2011c) supplement to the revised 36 biological assessment considered newly available thermal plume information (Swanson 37 et al. 2011a, 2011b; Mendelsohn et al. 2011; NYSDEC 2011) as well as various studies on 38 shortnose sturgeon biology and thermal preferences (Dadswell 1979; Dadswell et al.
39 1984; Heidt and Gilbert 1978; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a, 2008b). In its July 2011 supplement, 40 the NRC (2011c) concluded that the proposed license renewal of IP2 and IP3 is not likely 41 to adversely affect the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon.
42 NMFS issued its biological opinion in October 2011 (NMFS 2011e). In its biological 43 opinion, NMFS concluded that shortnose sturgeon are likely to avoid the small area of 44 water elevated above the species preferred temperature range and that 23
Section 7 Consultation 1 it is extremely unlikely that these minor changes in behavior will 2 preclude shortnose sturgeon from completing any essential behaviors 3 such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any 4 individuals will be affected.
5 Based on the NRCs (2011c) previous analysis and NMFSs (2011e) biological opinion, 6 the NRC staff concludes that the heated discharge resulting from the proposed IP2 and 7 IP3 license renewal would have SMALL impacts on the shortnose sturgeon.
8 4.2 History of Section 7 Consultation for Shortnose Sturgeon 9 Under section 7 of the ESA, the NRC staff (2008b) initiated consultation with NMFS in a letter 10 dated December 22, 2008, upon publication of the draft supplemental environmental impact 11 statement (SEIS) and the staffs (NRC 2008a) original biological assessment, which found that 12 the relicensing of IP2 and IP3 could adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon, which had been 13 listed as endangered under the ESA in 1967. In response to that biological assessment, on 14 February 24, 2009, NMFS (2009) requested additional information from the NRC. NMFS stated 15 that it required this information before it could begin formal consultation. On July 1, 2009, the 16 NRC staff obtained the relevant information from Entergy (2009). On August 10, 2009, the NRC 17 (2009) provided that information (including revised impingement data) to NMFS and stated that 18 the data would be addressed in the FSEIS and in a revised biological assessment. The NRC 19 staff published its FSEIS in December 2010 and transmitted its revised biological assessment to 20 NMFS on December 10, 2010 (NRC 2010b).
21 On February 16, 2011, NMFS (2011) formally responded to the NRC staffs letter of 22 December 10, 2010, and stated that (1) NMFS currently has all the information it needs to 23 complete a formal consultation, (2) NMFS considers formal consultation to have begun on 24 December 16, 2010, (3) NMFS expects the consultation will conclude within 90 days after it 25 began (i.e., by March 16, 2011) unless extended, and (4) NMFS expects to issue its biological 26 opinion by April 30, 2011. On March 1, 2011, Entergy (2011a) formally notified the NRC staff 27 that it will participate in the consultation process and requested a 45-day extension of the 28 consultation conclusion date in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(e).
29 In teleconferences on March 9 and March 11, 2011, NMFS and the NRC staff discussed 30 extending the consultation to allow time for Entergy to submit additional information on the 31 shortnose sturgeon pertinent to the consultation (NRC 2011h). NMFS formally extended the 32 consultation period in a March 16, 2011, letter (NMFS 2011a) for a period of 60 days until June 33 29, 2011, in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(e). On April 18, 2011, the NRC staff (2011a) held 34 a Category 1 public meeting during which Entergy presented a data synthesis on the shortnose 35 sturgeon updated with the most recent annual Hudson River monitoring reports. On April 28, 36 2011, Entergy (2011c) formally submitted to the NRC the information it had presented during 37 this public meeting.
38 On June 16, 2011, the NRC staff learned that Entergy had submitted a final, verified triaxial 39 thermal model to NYSDEC concerning aquatic conditions at IP2 and IP3. The staff also learned 40 that NYSDEC had relied on that model and Entergy's associated information to reach 41 conclusions about thermal conditions at Indian Point for inclusion in a draft SPDES permit 42 (NYSDEC 2011). The NRC staff (2011b) brought this information to NMFSs attention in an e-43 mail to NMFS on June 16, 2011.
