ML12212A386

Attachment 8 - Declaration of Marc J. Lawlor of TRC Companies, Inc., in the Matter of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3. Part 1 of 4

ML12212A386
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	07/25/2012
From:	Lawlor M TRC Co
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23063, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12212A386 (250)

Text

ATTACHMENT 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 July 25, 2012 DECLARATION OF MARC J. LAWLOR Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d), I, Marc J. Lawlor, hereby declare as follows based on my personal knowledge:

1. I serve as a Senior Project Manager at TRC Companies, Inc., where I am responsible for preparing permit applications and their support materials, as well as drafting environmental impact assessments that are necessary to implement client projects. My full curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A.

2. I have acquired over 30 years of experience as an environmental consultant for public and private clients, including state and city governments, the U.S. Department of Defense, and utility companies. My work has focused on the coordination of environmental projects to meet regulations and policies of such government agencies.

3. I have worked on numerous New York-specific environmental initiatives, and have gained extensive experience with New Yorks State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and New York Citys Environmental Quality Review Act. I also have extensive experience preparing documentation on environmental permits and environmental impact statements and evaluating compliance with a variety of environmental standards, including the New York Coastal Management Program (NYCMP). I have prepared several coastal zone consistency reviews and assessments for projects on behalf of the Long Island Power Authority, Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) and Consolidated Edison (ConEd).

4. Before my employment at TRC, I served as a Senior Project Manager at three environmental engineering and consulting firms. I was employed by HDR/HydroQual, Inc. from 2006 to 2009, at AECOM/EarthTech from 1995 to 2006, and at URS/Woodward-Clyde from 1984 to 1995. In these positions, I acquired experience on projects requiring compliance with federal and state environmental laws and regulations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and SEQRA, among others.

5. I earned a B.S. in Biology and Environmental Science from Upsala College in 1976, and an M.S. in City and Regional Planning from Rutgers University in 1980.

Previous Reviews of Indian Points Operations

6. I have been asked to evaluate whether the operations at Indian Point 2 (IP2) and Indian Point 3 (IP3) have been previously reviewed for consistency with the enforceable policies set forth in the NYCMP.

7. To conduct this analysis, I relied upon several environmental reviews of IP2 and IP3 and permits for specific activities at these plants, including: (1) the New York Power Authoritys environmental review in support of its transfer of IP3 to Entergy in 2000 (NYPA Review); (2) the New York State Department of Environmental Conservations (NYSDEC)

Coastal Assessment Form dated February 11, 2000 for the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit renewal application for IP2 and IP3 (SPDES Review I); (3) the New York Public Service Commissions Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the transfer of IP1 and IP2 to Entergy dated August 17, 2001 (NYPSC Review);

(4) a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) concerning SPDES permit renewals for Hudson River energy facilities, including IP2 and IP3, by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation on June 25, 2003 (SPDES Review II); and (5) a variety of permits issued for IP2 and IP3 over the last three decades.

8. In my professional opinion, the operations of IP2 and IP3 were evaluated and found to be consistent with the enforceable policies of the NYCMP on several occasions during the last 30 years. A chart detailing the specific reviews and permits that, in my opinion, demonstrate consistency with the NYCMP is attached to this declaration as Exhibit B.

NYPA Review

9. There have been consistency reviews of the operations at IP2 and IP3 on multiple occasions. For example, in 2000, NYPA authorized the transfer of IP3 to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. As part of the ownership change, NYPA conducted a comprehensive environmental evaluation of the plants operations, which included a Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination of Non-Significance pursuant to SEQRA, a Full Environmental Assessment, a New York Coastal Assessment, and a Federal Consistency certification. NYPA, which had been the owner and operator of IP3 for more than two decades before the transfer, served as the Lead Agency for the review. See Negative Declaration at 1 and EA Addendum at

2. A thorough study, NYPAs review and assessment drew upon the knowledge and experience of the Environmental Division staff, consultation with other staff throughout the Authority and review of numerous documents. EA Addendum at 1. The New York Department of State (NYSDOS) and NYSDEC also were involved in the evaluation. See Negative Declaration at 2.

10. In this review, NYPA made two noteworthy determinations about IP3s operations. First, NYPA explained that Entergy will acquire IP3 . . . in compliance with all applicable laws & regulations. [IP3], once under new ownership, will be required to continue to comply with these & any other applicable laws & regulations. Negative Declaration at 1.

Second, NYPA stated that there will not be a significant adverse impact to air or water quality, traffic or noise levels, solid waste production, erosion, the sites flora or fauna, hazardous or nuclear waste disposal, energy conservation, public health & safety, or any other area of environmental impacts as a result of the proposed sale. Id. at 2.

11. NYPA also determined that IP3s operations were consistent with all enforceable policies of the NYCMP. See Federal Consistency Assessment Form and New York Coastal Assessment Form. As expressly stated on the Federal Consistency Assessment Form, NYPA certified that IP3 complies with New York States approved Coastal Management Program . . .

and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program. NYPA also provided a narrative analysis of how the operations of IP3 were consistent with NYCMP policies on coastal erosion (policies 11, 12, 17), water quality (30, 38, 50), and air quality (41, 43). See Coastal Management Form Addendum. Moreover, without NYPAs certification, the transfer of IP3 to Entergy could not have occurred. As stated on the New York Coastal Assessment Form, [t]he applicant [NYPA] must certify that the proposed activity is consistent with the States CMP . . .

as appropriate. If this certification cannot be made, the proposed activity shall not be undertaken. See Coastal Management Form at 1.

12. In my opinion, the 2000 NYPA Review constitutes a previous review of IP3s operations, and certifies that they were consistent with the enforceable policies of the NYCMP at this time. As displayed on the chart set forth in Exhibit B, I have matched this review with each NYCMP policy.

NYSPSC Review

13. A second review occurred on August 17, 2001, which is when the NYSPSC adopted a Final Supplemental EIS regarding IP2 operations, clearing the transfer of the facility (and Indian Point Unit 1) from Consolidated Edison to Entergy.

14. As a part of this authorization, NYSPSC determined that, the proposed transfer of Indian Point Unit 1 and Indian Point Unit 2 to Entergy is consistent with applicable coastal zone policies set forth in 19 NYCRR § 600.5 [i.e., the New York coastal policies]. The FSEIS highlight[ed] specific environmental regulatory aspects of IP2s operations, including their effects on air resources, water resources, endangered species, waste generation and storage, and petroleum and chemical storage.

15. Although it is unclear whether New York Coastal Assessment forms or Federal Consistency certification forms were prepared for this transfer, the environmental review set forth in the NYSPSC Review reflects NYSPSCs determination that IP2s operations were consistent with the enforceable policies of the NYCMP. I also have reviewed the Declaration of Fred Dacimo, who is IPECs Vice President of License Renewal. According to Mr. Dacimo, IP2 and IP3 are very similar nuclear power plants. It is also noteworthy that the FEIS for IP2 was adopted only months after the transfer of IP3 to Entergy. Just as IP3 could not have been transferred to Entergy without a consistency determination, ownership of IP2 could not have changed without a determination of consistency with the enforceable policies of the NYCMP.

16. Therefore, it is my opinion that the NYSPSC Review constitutes a previous review and certification that the operations of IP2 were consistent with the enforceable policies of the NYCMP at the time. As displayed on the chart set forth in Exhibit B, I have matched this review with each NYCMP policy.

SPDES Review I

17. IP2 and IP3 have applied for various permits since the NYCMPs adoption in 1982. Permits are often issued for discrete operations or activities and they are required to be consistent with enforceable policies of the NYCMP.

18. For example, in February 2000, NYSDEC conducted a state consistency review of cooling system operations for IP2 and IP3 in response to a renewal application for a SPDES discharge permit. As a part of that consistency review, NYSDEC completed a review of all NYCMP policies and determined that renewal of the SPDES permit would not result in any significant effects on New Yorks coastal zone that merited a denial of the application.

19. Although the review did note effects on commercial or recreational use of fish and wildlife resources, it clarified that those effects were not different from the effects that had existed when the SPDES permits were authorized in 1981 and 1987.

20. In my opinion, NYSDECs review, which was received by NYSDOSs Office of Coastal Programs on March 2, 2000, is a certification that certain coastal uses arising from IP2 and IP3 operations were consistent with the NYCMP at this time. Although the permit would have been required to meet all enforceable policies of the NYCMP, for the purposes of the chart set forth in Exhibit B, I have matched the SPDES review with 28 of the most relevant policies of the NYCMP.

SPDES Review II

21. On June 23, 2003, NYSDEC issued an FEIS as part of the renewal process for SPDES permits for energy facilities located within the Hudson River valley, including IP2 and IP3. The FEIS included a determination that, [t]he SPDES permit renewals that are the subject of this DEIS [sic] will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Further, the FEIS cross-referenced a Coastal Assessment Form completed by NYPA and ConEd, which included a review of specific NYCMP policies and noted that there would be no significant effect on coastal resources arising from renewal of the permits.

22. The SPDES Review constitutes a certification that coastal uses arising from certain operations of IP2 and IP3 were consistent with the NYCMP at this time. Similar to the earlier SPDES Review, this permit would have been required to meet all enforceable policies of the NYCMP. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the chart set forth in Exhibit B, I have matched this review to 18 of the most relevant policies of the NYCMP.

Evaluation of the Various Permits Issued to IP2 and IP3

23. IP2 and IP3 have applied for and been issued numerous other permits for specific plant operations or activities, such as building construction, wastewater or stormwater discharges, hazardous and mixed waste storage, air emissions, and petroleum storage. Each permit issued to IP2 or IP3 after the adoption of the NYCMP in 1982 required a determination by the relevant issuing agency that the specific operation or activity meets all enforceable policies of the NYCMP.

24. It is also noteworthy that permits issued to IP2 and IP3 are directly relevant to specific policies of the NYCMP. To illustrate this point, I have matched individual permits to the most relevant policies of the NYCMP in the chart set forth in Exhibit B. As reflected in the chart, there have been many permits issued that are related to policies regarding:

• Preservation of water dependent uses (policy 2);

• Development where public services are adequate (5);

• Protection of fish and wildlife resources from waste, pollutants, and effluent discharges (8, 40);

• Dredging (15, 35);

• Siting and construction of energy facilities (27);

• Pollutant discharges (30);

• Stormwater runoff (33);

• Petroleum storage (36);

• Non-point discharges (37);

• Surface water and groundwater quality (38);

• Storage and transportation of solid and hazardous waste (39);

• Effluent discharges (40); and

• Air quality (41, 42, 43).

25. Many of these permits were issued after IP2 and IP3 were transferred to Entergy in 2000 and 2001, respectively, and qualify as additional previous reviews. In each circumstance, the specific operations of IP2 and IP3 that were the subjects of the permit applications were determined to be consistent with the NYCMP at the time when those permits were issued.

Evaluation of Previous CZMA Consistency Reviews

26. I have reviewed 23 other instances in which nuclear plants, including three in New York, sought state CZMA consistency review in connection with their applications to the NRC for operating license renewals. A chart summarizing these consistency reviews is attached to this declaration as Exhibit C.

27. The CZMA consistency reviews, based on the data reviewed, were all conducted in a generally expeditious fashion with limited comment, information, or explanation by the requesting nuclear plant before the state concurred with the applicants consistency certification.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 25, 2012.

Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)

Marc J. Lawlor Senior Project Manager TRC Companies, Inc.

1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071 201.508.6956 MLawlor@trcsolutions.com EXHIBIT A MARC J. LAWLOR, P.P., AICP EDUCATION MCRP (Masters), City and Regional Planning, Rutgers University, 1980 B.S., Biology & Environmental Science, Upsala College, 1976 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Professional Planner, State of New Jersey (License # 3013)

Member - American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)

AREAS OF EXPERTISE Mr. Lawlor, P.P., AICP has significant expertise and experience in the following general areas:

• Project Management

• Environmental Impact Assessment

• New York SEQRA and New York City CEQR

• Energy and Power-related Projects

• National Environmental Policy Act

• Infrastructure and Transportation

• Military Initiatives and Development Projects

• International Projects - United Arab Emirates REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Lawlor has over 30 years of diverse, multidisciplinary environmental consulting experience working with private and public clients, ranging from utility companies, state and city governments, to the Department of Defense and international development companies. The focus of his professional experience has been project management where client interaction and regulatory agency coordination and negotiation have been successfully performed.

As Project Manager on hundreds of projects he has been responsible for leading and managing interdisciplinary teams in the delivery of products and completion of projects, within defined schedules and budgets. He has managed and prepared a wide variety of environmental documentation including environmental impact statements (EIS) and environmental assessments (EA) at the federal, state, and local levels. He has managed and participated in a variety of studies for transportation, utility and infrastructure works such as highways, pipelines, transmission lines, etc. Mr. Lawlor has worked on numerous public and private initiatives in New York State and New York City, gaining experience in the SEQRA and CEQR processes. He has had substantial experience with the military in the northeast US. He had spent more than one year in the United Arab Emirates, primarily in Dubai. There, he was involved with ensuring environmental compliance of development projects, with a focus on environmental impacts of projects on air, noise and water/water quality.

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP Environmental Impact Assessment Entergy, Environmental Report prepared under New York State SEQRA, Assessment of Alternative Technologies at the Indian Point Energy Center in Support of a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (Project Manager:

2010 - 2011)

Mr. Lawlor is the Project Manager for the preparation of an environmental impact analysis under the New York State Envi ronmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) as part of the renewal of the New Yo rk State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) State Pollutant Discharge Elim ination System (SPDES) permit for the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC). As lead SEQRA consultant, TRC is preparing the Environmental Report (ER), performing technical analysis work, and coordinating the deliverables of a set of consultants to Entergy.

The SEQRA analys is is mandated by t he current SPDES Adjudic atory Hearing Process, whereby Entergy and the other involved parties (e.g., NYSDEC) ar e to identify and assess the potent ial significant environm ental impacts (those not previously evaluated) of the current once-through cooling system and other alternative technologies at IPEC. Entergy has propos ed the use of cylindrica l wedgewire screens (WWS) as its preferred technology. In its tentative draft SPDES permit, NYSDEC Staff has recommended the use of closed-cycle cooling (CCC) (and coolin g towers) as Best Technology Available (BTA) (under 6 NYCRR § 704.5) for reducing adverse aquatic impacts.

In preparation for the SEQRA ER Mr. Lawlo r directed the review and assimilation of an extensive library of documents s panning more than 20 years. He and TRC technical staff developed a deep understanding of the facts and issues relating to IPEC. The key issues that TRC, along wi th the team of consultants, addressed include: air quality, water quality & quantity, aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, electrical system (reliability), aesthetics, traffic, noise and environmental justice.

Mr. Lawlor prepared t he outline and content in accord ance with SEQRA law (6 NYCRR § 617) and guidance, and the SPDES Hearing Process. The basic components included:

• A description of the ba ckground, context and legal basis for the ER. A history of IPEC permitting and the cu rrent regulatory environment were presented.

• A detailed description of each alternativ e technology - onc e-through cooling (current operations), WWS (the Entergy proposal) and CCC (the NYSDEC proposal) - was presented.

• A focused description of the exis ting conditions (setting) of IPEC and the surrounding area.

• An evaluation and discussion of the potential environmental impacts of each of the three alternative technologies.

2

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP

• A comparison of the alternative technologies, including the identification of the differing potential signific ant environmental impacts between alternatives. The tradeoffs betw een environmental and social and economic considerations in terms of benefits and c osts of the alternative technologies were als o addressed. Cu mulative impacts from operations of the alternatives were discussed.

A brief description of selected work performed by TRC is provided below.

TRC performed quantitative air quality impact modeling, assessing the potential effects of coolin g tower oper ations associated with CCC (and the other alternatives). It was determined that t he cooling towers would violate both the applicable NAAQS and SIL ( Significant Impact Level) for particulate matter (PM2.5). PM emissions ar e of particular c oncern in Westchester County, where IPEC is located, since the county is designated a PM-2.5 non-attainment area.

TRC, with another Entergy consultant, wa s instrumental in the assessment and re-evaluation of a comprehensive 10-year data set of Hudson River salinities, a factor critical to the potent ial operation of CCC and cooling towers as the river is an estuary with hig hly variable concentra tions of salinity. TRCs critica l assessment initiated a review of t he CCC Alter native and the pot ential operational implications of cooling tower operations in such a saline v ariable environment.

TRC performed quality assur ance and quality control (QA/QC) on the impingement and entr ainment (I&E) studies of the alt ernative technologies by a team consultant. In that capacity, TRC reviewed t he quantitative analyses, interacted with the consultant to confirm findings and conclusions, and prepared the SEQRA documentation thereof. T RCs understanding of the river ecology, river species and technologies were br ought to bear in preparing a conc ise, definitive description and matr ix comparison of the alte rnatives. Importantly, since WWS could be implement ed in a much shorter timefram e than cooling towers, the effectiveness of the screens - annually and cumulatively - was found to be greater than the cooling towers ( with substantially r educed cooling water requirements).

Because of the scale, magnitude and duratio n of the CCC Altern ative (including the two hybrid circular mechanical draft cooling t owers), TRC prepared a quantitative analysis of potent ial air quality and noise im pacts. Construction of the CCC Alternative was estim ated to las t as long a s 13 years , with up to four years of daily blasting required. C onstruction of the WWS arrays was also evaluated; that alternative was estimated to last approximately 51 months. TRC assessed construction-related air quality impacts relative to the NAAQS using AERMOD-09292. With respect to noi se, TRC applied noise propagation conditions consistent with ISO-9613.

3

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP enXco Development Company, Environmental Assessment (EA) for a 17.0 MW Solar Project on Long Island, NY (Project Manager: 2009 - 2010)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for a 17.0 megawatt (MW) solar project in Suffolk County Long Island.

The developer, enXco - an affiliate of EDF Energies Nouvelle (formerly SIIF Energies) - entered into a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). Located on seven county-owned parcels, the solar photovoltaic (PV) panels will be installed on top of newly constructed carports, which will be located in the existing parking lots of the county properties. In total, the panels (on the carports) will cover an estimated 40 acres of area across the seven parcels. The EA was prepared within a compressed schedule to meet the developer and utility-related PPA requirements. The EA addressed construction and operational impacts on the environment. A construction management strategy was developed, including a parking management scheme to avoid parking impacts and the permanent loss of parking spaces, including those at three Long Island Railroad (LIRR) sites, owned by the county. The EA resource issues included visual /aesthetic impacts of the carport structures, infrastructure requirements for interconnections to the LIPA electrical system, hazardous material screening at all seven sites, natural resources (wetland) impacts, and electromagnetic forces (EMF). A clearance from FAA will be needed at one site adjacent to MacArthur Airport; freshwater wetland permits will be needed at two sites where construction will be done within the designated adjacent wetland area; an application will be required for one site that lies within the Peconic River Wild, Scenic and Recreational River (WSRR) boundary. The EA received a negative declaration (neg dec) from the lead agency, LIPA, in December 2009.

New York City Department of Sanitation, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Sanitation Garage Complex (Project Manager: 2006-2008)

The New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) proposed to consolidate the operations of three Manhattan district garages at a new facility in lower Manhattan. The new garage complex and salt shed allowed DSNY to comply with its legal obligation to vacate the Gansevoort Peninsula in Hudson River Park. Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) under CEQR. The project was controversial given its use and proximity to an increasingly residential Hudson Square neighborhood. The Scoping Meeting was held based on a presentation prepared by Mr. Lawlor.

Potential significant analysis issues include: land use compatibility with the encroaching residential uses; effects of shadows from the 15-story garage on local open spaces, including the Hudson River Park; visual impacts and aesthetics of a 400+ K sq ft garage building; traffic impacts of trucks and equipment on local streets; noise impacts from mobile sources operating in the early morning hours; air quality impacts from increased use of trucks including carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM2.5). The requisite Uniform 4

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) documentation was also prepared. The DSNY action included site selection and acquisition for a capital project and ULURP approval, special permits for a height variance and relief from street wall setback requirements, Art Commission review, City construction contracts, and consistency review with the Citys Waterfront Revitalization Program for actions in the designated Coastal Zone. The scope of work also included the preparation of the associated Fair Share analysis. The DEIS and ULURP documentation were approved by NYC regulators.

New York City Waterfalls Environmental Assessment Statement (Project Manager: 2007-2008)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager of one of two consultant teams that prepared the analysis (EAS under CEQR) of a proposed environmental art installation in lower Manhattan around NY Harbor. Called the "Waterfalls" by artist O. Eliason, the project was a set of five waterfalls (freestanding structures of 60 to 85 ft tall over which pumped water was allowed to fall) on the waterfront that operated the summer and early fall of 2009. The EAS was completed within an ambitious schedule requiring close coordination with the consultant team and the client. Mr. Lawlor was responsible for the delivery of impact analyses and write-ups for the EAS, including land use/zoning, socioeconomics, water quality, shadows, public health, etc. The pubic health analysis required the consideration of rainfall and CSO effects on the quality of the water (e-coli/pathogens) being pumped and sprayed over the falls. The EAS was approved in adequate time to allow for the successful installation and operation of the waterfalls.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Assessment Statement for the Tallman Island Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrades - Queens, NY (Project Manager: 2003-2006)

Mr. Lawlor, as Project Manager, was responsible for the preparation of an environmental assessment statement (EAS) to assess the impacts of construction and operation of a set of significant upgrades to the Tallman Island WPCP. The NYCDEP was the lead agency prepared under the New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) procedures. In association with another consultant, the substantive issues addressed in the EAS included: air quality and odors; urban design and visual resources; cultural resources; neighborhood character; and hazardous materials/public health. Mr. Lawlor supervised a separate cultural resources study to assess the eligibility of on-site structures for the New York City and National Register.

New Jersey School Construction Corporation, Environmental Assessments for Schools across New Jersey (Project Manager: 2004-2006)

Mr. Lawlor was the Task Manager for the preparation of multiple environmental assessments in accordance with NJ Executive Order (EO) 215. EO 215 requires the assessment of potential impacts from the construction and operation of facilities constructed with public funds in the state. He prepared the EAs to 5

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP evaluate the impacts of building and operating new and expanded schools in several NJ urban counties. Technical analyses included air quality, traffic, land use and zoning, and cultural resources (architecture and archaeology).

New York State Department of Transportation and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Design Report and NEPA Checklist, Vesey Street Pedestrian Bridge - Manhattan, NY (Project Manager: 2003-2004)

Mr. Lawlor, as project Task Manager, was responsible for the preparation of an expedited design report (DR) and fast-track NEPA checklist for the Vesey Street pedestrian bridge over West Street adjacent to the World Trade Center site. The DR codified data prepared by other consultants as well as presenting new data on the pedestrian bridge. All of the DR environmental resource issues were addressed and required expedited field reconnaissance, data acquisition and integration of the engineering and planning teams. He managed an evaluation and assessment of the potential Section 106 cultural resource impacts of the bridge on the LPC-listed and NR-eligible Verizon Building (the Barclay-Vesey Building at 140 West Street).

Interstate Materials Corp., Environmental Impact Statement for Solid Waste Transfer Station and Processing Facility - Staten Island, NY (Project Manager: 1998-2003)

As Project Manager, Mr. Lawlor was responsible for the preparation of an EIS to assess impacts of the construction and operation of a putrescible solid waste (PSW) and clean fill material transfer station, and a dredged material processing facility. The New York City Department of Sanitation and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) were the EIS co-lead agencies; the EIS was prepared in accordance with the New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) process and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Significant issues addressed in the EIS included transportation (trucks on local roads), air quality (PM10), noise (in the overnight hours), and natural resources (loss of littoral zone wetlands from proposed dredging in the Arthur Kill to facilitate waterfront operations). Mitigation was developed with the local community and offered to residences affected by noise caused by PSW route collection vehicles operating in the overnight hours.

A conceptual wetland mitigation plan was developed with the NYSDEC. Mr.

Lawlor participated in the state Issues Conference.

USA Waste Services of New York, Environmental Assessment for USA Waste of New York City - Brooklyn, NY (Project Manager: 1997-1999)

As Project Manager, Mr. Lawlor was responsible for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) under CEQR. The New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) and the New York City Department of Planning (DCP) were the co-lead agencies. The EIS assessed the impacts of the construction and operation of a non-putrescible and putrescible transfer station in Williamsburg on the Brooklyn waterfront. Technical analyses that he managed 6

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP included quantitative air modeling (including PM10) and noise modeling (using the STAMINA model). Traffic, land use, coastal zone, and neighborhood character evaluations were also performed. This controversial project included several meetings with the local community and an issues conference to resolve significant, controversial issues.

E.I. Dupont and Olin Corp., Environmental Impact Statement for the NIACHLOR Project - Niagara Falls, NY (Project Manager: 1984-1988)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager for the preparation of a draft and final EIS under SEQRA. The proposed action included a major industrial facility for the production of chlorine, a 60-mile pipeline, and the development of subsurface brine mine fields in western NY State. A substantial component of the EIS included the assessment of alternative pipeline routings across three counties.

The potential impacts of developing subsurface solution mines, including land use conflicts and land subsidence were addressed. The geographic extent and scale of the project required significant interaction with regional and state regulatory agencies as well as local communities. The project was ultimately approved and constructed.

Energy and Power Confidential Client - Critical Issues Assessment for a Planned Power Generating Facility - Westchester County, New York (Assistant Project Manager: 2011)

In this fast-tracked assessment, TRC identified a set of critical permitting and implementation issues related to the construction and operation of a proposed 1,980 MW combined-cycle, natural gas fired electric generating facility. The assessment also included an evaluation of conceptual engineering design, regulatory development constraints and potential impacts / site specific environmental issues. Mr. Lawlor was responsible for the preparation of the report and the coordination of analyses performed by TRCs technical team. The issues evaluated and found to be of concern included: air quality, noise, water supply, environmental justice, traffic, ecology & wildlife, visual resources / aesthetics, land use & zoning, and wetlands. TRC performed preliminary air impact modeling of the proposed facility. Air quality was determined to be the most critical issue given the estimated emissions and the PM2.5 non-attainment area designation of the study area. TRC also determined that the proposed system of air cooled condensers could have potentially significant noise impacts given the proximity of residences, the low study area ambient noise levels, and the defined local and state regulatory limits. TRC biologists identified the presence of Peregrine Falcons, listed as endangered in New York State, nesting and brooding on the site. They also delineated several wetlands on the 100-acre+ site in accordance with USACE methodologies. Finally, TRC developed two permitting and implementation schedules for the project - one under SEQRA and one under the states Article X Process for the purposes of assisting the client in understanding potentially 7

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP applicable timeframes under those two regulatory frameworks.

New York State Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) - NYS SEQRA Support for the State Energy Program and Block Grant Program -

New York State (Task Leader: 2010)

Mr. Lawlor provided technical guidance to NYSERDA with respect to its responsibilities under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). NYSERDA funds hundreds of individual energy conservation initiatives across the state from monies provided by the federal government through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). TRC is responsible for assisting NYSERDA with all aspects of the State Energy Program (SEP) and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) including program design, marketing, application review, measurement and verification, site inspections, project tracking and compliance tracking as well as reporting to DOE and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Mr. Lawlor developed a SEQRA Review Protocol to categorize all NYSERDA initiatives per SEQRA. The protocol utilized existing NYSERDA definitions, existing SEQRA thresholds and Mr. Lawlors expertise to prepare the protocol, allowing NYSERDA to efficiently establish its compliance actions. The actions could include: the need for no SEQRA documentation (Type II Action); the preparation of a State Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for Type 1 or Unlisted Actions; or, if needed, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The SEQRA analysis of actions entailed the evaluation of more than 600 projects. As a state agency, NYSERDA is currently using the protocol as guide to comply with SEQRA.

enXco Development Company, Permitting for 17.0 MW Solar Project on Long Island, NY (Project Manager: 2010 - 2011)

Subsequent to the successful completion of the SEQRA EA, Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager responsible for the acquisition of permits from federal and New York State agencies for implementation of the project. TRC prepared and submitted data to the New York Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) with respect to archaeological and historical resources; TRC obtained clearance from OPRHP based on its submittal and assessment.

TRC prepared an application package for the requisite Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from FAA; prompt approval was received allowing for site construction near a local airport. An evaluation was prepared and submitted to NYSDEC by TRC on behalf of enXco with respect to the need for SPDES Construction Permits. TRC detailed the proposed work at each of the seven sites in light of the SPDES Construction Permit requirements. TRC was successful in eliminating the need for the permit at all seven sites based on its presentation of the facts and its analyses of the applicability of the permits. TRC also prepared a permit application for work within the regulated buffer zone of a NYSDEC-regulated wetland. A permit application package was also prepared to allow the construction and eventual operation (and presence) with the designated Wild Scenic Recreational River zone of the Peconic River.

8

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP Honeywell Building Solutions - Critical Issues Assessment for a Central Utility Expansion - Montgomery County Maryland (Task Leader: 2010)

As part of a Critical Issues Assessment, Mr. Lawlor prepared the environmental and permitting analyses, excluding air quality, associated with the proposed expansion of a Central Utility Plant (CUP) to be designed and operated by Honeywell on behalf of the General Services Administration (GSA) at the White Oak Federal Research Center in Maryland. The CUP Expansion would increase the generating capacity of the facility nearly threefold - from about 25.6 MW to 69.6 MW. The purpose of the analysis was to: 1) review the potential critical issues associated with the proposed expansion at the CUP, including an assessment of potential engineering design and / or regulatory development constraints and environmental and community impacts and/or concerns; 2) identify the required Federal, state and local permits and approvals for the planned expansion; and 3) to present a representative permit licensing schedule for the proposed project. In addition, since the overall development of the federal Campus was the subject of a NEPA EIS, TRC reviewed and evaluated the EIS commitments and recommendations potentially applicable to the CUP Expansion, which included the consideration of: stormwater controls, visual quality, historic architecture, noise and infrastructure. Honeywell used the Assessment Report as an essential element in their decision-making process as to the scale, scope and scheduling of the proposed expansion.

Sigma Energy Solutions (on behalf of a confidential client) - Five States across the USA (Task Leader: 2009 and 2011)

Mr. Lawlor assisted in the preparation of an environmental due diligence effort related to the potential sale and purchase of six energy-related facilities located across the United States and Hawaii. Mr. Lawlor established the work team, coordinated field work to each of the sites, and managed the evaluations and assessments of each team member. Four facilities were fossil fuel generating stations, one was a hydroelectric plant, and one was a high voltage DC submarine electric transmission system. The issues addressed generally included the status of environmental permits, hazardous materials, enforcement actions, and air and water emissions. With access to a virtual data room, TRC read and evaluated thousands of pages of data, distilling its findings into a summary environmental due diligence report. TRC completed the reporting within a strict timeframe, reflective of the nature of the proposed sale and purchase agreement.

Dubai Electric and Water Authority (DEWA) - Dubai, UAE (Project Manager:

2008-2009)

As Project Manager for a year- long study of the Jebel Ali power plant discharge to the Arabian Sea, Mr. Lawlor assisted in the development of a monitoring and sampling program for evaluating the water quality and biota of the area where DEWA discharges cooling water to the Arabian Sea. The program entailed the collection and assessment of in-situ water samples, water chemistry, phytoplankton 9

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP and zooplankton. Reporting was made to the client and Dubai Municipality to assess environmental conditions relative to intake operations and potential red tides.

US Forest Service/National Park Service/US Corps of Engineers, Environmental Impact Statement, Wyoming/Cloverdale Transmission Line -

VA and WV (Project Manager: 1990-1996)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager for the preparation of a third-party EIS for the construction and operation of a 100-mile+, 765-kilovolt electric transmission line crossing two states and the property of three federal agencies: the Forest Service, the National Park Service and the Corps of Engineers. Extensive on-the-ground land use, ecological, and visual studies were conducted to characterize the existing resources. Because of the rural nature of much of the study area and the topography of the Appalachians, the visual impact assessment using Forest Service procedures was applied using state-of-the art computer simulation techniques. Community interaction was integral to the project and scoping was conducted across the two states at numerous locales.

Public Service Electric & Gas, Virginia Power Corp., Florida Power Corp.,

Site Selection and Environmental Impact Studies (Project Manager: 1986-1994)

Mr. Lawlor performed site selection and environmental impact studies for transmission lines, pipelines, landfills, and base load and peaking-power generating facilities. Geographic areas of study included Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, New York, and New Jersey. Techniques such as decision analysis, a formal decision making process, and geographic information technology tools were used in performing these studies. These studies involved extensive data collection efforts and the integration of multidisciplinary social and environmental data.

ANR Pipeline, Environmental Report (ER) for a 155-mile Natural Gas Pipeline - Upstate New York (Assistant Project Manager: 1988-1990)

Mr. Lawlor, as assistant Project Manager, prepared the comprehensive environmental report under New York State Public Service Commission (PSC)

Article VIII regulations. The proposed natural gas pipeline traversed four counties, numerous towns and villages, and a set of environmentally sensitive areas in upstate New York. The analyses included a detailed evaluation and impact assessment of alternative routings on land use, ecology infrastructure. Mr.

Lawlor also provided expert testimony to the PSC.

Infrastructure and Transportation Targa Resources, Master Plan of Development for the Baltimore Terminal -

Baltimore, MD (Task Manager: 2011)

Mr. Lawlor was the Task Manager for t he preparation of a Master Plan of 10

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP Development for the proposed purchase of an exist ing oil storage facility by Targa in the City of Baltimore. Targa intends to expand the existing infrastructure at the site by redev eloping and cons tructing new s torage and transshipment facilities to meet regiona l market dem ands for such products as gasoline, asphalt, home heating oil, ethanol and other admixture products that can be used as blends to formulate biofuels. Targa in tends to increase total material storage capacity at the site by at leas t one (1) million b arrels. TRC un dertook a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed pr oject to assist Targa in identifying critical issues relating to redevelopment, remediation/site restoration, permitting, and environmental restrictions. The purpose was to support Targa with adequate due environmental diligence data to inform t he purchase process in terms of cost and project implementation. Mr. Lawlor prepared an assessment of the permits that may be needed for the construction and operation of the project from federal, state and local (city) agencies. He met with representatives of the City of Baltimore and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to review the project and identify / confirm city and st ate rules and regulations. He als o determined the requirements of potentially involv ed federal agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, and US DOT (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration).

New York State Department of Transportation, Expanded Project Proposal for the West Shore Expressway Access Improvements - Staten Island, NY (Project Manager: 2003-2006)

Mr. Lawlor was the Task Manager for the preparation of the environmental analysis component of the EPP (per the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual [EPM]). The EPP addressed all of the anticipated potential resource impacts from the proposed highway expansions and improvements and five alternatives that addressed existing roadway deficiencies. Noise monitoring was conducted to characterize ambient levels. Land use studies and a coastal zone assessment were completed to address compatibility issues and impacts. Mr.

Lawlor coordinated with NYSDEC for issues relating to potential freshwater and tidal water wetlands. He also interacted with FHWA with respect to NEPA classification and NEPA processing.

New Jersey Department of Transportation, Draft Programmatic Section 4(f)

Evaluation for the Howard Boulevard Rail Park & Ride Facility - Morris County, NJ (Project Manager: 2003-2005)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager for the preparation of a draft nationwide programmatic section 4(f) for a proposed rail park-and-ride facility. He conducted the evaluation of the applicability criteria, an alternatives analysis, and development of mitigation measures. The two most significant issues included coordination with the Green Acres Program to identify a suitable replacement parcel and the presence of potential NJ-listed threatened/endangered species and habitat.

11

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP New York State Department of Transportation, Environmental Assessment for the Henry Hudson Parkway - New York, NY (Project Manager: 2000-2002)

Mr. Lawlor was the Task Manager responsible for the preparation of environmental analyses associated with the reconstruction of the Henry Hudson Parkway. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM). Much of the two-mile stretch of roadway traverses New York City parklands including Fort Washington Park and Fort Tryon Park. A portion of the reconstruction project is in close proximity to the Cloisters, a New York City landmark. Stormwater, land use, ecological, and visual impact assessments are being conducted, with particular focus in the parklands. A 4(f) analysis was in development to specifically assess parkland impacts.

Environmental Impact Assessment - NEPA, Military and BRAC US Navy - EFA Chesapeake, Fort Story, SATEC Environmental Assessment

- Virginia Beach, VA (Project Manager: 2003-2006)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager of an EA to assess impacts of constructing and operating a small arms testing and evaluation compound (SATEC) at USATC Fort Story in VA Beach, VA. A SATEC is a facility at which special operations forces can conduct and evaluate realistic reconnaissance and surveillance, forced entry, and dynamic and shooting scenarios. Analysis issues include noise and vibration impacts of explosive use, presence of federal/state-protected species, cultural resources and wetlands. Analyses were conducted and NEPA processes followed to accommodate the Department of the Navy (action proponent) and the Department of the Army (property owner).

US Navy - Atlantic Division, Environmental Assessment, Naval Station -

Norfolk, VA (Project Manager: 2004-2005)

H was the Project Manager of an EA to evaluate the effects of constructing a operating a pier armored structure (PAS) to improve security for ships berthed at Pier 11 and the pier itself; a corollary objective was to support roll-on/roll-off operations at the waterfront. The EA evaluated and integrated critical data from a technical engineering report that addressed the structures stability and effectiveness as an Anti-Terrorist/Force Protection (AT/FP) measure. Key assessment issues included construction-phase impacts to natural resources and long-term impacts to on and off-station navigation (military and public).

US Navy - EFA Chesapeake, Berthing Pier 15 Environmental Assessment -

Norfolk NS, VA (Project Manager: 2005-2006)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager for an EA for the proposed construction of a general purpose berthing Pier 15 at NAVSTA in compliance with applicable provisions of NEPA. The project included multiple land-based actions as well as dredging of marine sediments. The $80 million pier was to provide utilities, deck space, and deck loading as well as pier-to-pier spacing to support the US Atlantic 12

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP fleet.

US Navy - Northern Division, Environmental Impact Statement, Naval Air Station - South Weymouth, MA (Project Manager: 1996-2000)

Mr. Lawlor was Project Manager for the preparation of a draft and final EIS that addressed the potential impacts of alternatives for reuse of the 1,450-acre Naval Air Station on the South Shore of Boston and evaluated the effects of reuse on the natural, manmade, and socioeconomic environments. The preferred reuse plan called for more than two million square feet of retail and commercial space; therefore, the impacts on adjoining communities, already substantially developed themselves, were potentially significant. The traffic analyses included the monitoring and evaluation of ten intersections, including the assessment of a new connector road more than one mile in length. A comprehensive economic assessment was performed to determine the potential project revenues and costs. Quantitative air and noise analyses were conducted. An evaluation of potential water sources was necessary as the area was under a consent decree to identify additional potable sources of water to accommodate anticipated growth. Coordination was made with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program because of the presence of two state species of concern. Mr. Lawlor managed preparation and participation in all of the public scoping, meeting, and hearing processes. The EIS was written to comply with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) as well as with NEPA.

US Navy - Northern Division, Environmental Impact Statement, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) - Calverton, NY (Project Manager: 1995-1998)

As Project Manager, Mr. Lawlor prepared a draft and final EIS that addressed the impacts of alternatives for reuse of the 6,000-acre NWIRP on Long Island. The site included more than one million square feet of building space, more than five miles of runways, 3,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land, and numerous National Register-eligible archaeological and architectural resources. Calverton was a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility where the Grumman Corporation assembled and tested military aircraft. Potential reuse alternatives that were assessed ranged from an industrial business park to a theme park including a hotel and conference center. Public participation for this project involved a range of communities from federal and state agencies to local landowners, outside developers, and Native Americans. Quantitative analyses were performed to determine impacts for air, noise, and traffic. Land use policy issues involved the Long Island Pine Barrens and the Peconic Estuary. NWIRP Calvertons unique cultural resources required performance of an intensive architectural resources survey and Phase IA, IB, and II archaeological investigations.

13

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP US Navy - Northern Division, Environmental Assessment, Squantum Gardens/Naval Terrace - Quincy, MA (Project Manager: 1998)

As Project Manager, Mr. Lawlor prepared an EA for the disposal and reuse of a military housing complex. In accordance with NEPA, the EA assessed probable impacts of the property transfer to the city of Quincy, the designated local reuse authority. The preferred reuse plan called for the 27-acre property to be converted to senior citizen housing and a senior complex. Alternatives considered included reuse for commercial retail operations of more than 200,000 square feet and 160+ units of single-family housing.

US Navy - Northern Division, Environmental Assessment for Disposal and Reuse of Naval Reserve Center (NRC) - Perth Amboy, NJ (Project Manager:

1997)

Mr. Lawlor was Project Manager for an EA that assessed the transfer and reuse of NRC Perth Amboy, New Jersey, which was closed pursuant to Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC). The EA assessed the probable impacts of the transfer and reuse on the manmade and natural environments. The preferred reuse alternative called for the property to be used as a base for commercial boating operations as it was located directly on the Arthur Kill. Consequently, the EA evaluated potential impacts on waterborne navigation. Alternatives considered in the EA included use by the city of Perth Amboy for municipal operations and use as a private commercial building.