44 The NRC staff held three teleconferences with NMFS and Entergy during the weeks of June 20 45 and June 27, 2011 (NRC 2011d). On June 20, 2011, the NRC staff and NMFS discussed the 46 NRCs statutory authority to implement terms and conditions or reasonable and prudent 24
Section 7 Consultation 1 measures identified in a biological opinion. On June 22, 2011, the NRC staff, NMFS, and 2 Entergy discussed NMFSs outstanding questions on thermal impacts, impingement, and 3 entrainment of prey species and the design of the IP2 and IP3 cooling system. The NRC staff 4 also requested that Entergy formally submit to NRC the thermal modeling information that 5 Entergy had given to NYSDEC. By letter dated June 29, 2011, Entergy (2011d) formally 6 submitted to the NRC various documents related to the thermal studies it had conducted.
7 During a teleconference on June 29, 2011, the NRC staff, NMFS, and Entergy addressed 8 questions that had arisen during the teleconference on June 22, 2011, and the parties agreed to 9 a revised consultation schedule in which the consultation would end by September 20, 2011, 10 provided that Entergy and the NRC staff would supply NMFS with the information related to 11 NMFSs outstanding questions in a timely manner. The NRC staff (2011c) supplemented its 12 revised biological assessment on July 26, 2011, as a result of the information that Entergy 13 submitted to the staff on June 29, 2011.
14 NMFS (2011b) issued a draft biological opinion on August 26, 2011. In an e-mail dated 15 September 6, 2011, the NRC staff provided NMFS with Entergys comments on the draft 16 biological opinion (NRC 2011f). In a separate e-mail on the same day, the staff submitted its 17 comments on the draft biological opinion (NRC 2011e). The NRC staff stated that its comments 18 on the draft biological opinion were complete and that it would respond to the procedural issues 19 raised in NMFSs cover letter to the draft biological opinion in a separate letter. On 20 September 19, 2011, NMFS (2011c) requested more time to complete the final biological 21 opinion. On September 20, 2011, the NRC staff (2011g) sent its letter addressing the issues 22 NMFS had raised in the cover letter to its draft biological opinion.
23 NMFS (2011d, 2011e) issued its final biological opinion for shortnose sturgeon on 24 October 14, 2011, which concluded the section 7 consultation for the IP2 and IP3 license 25 renewal. The NMFS biological opinion is discussed below.
26 4.3 Summary of the National Marine Fisheries Services Biological Opinion for 27 Shortnose Sturgeon 28 NMFSs (2011d, 2011e) biological opinion includes an incidental take statement for shortnose 29 sturgeon and stipulates a number of reasonable and prudent measures, as well as terms and 30 conditions with which the NRC and Entergy must comply to be exempt from prohibitions of 31 section 9 of the ESA.
32 Under the biological opinion, IP2 and IP3 may take up to the following numbers of shortnose 33 sturgeon during the terms of their renewed operating llicenses, which NMFS assumed would not 34 begin before the completion of the initial operating licenses for IP2 and IP3:
35 y 6 shortnose sturgeon at Unit 1, 36 y 104 shortnose sturgeon at Unit 2, and 37 y 58 shortnose sturgeon at Unit 3 38 NMFS included Unit 1, even though it is not in operation, because Unit 2 uses water from the 39 Unit 1 intake as service water.
40 The biological opinion stipulates four reasonable and prudent measures that require Entergy to 41 (1) implement an NMFS-approved monitoring program, (2) release all live sturgeon back to the 42 Hudson River, (3) transfer any dead sturgeon to NMFS for necropsy, and (4) report all 43 shortnose sturgeon impingements or sightings to NMFS. The terms and conditions provide 44 NRC and Entergy with more specific details on how the reasonable and prudent measures must 45 be carried out. The terms and conditions can be found on pages 64-67 of the biological 25
Section 7 Consultation 1 opinion. If the NRC renews the IP2 and/or IP3 licenses, compliance with the terms and 2 conditions of the biological opinion will be required, as appropriate1.