US Navy - Northern Division, Environmental Assessment for Naval Reserve Center (NRC) - Quincy, MA (Project Manager: 1996)

As Project Manager, Mr. Lawlor prepared an EA for the reestablishment of NRC Quincy, MA. In accordance with NEPA, the EA assessed the probable impacts of reestablishment on the manmade and natural environments. The EA determined that potential wetland impacts could occur with the proposed plan, and appropriate mitigation was developed in compliance with the local wetland protection ordinance. The traffic analysis determined that the reestablishment of NRC operations could jeopardize the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the facility because of existing traffic conditions and road geometry. Managed development of the appropriate mitigation to sufficiently alleviate this condition and obtain a finding of no significant impact.

US Navy - Northern Division, Environmental Assessment for Naval Housing, Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) - Lakehurst, NJ (Project Manager: 1986-1987)

As Project Manager, prepared an EA under NEPA associated with the construction of housing at the Lakehurst, NJ naval facility. Analyses were conducted with respect to cultural resources, land use, wetlands, and socioeconomics.

14

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP Environment - Natural Resources New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, Ecological Baseline Studies at the Secaucus/High School Site - Secaucus, NJ (Project Manager: 2000-2002)

As Project Manager, Mr. Lawlor managed the development and implementation of baseline ecological studies at a 33-acre, Phragmites-dominated site in the New Jersey Meadowlands. A variety of data were collected: soil/sediment, water quality, vegetation cover, benthos, avian use, and small mammals. The soil/sediments were analyzed for physical properties and chemical parameters.

Water quality data was evaluated for more typical parameters (e.g., ph, DO, temperature). The biological data were used to address habitat/use issues.

These studies were to serve as the basis for the design of a wetland enhancement and include the dual objectives of wetland enhancement and control of local flooding/stormwater.

New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, Environmental Studies at the Riverbend Site - Secaucus, NJ (Project Manager: 2000-2001)

As Project Manager, Mr. Lawlor directed a set of studies to characterize the sediments of a 50+-acre site located along the Hackensack River. Managed development and implementation of a field study program to determine the chemical and physical constituents of the site's sediments; of particular concern were contaminants in concentrations above the NJDEP (1998) and USEPA Ecotox Thresholds (1996). Grain size analysis, pH, redox potential, and temperature data were also collected. These data were planned to be used in the development of a conceptual wetland enhancement plan, using the open marsh water management technique.

New Jersey Meadowlands Commission, Permit Evaluation of the Mill Creek Wetlands Mitigation Site - Secaucus, NJ (Project Manager: 2001)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager for an assessment of the federal permits issued for the construction of a 130+-acre wetland mitigation site. The project objective was to assess post-construction compliance with six individual COE permits. A set of measurement criteria were established that included permit language, plans and maps, as built plans, and site monitoring data. Through a detailed review of the project files and use of CAD overlay, the assessment of permit compliance was completed within an expedited schedule. The client was intending to use the data to provide them with flexibility with respect to permit conditions that could have required extensive labor and materials to meet.

International Work V Resorts Limited, Greece On The World - Dubai, UAE (Project Manager:

2008-2009)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Marine Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) for one of the first islands to be developed as part of The World complex. The World complex will 15

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP be a set of more than 250 independent islands in the Arabian Gulf of Dubai, UAE. Both reports were prepared in accordance with the developers Development Control Regulations (DCR) and with those of the Worlds regulatory authority. The EBS established baseline conditions of the marine environment in the area surrounding the island which had been significantly modified with the dredging and reclamation work associated with the development of Greece Island and all of the surrounding islands. The EIA assessed the impacts of island construction and operation. The effects of construction included an assessment of water quality, marine biota, air and noise. Operationally, impacts of concern included water quality, air and noise. The island was planned to be powered with a set of four diesel-powered generators; the potential for air emissions exceeding local standards was assessed; and, it was determined that operations of the generators could exceed local night time noise standards. Water quality impacts were determined based on planned island operations, EBS data, and hydrodynamic modeling performed for the World Complex. The EIA recommended a three-part monitoring program for these resources - water/biota, air quality and noise - to determine the predicted versus actual impacts once the island is operational. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) as well as a detailed matrix of mitigation measures was also prepared.

SAMA DUBAI, Lagoons Project - Dubai, UAE (Project Manager: 2007-2009)

Mr. Lawlor was the Project Manager on the Lagoons Project covering an area of 1,600 acres. Mr. Lawlor was responsible for the preparation of monthly environmental reporting on the construction site and the adjacent waterway (Dubai Creek). He managed the field team collecting data on water quality and chemistry, air quality, noise and benthic invertebrates. The monitoring and data analyses were used to assess the impacts of project construction on the environment as well as to assure project compliance with regulatory standards.

Mr. Lawlor interacted with the client on a daily basis and with local regulatory authorities to ensure that the project meets environmental requirements and construction progress was maintained.

NAKHEEL, Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) for the Dubai Waterfront Project - Dubai, UAE (Project Manager: 2007-2008)

As Project Manager, Mr. Lawlor completed an environmental baseline study (EBS) of the Dubai Waterfront Project site, which when completed, was planned to be the largest waterfront development in the world - approximately 20,000 acres. He directed the overall studies including field programs, and literature searches and subconsultants. The EBS provided the client with the means to better understand, characterize and quantify the existing conditions of the site and surrounding physical, chemical and biological environment. Specifically, the EBS included data collection and compilation on multiple resources - marine environment (seabed, coastal processes, bathymetry, biota, and water quality),

groundwater, soils, air quality, and noise. The EBS characterized baseline conditions in advance of studying the changes likely to occur as a result of the 16

Marc J. Lawlor, P.P., AICP project, which are documented in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of which Mr. Lawlor was also the Project Manager. The EBS was submitted to and approved by the regulatory authority.

17

EXHIBIT B Attorney-Client Privileged, Confidential Work Product SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES CONSISTENCY 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by DETERMINATIONS Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. with a detailed narrative analysis of Policies 11,12, 17, 18, 30, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44. Part 2 of SEQRA EAF identifies no significant impact to environmental resources from the sale of IP3. Federal Consistency Form concludes that actions that may affect or are located in resource areas are compliant with coastal program.

Negative Declaration identifies NYSDEC and NYSDOS as involved agencies in SEQR process. Approvals required from those agencies, including NRC.

2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of 2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. policies; Located in, or contiguous to, OR have a significant effect on - No significant effects on: important agricultural lands, scenic quality, development of water dependent uses, operation of ports, land and water uses of small harbors, existing or potential public recreation opportunities, significant archaeological and cultural resources; No physical alterations of 2+ acres shoreline, nor 5+

non-shoreline coastal acres, expansion of public services or infrastructure in undeveloped or low density areas, energy facility subject to Article VII or VIII of PSL, coastal mining, excavation filling or dredging, reduction of existing or potential shoreline access, sale or change in use of state-owned shoreline or land under water, development in flood or erosion hazard area, development on natural feature providing flood/erosion protection. Not in or significant effect on Local waterfront Revitalization Program area.

Three affirmative responses: significant fish or wildlife habitat, scenic resources of statewide significance, commercial/recreational use of fish & wildlife.

SPDES Permit renewal contingent on providing I&E protection as

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES levels equal to those ensured, on average years per the 1981 and 1987 SPDES Permits for five representative fish taxa.

3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP 2 (and the continued Commission - Order Approving Issuance of operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal Edison to Entergy, TAB C. zone policies.

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by 4) FEIS concludes that SPDES permit renewals will not result in NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts to 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. the effects on the coastal zone. Consistency Form in Appendix IV-5 provides documentation and supports FEIS conclusion. Checklist review of all policies. Specific reference to Policy 7 compliance.

NYS COASTAL ZONE POLICIES

1) Restore, revitalize, and 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by redevelop deteriorated and Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies.

underutilized waterfront areas NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) Indicates no significant effect on Local Waterfront Revitalization for commercial, industrial, 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of Program Area.

cultural, recreational and other SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP 2 (and the continued compatible uses. 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone Commission - Order Approving Issuance of policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con zone policies.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 4) Indicates not within a Waterfront Revitalization Area.

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted FEIS by NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3 TAB D.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

2) Facilitate the siting of water 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by dependent uses and facilities on Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies.

or adjacent to coastal waters. NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) Indicates no significant effect on development of future water

2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of dependent uses.

SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. 3) Indicates that the transfer of IP 1 and IP2 (and the continued

3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service operation of IP2) will not result in any additional potentially Commission Order Approving Issuance of significant or likely adverse impacts to the coastal zone.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con 4) Appendix IV-5 indicates no significant effect on development of Edison to Entergy, TAB C. future water dependent uses.

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by 5,6,7) VOB Certificates of Occupancy and construction permits NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton allowing for facility siting on or adjacent to coastal waters.

1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D.

5) 2003, 2004, VOB - Certificate of Occupancy General Services Building, Tabs 69, 70, 76.

6) 2008-no expir, VOB - Certificate of Occupancy for the ISFSI, Tab 100.

7) 2012, VOB - Construction permit to construct General Services Building, Tab 66.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

3) Further develop the State's 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by major ports of Albany, Buffalo, Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies.

New York, Ogdensburg and NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) Indicates no effect.

Oswego as centers of commerce 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP 2 will not result in and industry. SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. any new effects on coastal zone policies. Transfer of IP1 and IP2

3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service (with continued operation of IP2) determined to be consistent with Commission - Order Approving Issuance of applicable coastal zone policies.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con 4) FEIS concludes that SPDES permit renewals will not result in Edison to Entergy, TAB C. any new effects on coastal zone policies.

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by Consistency forms in Appendix IV-5 provides documentation and NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton support FEIS conclusion. Consistency provisions of program enable 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3,TAB D NYSDEC to consider the full range of coastal policies prior to undertaking and approving a specific action.

Checklist review of all policies. Specific reference to Policy 7 compliance.

Appendix IV-5 indicates no significant effect.

4) Strengthen the economic base 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by of smaller harbor areas by Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies.

encouraging the development NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) Coastal Assessment Form completed by NYSDEC indicates no and enhancement of those 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of significant effect.

traditional uses and activities SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP 2 will not result in which have provided such areas 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service any new effects on coastal zone policies. Transfer of IP1 and IP2 with their unique maritime Commission - Order Approving Issuance of (with continued operation of IP2) determined to be consistent with identity. FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con applicable coastal zone policies. Action determined to be consistent Edison to Entergy, TAB C. with applicable coastal zone policies.

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by 4) Appendix IV Coastal Assessment Form completed by NYP NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton indicates no significant effect.

1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3,TAB D.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

5) Encourage the location of 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Full EAF Form indicates service of the site by public utilities.

development in areas where Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by Federal Consistency Form indicates no need for the provision of public services and facilities NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. new public services or infrastructure (in undeveloped or sparsely essential to such development 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of populated sections of the coastal zone). NYS Coastal Assessment are adequate. SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. Form indicates no need for expansion of existing public services or

3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service infrastructure (in undeveloped or low density areas of the coastal Commission - Order Approving Issuance of zone).

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con 2) NYS Coastal Assessment Form indicates no need for expansion Edison to Entergy, TAB C. of existing public services or infrastructure (in undeveloped or low

4) 2003, 2004, VOB - Certificate of density areas of the coastal zone).

Occupancy General Services Building, 3) FSEIS indicates no significant impacts to public services Tabs 69, 70, 76. anticipated.

5) 2008-no expir., VOB - Certificate of Indicates that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of Occupancy for the ISFSI,Tab 100. IP2) will not result in any additional potentially significant or likely

6) 2012, VOB - Construction permit to adverse impacts to the coastal zone.

construct General Services Building, Tab 4,5,6) VOB Certificates of Occupancy and construction permits

66. allowing for facility siting on or adjacent to coastal waters.

6) Expedite permit procedures in 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form certifies overall compliance of action order to facilitate the siting of Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by with the NYS Coastal Program.

development activities at NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) List of permits, authorizations certificates or licenses held for IP2 suitable locations. 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service identified. FSEIS indicates that compliance with all permits, etc.

Commission - Order Approving Issuance of will be maintained.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

7) Significant coastal fish and 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by wildlife habitats will be Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies protected, preserved, and, where NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. with a detailed narrative analysis of Policies 11,12, 17, 18, 30, 38, practical, restored so as to 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of 40, 41, 43, 44. Part 2 of SEQRA EAF identifies no significant maintain their viability as SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. impact to environmental resources. Federal Consistency Form habitats. 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service concludes that actions that may affect or are located in resource Commission - Order Approving Issuance of areas are compliant with coastal program.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con Negative Declaration identifies NYSDEC and NYSDOS as Edison to Entergy, TAB C. involved agencies in SEQR process. Approvals required from those

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by agencies, including NRC.

NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton 2) NYS Coastal Assessment Form (NYSDEC) indicates proposed 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3,TAB D. action is located in OR has a significant effect on referenced resources. Also indicates action will have a significant effect on commercial or recreational use of fish and wildlife resources.

SPDES Permit renewal contingent on providing I&E protection as levels equal to those ensured, on average years per the 1981 and 1987 SPDES Permits for five representative fish taxa. With conditions in place, action determined to be consistent with NYS Coastal Management Program.

3) FSEIS indicates that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) will not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts to coastal zone in area surrounding IP2; future coastal zone impacts would be approximately the same.

4) App. IV-5 NYS Coastal Assessment Form (NYPA) indicates renewal of SPDES permit will not have a significant effect on commercial or recreational use of coastal fish resources.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

8) Protect fish and wildlife 1) June 10, 1982, NYSDEC - SPDES 1) SPDES effluent limitations and monitoring requirements resources in the coastal area Permit renewal for Units 1, 2, 3, Tab 23. implement this policy.

from the introduction of 2) June 18, 1982, NYSDEC - Water 2) NYSDEC Water Quality Certification issued with stipulations of hazardous wastes and other Quality Certificate for Units 1, 2 and 3, Tab compliance with conditions set forth by the state.

pollutants which bioaccumulate 24. 3) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by in the food chain or which cause 3) March 31, 2000, LIPA - SEQR Negative NYPA.

significant sublethal or lethal Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA to 4) Renews SPDES water discharge permit as a means of effect on those resources. Entergy, TAB A. implementing this policy.

4) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of 5) Indicates that site remediation will continue in accordance with SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. NYSDEC-accepted Phase I and Phase II Assessments.

5) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service 6) Renews SPDES water discharge permit as a means of Commission Order Approving Issuance of implementing this policy.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con 7) SPDES permit for IP tank farm for allowable discharges to Edison to Entergy, TAB C. Hudson River.

6) June 25, 2003, Accepted, NYSDEC - 8) License to store, handle on-site petroleum products including FEIS, SPDES Permits for Roseton 1&2, SPCC Plan/Facility Response Plan that address potential releases Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. and spills.

7) February 1, 2005, NYSDEC - SPDES 9) Chemical bulk storage certificate to safely store materials on-site.

Permit for IP Tank Farm, Tab 80.

8) April 6, 2005, NYSDEC - Major Petroleum Facility License, Tab 81.

9) July 18, 2005, NYSDEC - Chemical Bulk Storage Certificate, Tab 82.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

9) Expand recreational use of 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form (NYPA) certifies overall compliance fish and wildlife resources in Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by of action with the NYS Coastal Program.

coastal areas by increasing NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) NYS Coastal Assessment Form (NYSDEC) indicates proposed access to existing resources, 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of action is located in OR has a significant effect on referenced supplementing existing stocks, SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. resources. Also indicates action will have a significant effect on and developing new resources. 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service commercial or recreational use of fish and wildlife resources.

Commission - Order Approving Issuance of SPDES Permit renewal contingent on providing I&E protection as FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con levels equal to those ensured, on average years per the 1981 and Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 1987 SPDES Permits for five representative fish taxa. With

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by conditions in place action was determined to be consistent with NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton NYS Coastal Management Program.

1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3,TAB D. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

4) Appendix IV-5 indicates no significant effect.

10) Further develop commercial 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form certifies overall compliance of action finfish, shellfish and crustacean Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by with the NYS Coastal Program.

resources in the coastal area by NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) SPDES Permit renewal contingent on providing I&E protection encouraging the construction of 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of as levels equal to those ensured, on average years per the 1981 and new, or improvement of existing SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. 1987 SPDES Permits for five representative fish taxa. With on-shore commercial fishing 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service conditions in place, action determined to be consistent with NYS facilities, increasing marketing Commission - Order Approving Issuance of Coastal Management Program.

of the State's seafood products, FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con 3) Changes in operation of IP 2 not anticipated; therefore, no maintaining adequate stocks, and Edison to Entergy, TAB C. additional potential significant or likely adverse impacts on plants expanding aquaculture facilities. or animals.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

11) Buildings and other 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) States that buildings and other structures were sited and structures will be sited in the Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by constructed in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

coastal area so as to minimize NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all damage to property and the 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of policies; Located in, or contiguous to, OR have a significant effect endangering of human lives SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. on coastal resources. No physical alterations of 2+ acres shoreline, caused by flooding and erosion. 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service nor 5+ non-shoreline coastal acres, expansion of public services or Commission - Order Approving Issuance of infrastructure in undeveloped or low density areas, energy facility FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con subject to Article VII or VIII of PSL, coastal mining, excavation Edison to Entergy, TAB C. filling or dredging, reduction of existing or potential shoreline access, sale or change in use of state-owned shoreline or land under water, development in flood or erosion hazard area, development on natural feature providing flood/erosion protection. Not in or significant effect on Local waterfront Revitalization Program area.

Three affirmative responses: significant fish or wildlife habitat, scenic resources of statewide significance, commercial/recreational use of fish & wildlife.

3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

12) Activities or development in 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Part 2 of EAF indicates no impacts to unusual land forms (e.g.,

the coastal area will be Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by cliffs, dunes, etc.). Federal Consistency Assessment Form indicates undertaken so as to minimize NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. no effect or action located in, on or adjacent to beach, dune or damage to natural resources and 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of barrier island.

property from flooding and SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. 2) NYSDEC Coastal Assessment Form certifies no involvement or erosion by protecting natural 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service effect on beach, dune, barrier island, etc.

protective features including Commission - Order Approving Issuance of 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued beaches, dunes, barrier islands FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone and bluffs. Edison to Entergy, TAB C. policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by zone policies.

NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton 4) Certifies no resulting development on these protective features.

1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D.

13) The construction or 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form certifies overall compliance of action reconstruction of erosion Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by with the NYS Coastal Program.

protection structures shall be NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all undertaken only if they have 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of policies.

reasonable probability of SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued controlling erosion for at least 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone thirty years as demonstrated in Commission - Order Approving Issuance of policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal design and construction FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con zone policies.

standards and/or assured Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

maintenance or replacement programs.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

14) Activities and development 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form certifies overall compliance of action including the construction or Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by with the NYS Coastal Program.

reconstruction of erosion NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all protection structures, shall be 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of policies.

undertaken so that there will be SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued no measurable increase in 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone erosion or flooding at the site of Commission - Order Approving Issuance of policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal such activities or development, FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con zone policies.

or at other locations. Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

15) Mining, excavation or 1) 1984 -1994, USACOE - Dredge a 1) NYSWRCCD permit issued indicated there can be no obstruction dredging in coastal waters shall 15,000 square foot area to a depth 27 feet to navigation, endangerment of the health safety and welfare of the not significantly interfere with below mean low water to remove 6,000 people of NY or loss or destruction of Natural Resources.

the natural coastal processes cubic yards of material with upland 2) NYSDEC Article 15 WQC states activity must not cause which supply beach materials to disposal (dredging in the Hudson River), unreasonable obstruction to navigation of waters or flood flows, land adjacent to such waters and Tab 25. endanger health or welfare of the people or loss or destruction of shall be undertaken in a manner 2) March 1993-May 1993, NYSDEC - natural resources.

which will not cause an increase Article 15 and Water Quality Certification 3) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by in erosion of such land. to remove debris and silt from intake NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies screens, dredge intake approach and 4) NYSDEC Coastal Assessment Form certifies no mining, forbays, Tab 30. excavation or dredging.

3) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 5) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone NYPA to Entergy, TAB A policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal

4) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of zone policies.

SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. 6) Appendix IV-5 certifies no mining, excavation or dredging.

5) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service Commission - Order Approving Issuance of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

6) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D.

16) Public funds shall only be 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form certifies overall compliance of action used for erosion protective Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by with the NYS Coastal Program.

structures where necessary to NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all protect human life, and new 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of policies.

development which requires a SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued location within or adjacent to an 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone erosion hazard area to be able to Commission - Order Approving Issuance of policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal function, or existing FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con zone policies.

development; and only where Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

the public benefits outweigh the long term monetary and other costs including the potential for increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective features.

17) Non-structural measures to 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form certifies overall compliance of action minimize damage to natural Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by with the NYS Coastal Program.

resources and property from NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all flooding and erosion shall be 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of policies.

used whenever possible. SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued

3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone Commission - Order Approving Issuance of policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con zone policies.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

18) Proposed major actions in 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1, 2, 3, 4) States this in narrative form. Actions determined to be the coastal area give full Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by consistent with enforceable policies of the NYS CMP and the consideration to those interests, NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. overall CMP.

and to the safeguards which the 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES State has established to protect SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B.

valuable coastal resource areas. 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service Commission Order Approving Issuance of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D.

19) Protect, maintain, and 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Part 2 of EAF indicates no effect on quality / quantity of existing increase the level and types of Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by or future open spaces or recreational opportunities. Federal access to public water related NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. Consistency Assessment Form indicates no reduction of existing or recreation resources and 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of potential public access to or along coastal waters. NYS Coastal facilities. SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. Assessment Form indicates no significant effect on existing or

3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service potential public recreation opportunities.

Commission Order Approving Issuance of 2) NYSDEC Coastal Assessment Form indicates no significant FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con effect on existing or potential public recreation opportunities.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. zone policies.

4) App IV NYS Coastal Assessment Form (NYPA) indicates no significant effect on existing or potential public recreation.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

20) Access to the publicly- 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA to Entergy - Public access is not compatible with the primary purpose and owned foreshore and to lands SEQR Negative Declaration on Sale of IP3, security requirements of the facility, i.e., generation of power in a immediately adjacent to the TAB A. nuclear power plant. Refer to Policy 22, which states that water-foreshore or the water's edge that 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of related recreation (that requires public access) is dependant on it are publicly-owned shall be SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. being a compatible use. The generation of power in a nuclear power provided and it shall be provided 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service plant and the security requirements thereof, are not compatible with in a manner compatible with Commission Order Approving Issuance of access. Nevertheless, prior reviews of the actions (1 - 4) determined adjoining uses. FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con them to be consistent with the NYS CMP.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies.

NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton Part 2 of SEQRA EAF identifies no significant impact to 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. environmental resources from sale of IP3 (with no change in operations). Federal Consistency Form concludes that actions that may affect or are located in resource areas are compliant with coastal program.

2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all policies.

3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

4) FEIS concludes that SPDES permit renewals will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Consistency Form in Appendix IV-5 provides documentation and supports FEIS conclusion. Checklist review of all policies.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

21) Water dependent and water 1) March 31, 2000 - SEQR Negative Recreational use is not compatible with the primary purpose and enhanced recreation will be Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA to security requirements of the facility, i.e., generation of power in a encouraged and facilitated, and Entergy, TAB A. nuclear power plant. Refer to Policy 22. Nevertheless, prior reviews will be given priority over non- 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of of the actions (1 - 3) determined them to be consistent with the NYS water-related uses along the SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. CMP.

coast. 3) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency Certification by NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal and State coastal policies.

1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. Part 2 of SEQRA EAF identifies no significant impact to environmental resources from sale of IP3. Federal Consistency Form concludes that actions that may affect or are located in resource areas are compliant with coastal program.

2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all policies.

3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

4) FEIS concludes that SPDES permit renewals will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Consistency Form in Appendix IV-5 provides documentation and supports FEIS conclusion. Checklist review of all policies.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

22) Development when located 1) March 31, 2000, - SEQR Negative The primary purpose and security requirements of the adjacent to the shore will Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA to facility, i.e., generation of power in a nuclear power plant, provide for water-related Entergy, TAB A. are not compatible with water-related recreation.

recreation whenever such use is 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of Nevertheless, prior reviews of the actions (1 - 4) had compatible with reasonably SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. determined them to be consistent with the overall NYS anticipated demand for such 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service CMP.

activities, and is compatible with Commission Order Approving Issuance of 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency the primary purpose of the FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con Certification by LIPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal development. Edison to Entergy, TAB C. and State coastal policies. Part 2 of SEQRA EAF identifies

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by no significant impact to environmental resources from sale NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton of IP3 (with no change in operations). Federal Consistency 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. Form concludes that actions that may affect or are located in resource areas are compliant with coastal program.

2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of all policies.

3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

4) FEIS concludes that SPDES permit renewals will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies.

Consistency Form in Appendix IV-5 provides documentation and supports FEIS conclusion. Checklist review of all policies.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

23) Protect, enhance and restore 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency structures, districts, areas or sites Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by Certification by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal that are of significance in the NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. and State coastal policies. Part 2 of SEQRA EAF identifies history, architecture, archeology 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of no significant impact to environmental resources from sale or culture of the State, its SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. of IP3 (with no change in operation). Federal Consistency communities, or the Nation. 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service Form concludes that actions that may affect or are located in Commission Order Approving Issuance of resource areas are compliant with coastal program.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con 2) NYSDEC Coastal Assessment Form indicates no Edison to Entergy, TAB C. significant effect.

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by 3) FSEIS indicates action will have no significant effects on NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton existing archaeological or historical resources on- or off-1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. site.

4) App IV NYS Coastal Assessment Form (NYPA) indicates no significant effect on existing or potential public recreation.

24) Prevent impairment of 1) March 31, 2000, LIPA - SEQR Negative 1) Explicit Overall Coastal Program Consistency scenic resources of statewide Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by NYPA to Certification by NYPA. Checklist coverage of all Federal significance. Entergy, TAB A. and State coastal policies. Part 2 of SEQRA EAF identifies

2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of no significant impact to environmental resources from sale SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. of IP3 (with no change in operations). Federal Consistency

3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service Form concludes that actions that may affect or are located in Commission - Order Approving Issuance of resource areas are compliant with coastal program.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con 2) NYDSEC Coastal Assessment Form indicates affirmative Edison to Entergy, TAB C. response re: scenic resources as to action being located in, or

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by contiguous to, or having a significant effect. Nevertheless, NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton action determined to be consistent with NYS CMP.

1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. 3) Proposed action would not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts to visual aesthetics.

4) App IV NYS Coastal Assessment Form (NYPA)

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES indicates no significant effect.

25) Protect, restore or enhance 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Part 2 of EAF indicates no significant effect on aesthetic natural and man-made resources Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by resources. NYS Coastal Assessment Form indicates no which are not identified as being NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. significant effect on existing or potential public recreation of statewide significance, but 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of opportunities.

which contribute to the overall SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. 2) NYDSEC Coastal Assessment Form indicates no scenic quality of the coastal area. 3 ) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service involvement or effect (physical alteration) of shoreline, Commission Order Approving Issuance of land under water or coastal waters, land (5 acres) within the FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con coastal zone.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 3) Indicates that action would not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts to visual aesthetics.

26) Conserve and protect 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Assessment Form (NYPA) indicates agricultural lands In the State's Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by no significant impact to state-designated important coastal area. NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. agricultural lands.

2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of 2) NYSDEC Coastal Assessment Form indicates no SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. significant effect.

3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service 3) Indicates that the site does not encompass any Commission Order Approving Issuance of agricultural lands and therefore, no potential impacts would FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con occur.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 4) Appendix IV-5 indicates no significant effect.

4) June 25, 2003, Accepted, FEIS by NYSDEC - SPDES Permits for Roseton 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

27) Decisions on the siting and 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Full EAF indicates no significant effect as no physical construction of major energy Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by change will occur to site (IP3). Addendum to EA indicates facilities in the coastal area will NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. physically no difference in facility operation before or after be based on public energy needs, 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service sale.

compatibility of such facilities Commission - Order Approving Issuance of 2) Indicates that future coastal zone impacts of proposed with the environment, and the FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con action (sale of IP2 and continuance of operations) would be facility's need for a shorefront Edison to Entergy, TAB C. about the same. FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and location. 3) 2003, 2004, VOB - Certificate of IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) will not result in any Occupancy General Services Building, new effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to Tabs 69, 70, 76. be consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

4) 2008-no expir., VOB - Certificate of 3,4,5) VOB Certificates of Occupancy for ISFSI and the Occupancy for the ISFSI, Tab 100. Cask Vendor specifications allowing for siting and

5) 2012, VOB - Construction permit to construction of nuclear energy-related facilities in coastal construct General Services Building, Tab area.

66.

28) Ice management practices 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form certifies overall compliance of shall not interfere with the Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by action with the NYS Coastal Program.

production of hydroelectric NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) State Consistency Project Review: Checklist review of power, damage significant fish 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of all policies.

and wildlife and their habitats, or SPDES Discharge Permit, Tab B. 3) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with increase shoreline erosion or 3 ) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service continued operation of IP2) will not result in any new flooding. Commission Order Approving Issuance of effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

29) Encourage the development 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form (NYPA) certifies overall of energy resources on the Outer Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by compliance of action with the NYS Coastal Program.

Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) Transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of and in other water bodies, and 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service IP2) deemed to be consistent with applicable coastal zone ensure the environmental safety Commission Order Approving Issuance of policies.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES of such activities. Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

30) Municipal, industrial, and 1) 1982-1987, NYSDEC - Water quality 1, 3) NYSDEC Water Quality Certification given by the commercial discharge of certification under Section 401 of State indicating that the effluent / discharge will not pollutants, including but not FWPCAA, Tab 24. contravene the applicable water quality standards for the limited to, toxic and hazardous 2) 1987-1992, 1990-1995, NYSDEC - Hudson River at the point of discharge. NYSDEC Water substances, into coastal waters Cooling water discharge through a common Quality Certification issued with stipulations of compliance will conform to State and discharge canal - Tab 26-27. with conditions set forth by the State.

National water quality standards. 3) 1999-2000, NYSDEC - Water Quality 2, 7, 9) Provide state authorizations, renewals or Certification for tieback cables, Tab 50. modifications related to discharges into coastal waters in

4) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR compliance with state and national water quality standards Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by 4) Full EAF - Parts 1 and 2 indicate no significant effect.

NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. Federal Consistency Assessment Form indicates no

5) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of discharge of toxics, hazardous substances or other pollutants SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. into coastal waters; similarly, no draining of stormwater

6) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service runoff or sewer overflows into coastal waters. Indicates Commission Order Approving Issuance of notice that a state water quality permit or certification is FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con required.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 5) NYSDEC Renewal of SPDES Discharge Permit with

7) 2001-2006, NYSDEC - Industrial requirements for protections related to I&E. With SPDES - surface discharge, Tab 63 conditions in place, action determined to be consistent with

8) June 25, 2003, Accepted FEIS by NYS Coastal Management Program.

NYSDEC re: SPDES Permits for Roseton 6) Transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) 1&2, Bowline 1&2 and IP 2&3, TAB D. deemed to be consistent with applicable coastal zone

9) NYSDEC SPDES (various years) - policies.

Discharge of wastewaters to waters of the 8) FEIS concludes that SPDES permit renewals will not state, Tabs 23,28,29,31,39,67,68,80. result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts to the effects on the coastal zone (Appendix IV-5). Appendix IV-5 Consistency Form indicates no significant effect.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

31) State coastal area policies 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) NYS Coastal Assessment Form indicates proposed and management objectives of Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by action (sale and continued operation of IP3 with no change) approved local Waterfront NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. is not located in or has a significant effect on an area Revitalization Programs will be 2) May 09, 2000, NYSDEC - Renewal of included as an approved LWRP.

considered while reviewing SPDES Discharge Permit, TAB B. 2) NYSDEC NYS Coastal Assessment Form indicates coastal water classifications and 3 ) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service action (continued operations with no change) is not located while modifying water quality Commission - Order Approving Issuance of in or does not have a significant effect on an area included standards; however, those waters FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con as an approved LWRP.

already over-burdened with Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 3) FEIS concludes that SPDES permit renewals will not contaminants will be recognized result in any additional potentially significant or likely as being a development adverse impacts to the effects on the coastal zone. Transfer constraint. of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) determined to be consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

32) Encourage the use of 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form certifies overall compliance of alternative or innovative sanitary Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by action with the NYS Coastal Management Program.

waste systems in small NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with communities where the costs of 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service continued operation of IP2) will not result in any new conventional facilities are Commission - Order Approving Issuance of effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be unreasonably high, given the FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

size of the existing tax base of Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

these communities.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

33) Best management practices 1) 1982-1987, NYSDEC - Water 1,3) NYSDEC Water Quality Certification given by the will be used to ensure the control quality certification under Section State indicating that the effluent / discharge will not of stormwater runoff and 401 of FWPCAA, Tab 24. contravene the applicable water quality standards for the combined sewer overflows 2) 1987-1992, 1990-1995, Hudson River at the point of discharge. NYSDEC Water draining into coastal waters. NYSDEC - Cooling water Quality Certification issued with stipulations of compliance discharge through a common with conditions set forth by the State.

discharge canal - Tab 26-27. 4) Full EAF - Parts 1 and 2 indicate no significant effect.

3) 1999-2000, NYSDEC - Water Federal Consistency Assessment Form indicates no Quality Certification for tieback discharge of toxics, hazardous substances or other cables, Tab 50. pollutants into coastal waters; similarly, no draining of

4) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR stormwater runoff or sewer overflows into coastal waters.

Negative Declaration, on Sale of 5) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with IP3 by NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. continued operation of IP2) will not result in any new

5) August 17, 2001, NY Public effects on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be Service Commission - Order consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

Approving Issuance of FSEIS on 2,6,7,8) Provide state authorizations for discharges into transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con coastal waters in compliance with state and national water Edison to Entergy, TAB C. quality standards.

6) 2001-2006, NYSDEC -

Industrial SPDES - surface discharge, Tab 63.

7) 2004, NYSDEC - Stormwater discharge during construction of dry fuel cask storage, Tab 77,116.

8) NYSDEC SPDES (various years) - Discharge of wastewaters to waters of the state, Tabs 23,2829,31,39,67,68,80.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

34) Discharge of waste materials 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form (NYPA) certifies overall into coastal waters from vessels Negative Declaration, on Sale of compliance of action with the NYS Coastal Management subject to State jurisdiction into IP3 by NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. Program.

coastal waters will be limited so 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public 2) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP 2 (with no as to protect significant fish and Service Commission Order change in operation) will not result in any new effects on wildlife habitats, recreational Approving Issuance of FSEIS on coastal zone policies. Action determined to be consistent areas and water supply areas. transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con with applicable coastal zone policies.

Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

35) Dredging and filling in 1) 1984 -1994 USACOE - Dredge 1) USACOE Section 10, discharge shall not destroy a coastal waters and disposal of permit for a 15,000 square foot threatened or endangered species or endanger critical dredged material will be area to a depth 27 feet below mean habitat, minimize impact on fish, wildlife and natural undertaken in a manner that low water to remove 6,000 cubic environmental values and water quality.

meets existing State dredging yards of material with upland 2) NYSDEC Article 15 Water Quality Certificate states permit requirements, and disposal (dredging in the Hudson activity must not cause unreasonable obstruction to protects significant fish and River), Tab 25. navigation of waters or flood flows, endanger health or wildlife habitats, scenic 2) 3/93-5/93, NYSDEC - Article welfare of the people or loss or destruction of natural resources, natural protective 15 and Water Quality Certification resources. In addition, precautions to be taken to preclude features, important agricultural to remove debris and silt from any contamination of wetland or waterways by any number lands, and wetlands. intake screens, dredge intake environmentally deleterious materials.

approach and forbays, Tab 30. 3) Federal Consistency Form (NYPA) certifies overall

3) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR compliance of action with the NYS Coastal Program.

Negative Declaration, on Sale of 4) Transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP3 by NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. IP2) deemed to be consistent with applicable coastal zone

4) August 17, 2001, NY Public policies.

Service Commission Order Approving Issuance of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

36) Activities related to the 1) NYSDEC/EPA (various) - 1) NYSDEC Permit to operate a hazardous storage facility shipment and storage of Accumulation and temporary onsite (HWSF) (associated with IP3); Tab 33 - Final HWSF petroleum and other hazardous storage of mixed wastes, Tabs 32-34. Permit from USEPA and compliance with SEQRA: Tab 34 -

materials will be conducted in a 2) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR USEPA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Permit.

manner that will prevent or at Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by USEPA requires a Hazardous Waste Reduction Plan be least minimize spills into coastal NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. submitted. The site must be compliant with land and air waters; all practicable efforts 3) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service requirements and restrictions as well as statutory or will be undertaken to expedite Commission Order Approving Issuance regulatory requirements of RCRA and HSWA.

the cleanup of such discharges; of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from 2) Federal Consistency Form (NYPA) certifies overall and restitution for damages will Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C. compliance of action with the NYS Coastal Program.

be required when these spills 4) 2005-2007, NYSDEC - Major 3) Transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) occur. Petroleum Facility License, Tab 81. deemed to be consistent with applicable coastal zone

5) 2009, DOT - Hazardous material policies.

shipments, Tab 87,88. 4) NYSDEC Permit related to Units 1 and 2, including

6) WCDOH (various years) - Onsite bulk conditions for a Spill Prevention and Containment Plan storage of petroleum products, Tab (SPCC), Facility Response Plan, Environmental Compliance 83,112. Report.

7) NYSDEC (various years) - Onsite bulk 5) DOT certificate of registrations - hazardous materials.

storage of hazardous substances NYSDEC Article 27 Hazardous Wastes.

certificates, Tab 82,86,113. 6) WCDOH registration certificates for petroleum bulk storage.

7) NYSDEC certificates for bulk storage of chemicals.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

37) Best management practices 1) 1982-987, NYSDEC - Water quality 1, 3) NYSDEC Water Quality Certification given by the State will be utilized to minimize the certification under Section 401 of indicating that the effluent / discharge will not contravene the non-point discharge of excess FWPCAA, Tab 24. applicable water quality standards for the Hudson River at the nutrients, organics and eroded 2) 1987-1992, 1990-1995, NYSDEC - point of discharge.

soils into coastal waters. Cooling water discharge through a NYSDEC Water Quality Certification issued with stipulations of common discharge canal - Tab 26-27. compliance with conditions set forth by the state.

3) 1999-2000, NYSDEC - Water Quality 4) Full EAF - Parts 1 and 2 indicate no significant effect. Federal Certification for tieback cables, Tab 50. Consistency Assessment Form indicates no discharge of toxics,

4) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR hazardous substances or other pollutants into coastal waters; Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by similarly, no draining of stormwater runoff or sewer overflows NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. into coastal waters.

5) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service 5) FSEIS concludes that fransfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued Commission - Order Approving Issuance operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from zone policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C. coastal zone policies.

6) 2001 - 2006, NYSDEC - Industrial 2,6,7,8) Provide state authorizations for discharges into coastal SPDES - surface discharge, Tab 63. waters in compliance with state and national water quality

7) 2004, NYSDEC - Stormwater standards.

discharge during construction of dry fuel cask storage, Tab 77,116.

8) NYSDEC SPDES (various years) -

Discharge of wastewaters to waters of the state, Tabs 23,28,29,31,39,67,68,80.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

38) The quality and quantity of 1) 1982-987, NYSDEC - Water quality 1, 3) NYSDEC Water Quality Certification reasonable assurance surface water and groundwater certification under Section 401 of is given by the State that the effluent will not contravene the supplies will be conserved and FWPCAA, Tab 24. applicable water quality standards for the Hudson River at the protected, particularly where 2) 1987-1992, 1990-1995, NYSDEC - point of discharge.

such waters constitute the Cooling water discharge through a NYSDEC Water Quality Certification issued with stipulations of primary or sole source of water common discharge canal - Tab 26, 27. compliance with conditions set forth by the state.

supply. 3) 1999-2000, NYSDEC - Water Quality 4) Full EAF - Parts 1 and 2 indicate no significant effect. Federal Certification for tieback cables, Tab 50. Consistency Assessment Form indicates no discharge of toxics,

4) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR hazardous substances or other pollutants into coastal waters; Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by similarly, no draining of stormwater runoff or sewer overflows NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. into coastal waters.

5) 2001 - 2006, NYSDEC - Industrial 2, 5, 6, 7) Provide state authorizations for discharges into coastal SPDES - surface discharge, Tab 63. waters in compliance with state and national water quality

6) 2004, NYSDEC - Stormwater standards.

discharge during construction of dry fuel cask storage, Tab 77,116.

7) NYSDEC SPDES (various years) -

Discharge of wastewaters to waters of the state, Tabs 23,28,29,31,39,67,68,80.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

39) The transport, storage, 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Federal Consistency Form (NYPA) certifies overall treatment and disposal of solid Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by compliance of action with the NYS Coastal Management wastes, particularly hazardous NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. Program.

wastes, within coastal areas will 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service 2) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued be conducted in such a manner Commission Order Approving Issuance of operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal so as to protect groundwater and FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con zone policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable surface water supplies, Edison to Entergy, TAB C. coastal zone policies.

significant fish and wildlife 3) 2005-2007, NYSDEC - Major 3) NYSDEC Permit related to Units 1 and 2, including conditions habitats, recreation areas, Petroleum Facility License, Tab 81. for a Spill Prevention and Containment Plan (SPCC), Facility important agricultural lands and 4) 2009, DOT - Hazardous material Response Plan, Environmental Compliance Report.

scenic resources. shipments, Tab 87,88. 4) DOT certificate of registrations - hazardous materials

5) NYSDEC/EPA (various years) - NYSDEC Article 27 Hazardous Wastes.