3 4.4 Reinitiation of Consultation Due to NMFSs Listing of Atlantic Sturgeon 4 On February 6, 2012, the NMFS listed five distinct population segments (DPSs) of the Atlantic 5 sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) under the ESA (77 FR 5880; 77 FR 5914). In the 6 Hudson River near Indian Point, Atlantic sturgeon belong to the New York Bight DPS, which 7 NMFS listed as endangered. The NRC staff had previously addressed the environmental 8 impacts of license renewal on the Atlantic sturgeon in the final SEIS and had requested that 9 NMFS conduct a section 7 conferrence with the staff regarding the Atlantic sturgeon, which was 10 proposed for listing at that time. On May 16, 2012, in response to the listing, the NRC 11 staff (2012) prepared and submitted a biological assessment to NMFS, along with a request to 12 reinitiate section 7 consultation for the newly-listed Atlantic sturgeon. The NRC staff expects to 13 continue consultation with NMFS in 2012 regarding Atlantic sturgeon at IP2 and IP3, and will 14 consider the results of that consultation, as appropriate.
1 The biological opinion states: This [incidental take statement] ITS applies to the extended operating period, beginning at the date that the facility begins to operate under the terms of a new license and extending through the expiration date of that license. (NMFS 2011e) 26
1
5.0 REFERENCES
2 References that appear with an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 3 (ADAMS) accession number can be accessed through NRCs web-based ADAMS at the 4 following URL: http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.
5 77 FR 5880. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Endangered and Threatened 6 Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations for Two Distinct Population Segments of 7 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in the Northeast. Federal Register 8 77(24):5880-5912. February 6, 2012.
9 77 FR 5914. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Endangered and Threatened 10 Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations for Two Distinct Population Segments of 11 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in the Southeast. Federal Register 12 77(24):5914-5982. February 6, 2012.
13 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.
14 [AKRF] AKRF, Inc. 2011a. Review of Estimates of Numbers Entrained Presented in NRC 2009 15 EFH Assessment and 2010 FSEIS. ADAMS Accession No. ML11286A140.
16 [AKRF] AKRF, Inc. 2011b. Technical Review of FSEIS for Indian Point Nuclear Generating 17 Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Sections 4.1.1-4.1.3 and Appendices H and I. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear 18 Operations, Inc. Hanover, MD: AKRF, Inc. March 28, 2011. ADAMS Accession No.
19 ML110980163.
20 [CHGEC et al.] Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company 21 of New York, Inc., New York Power Authority, and Southern Energy New York. 1999. Draft 22 Environmental Impact Statement for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for 23 Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 and 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations.
24 December 1999. ADAMS Accession No. ML083400128.
25 Dadswell, MJ. 1979. Biology and population characteristics of the shortnose sturgeon, 26 Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (Osteichthyes: Acipenseridae), in the Saint John River 27 estuary, New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2186-2210.
28 Dadswell MJ, BD Taubert, TS Squiers, D Marchette, and J Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of 29 biological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. NOAA Technical 30 Report NMFS-14. Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Service. October 1984. 45 pp.
31 Available at <http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/shortnosesturgeon_biological_
32 data.pdf> (accessed January 12, 2012).
33 [Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2007. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of 34 Operations License Renewal, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk.
Subject:
Supplement 35 to License Renewal ApplicationEnvironmental Report References. December 20, 2007.
36 ADAMS Accession Nos. ML080080199. Long River Survey: ML11279A044 and Fall Shoals 37 Survey: ML080080291, ML080080298, ML080080306.
38 [Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2009. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of 39 License Renewal, to Document Control Desk, NRC.
Subject:
Transmission of additional 40 requested information regarding sturgeon impingement data. July 1, 2009. ADAMS Accession 41 No. ML091950345.
42 [Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2011a. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of 43 License Renewal, Entergy, to A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC.
Subject:
Endangered 27
References 1 Species Act consultation for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. March 1, 2011.
2 ADAMS Accession No. ML110670270.
3 [Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2011b. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of 4 Operations License Renewal, to B. Holian, Division Director, NRC.
Subject:
Comments on final 5 supplemental environmental impact statement for Indian Point Nuclear Generating. March 29, 6 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML110980073.
7 [Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2011c. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of 8 License Renewal, Entergy, to A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC.
Subject:
Endangered 9 Species Act consultation for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. April 28, 2011.
10 ADAMS Accession No. ML11125A071.
11 [Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2011d. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of 12 License Renewal, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk.
Subject:
License renewal thermal 13 study documents for Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3. June 29, 2011. ADAMS Accession No.
14 ML11189A026.
15 [Goodwin Proctor] Goodwin Proctor LLP. 2011. Letter from Elise N. Zoli, Goodwin Proctor LLC 16 to David Wrona, Chief, Projects Branch 2, Division of License Renewal, U.S. Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
Indian Point License Renewal - Entergy's Comments on 18 NMFS' Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Correspondence. September 30, 2011. ADAMS 19 Accession No. ML11286A140.