Accumulation and temporary onsite storage 5) NYSDEC Permit to operate a hazardous storage facility of mixed wastes, Tabs 32-34 (HWSF) (associated with IP3); Tab 33 - Final HWSF Permit

6) NYSDEC (various years) - Onsite bulk from USEPA; Tab 34 - USEPA Hazardous and Solid Waste storage of hazardous substances Amendments Permit.

certificates, Tab 82,86,113. USEPA requires a Hazardous Waste Reduction Plan be

7) WCDOH (various years) - Onsite bulk submitted. The site must be compliant with land and air storage of petroleum products, Tab 83,112. requirements and restrictions as well as statutory or regulatory requirements of RCRA and HSWA.

6) NYSDEC Certificates for bulk storage of chemicals.

7) WCDOH Registration certificates for petroleum bulk storage.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

40) Effluent discharged from 1) 1982-1987, NYSDEC - Water quality 1, 3) NYSDEC Water Quality Certification given by the State major steam electric generating certification under Section 401 of indicating that the effluent / discharge will not contravene the and industrial facilities into FWPCAA, Tab 24. applicable water quality standards for the Hudson River at the coastal waters will not be unduly 2) 1987-1992, 1990-1995, NYSDEC - point of discharge.

injurious to fish and wildlife and Cooling water discharge through a NYSDEC Water Quality Certification issued with stipulations of shall conform to State water common discharge canal - Tab 26-27. compliance with conditions set forth by the State. A continuous quality standards. 3) 1999-2000, NYSDEC - Water Quality biological monitoring program conducted in compliance with the Certification for tieback cables, Tab 50. "Environmental Technical Specification Requirements", as well

4) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR as discharge limits monitoring.

Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by 4) Full EAF - Parts 1 and 2 indicate no significant effect. Federal NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. Consistency Assessment Form indicates no discharge of toxics,

5) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service hazardous substances or other pollutants into coastal waters; Commission - Order Approving Issuance similarly, no draining of stormwater runoff or sewer overflows of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from into coastal waters.

Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C. 5) FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued

6) 2001-2006, NYSDEC - Industrial operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal SPDES - surface discharge, Tab 63. zone policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable

7) 2004, NYSDEC - Stormwater coastal zone policies.

discharge during construction of dry fuel 2,6,7,8) Provide state authorizations for discharges into coastal cask storage, Tab 77,116. waters in compliance with state and national water quality

8) NYSDEC SPDES (various years) - standards.

Discharge of wastewaters to waters of the state, Tabs 23,28,29,31,39,67,68,80.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

41) Land use or development in 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) EAF Part 2 indicates no significant air impacts. Federal the coastal area will not cause Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by Consistency Assessment Form indicates the requirement for a national or State air quality NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. state air quality air permit or certification. Additional information standards to be violated. 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service notes that site operates in compliance with all applicable air Commission Order Approving Issuance of quality regulations and will continue to do so.

FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con 2) FSEIS notes that generation from IP2, to the extent it displaces Edison to Entergy, TAB C. generation from fossil-fueled power plants do emit pollutants

3) 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007 Westchester such as SO2, NOX, CO2, PM and hazardous air pollutants, may County DOH - Certificates to operate assist NY State in meeting federal and state air pollution goals.

sources of on-site air contamination, Tabs 3, 4) In compliance with WCDOH and NYSDEC, air emissions 62, 73 - 75, 78, 79, 92 - 94. and ambient air quality shall not contravene standards set forth.

4) 2002, 2004 NYSDEC Air State Facility permit - Operation of air emission sources, Tabs 64, 71.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

42) Coastal Management 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) EAF Part 2 indicates no significant air impacts. Federal policies will be considered if the Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by Consistency Assessment Form indicates the requirement for a state State reclassifies land areas NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. air quality air permit or certification. Additional information notes pursuant to the prevention of 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service that site operates in compliance with all applicable air quality significant deterioration Commission Order Approving Issuance regulations and will continue to do so.

regulations of the Federal Clean of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from 2) FSEIS notes that generation from IP2, to the extent it displaces Air Act. Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C. generation from fossil-fueled power plants that do emit pollutants

3) 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007 Westchester such as SO2, NOX, CO2, PM and hazardous air pollutants, may County DOH - Certificates to operate assist NY State in meeting federal and state air pollution goals.

sources of on-site air contamination, Tabs FSEIS concludes that transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued 62, 73 - 75, 78, 79, 92 - 94. operation of IP2) will not result in any new effects on coastal zone

4) 2002, 2004 NYSDEC Air State policies. Action determined to be consistent with applicable Facility permit - Operation of air coastal zone policies.

emission sources, Tabs 64, 71. 3, 4) In compliance with WCDOH and NYSDEC, air emissions and ambient air quality shall not contravene standards set forth.

Prior relevant reviews indicate that consideration of potential air quality impacts was taken into consideration; acquisition of air permits from WCDOH and NYSDEC indicate that operations were compliant with county and state regulations as determined by those agencies.

43) Land use or development in 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) EAF Part 2 indicates no significant air impacts. Federal the coastal area must not cause Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by Consistency Assessment Form indicates the requirement for a state the generation of significant NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. air quality air permit or certification. Additional information notes amounts of the acid rain 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service that site operates in compliance with all applicable air quality precursors: nitrates and sulfates. Commission Order Approving Issuance regulations and will continue to do so.

of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from 2) FSEIS notes that generation from IP2, to the extent it displaces Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C. generation from fossil-fueled power plants do emit pollutants

3) 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007 Westchester such as SO2, NOX, CO2, PM and hazardous air pollutants, may County DOH - Certificates to operate assist NY State in meeting federal and state air pollution goals.

sources of on-site air contamination, 3, 4) In compliance with WCDOH and NYSDEC, air emissions Tabs 62, 73 - 75, 78, 79, 92 - 94.

SCOPE PRIOR RELEVANT REVIEWS NOTES

4) 2002, 2004 NYSDEC Air State and ambient air quality shall not contravene standards set forth.

Facility permit - Operation of air emission sources, Tabs 64, 71.

44) Preserve and protect tidal 1) March 31, 2000, NYPA - SEQR 1) Full EAF Part 2 and Federal Consistency Form indicate that and freshwater wetlands and Negative Declaration, on Sale of IP3 by there are no wetlands at IP3 and/or no effects thereon.

preserve the benefits derived NYPA to Entergy, TAB A. 2) Transfer of IP1 and IP2 (with continued operation of IP2) from these areas. 2) August 17, 2001, NY Public Service deemed to be consistent with applicable coastal zone policies.

Commission - Order Approving Issuance of FSEIS on transfer of IP1 and 2 from Con Edison to Entergy, TAB C.

Consistency Determinations Index Tab Date Subject Matter A 2000 NYPA Transfer B 2000 New York Public Hearing & Assessment C 2001 Con Ed Transfer 0 2003 2003 NYSDEQ FEIS & Appendix IV

TAB Consistency Determinations

TAB Exhibit A

... -,,," .. 1 l£lClI }-"iC NE GA TIV E OE CLA RA TION Notice of Determination of Non

-Significance P/oj ect Num ber No t Ap pli cab le Date Ma rch 31, 200 0 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the rnple men ling regulations pertaining to Article Review Act) of the Environmenta l Conservation Law. a (State Environmental Quality The New Yo rk Pow er Au tho rity has delermined that the proposed (NYPA or the Au tho rity )

action described below will not have a signiflcant effect on the environm

. as lead agency.

lmpa ct Statement wia not be prepared. ent and a Drat! Environmental Nam e of Acti on: The pro pos ed act ion is the

& Jam es A. fitz Pa tric k(J AF sal e of NY PA 's Ind ian Po int 3 wh oll y-o wn ed sub sid iar ies ) Nu cle ar Pow er Pla nts (NP Ps) to ind ire ctl y(IP 3) of the En ter gy Co rpo rat ion of New Or lea ns.

SeQ R Stat us: Type I Unlisted Con ditio ned Neg ative Dec larat ion: 0 Yes

[R] No Des cript Jon of Acti on: The pro pos ed act ion is the The sal e inc lud es the lan sal e of NYPA 's IP3 & JAF NP Ps.

& agr eem ent s on an cil iar yd, str uc tur es, eq uip me nt, per son nel pu rch ase the NPPs sub jec ser vic es & pow er sup ply . En ter gy wi ll t to all ex ist ing per mi ts & app rov als .

En ter gy Hi ll acq uir e IP3 law s & reg ula tio ns. The & JAF in com pli anc e wit h all ap pli cab le req uir ed to con tin ue to NP Ps, onc e und er new ow ner shi p, wi ll be reg ula tio ns. The St ate com ply wit h the se , any oth er ap pli cab le law wi ll, the ref ore , be saf egu eco nom ic, so cia l, env iro nm ent al int ere sts s &

's sub jec t to rea l pro per ty ard ed. As the sal e wi ll ret tax ati on to the tax bas e, urn lan ds not in fac t res ult . NYPA sel eco nom ic be ne fit s may run the HPPs at the lev els ect ed En ter gy for its exp the eri enc e and ab ili ty to En ter gy wi ll sup ply pow Au tho rity has cu rre ntl y att ain ed .

agr eem ent tha t mim ics cuer fro m the NPPs to the Au tho rity und er a pow er un av ail ab le, NYPA wi ll go rre nt co nd itio ns. If pow Th ere for e, the sal e is not to the pow er ma rke t, as er fro m the NPPs is sys tem -w ide pow er sup ply exp ect ed to imp act eit heit cu rre ntl y doe s.

. r the loc al or Loc atio n: (Inc lude stree t addr ess and the nam e 01 the mun recommended.) icipa lity/c oun ty A loca tion map of appr opri ate scale Is also Ind ian Po int 3 Nu cle ar Bu cha nan , New Yor k 105 11Pow er Pla nt, Ble akl ey Av enu e & Bro adw ay, and Jam es A. Fit zP atr ick 268 Lak e Roa d Ea st, Lyc om Nu cle ar Pow er ~lant, ing , New Yo rk 130 93

Page2 seaR Negative Declaration Oetennlnatfon: n)

.~easons Supporting This see 617.6(h) for Conditioned Negative Declarat!O (See 617.6(g) for requirements 01 this determination: by ple ted , wi ll inv olv e the tra ns fer to and ass um pti on r The sal e, when com in the sam e ma nne and op era tio n of IP3 & JAF En ter gy of the ow ner shi p te & fed era l lic en ses , per mi ts, & app rov als as pro vid ed for in the sta se fac ili tie s. NYPA int end s to rel inq uis h cu rre ntl y in eff ec t for the ipm per mi ts & app rov als ent , per son nel , lic en ses , upo n its ex ten siv e lan d, bu ild ing s, equ all ili tie s. En ter gy can dra w ass oc iat ed wi th the se fac sou nd fin an cia l res ou rce s, and is com mi tted op era tio na l exp eri enc e andrre nt op era tio ns wi tho ut su bs tan tia l cha nge .

to the co nti nu ati on of cuin any ph ysi cal cha nge to eit he r sit e. As set The sal e wi ll no t res ult al As ses sm ent & Ad den dum pre par ed by NYPA for for th in the En vir onm entno t be a sig nif ica nt adv ers e im pac t to air or thi s act ion , the re wi ll or no ise lev els t so lid wa ste pro du cti on , ero sio n, wa ter qu ali tY I tra ffi c na, haz ard ous or nu cle ar wa ste dis po sal , ene rgy al the sit es ' flo ra or fau alt h & saf ety , or any oth er are a of env iro nm ent co nse rva tio n, pu bli c hethe pro pos ed sal e.

im pac ts as a res ult of tio ns er con tin ued em plo ym ent to all NYPA nu cle ar op era & JAF .

En ter gy wi ll off sup po rtin g IP3 se sta ff me mb ers dir ec tly pe rso nn el, as we ll as tho s tha n the y cu rre ntl y rec eiv e. Al l oth er Sa lar ies wi ll be no les be ne fit s. NYPA l or eq uiv ale nt to cu rre nt for the ir yea rs af be ne fit s wi ll be ide nti ca l cre dit employe~s hir ed by En ter gy wi ll rec eiv e ful uni on co ntr act s. Th ere for e, als o hon or ex ist ing ser vic e. En ter gy wi ll ial im pac ts due to re wi ll be no sig nif ica nt adv ers e e.c ono mic or soc the the sal e.

Pag e 3)

(Co nti nue d on the att ach ed s imposed.

on attachment the specirlC miligalion measure If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide For Further Information:

vis ion Person: vli llia m V. Sla de, Di rec tor , En vir onm ent al Di Contact rk 106 01

\

resE New Yo rk Pow er Au tho rity , Wh ite Pla ins , New Yo Add Telephone Number: 914 - 68 1- 64 OS Declarations, a Copy of this Notice Sent to:

For Type I Actions and Conditioned Negative

'223 3*00 01 ione r. Departm ent of Envifonm entat Con servation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York Commiss ent 01 Environmental Conservation Appropriate Regional OffICe of the Departm principally tocated.

political subdivision in which Ihe action win be OffICe of the Chief Execulive OffICer of Ihe Applicant {it any)

Olher involved agencies (if any) tio n of En vir onm ent al Co nse rva New Yo rk Sta te De par tme nt of Sta te New Yo rk Sta te De par tme nt

SE QR Ne ga tiv e De cla rat ion Pa ge 3 (Continued from Page 2)

Na me of Ac tio n: The pro posed action is the saJe FitzPatrick Nuclear Powe of NY PA 's Indian Point r Plants. 3 and James A.

Re aso ns Su pp or tin g Tb is De ter mi na tio n:

Entergy will pay $636 million for the NP Ps the the fuel, $92 million for mselves, nearly $171 mi a guaranteed payment llion for agreement & $68 millio relating to the decomm n for NY PA 's co mm itin iss ion ing JAF. NYPA will purch en t to additional power ase IP 3's entire output purchases from also purchase sufficien thr ough December 31, 2004 t JA F output to meet the . NY PA will development programs needs of customers in va through December 31, rious economic not be negatively affect 2004. Rates & allocati ed by the sale. ons will. therefore.

The attached SEQRA Fu ll Environmental Asses a more extensive discussi sment Form Addendum on of the review and rea contains sons for this detemlinati on.

iew State Environmental Quality Rev SSME NT FORM FU LL EN VIR ON ME NT AL ASSE ojec t or action may be an orde rly man ner. whe lher a-pf is desi gned \0 help appl ican ts and agen cies dete rmin e. in ly.-there are aspe cts 01 a prolect thaI Pllrp ose : The full EAF fican t is not always easy to answer. FreQ uent ther an actio n may be signi al knowledge of the signifICant. The q'ueslion of whe ficance may have little or no (orm IMas .ute abJe _It. ~!l! so.u ndec slDcd.thaMtro'S~o determine signi cular area may are subi§s;tj:(e..Qr.ULl know ledg e in one parti sis. In addition. man y who have ent or may nol be tech nical ly expert in environmental analy envi ronm signifICance.

erns affecting the Question ot that Ihe determination process has been not be aware of the broader conc whe reby appr lCan ts and agencies can be assured is ded to prov ide a meth od ct or actio n.

The full EAF inten introduction of inf.,rmati on 10 ret a proje re, yet Rexible enough to allow orderly. com preh ensi ve in nalu Full EAF Com pon ents : The fiJI EAF is comprised of three parts ct data. it assIsts a site. 8y identifying basi c proje ctive dala and infor mati on abou t a give n proj ect and its P,n t 1: Prov ides obje s place in Parts 2 and 3.

reviewer in the analysis that lake

n. It prov ides guid ance as to may occu r from a proje ct or actio ses on Iden tifyin g the rang e of poss ible impa cls thaI it is a pote ntial ly.la rge impac\. The form also Piut 2: Focu cons idere d sma ll to mod erat e or whe ther impa ct is likely \0 be whe ther an be mitigated or reduced.

Identirles whether an impact can ther or not the Impa ci is aClually Part 3 is used 10 evaluate whe If any impa ct in Part 2 is iden tified as pote ntial ly-la rge, Ihen Par t 3:

impo rtant .

Acti ons CAN CE- Typ e 1 and Unli sted DET ERM INAT ION OF SIG NIFI com plete d for this proj ect:

(RJ Part 1 ~ Par! 2 o Part 3 Iden tify the Port ions of EAF and any other suPPO,lin9 infonnation.

and 2 and 3 if appropriate). and recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 agency that:

Upo n review of the information ct. il is reasonab ly dele rmin ed by the lead e and importance of each impa cons ideri ng both the magnitud h will not have a significant ct(s) and. therefore, is one whic ct wiD not resu lt in any large and important impa

[81 A. The proje fore a nega tive dect ar.tt ion will be prep ared .

impa ct on the environment, there i for this there wiD not be a significant elfec

,- .. ficant effect on Ihe environment.

o B. Although the proje Un~sted Actio n because the ct couid have a signi mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required.

there fore a CON DITI ONED prep .are d:

nega tive decl ar.tt Jon will be environment.

have-a significant impact on the and important impacts thaI may o C. The project may resu lt in therefore a posl tlve decl arat ion one or more targe will be prep ared .

Decl arati on is only valid for Un~sted Actions

'A Conditioned Negative Pow er Pla nts .

Ind ian Po int -3 & Jam es A. Fit~Patricy. Nu cle ar Sa le of the Nam e 01 Action New Yor k Pow er Au tho rity Name 01 Lead Agen cy

I I"\{" \. I 1-I ""r <:U Jt: .\'; r INFORMA TION Pre par ed by Pro jec NOTICE: ThiS doc um t Sp on sor ent is designed to ass Please complete Ihe ist in determining wh entire form, Parts A thro ether Ihe aCllon pro pos ma y be sub jec i 10 furt ugh E. Answers 10 the ed may have a signrfic her verifICation and pub se queslions wlll be con ant effect on ~he en wo lic review. Provide any sidered as pal l of the nm en \

3. additional informalion apphcatlOn for app rov you believe wilrbe nee al an<

deo 10 co:npJete Pa rts It is expected that com 2 ane pletion of Ihe luU EA or investigation, If info F wi. be dependen1 on rmation requiring suc information currently h additional work is. available and will not unavailable. so Indicat involve new sludles.

e and specify each researCh

!'4AME OF ACTION lI'lslance.

Sa le of th e IP -3 &

JAF N uc le ar Po we r LOCA nO N OF ACTIO N (Include Sireet Add Pl an ts IP -3 : Bu ch an an NY ress. Municipality and NAME OF AP PL ICA

& JA F: Ly co mi ng , NY County)

NT /SP ON SO R (S ee At ta ch m en t l New Yo rk Po we r A ut AD DR ES S ho rit y 18 usm eS ST EL EP HO NE 12 3 Main St re et 91 4- 68 1- 64 05 CITY/PO W hi te Pl ai ns NAME OF OW NE R (II different) I NY I STATE lIP CO DE Same AD DR ES S  ! Same eU SIN ES S Te lEP HO NE 10 60 1 CITYfPO DESCRIPTION OF AC Th e sa le of IP -3 (,

TION ISTATE I ZIP CODE JA F. Th e te rm sa st ru ct ur es , eq ui pm le co ns tit ut es th en t, pe rs on ne l, (, po e tr an sf er ' of th e pu rc ha se th e NPPs we r co nt ra ct s, Th ~ ~n(J I su bj ec t to al l ex e bu ye r wi 11 ,

Ple ase Co mp lete Ea is tin g pe rm its an d ch Qu es tio n-l nd ica te N.A. if no t app ap pr ov al s '. I A. Sit e De sc rip tio n lica ble  !

PhYSIcal setting or ove raD pro jec \. oot ll dev

1. Pre sen l land use elo peo and unoeyelooe

0 <! areas o0 Urb an Ind vst flal CJ Co mm erc ial 0

2. Tot al acreage of project O For!)S!

I ::>ee area: At. t.a ch me Agnculture OO lhe rN uc lea r ResidentIal (su bur ban PO Ixe r pl an t5

) o Ru ral( non *(a rml AP PR OX IMA TE ACRE nt acres.

AGE Meadow or Brushland IP3 (Non*agricullurall Ji\ f' Forested _ _--'*i:..:.~~A'_ __ __ AFTER CO MP LE TIO aCfl~s N

Agricunural (Includes NA acr es orchards. cropland, pas 3cres _ _ _ _ _

ture, etc ! _______ _

Weiland (Freshwaler _ acres acres or \ldal as per Article s 24. 25 of Ee l) acres Waler Surtace Area _ _ _ _ _ ac/

__ __ __ __ __ es - - - - -

Un veg ela led (Rock. - acr es earth or frtl) acres _ _ _ _ _ _ dcres Roads. buildings and __ __ _ . __ . __

oth er pave1 surfaces _ acres _ _ *__ __

Other (Indica Ie type _

) ______ aCl e$

_ _______ acres 3 Wh at IS predomll1a __ _ _ _ ._ acres _ _ acre!>

nt sO llly pe\ s) on prO _ _ __

Jecl site? Se e At a Sad dra Ina ge: t.a ch me nt . acre~

0 WeD dra ine d 10 0 ~

b. II any agr icu ltur al o Poorly dra ine d J A f % of slle

% 01 site 0 Moderately weU dra llle o LO 0 % I P J % 01 site lan d is Iflvolved. how Classlficahon Sys tem ma ny acr es of soil are classlrlf!o with

? NA acres. (Se e 1 NY CR R 370).

in so~ group 1 Ihro ugh 4 01 the NYS Lan d 4 Are lhe re bed roc k oul cro ppl ngs on prOlec a Wh aiis oe ptl 'llo be dro ck? At .ta ch t site? 0 Yes 0 No m en t (inl eel )

S ff II'O" .DI'. ( :.

proposed prole ct site wHO slope s: n 0-10% .l!..:::t..  %

5. ApproxtmClle percentage ot C 15% or greater 'I.

rlC or me National Registers of HISlo us 10, or cont alO a build ing, Site, or ,"stn ct, h~teo on the State iguc

6. Is pro/ eci subs tanti ally conl 0 Yes No r:::: No Plac es? ra! landma~s? DY es cont iguo us to a site listed on Ihe Register o( National Natu

7. Is proj ect substantially S. Wha t is the depth 0' the water table? At tac h.

sour ce (in (eet) aquifer? 0 Yes /]J No

9. Is site located over a primary. princ ipaL or sole g opportunities presently exist in \he proje ct area  ? DY es o No Att. 1ch .

10. Do hunt ing. fishing or sheD fishin enda nger ed?

is id!ntirted as threatened or _

11. Doe s proje ct site contain any species of plant or anm al fife that

.:..;E:;..;*n~t;;;...;..._ _ _ _ _ _

DY es rn No According to --"S;..;e'-'e

......;A;, .;..,;;..t... ;;t.;;;a..;;c ;...;.h;

.;m; Identify each species _ _ _

l formations)

{i.e .. cliffs, Clunes, otner geologica _ _ _ __

Ihere any uniq ue or ullus ualla nd forms on the prOject site? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________

12. Are nbe _ _ _ __ _

DY es [8J No Desc recreation area?

hbomoOd as an open space or _ _ __

used by the community or neig _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

13. Is the project site presently o Yes rID No If yes. expl ain ___ _ _

rtan l IQ the community?

scenic views known to be mpo

14. Doe s the present site include DY es mI No Ri ver , JA r: :~f..

ci area: I P-3 : Hu dso n

15. Stre ams within or contiguous to proje _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

River 10 which it is tributary _ _

a. Nam e of Stream and name of area:

within or contiguous to project b. SIZe (In ao:resl. __ __ __

16. Lake s. pondS. wetland areas ent

a. Nam e See At tac hm

@ Yes 0 No

17. Is the site served by existing publiC utilities?

ectio n? N/A 0 Yes o No a) If Yes. does sufficient capa city exist to anow conn be necessary 10 allow conn ectio n? N/A 0 Yes o No and b) If Yes, will improvements re and Mark ets Law. Article 25*AA, Section 303 in an agric ultur al distr ict certified purs uant to Agri cultu

18. Is Itle site loca ted 0 Yes. tEl No At t3c h. uant to Article 8 of the Eel . and 304? ronm enta l Area designated purs site toca ted in or subs tanti ally cont iguo us 10 a Critical Envi

19. Is the 6 NYCRR 617? ~ Yes 0 No Att ach .

o the dIsposal 01 solid or hazardou s wastes? Yes No t"Itt :lch .

20. Has the sIte ever been used for B. Pro ject Des crip tion appropnatel 01 project (!iU in dl/Tlensions as

1. Physical dl/Tlensions and scale by pro,e ct sponsor _ _ N.f.___ _ acres ed or contr oUed

a. Total contiguous acreage own  ;' acres ulb:1l3tely NA acres mih ally loped:

b. PrOlect acreage \0 be deve s undeveloped acre

c. Project acreage to remain ct, in miles  : (II appropnate)

d. Lenglh of proje __ _.* %

n, indicate perc ent of ellpansion proposed ... __

e. If the project is an expanSio  : proposed _ _ _ __

spaces eXisting f Number of off*street parl<.ing comp iehon 01 prOle C!)?

ral P 1 per hour (upon

g. Maximum vehicular fnps gene type 01 houSlIlg uOits. Condomlf1lum h II residentIal: Num ber and Mulliple Family One Famdy Two Family Inlhal1y Vlllmale1v length.

hetgM; _ _ _ wldl h; _ _ _

st proposed structure

i. DimenSIOns (lfl feet) of large occu py IS? It.

pubhe thoroughfare project will I linea r feet 01 fronlage along a

,'_" '~~". ~""", C',)

Will ue removea Irom

3. Will disturbed areas be recla the slte?_....l~""l!-',...'--_lons/cuOH:

yilrds imed?

a, If yes, lor what intended purp 0 Yes 0 No [2] ':--i/A ose is the site being reclaimed?

b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

C. Will upper subsoil be reclamation? 0 Yes C No stockpiled for reclamation?

4. How many acres of vegetalion 0 Yes DN a (lrees. shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? NA

5. Win any mature forest (over acres.

100 years old) or other locally*im portant vegetahon be removed by DY es 0 No this proje cl? ':II A 1'). If single phase project:

Anticipated period of construction

_ _ _N=-A=--_ .. months, (inclu

7. 'f multi-phased: ding demo/dion).

a. Total number of phases antic ipated NA (number).

b. AntICipated date of commen cement phase ' _ _ _ _ mon

c. Appro)(llTlate completion date th __ __ year. (inClUding dem of final phase olilion),

month __ __ year.

d Is phase 1 funclionally depe ndenl on subsequent phases?

8. Will blasllng occur during cons DY es o No

9. Num ber of jobs generated:

truction?

during construction 0 Yes NA o No N/A

after projec! is complete _ _ _

iO. Num ber at jobs eliminated _ __

by this project NA.

,11. war project require relocation of any projects or facilities?

DY es o No If yes. explain _ _ N/A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

12. Is suriace liquid waste dispo

3. If yes, indicate Iype of sal involved? 0 Yes 0 No N,,'A waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and

b. Name of water body into whic amount __ __ __ __ __

h effluenl will be discharged _ _ __ __ __ __ __ ._ __

13. Is subsurface liquid waste dispo _ _ _ _ __

14. Will surface area of an exist sal Involved? 0 Yes 0 No rype __ ~N~*/~A~ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ______

Explaln ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ing water body increase or decf

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ease by proposal?

___ ___ ___ ___ ___DY ___ es o

___ ___ ___ ___ No

15. IS project or any portion of proJecl located in a 100 year flOod

16. Will the prOject generate solid waste? 0 Yes 0 plain?

No N/A DY es o No N/A

a. Ir yes, what is Ihe amouni per month tons

b. If yes, will an existing solid wasl

c. If les, gIVe name __ __ e facility be used?

__ __ __ __ _ : locat DY es ion __ __ __ __ __ __

o No

d. Will any wastes not go rnlO __

e II Yes. explain _ _ _ _ _a sewage disposal system or into a sanilary landfill?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ es DY o No 17 Win the project IOvolve the disposal 01 solid wasle?

!J If yes. what is the anticipated rate of d,sposal? ___ ___

DY es '::J No ~. ..

• '. ~ I ~

b. If yes~ what rS the antiCipate ton!./mC'mh d site li/e? _ _ _ years 18 Will proJect use hert)lcldes or 19 WJ!l project roullnely produce peshcldes? 0 Yes odors (more than one hour per o Nc 20, Will projecl produce operahng day)? :J Yes 0 No ~l! A noise exceeding the lOcal ambrent nOise levels" 21 Win project lesu<< in an Incre [ ] Yes 0 No N/l\

If yes, rrioicate tvpe(sl _ _ _ ase in energy use?

0 Yes 0 No ~ / l\

22, If waler supply IS from wells __

, IndICate pumping capacity 1';1\ gallons/m rnute.

23 Total antICipated water usag e per day NA gallons/day.

24, Does project involve Local, If Yes. expla'" ___ ___ ___ State or Federal funding?

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ DY es

___ ___ ___ ___ o No

___ ___ N/A

Submitta l

25. Approva ls Require d: Type Date City. Town, ViRage Board DYes o No City, Town. Village Planning Board DYes G:TI No DYes [ ] No Cny. Town Zoning Board City, Counly Health Deportment DYes BJ No Other Local Agencies DYes [Rj No Other Regional Agencies DYes (EJ No Slate Agencie s (EJ Yes o No DEC, DOS, etc.

Federal Agencies ffi] Yes o No NRC 10CFR 50 Licen se C. Zoning and Plannin g Infoona tion

1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision?

0 Yes 0 No N/A If Yes, indicate decision required:

o zoning amendment 0 zoning variance 0 speci. USE :letmit 0 sIlbdivision 0 site plan tJ new/revision of master plan 0 resource management plan 0 olher _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Elec tric Gene rating Faci lity

2. What is the zoning classiflcation(s) of the site?

d as permitted by the present zoning?

3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if develope NA

4. What is Ihe proposed zoning of the sile? _N;.,.;..A'--_ _ _

d as permitted by the prOP9sed zoning?

5. What is Ihe maximum potential development of the site if develope NA

6. Is the proposed action consistent With the lecomme noed uses in adopted locat land use plans? N/A 0 Yes o No Within a Y. mile radius of proposed action?

7. What are the predominant land use(sl and zoning classirlCations Attach ment

8. Is the proposed action compatible With adjoining/surrounding land uses Wlthlll a Yo mile? N/A DYes o No proposed? __ N:..;.:..;A:...-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

d? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a. What is the minimum lot size propose

10. Will proposed action require any aUlhonzation(s) for the formation of sewer or \'Ia~er districts? N/A DYes o No protection)?

ity prOVided servICes vccreallOn. educatIOn. potice. fire

11. Wid the proposed action create a demand for any commun DYes 0 No o No N/A existing capacrty sufficient to handle prOjected demand? eYes

a. If yes, IS n of traffIC sogOlfican tlv above present levels? DYes NiA 0 No

12. WrJ the' proposed action resuh on the a, 11 yes. IS the eXisting road generatio network adequate to handle the addlticna l traffIC? 0 Yes o No D. Infonna tional Details d WIth your prolect II Ihere are or may be any adverse impacts associate Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarity them.

the measure s which you propose to mitogate or avoid your proposal. please diSCUSS such ompacts and E. Verifica tIon

~<r--::;;..;;;....;-.;;...;;..,,,-.-"-A~'Y.,;.:..:::.._#_-------------

Date - - - -

TIlle Direc tor, Envir onme ntal Div.

S.gnat ure__

before proceed ing with If the action I n the Contal Area, and ou are a SUU! agency, complet e the Coastat Au()ssm cnt Form this aneum enl.

Part 2-P RO JEC T IMPACTS AN D THEIR MAGNITUDE Res pon sibil ity or Lea d Age ncy r-en er.ll inro rma tlon (Read Care fully)

• In ;,omplelJng Ihe form Ihe revie wer should be guided by the ques reviewer is not expected to be an tion: Have my responses and dele<

expert environmental analyst. mlnatlons been reas onab le? rile

• The Exa mple s provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types would Irigger a response in colum of impacts and wherever possible n 2. The examples are generally Ihe Ihreshold of magnrtude mat specifIC project or srte other exam applicable throughOul the Slate ples and/or lower thresholds may and for most siluatlOns. Bul. for evaluation in Part 3. be appropriate for a Potential Larg any e Impact response. thus requ lflng

• The impacts or each projec!. on each site. in eac.. locality. will vary.

guidance. They do nol constitute Therefore. the examples are illust an exhaustive list of impacts and rative and have been offered as

• The n'Jmber of examples per ques thresholds to ansVrer each ques tion does nol indICate the importanc tion.

• In Identifying impacts, consider e of each Question.

long term. short term anc cumulaliv e effects.

Instr uctio ns (Read carerully)

a. Answer each of Ihe 20 Ques tions in PART 2. Answer Ves if

b. Maybe answers should be cons there win be any impact.

idered as Yes answers.

C. If answering Yes 10 a question then check the appropriate box impact Ihreshold equals or exce (column 1 or 2) 10 indIcate the eds any example provided. chec potential size 01 Ihe impact. If e'xal"'lple. check column 1. k cotumn 2. If impact will occu r bul threshold is lower Ihan

d. Idenfifyini} that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does impact must be evaluated in PAR not mean thai it is also necessarr T 3 to delermine signifICance. Iden ly Significant. Any large at further. tifying an impact In column 2 simp ly asks Ihat It be looked

e. II reviewer has doubt about size of the tmpact then consider

t. If a potentially large impact checked in colum the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 n 2 can be mitigated by change(s check Ihe Yes box in column 3 ) in the proj ecllo a small 10 mod A No response indicates that such erate Impact also a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part' 3 2 3 Small to POlential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON LAND Moderate larg e Mitigated By L Will the proposed aclion result Impact Impact in a physical change to Ihe proje Projecl Change ct sIte?

[) NO DY ES Exa mple s Ihal would apply 10 colum n 2

• Any construction on slopes of

, 5% or grealer. (15 foot nse per pf length). or wnere the general 100 loot Q slopes In lIle proJect area exceea 10%.

0 DYe s DN o

• Constructton on land where Ihe depl h to the water table IS less feet Ihan 3 0 0  ::::J YCS DN o

• lons truc hon of paved parking area for 1.000 or more vehICles.

0 -l  ;'Ye s

• Con slnlt lion on land where bedr ock IS exposed or generally Withi n J feet L *. L.J DN o of eXlsltng ground surlace. 0 [J DYe s DN a

• Construction that WIN continue lor more than 1 year or involve more one phase or stage. than 0 .'--j DYe s DN o

• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more Ihan 1.00 of nalural malerial (i.e .. rock or soli) per year.

0 Ions 0 _J DYe s . L:N r.

• Construction or expansion of a saOltaty landfiU

• Construction In a designated nooa way.

0 0 ~Yes r-* NO

• Othe r tmpacts 0 0 DY es CJNO 0 0 DY es DNO Will there be an effeci Ir ny uniq ue or unusual land forms found site? I' e .. chlf!;. dunes. geologICa on the l lormatlons. elC.) 0 NO DY ES

• SpeCifIC land forms' 0 0 DYe s DN o

I 1 2 J I Small 10 POtenhal Can Impact Be IMPACT ON WATER Moderate large Miligaled By

3. Will propose d action affect any water body designated as protecte d?

I Impact lmpact PrOlect Change ArtICles 15, 24, 25 of the EnVll'onm ental Conserv ation law. ECl)

(Under

@ NO . : VES Exampt es that woukl apply 10 COlumn 2 OevelOpable area 01 site cont311lS a protected water body. C

.....,  ;::JYes C:;Nc of a 0 DYes ONe

• Dredgin g more Ihan 100 cubic yards of material from cnannel D protecte d stream.

body. 0 0 Ores ONo

• Extensio n of utUitydislribulion facilities through a protected waler Constru ction in a designated freshwater or tidal weiland.

Other impacts: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0 0

0 0

DYes DYes ONo ONo

• body of

4. Will proposed action affect any non-prot ected existing or new water? lID NO 0 YES Exampl es that would appty to column 2

• A 10"10 increase or decrease in the surface area of any bOdy of decrease ,

water or o o DYes DNa fi more than a 10 acre increase or

• Construction of a body of water thaI exceeds 10 acres of surface area. o o DYes DNo

• Other impacts: _ _ _--:-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

o o DVes ONe quanltty?

5. WiD Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or

~ NO 0 YES f Exampl es thai would apply to Column 2

• Proposed ActIOn will reqwe a discnarge permit. u DYes c.: No

• Propose d Action requires use of a source of water that does not nave 0 o OYes  :.....;Na approva l to serve proposed (prOlect) actIOn, Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater Ihan 45 0 o DYes DNa gallons per minute pumping capacity.

supply 0 o DYes DNa

• Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water system,

• Proposed Action win adversely affect groundwater. 0 o DYes DNo

• liquid effluent wiU be conveyed olf the site to lacllihes whICh presently do

.\

I 0 o DYes DNo not exist or have inadequa te capacity. I

• Proposed Action would use water III excess 01 20.000 gal\ens per day, I 0 o DVes DNa IOtO an C"~ DVes oNo

• Propose'd Action will likely cause siltalton or other diSCharge vl'sual eXisting body of waler to the extent thaI there will be an obVIOUS contrast to nalural condition s

• Proposed Acllon wiU require the Slorage of petrOleum or chemical products Ll o [J"'es ONt' greater than 1.1 00 gallons.

• Proposed Action will anow residenhal uses In areas wlthoul water andlor 0 o eYes GNO s'!wer servICes.

• Proposed Action locates commercial andlor industrial uses wht<;h may storage r~ o Oves ONe require new or expanSIo n 01 eXisting waste treatmen t and/or faCIlities.

• Other Impacts- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l. .... o DVes CJNo

6. win propose d action allee drainage flow or patterns. or surface waler runoff? IEJ NO 0 YES Eumple s that would apply to column 2

• Proposed ACllOn would ~hange flood waler nows o o OVes. DNa

Q 2 J Small 10 POlenllal Can Impact Be Moderate Large MII'93Ied 8y Impact Impact Protect Change

• Proposed ACllon may cause substanlial erosIon.

0

• Proposed Action is incompalible wilh existing drainage patterns. 0 DYes GNo 0 0 Oves ONo

• Proposed Action win allow development in a designaled nooaway 0 0 oVes DNa

• Other mpacts:

0 n DVes C]No IMPACT ON AIR

7. Wi" proposed action affect air quality? @NO DYES

$ Example s thaI would apply to column 2

• Proposed Action wiD induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any grven hour.

0 0 DYes' oNo

• Proposed Action wi' result in the incir.eralion of more than 1 ton of refuse 0

per hour. 0 DYes DNa

• Em"ision rate of lotal contaminants wiD exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heal 0

source prodUCing more than 10 milflOn BTU's per hour. 0 DYes oNo

• Proposed aClion win allow an increase I/) the amounl o( lana comm1l1e Industrial use.

d to I 0 c: DYes  :::::iNo

• Propose d action will allow an increase in the density o(

development within existing industrial areas.

Induslfla l I I

0 D DYes oNo

• Other impacts:

I 0 D OYes oNo I

IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMAL S

6. Will Propose d Action at/ect any threatened or endange red species?

lID NO DYES II Example s that would apply to column 2 I Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Feoeral hsl.  ! ,..

usmg the srte. over or near site or found on Ihe sile.

I

L.J [J DVes c::: No I

• Removal of any portIon of a crllical or SignIficant wildlIfe habitat.

0 D DVes [JNO

• Application of pesticide or h~rblCide more Ihan 1.... lce a year. other than (or 0

3g(lcuNural purposes. 0 DYes DNo

• Other impacls:

C 0 eYes ONO 9 WIU Propos ed Action substan tially affect non-thr eatene d or non*end angered species?

@NO eYES Eumple s Ihat would apply 10 column 2

• Proposeo Action would suostanltally Interfere wllh any reslOent or migrator,.

o Yes liSh. sheil/,Sh or wildlife specIes. 0 ~Nc

• Propose d ActIon requires the removal of more tr,an 10 acres 01 mall:re -\

lorest (over 100 years 01 age) or other locally rmportant vegelatlo n.

l-' 0 c-JYes Nr.

IMPACT ON AGRfCU L rURAL LAND :-:"'SOU RCES 10 wIn Ihe Proposed Action aHect agrlCunuraf land resource s?