20 Heidt AR, and RJ Gilbert. 1978. The shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River drainage, 21 Georgia. In: RR Odum and L Landers, editors. Proceedings of the Rare and Endangered 22 Wildlife Symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, 23 Technical Bulletin WL-4. p 54-60.
24 Mendelsohn D, C Swanson, and D Crowley. 2011. Part 1 of Response to the NYSDEC Staff 25 Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge from 26 the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy 27 Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC. South Kingstown, RI: Applied Science Associates, Inc. March 31, 28 2011. 13 p. Available at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/
29 indnptpart1resp.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012).
30 [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Letter from M. Colligan, Northeast Assistant 31 Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
32
Subject:
Biological assessment for license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
33 2 and 3. February 24, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML090820316.
34 [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Letter from P. Kurkul, Northeast Regional 35 Administrator, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Reply to biological assessment for 36 license renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. February 16, 2011.
37 ADAMS Accession No. ML110550751.
38 [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011a. Letter from P. Kurkul, Northeast Assistant 39 Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
40
Subject:
Extension of consultation periodlicense renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear 41 Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 2 and 3. March 16, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML110830578.
42 [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. Letter from P. Kurkul, Northeast Assistant 43 Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
44
Subject:
Draft biological opinion for license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 45 Nos. 2 and 3. August 26, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11249A012.
28
References 1 [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011c. E-mail from J. Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, 2 to A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC.
Subject:
Schedule for biological opinion (revised 3 proposal). September 19, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11300A037.
4 [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011d. Letter from P. Kurkul, Northeast Assistant 5 Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
6
Subject:
Biological opinion for relicensing of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
7 October 14, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11290A232.
8 [NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011e. Biological Opinion for RelicensingIndian 9 Point Nuclear Generating Station F/NER/2009/00619. October 14, 2011. ADAMS Accession 10 No. ML11290A231.
11 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008a. Biological assessment for License 12 Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Appendix E to draft NUREG-13 1437, Supplement 38. 16 p. ADAMS Accession No. ML083540614.
14 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008b. Letter from D. Wrona, Branch Chief, 15 NRC, to M. Colligan, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, 16 NMFS.
Subject:
Biological assessment for license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating 17 Unit Nos. 2 and 3. December 22, 2008. ADAMS Accession No. ML083450723.
18 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2009. Email from D. Logan, Aquatic Ecologist, 19 NRC, to J. Crocker, NMFS.
Subject:
Indian Point Section 7new data from Entergy. August 20 10, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092220524.
21 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2010a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 22 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear 23 Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG-1437, Supp. 38. December 24 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML103270072.
25 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2010b. Letter from D. Wrona, Branch Chief, 26 NRC, to M. Colligan, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, 27 NMFS.
Subject:
Revised biological assessment for license renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear 28 Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. December 10, 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML102990043.
29 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011a. Summary of public meeting held on Apr.
30 18, 2011, between NRC and Entergy to discuss Entergys shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic 31 sturgeon data at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. April 22, 2011. ADAMS 32 Accession No. ML111090905.
33 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011b. E-mail from A. Stuyvenberg, Project 34 Manager, NRC, to J. Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, NMFS.
Subject:
Indian Point thermal 35 information available on New York DEC website. June 16, 2011. ADAMS Accession No.
36 ML11167A108.
37 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011c. Letter from L. Bauer, Acting Branch Chief, 38 NRC, to M. Colligan, Northeast Assistant Regional Manager for Project Resources, NMFS.
39
Subject:
Supplement to revised biological assessment for license renewal of Indian Point 40 Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. July 26, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11203A100.
41 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011d. Summary of telephone conference calls 42 held on Jun. 20, 22, and 29, 2011, regarding the ongoing Endangered Species Act consultation 43 for the proposed Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal.
44 July 29, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11201A306.
29
References 1 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011e. E-mail from A. Stuyvenberg, Project 2 Manager, NRC, to J. Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, NMFS.
Subject:
NRC staff comments on 3 draft BO for proposed Indian Point license renewal. September 6, 2011. ADAMS Accession 4 No. ML11249A210.
5 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011f. E-mail from A. Stuyvenberg, Project 6 Manager, NRC, to J. Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, NMFS.