~ NO [J YES Eumple s Ihat would apply to column 2

• The propose d action would sever. cross or limit access 10 land (incluOes croplano. hayflelds. paslure. vlOeyard. orChard.

agricultu ral 0 0 DYes DNa etc.,

.., 0 2 :I I 1

Small to POlenlla1 Can Impact Be Large MItigated By MOderate Impact impact PrOfect Change 0 Dve s DN a vate or com pac t the SOil prof ile of 0

• Con stru ctio n activity wou ld exca agnCUltUralland. Ove s ONO ersibly convert more than to acres of 0 0

• The prop osed action would irrev Distr ict. mor e Ulan 2.5 an Agricultural agri cultu ral land or. if tocaled in acres of agricultural land. 0 DVe s DN a

• The proposed action would disru land management syste ms slrip cropping); or create a need (e.g. ,

pt or prevent installation of agric subs urfac e drain for such measures (e.g. cause ultural lines. outlet ditches.

a farm 0

ly due to IIlcre ased runo ff) rJeId to drain poor DYe s DN o 0 D

• Othe r impacts:

CES IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOUR \t aesthetic resources? @N O DY ES

11. Wilt proposed action affect 617. 20, Appendix Addendum in Sect ion (If necessary. use the Visual EAF a.)

n 2 Exa mple s that would apply to colum [lYe s oN o ct com pone nts obviously different from or in 0 0

• Proposed land uses. or proje ther ound ing land use patt erns . whe d stlar p cont rast 10 curr ent surr man-made or natural oVe !> ON o componenls visible to users of aest hetic 0 0

• Proposed land uses. or project ce their enlo yme nt 01 slgmflCan lIy redu resources which will eliminate or Ihal reso urce .

the aeslhetic qualities of OYe s DN o resu lt In the elim inati on or slgm fican t 0 0

• PrOfect com pone nts that wilt to the area.

to De impo rtant screelling of scenic VJeWS known DYe s oN o ~

D 0

• Other Impacls:

HAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARC prehistoric any sIte or structure 01 hIstoric.

12. Will Proposed Action impact lID NO DyeS or paleontOlogical mportance?

n 2 Exa mple s that would apply to colum DYe s DN a occu fflng who lly or partially within or substantially C 0 Proposed ACho n

• lIsted on the State or NatIonal Register cont19UOU$ 10 any facIlity or :r.ite 01 histone places.

Any mpact 10 an archaeological slle or fossil bed located Within the proie ct 0 n DYes DN o

• ONe .

sIte. [; D'te !.

Prop osed Actio n will occu r in an area desi gnat ed as senSItive lor 0

• on the N'iS SIte tnve ntory.

archaeologICal sites U LiYe s oN u D

• Other i.,..,acts:

RECREATION IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND future quantity or quality of exIsting or

13. Will Proposed Action allec l the !Rl NO OV ES rtum lJeS?

open spaces or recreatlOnat oppo Examples Illat would apply to colum n 2 DYe s DNa of a lutur e recreatIOnal opportumly. 0 D

• The permanent foreclosure e Imporlan! to the community. 0 0 DYe s DN O

• A malor reductIOn 01 an open spac 0 OYe s DN o Other mpacts' 0

2 3 Sma ll to Potenhal Can Impact Be Moderate larg e Mltlgaled 8y IMP ACT ON CRI TlCA l ENVIRON ImpaCI Impact MENTAL AREAS Pro!ect Cha nge 14, Wi~ Froposed Action impa ct the exceptional or unqu e char a critical environmenlal area (CEA acteristics Of

) established pursuant to subdiviSio 6 NYCRR 617.14(9)7 n List the environmental characteristic 0 NO 0 YES s that caused the designation ot CEA. Ihe Exa mple s thaI would apply to colum n 2

• Proposed Action to locale within the CEA?

~

• Proposed Action will result in a reduction in Ihe quantrfy of the reso D D DYe s DN a

• Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the Quarrty of the reso urce? 0 0 DYe s ON e urce?

• Prop osed Acri on will impa ct Ihe use, function or enjo yme nt D D DYe s DN a resource? o( the 0 0 DYe s DN o

• Other impacts:

0 0 DYe s ON e IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATtO N

15. WiD there be an effect to exist ing transportation systems?

Exa mple s that would apply 10

!Kl NO DY ES column 2

~

• Alteration of present palterns 01 movement o( people and/or good

• Proposed Action will result in majo r traffic problems.

s. 0 0 DYe s oNO

• Othe r impacts: 0 0 DYe s DN a 0 0 DYe s DN a t

I IMPACT ON ENERGY 16 Will proposed actIon affec t Ihe communIty's sources of fuel I supPly?

([) NO or enc gy II Exa mple s Ihat would apply to colu DY ES

• . Proposed Action wi" cause a grea mn 2 I

form of energy in the municIpa lity.

ter than 5% Increase In the use 01 any i 0 0 DYes ON O

• Prop osed Actio n will require the crea tIon or extension of an energy i 0

Iransmission or supply system to residences or to serve a malar sp.rve male than 50 single or two c~ -,lmercial or induSlrlal use, family

! 0 DYe s DN a

~-.~

• Othe r impacts:

0 DYe s O'N o

o NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS

,i 1 Small to 2

POlenhal 3

Can Impact Be .,

Large Miligated By  ;

Moderate

17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise. or vibration as a result of the Impact Project Change ,

Propose d Action? (8J NO 0 YES Imilact Exampl es that would apply to column 2  :

0

• Blasting within 1.500 feel of a hospital. school or other sensitive facility. 0 0 0 DYes DYes ONe DNo ,

I

• Odors wiD occur routinely (more than one hour per day).

0 0 DYes DNo I

ambient

• Propose d Action will produce operating nOISe exceedit.ij the local noise levels for noise outside of structures. ,

a n')ise D 0 DYes DNo i

• Propose d Action will remove natural barriers that would act as I screen. f I

• Olher impacts: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ __ I I 0 0 DYes DNo IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 1a. Will Proposed Action affect pubrlC health and safely?

(8J NO 0 '/ES ,

Exampl es that would apply to column 2, s 0 0 DYes DNo .i

• Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardou chemica ls, radiatlOn. etc.) in the event of ~

substances (i,e. o~. pesticide s.

e accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharg or emiSSion.

• Propose o Action may result in the burial 01 'hazardo us wastes' in any 0 0 DYes ONo i

, I form (i,e. toxic, poisonous. highly reactive: radioactIVe. irtltabng. infectious etc.)

I  ;

• Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquilied natural gas 0 0 DVes DNa I

or other Rammable liquids.

Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturban ce within 0 0 DYes ."DNo I 2.000 feet of a site used for the dlsposat of solid or hazardous waste. i

_ __ 0 0 DYes DNa

• Other impacts: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I

! I

,I IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNiTY OR NEIGHBORHOOD

19. WIU proposed action affect the character 01 the eXisting commuOlly?

I, i

I

!Rl NO 0 YES I I

Example s that would apply 10 column 2

• The permanent population of the c~y, town or Village Ifl which the is located IS likely to grow by more than 5'/0.

plO)ec! I fJ 0 DYes DNo wdl I n D DYes DNO I

• The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operallflg servICes ,

increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this prolect.  : .-.

',....j D DYes DNo I Proposed action wil connict with officially adopted plans or goalS

• Proposed actlOn win cause a change in \!'Ie denSity of land use. I 0 0

0 DYes

[JYes DNo DNa I

• Proposed Action win replace or eliminate eXisting faCilities. structure s or I D areas of historIC mportan ce 10 Ihe COl1'muOity. 1 DYes DNo servIces D D

• Development '11111 create a demand lor additional commuOity (e.g, schools. potlCe and fife. etc.)

D DYes DNo I D

• Proposed ActlOn wi. set an mportan t prec~dent lor fulure projects, D 0 DYes DNo I

• Proposed Action wit create or elinllnate employment. oves DNa I

0 0

• Other mpacts:

environmental imp"c!s?

20 Is there. or IS there likely to be. public controversy related to polenlial adverse NO 0 YES

• <>, \ o,l- t.:V f\LU A liO N OF THE G IMP ORTANCE OF IMPACTS Res pon slbil lty or Le<1d Age ncy Part 3 mus t be prep ared It one or more Impa ct(s) Is cons ider ed to be pote ntial ly larg e, even If the impa ct(s) m<JY be mitig Instr uctJ ons ated .

Discuss Ihe following for each impact identified in COlumn 2 of Part 2:

1. BrieRy describe the impact.

2. DesCrIDe (if applicable) how the impact could be mUigated or reduced to a small to moderate

3. Based on the informalion available. rnpa ct by proiect change(s),

decide jf it is reasonable to conc lude iha! this rnpa ct is Impo rtan To answer the question of impo t.

rtance. consider.

• The probability of the impact occurring

• The duration of the impact

• Its irreversibility. including perm anently lost resources of value

• Whether the im;Jac\ can or wiD be controned

• The regional consequence of the impact

• lis potential divergence from local needs and goal s

• Whe lher known objections to the project relate to this impa ct.

(Continue on attachments)

AITACHMENT Y REVIEW AC f STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIT AL ASS ESS MENT FORM FULL ENVIRONMENT L GENERAL INFORMATION asswnption by a purchaser of completed, involve the transfer to and Action: The proposed action will, jf lear Generating Stations in n Point 3 and James A. FitzPatrick Nuc the ownership and operation of the India ovals currently in effect e man ner as provided for in the state and federal licenses, permits, and appr the sam quish all land, buildings, er Authority (' NYPA") intends to relin faT these facilities. The New York Pow facilities to a party that its, and approvals associated with these equipment, personnel. and Ik:nses, perm urces and is committed to the experience and sound rmancial reso can draw upon extensive operational action will not result in any out substantial change. The proposed continuation of current operations with physical change to either site.

LocatioDs:

• Indian Point-3 Nuclear Power Planl Bleakley Avenue & Broadway Buchanan, New York 10511 Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 215 Buchanan. NY 10511-0215 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plan I

268 Lake Road East Lycoming, New York 13093 Mailing Address 41 P.O. Box 41, Lycoming. NY 13093-00 Site Descriptions:

Indian Point 3 a 102 W -acre site on the cast erating Station (HIP)") is located on NYPA's Indian Point 3 Nuclear Gen t in Westchester County. It of Buchanan and the Town of Cortland bank of the Hudson River in the Village n Point 2 nuclear facilities to also hosts the Indian Point 1 and India is a part ora larger. 235-acre site that

. The license issued by h of lPl. The site is abou t 24 mile s north of the New York City boundary llie nort the NRC for IP3 expires in 20 IS.

2 The IP) site is surrounded on almost all sides by high ground ranging from 600 to 1,000 feet above sea level. Across the river, the west bank of the Hudson is flanked by Dunderb erg and West Mountains to the i northwest and Buckberg Mountain to the west-southwest. Geologically.

the IP) site consists of a hal'll \

limestone formation.

I About 80,000,000 gpm flow past the IP) site during the Hudson River's peak tidal flow. The now of the River is affected more by the tides than it is by runoff from the tributary watershe

d. The width of the River opposite the !P3 site varies from 4,500 to 5,000 feet. The depth varies from 55 to 75 feet less than 1,000 feet offshore. The IP) site is not located in the 100-year flood plain.

Certain ancillary off-site facilities, such as the Joint News Cenler at the Westche ster County Airport, will be involved in the transfer.

James A. FitzPatrick NYPA's James A. Fitzpatrick Generating Station ("JAP') is located on a 701

(!J-acre sile along the south shore of Lake Ontario in the Town of Scriba in Oswego County. The site is immediately to the east orthe land upon which the Nine Mile Poinl I and Nine Mile Point 2 nuclear facilities are localed. Both of these facilities are presently operated by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporati.on, hUI transr~rs of ownership arc projected for 2000. The site is about 7 miles nonheast of Oswego. 36 miles nOl1hwt:st of Syracuse. and 135 mileseasl of Buffalo. The license issued by the NRC for JAF expires in 2014.

The land around the JAF site is primarily rural. Much of the land in the planr's vicinity and in Oswego County was formerly farmed but is now covered with second-growth Irc:cs and brush. The remainder uf the land is comprised of wooded areas and farms. The bottom of Lake Ontario in this area is largely bedrock, and, therefore, few natural harbors or landings exist near the JAF site.

3 age basin. This basin portion of the lake Ontario Plain drain The lAf site is located in the northeast and the Province of s, exclusive of lake surface, in New York encompasses about 34,800 square mile t miles to the west, are the s to the east. and the Oswego River, eigh Ontario. Catfish Creek, about three mile is 193 miles long and 53 the easternmost of the Great Lakes. It closest large streams. Lake Onw ." is ce area of 7,340 square shoreline length of 126 miles and a surfa miles wide at its widest point. It has a located in the IOO-year flood plain.

miles. The JAF plant-site proper is not ince. This province consists

-Ontario Lowlands physiographic prov The JAF site lies mainly within the Erie ian Uplands, which form gently .ftom Lake Omario 10 the Appalach of a relatively flat plain, one that rises Tug Hill Upland. The JAF Lowlands is bounded on the east by the its southern border. The Erie-Ontario sea leve! rising to J 10 feet

. It has an elevation 0[27 0 feel above site is a generally flat and featureless plain

-ablat ion tills, which

. The surface soils consist of bou Idery one mile away at its southern extremity is flat-lying sandstone edia tely overlay a compact basa l till lying on bedrock. The underlying rock imm stone.

The bedrock is known as Oswego Sand imbedded with shale of Ordovician Age.

rgency Off-Site Facility as the Joint News Center and the Eme Certain ancillary off-site facilities. such ed on NiMo propen}', will and the Energy !n~onnation Center locat located at the Oswego County Airport also be involved in the transfer.

form d in Iht Environmenlal ,"sscssment II. Specific responses to questions containe A. Site Description

2. Total acreage oflhe project area:

lP.J: 102 !. acres JAr : 702 ! acres on the project Ie?

3. What is the predominant soil type{s) highest elevation in landscape, of the regio n consists of bedrock-supported ridges. The IP3: The gene ral sea level in low-lying Iln:as.

s range from 50 to 300 feet above mean the region is 1.000 feet, and elevation cially leveled and bedrock is covered with fill. The surface is artifi At the plant site. the ground is level and lies very close 10 the surface.

4 JAF : Surface soils consist of boul dery-ablalion Iills which immediately on bedrock. overlay a compaci basal (ill lying 3.a Soil drainage:

IP3: 100% of the site is moderately weii drained.

JAF : 100% of the site is well drain ed.

4. Are there bedFock outcroppings on project site?

(P3: Yes.

JAF : Generally speaking no, some bedrock may be visible by the lake shor eline.

4.1. What is the depth 10 bedrock?

[P3: 1010 15 fee!.

JAF : Surface soils immediately over lay a compact basal till lying on bedr lying sandstone imbedded with shale ock. The underlying rock is Iht*

of Ordovician Age. This bedrock is The shale content increases with dept known as Oswego Sandstone.

h; at approximately \30 feet below grades into the underlying Lomine grou the surface Ihe Oswego Sandstone p, which is predominantly shale with s;mdstone members.

5. Approximate percentage of the prop osed project site wilh slopes: 0 to grealer. 10%, 10 10 15%. or 15% or IP3: 95% greater than 15%; 5% is 0 to 10%.

JAF : 100% 0 to 10'1'*.

8. What is the depth oflh e water table

?

IP3: Eighllo len feel.

JAF': Five 10 ten feet.

10. Do hunting, fishing or sheH fishing opportunities presently ex iSI in thl! pruje

-ct area?

IP3: No, NYPA does not permit hunt ing or fishing on the project sile. How adjacent Hudson River. ever, fishing is Jvailable in the JAF : No, NYPA docs not permit hunting or fishing on the project site.

Lake Ontario. However, fishing is availabh: in II. Does project site contain any species of pl;ml or animal life that endangered? is identified as threatened or lP3: No. Endangered species are not present on site. Short-Nosed Sturgeon, present in the Hudson River. an end;m~ered species, is JAF : No. Endangered species are not presenl on site.

()

5 in or contiguous to project area:

16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas with thereto.

s occupy the site or are contiguous IP3: No, lakes. ponds, or wetland area weI areas on the south side of on the plant site proper. There are JAF: There are no identified wetlands the sout h shor e of Lake Ontario, a

, on N¥P A-o wne d land . Of course, the site is located on Lake Road 7,340 square miles.

waler body ~cupying approximately ental Area designated punu ant contiguous to a Critical Environm

19. Is the site localed in or substantially 10 Article S of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6171 the total shoreline within the County Planning Department has cla:;sitied IP3: Yes, the Westchester County as a Critical Environmental Area.

JAF; No.

e?

the disposal ofso !id or hazardous wasl

20. Has the site ever been used for The solid waste disposed of'

e. NYP A has not disposed of hazardous wasle on site.

IP3: Yes, solid wast ent blocks, etc. Also, the Nuclear on (CilLO) debris; e.g., bricks, cem consisted of construction and demoliti with a clay cap and monitoring well

)

the engineered disposal (i.e .* burial Regulatory Commission approved of an old septic tank used at Unit I.

site. The solid waste disposed of nol disposed of h:.u:.ardous waste on JAF : Yes, solid wasle. NYPA has

s. cement blocks, etc.

consisted of C&D debris; e.g. brick B. Proj tct Description that Ihe "project" will alter the site e EAF proceed from the assumption Questions 1*24 of this section oflh of this EAF' involves no such Since the action that is Ihe subject described in the preceding section. of the final question (1:'25) are not

. the ques tions cont aine d in this section. with the exception alteration transferred.

25. certain existing permits must be applicable. With resJX:ct to question tion C. Zonin\: and Plan ning Info rma 1M mile f .. dius of proposed s) and zoning classifications within 3

7. What are the predominant land use(

action?

cenllo IPJ. lllc area is Units I and 2 are immedialely :ltlja IP3: Con Edis on's Indian Point Stations e .ilt.! has an M*2 zoning classification. a rally indu stria l and com merc ial. The area within 'I. mile orlh gene Planned Industrial District.

immediately aujacent to JAr. In Mile Poin t Nuc lear Generating Stalions Units I and 2 are a.

JAf  : The Nine e is no zoning in the Town of Scrib around JAF is primarily rural. Thef general, the remainder of the land

An ~pplic~,H, sceki ng" pellnil.

licens e, waiver, ccni, ic.lio n Of Ihe New YOlk SIal. Cou, al/.b nage simil~1 IYII<! 0' a"lI'o val ',om "

ment Ploglam ICMP, sh.111 complele 'edc'i ll al)elley which i~ 5\JOicel oce... within andlOt di,eel ly .ltee lhis usus men l 'Olm :01 .ny p'opo 10

! the Slale 's Cou,, ,1 A'.... This ud .<:liv;IY II\~I w.ll .

piopo sed .cli.i ly is consi stenl lOt'" is inten ded to :us;S{ an .ppl.c

",ith New Yo,k SIll. ', CMP ., a", ,n CtfhfyinO I~I Ill<:

930.5 71. II shoul d be Comp leled I.qw ed by U.S. Oep~nm.nl or

.1 Ihe I,me wilen lhe fcdel.' appl.u ttOfI Com.nelce Ic(lVllltions tiS CFR compl~tcd 'Ofm ;and ,ccom is p.repa ,ed. The OepaH"""'1 p~nvino tnlOlm ltion itt its 0/ 5,.,. ",III us, Ih_

'C'Itew of (he Ipplic~nt*s ctnill cJtio n 01 cOflSfUency.

A, AeP\, ICAN T

.1. Name: Powe r Auth orit. y mew York Pow tr Auth or!t: t1 (pltas e ptinll Z. Addr .ss: 123 Main St.re et.

lo.llle e Plai n$, NY 1060 1 J. Telep hone: At.. Code 1914l..;5~8:!.:1;.:-:.!&

~4~0~5~ ____________

o. PflQPQ:;eQ ACTIVITY 1, &ie, desc.i pli",' 01 octivi .y:

Sale of the Indi an Poin t 3 and J.1JlIes .\. rit:tP o.ltri C'l<

2. f\npO $e 01 activity; Sde of tnt Po",.. r "uth odt'j '1S tWo nucl ear powe r plan ts.