Subject:
FW: Entergy comments on 7 draft BO. September 6, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11249A145.
8 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011g. Letter from D. Wrona, Branch Chief, 9 NRC, to P. Kurkul, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS.
10
Subject:
NMFS Letter dated August 26, 2011, regarding the Endangered Species Act, section 7 11 consultation for the proposed license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 12 and 3. September 20, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11259A018.
13 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011h. Summary of telephone conference calls 14 held on Mar. 8 and Mar. 11, 2011, regarding the ongoing Endangered Species Act consultation 15 for the proposed Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal. April 14, 16 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11089A031.
17 [NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Letter from J.J. Susco, Acting Chief, 18 Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch, Division of License Renewal to Patricia A.
19 Kurkul, Northeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Subject:
Request 20 to Reinitiate Section 7 Consultation for the Indain Point Nuclear Genreating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 21 Due to Listing of Atlantic Sturgeon. May 16, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12100A082.
22 [NYSDEC] New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 2010. Letter from W.R.
23 Adriance, Chief Permit Administrator, NYSDEC to D. Gray, Entergy.
Subject:
Joint Application 24 for CWA §401 Water Quality Certification, NRC License RenewalEntergy Nuclear Indian Point 25 Units 2 and 3, DEC Nos.: 3-5522-00011/00030 (IP2) and 3-5522-00105/00031 (IP3), Notice of 26 Denial. April 2, 2010. Available at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/
27 ipdenial4210.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012).
28 [NYSDEC] New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 2011. Letter from M.D.
29 Sanza, Assistant Counsel, NYSDEC to Administrative law Judges M. Villa and D.P. O'Connell, 30 NYSDEC Office of Hearings and Mediation Services.
Subject:
Entergy Indian Point Nuclear 31 Units 2 and 3 SPDES Permit Renewal/401 WQC Application Proceedings; DEC Staffs Review 32 of Thermal Information. May 16, 2011. Available at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/
33 permits_ej_operations_pdf/indnptsanzaltr.pdf> (accessed January 4, 2012).
34 Swanson C, Y Kim, D Mendelsohn, D Crowley, and M Mattson. 2010. Preliminary Analysis of 35 Hudson River Thermal Data. South Kingstown, RI: Applied Sciences, Inc. and Bedford, NH:
36 Normandeau Associates, Inc. February 10, 2010. 20 p. Available at < http://www.dec.ny.gov/
37 docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/elecbdrexhj-k.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012).
38 Swanson C, D Mendelsohn, N Cohn, D Crowley, Y Kim, L Decker, and L Miller. 2011a. 2010 39 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge From the Indian Point 40 Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Entergy Center, Buchanan, NY. South Kingstown, 41 RI: Applied Science Associates, Inc. January 31, 2011. 132 p. Available at:
42 <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/indnpthrmlrpt.pdf> (accessed 43 January 11, 2012). ADAMS Accession No. ML11189A026.
44 Swanson C, D Crowley, Y Kim, N Cohn, and D Mendelsohn. 2011b. Part 2 of Response to the 45 NYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water 46 Discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, 30
References 1 LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC. South Kingstown, RI: Applied Science 2 Associates, Inc. March 31, 2011. 27 p. Available at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_
3 operations_pdf/indnptpart2resp.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012).
4 Ziegeweid JR, CA Jennings, and DL Peterson. 2008a. Thermal maxima for juvenile shortnose 5 sturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fish 3:299-307.
6 Ziegeweid JR, CA Jennings, DL Peterson, and MC Black. 2008b. Effects of salinity, 7 temperature, and weight on the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. Transactions of 8 the American Fisheries Society 137:1490-1499.
31
1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 2 Members of the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prepared this SEIS with assistance 3 from other NRC organizations, as well as contract support from the Pacific Northwest National 4 Laboratory. Table 6-1 identifies each contributors name, affiliation, and function or expertise.
5 Table 6-1. List of Preparers Name Affiliation Function or Expertise NRC Jeremy Susco Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief Michael Wentzel Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager Kimberly Green Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager Dennis Logan Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology Briana Balsam Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology Contractor Valerie Cullinan Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Statistics, Ecology Jeffrey Ward Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Ecology 33
[Placeholder for NRC Form 335-Bibliographic Data Sheet]
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear June 2012 Supplement 38, Vol. 4 Plants: Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3