J. tocifi on 01 ,JcciviIY:

l?J: :... stch este r BuC' han3 n 8lea Ue)! "ve

• B,o.l d,.. ,,)"

Jf,F, Oswego tyC'o "'lnq 266 L3ke Road E3St Coun ly C,ly. Town (U Vdt~fJt:'

4. TyPt 01 '-0".:1 / Pt .. "i!lIic rnn ,equ".tJ~:RC lQ erR so L1C' "r.se S. rcd..., .ppUClI!ion numb er, if I.roow n: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

6. If. 'I.t~ pC'rm;tJI;c~nsc Wi!

tuoed 01 Ii IC'Qwcd 101 lhe p'otJ~

.ppliClltion 01 Pt! numb er. il acd .Chvl{V. Idtf'lH 1v lM-I.roown: !J£C S?D£S Pen :ut S{3lc ~ot-ncy ~nrj PlO\lid~ 'hc

, .li, pen nits ,

C. COASTAL ASSf SSlA nlT Check

.,11><, 'YES ' Of 'tlO' fo' .Jell 01 Ih< 'ollow QUC'JtiOll tele/1 0 th~ POhCle"S ,ng qu,,",tron *. The numb~'.

deSCh bcd In the C/.'P ClOCvtf'ltnt tnt '00U1 01t 01' 1011.""0 eJtro

~clivjry. P~Ut 2' wll.tCh m.),; be ","ecl etl by t'" (VOPO le-tJ

1. W." the ptopo std .lethtit.,.!.S'.lJ!!1 in .. nV 0' the following:

a, l"oc phyS 'c.' chang e to ~

$ite within the CCUI " lie .. whiCh w'U u'qui tt on en.;. """"n t., jmpac, .UI,m .ntl the p4t'P.l '.lCll)I \ ot

b. Physi c,1 ~j(t"ttQ(\ 0' mOft (11, n, 25, 3'2. 1" 38,4 i. 43(.... ' ,

thin two .leftS oll.1n d ~tono wOlO l./ !2, II, 17,20 ,211, JS. the shOlc hnc. l.lnd wHSt'1 ."Jfc-f 1)1' (, J ... 'it .... ,

c. Ileviu fi"tio n/led t¥tlop mrtll

d. Reduc tion 0' c ** JtUtO 01 poCen 441 . . . . . . . . . , .. , * . . .

of .. aetclt O/lte d Of t.-ndrftJ1Jfll td wllc" ,ont s,tc ~ 111

r. Advt t't rlftC1 upon the

,i.' pl,Jbhc ""C'S llo 01 if~: co,as ul witt ul 1\9. 20J

'T comtnl'tCt.a1 01 'cCI,. .lton.. 1 ust ..1>.

r. S4ru,o of * 'reallY cuen r;.' ,,' C"'ist .. : tllh 1f:10U fCrl1 t9 to Iht r.plO l.non . dtvEl oPlne nl 101 tuOV Ica. in CO, I'" ..... _tt,I and ptodu cllon of tnctOY ...:L Of on 1nc Outc, COt\ti G. Suing of. flc"lt,y c:,un ti.'lo neru .. ' ShelH f2' * . . . .

II\c gEnC tal.on CIt 1I1",m tISfon X

h. MlIlinO. ""-CIY llion, 01 dlcdO of enC(1)y1 f21J ..

W .,,,.,' uc ** Of the "'.Ctr nen1 2-COUI II ...... . 1 115, 351 , .*. Or (fledg ed Of 'ilt ,"Ittl li' IH

i. Oi.'h"/~ of to.'e1 , hlUld *** , . , . . . . . . . )(

OVl sublta nCCI QIt 01h<<-f poUu urns

j. Olfin ,ug or UOftn watct luna" Of Jew" Dverf lcw, into tOfU ihto CO.,t~ wllC ",' ,ft. 1 S. J~I Jr

... T""". I011. "'0_0 _, ttf ** .. ' W.tt l.' tllJ ..

m~n.I. 04' d,lpo ul 0.1 'QhU wl,lt I. Advc ,'u rUtet uP"" I.nd

's Of nUa,d CK./l nt_Ie" .11 t nC). l~1

...L Of wilt"t uns wllhln lhot- SloJ'C ', s,naN h .. ,bof' ...:L.

~ 14, ...

~

• . S** le dC"on jctt ftcSh w.ttct Of ltd" welt .. n," 1441 " ' . " "

b, rcdt". IU,; c1csIQ n.tcd flood '" X ind/O f 'Stlfe: dU'1) O'lcd ~'O$'

c. Sut~ delig.n~1('4 Jf9""t .Clitt OH h.U.u d ,lfe,.,

',\h ~fH"QI ... ,Jdbfc hib~l~l)

o. ..

Ill. 17, 17.1 X

a. SUte d.rSI9l'~tfc1 S'9Oth Clnl e.

SCtrilC trsQulCC' Of .H:Jl f2.).

SUI< <lCS'fI"OI ** impO tf"'" illl'.cu 2-il ... ~1 lonat l (2GI .,. ..L

f. Be.ch . IlullC Ot b,lll. '

g. M~iOt OOfU 01 Alb~n. Dull.t j$l~ndl 1121 . . . . . * " . . . . . . . . .

.*.... ..x..

o, Ocd~n,bulg. Oswe Qo Ot Nt.., ...L v .... 1 III

...L lu:.h.,

ill UQ X

._ W.lo ,hon l,iltl 12.21 .221

b. Provi sion of nc..w 9U~Hc: sClvic

,ectio ns Oollh. Conl al a.ul IS)

cs 01 if\h.s\ fuC\U fC in undev elope d Of sp~tS e'y popul ated Ill, 1'\, If.1 .... . , ., . , .. .

.... ,.x ltrue ,,,,.1

c. Con," ,,(;!;o n 01 rcco' '''l d, Sial. ",.Ie' _lOI y c, Snit lit qu.~ly p."mi l 01 cerlil per mil i"" 01.1100<101 .tosio n ,,,,,un l Of ,.rlin c",io nl 130.

iclIio nl 1"'.4 ll l!l, 401 , . . . . * . . . . . , *. , ....

..* , , , .... .. . .L

" , .... .... , .... ... , .L.. *

.d by a Sllte 'Il",o ".d locol w;lhin IndlOl J!!.m a" atU cov.r x

'. Wdl 1"'-" ptOopo,ed actlvily XCII! pdici- es "'loe at P'OV ." OOCUtf'lent~} **** *.. , *.*.

UtnJ tsee watc d,oot fcviuU ,atiOl l ptOO 0, ~pQ!T'QN"'l STEps c.nl Of loene y S"-l~ comp lele S."io e

n anel subm it II In 011"'-' que,l ions in Secti on C a.o answ ered 'NO' . wn the appli t,

the do<:" ",.nla lion 'e""" tel bV Secli on F, consult the eMP, 01 appfic.ont 01 Ill"'" is .dvis ed \0 Car ** n .... rod 'YES ', Ihen Ih. in mOle

2. II any Oollh. quosl ions in Stcli "" n INOO '.'" docu ment '. The p,opt l.ed lc:tiyilV must bt ,n.lv ted lront rty;," lila,io ,..oel s).

... ",-"Ie a"",,, ptiate . Iht local walt. ~oan. 1 P~Q" . M\ the .,..c. JUovidcd btlo.. or "" lSO,. . ** I.

$I.le 01 loa! ed by lhe aClivilY. 101 detail with 'UpeC I to Ihe .ppli~bI. .... m~h cou,"1 polici es .rc .rt.Cl identily, by Ihc" ptllicy numb trs stent wi\~ uch policy.

Ih ** ppli~nl 01 .oent sh.JlI: 1.1 the policy  ; and. I'" SUit how !he octivitv is consi lelivi ly vp<!" n E 'I'd subm it the b<ielly assen ,t", eneet s 01 ..." Jnt ,... aoenc .v sh,n comQ icte Stttio wtinc n asscS1.,"~nt. the apptiC roUo¥'fI.,O ,he' tOO1()fc:tiOt1 of this n f.

docu menl 'li"" leQuired bV Sectio E. CERTlFICA TION 0< the .ppro ved loc~1

"... i.ur" w.,n ,,,, State 's eMf' y lhal ,"'-" ",opo sed ocl;Yoly is . tn~ pt'opo scd I"tivi ty INn nol l?r The .pplic an\ 0< .oent muSI ccrtil cC'rtHi C:~tiQn cannO t be- made

~m. illS ;appro ptiate . lJ U';s wa,tc rfiont rcvitJ tiutio n Pfogr lhis Sec lion.

IJ!lsl~lkrn, If lhi. Ctllifi c:.alion can be m.lIe . comp le'c with lhe applic able appto vcd CouI3 1 M* ." .. cme,, \ ProOl am, 01

... ilh New YOl~ SUle 's 'PPfo... ed

'The plopo ad 'ClivilY comp lies condu cted ia ~ m;linn er conti nent with s\Jch pt'ogr am,-

am. ,ane wiU be Cout WI\Cf frQf'\t IcviU t.Utio n ptoO' _ _t;~,) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

ty_ _ _ _ _'fork.

INe'" _ _ _Powt _ _!r_Aut! _ _:ori tIJl"e : _ _ Fow _ _er __ _ _ori

'\uth __

h_l_t_"_P_l_"_!n_S_,_ll_Y_l_O_u_O_l_ __

"o." .n: __l_2_3_M_il_i_n_S_t_f_e_e_t...;..,_W 0".: /',. ' ( ) <:..; C <~

I t of St:t'e. o;vi,i on o.

the tostowi"O dlKum tn\ .. to tht' Nt'w YOf" St:ue Ot'f'!;\"mt:n T~ apf)i1 Clnt 01 aoent stun su'bfn !\

" HOOf, Alb~nv. Ntw VOf' \ 2'ZJ t.

CO~"'~ f'C10U f(CS. 4' Suu: StlCf '

• 8th o.to.n>>t ,iI~n<,d fQ-tlft.

t IO<'"Cy .p~ftat.on, b COpy 01 tht' (Otf'p i"1cd 'cdr ... c..tIQt , of C".)n'I\\CI~y whlc.h _""",Id IUPPOU the c.c,tlti

e. Otne. ,ya,tl blt 'nform l'.O'"

. J

• l",.. , ,'11 ..

COt,m l'; pilht .. no '1CH\o.IC=S.

tilt J[lI)l()P"~1r IcOlco al and t 0' St~t~ tf'QtQfl,J1 fltf.e" , .* ru3:

. CH'Jtt v JhQll t"od Otpil fmC'n 1,1 ,fi4r.~' ~_ * .:"-- ....

lI.d: 11)1 ... (C\tQt . * \ .:. .... : ,.

...... l,od~<IH\ .llr .. ,,0 JVj.:.

SALE OF'THE INDIAN POINT J &

JAr NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS New Yor k SI:!!e Dep artm ent Stat Coast:!1 Man agem ent Assessment or e form Fede ral Consistency Asse ssme nt Form - Add ition al Info rma tion C. COASTAL ASSESSMENT Check eilhe r "Yes" or "No" for each oflh e following numbers following each question refer questions. The to the policies described in the eMP affected by the proposed activity. document which mOl)" be:

2. Will the proposed activity!f!!.£! or be ~in. 0'1, or adjacent 10 any of rhe following.:

a. State designated freshwater or tidal wetland? (44)

• Policy 44: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetl andn nd preserve these areas. the be!"nclirs derh cd (rom Effects ofthe Prop osed ACIMries on thes e Po/icies There are no wetlands on Ihe IP3 site.

Although there are no \\"cr!:mds on'rh Ihere are some wet areas wilhin the lotal e JA F pl:ml-sil(' p,nflt:r.

sile boundary for sale!". The wet are:lS of Lake Road. The proposed activ an: on lilt: soulh sid~

ity is the sale or the Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plants. There will' be and Jame!"s A. FitzPatrick no physical change to either sito:- JS activity, Therefore, JAF's we! areas a r~sult of Ihe proposed will nOI be affected.

Why the Proposed AClivilies are Con sistent The prospective buyer will purchase the sires in compliance with all applicablt and licenses. Similarly. the prospect  : cnvironmcntal pemlits ive burer 1V0uid Ihen be required by compliance with the tenns and condition law to maintain Ih.: sitt.'s in s of thest' environmenlal pennils and proposed activity is consistent wilh Polic lk~*ns,'s. As s\lch, Ih.:

y 4~,

b. Federally d~sjgnaled nuoo anu'or slate d.:~.gnatcd erosion hazard arcas'! (II.

11. 17)

Poliey J J: Buildings and olher Siructures will be!" sill.'d in the coastal an.';.'l so as property and the endangering of hum tv minimize d;una!!L' 10 an liws caused by i1oooin;: aml . . rosio n.

Effects of Ih~ Proposr:d Actil-ities Oil tilest' Pulicit!s The proposed activity is the sale of the Iwo existing nuclear power plant structures wi!! not be sited in Ihe coas s. Building:; allli mhcr tal area as a result of the sale. Exis siructures have been sited and cons ting sile bujldill~s and trucled in accordance with all appli Therefore, Policy II is nOI arfect~d. cable: laws ,wu n:gul;lliolls.

Why I;'~ Prop osed Activities ar~ Consistent The proposed sale will not, in and of itself, result in lhe siting of any buildin~s coastal area. The proposed sale is there or structures in the fore consisten! with Policy I L

so as to minimize damage in Ihe coastal area will be undl!rtaken

• Polity 12: Activities or development cting n:llu fal proh:ctive f':3Iun:s ral resource s and property from flooding and erosion by prote 10 natu ds and bluffs.

including beaches, dunes, balTier islan these Poli cies EffeclS o/th e Prop osed Activities on or development within the itself, result in any physical activity The proposed sale will not, in and of coastal area.

isllmt.

Why the Prop osed AClivilies are Cons d wilh the proposed sale.

lopment in the coastal area associate As there will not be any activity or deve it is consistent with Policy 12.

uras and property from to minimize damage to natural reso

• Policy 17: Non-strucrural measures never possible.

flooding and erosion shall be used whe Ihese Policies

£ffec ts o/Ih e Prop osed Activilies on neither structural nor non*

of ilself, involve any physical activit)"

As the proposed sale will not, in and d.

structural measures need to be employe sislent Why the Prop osed Acti~'itieJ are Con

lctivity. Th.:r.:forc. th.:

e will not be any physical chan ge to the sites as a result of the proposed Ther 17.

proposed sale is consistent with Pot icy any of the following:

3. Wm the proposed activity require tion? (30, 38 40)

d. State water quality permit or cenific:l including but not limited \0, commercial discharge of pollutants.

Policy 30: Municipal. industrial, and and nalional w;\lcr quati!)'

coastal waters will conform !o state toxic and hazardous substances. into standards.

ere Policies Effects oJth e Pruposed .-tcIM/ies Oil/h cnvifllnnwnlal pl'nnits and Ihe sites in compliance with existing The prospeclive buyer will purchase .:olllplianl.*c Wilh til.: tern,s nnd ired 10 maintain thes.: sites in licenses, The buyer would then be requ ses.

conditions of these permits and licen isf(ml Why the Prop osed ACliy;tics are Cons H'1,;ulaliuns. The plants all applicable environmental bws :IllJ 130lh siles operale in compliance with p. Th~r d\lf c, the pruposed sail! is 50 under any new owner,hi will be required to continue La do consistent with Policy 30.

lies will be conserved .md of surface water and groundwater supp

• Policy J~' The quality and quantity or sale sour ce of waler supply.

r conslitutes the primary prolectcu. particularly where such wate Ihese Policit!s Effects o/Ill e !'rop osed Actil*i/ies an They will he rC4uircd \0 applicable environmental regulations.

The plants are in compliance with ail ownership.

rl!main in compliance under any new

J Il'IJ}1 the Prop osed Acril'i/ics are Consistent The plants are in environmental com pliance, and will b~ required to rema Their proposed sale is therefore. cons in so und~r n~w 0\\ nc(ship.

t istent wilh Policy 38.

• Policy 40: Emuent Discharged from major steam electric generating ilnd coastal waters will not be unduly injur industrial facilities into ious to :ish and wild!ife and shall conr standards. onn to mle WJlcr quality

~ Effects ofthe Prop osed Activiries on these Policies The plants comply wilh all applicabl e environmental regulations. They will do so unde r an)' new ownership. purs be rcquired to continue (0 uant to applicable en"ironmental r~g.u lations, Why the Prop osed Acti vitie s are Con sistent IP3 and JAF operate in compliance wilh all applic3bh: environmental r~guI required to continue to do so under any Jtions. Thc)' will t>c new ownership. The propos~d Jelil";IY wilh this Policy. is, [herefor~, el)usisrO:Ilt

e. State air quality permit or ceniticar ion? (-II. 43)

• Policy 41: land use or development in Ihe coastal area will not cause n:llio slandards 10 be violaled. nal or 51:11<:' air quatilY EffiCl! o/th e Prop osed rlcril'ilies on Illese Policies The proposed sale will nOl, in Jnd of itself, involve a new IJnd use or de\'t:

Ihal could affect national or SI~le air lopmcnt in Ih~ coastal area qualiry siandards.

Why the Prop osed Activities are Cons istent The sites curren!ly operatl:.' in complian ce with all appli,ablc air qll:Jlily fl."h' required to continue to do so under ulations. The), will l:-~'

any new oll'nt"rship. '111o:reforc, 11"'ir with Policy 4 t. proposed 5:.111.' is cnll~i.~tenl

• Policy 4J: Land use developmenl in the COJSIJI ar... a nlU~t nOI CJUS,' Ih,' generation of $i!;nilkal amo unls o( acid 'rain precursors; njlr~t

.:s and ~ullar.:s, l!

£/foc/s o/Ih t! Prop osed r/elil'iries on Illf!st! Polich's The proposed sale will not, in and of itself, in\ oh'\: 311)' m:w lallJ usc Uc\'.:!opm cnt in tli.: masl;ll zOIl ....

Why rht! Prop osed Activities are COtl SiIlem IP3 and JAF operate in compliance wilh all applicable environmental regulatio 10 conlinue to do so under any new own ns, :md will be rcquin.'u ership. furthennore. the proposed aCliv itself, involve any new land developm ilY will not, in and of ent in the coaslal area~. The proposed consistent with this Policy. activil)" th"fcfore, is

H[II TOIJ( ST~T( DcrMTM(HT or SlAl(

CQi,ST"~ tW<.AG CIICIIT PIIQGJWI COoIIU' AsU'u"'*\t (ent A. tHSUlJC1'lOliS [Pit.... p"\nt or I~ all .",..,..rlJ

>l>len .ra ,..cj..:! to '.rl 600 01 Titl'" 01 u..

I. sute >9tnc:les ,!\aU CCI'Oloto this CAr lor PI"CIlO"'" Ktl(n$

usan .... ' Is Inl"""" to ,,,",1-., Ot/lU Inlonullcn u,od by. stlt. ...._, In ""11

• KYClUl. TI'III

~ _.,*,I to tl\a SUtt Inyl,.",.... ,t.l ~Ilty .tvl .. ""I I. . . . <TW, 'orl 4111.

SII7lIf\

d.t .... I,...ltlon of If It Is . I _ ' ' * ' tl\at a ptWQjoC oc" .... will nol _ 0

• 1\~It'C

.... 1 .11<<, on tl\a "'.i .......'. 11111 "ltII tl\a COrlHICA tlon r_lr.-.l . of I' NratA

..... _ 1 It Int""'" to "$lIn allOt. >9""" In """01,1"11 Soctl ... 600.4.

t.I\On tl\a ptWQjod ocUon _, ./focI tile ....1 _ \

2. """' _lion In SocUon C en thlt r..... II ~ "yo,',

.. lW. nut. tl\a OCtlcn f/>:AJld bo _Iyud In af tl\a """'tiL pol,,,I .. anta'nod In Artlelo 42 or t/>O Lt"""u

........ tall It'd. If noco.,.,.,.. _Hlod p"lor to oltller t.r Ntl"ll a artlfl.-!I on of GCnIhltnCY _"""', 10 "

$[011. , KTClUl. S""llon 41T.', H tile ""lion Is ..,. tor KTCM: 'ort 60IXI 01', Ib) _kl"II tho flndlflO,l rt<;Ulred \TIdv

_1~tI \ I_I II bol"ll pr~. If an ""lion .....-01 bo (trtlfled .. """,IHent "ltII onl"" en sUl\-'1 IN (;QUI,t polld ... It '!\all ,..,\ bo ...-.:Iorta'on .

till' lont f/>:AJld rev' ... tho """Hoi po\lel ..

1. a.rono _1"11 tho _II...... In SocllO'l C, tile ~ror of A Pl':lI>OSod action .to.ld bo ... Iuetod IS to ill ,'~i(I( ..... t bow>oflchl Ind a:nt.lnod In It IffClUl Socllcn 600.5.

-..-.*

• fleets ..-. tile toUt.\ .......

Dlractly I.flQoort.hn 10.9. """ltal <:<>nItl"V<llon. plonni"ll octl.lty. OIltnCY roq..... tton, lind trllNOCllonl~

(.1 fbI fl""",'.' ... ,at...... (*. g. grant. I""". ,,",sldYI It I ,.....11. lIe.nso, ... rt 1I1c111""

or octlen: Sale of the Indian Point. ) and J.1J'lh'S A. Fit:::I'.Il :rick

z. tloHc:rlbo Nltura Ind .. tOl'l\

Blc~klcy Ave. , Broadway

l. ir;-~\~e'lft:~~~\.er Buchana n

~6a t,;,kc Ro~d Cast.

JAr, Qsweqo Lyc omin9 City. T""" ~ VIII .....

~"""Y~ ttlt foUQ.ol\r'4 \nf~t\an SNn If W\ *C)pUyt\c: n fOf"' tht: propoud: K-th:n h.as ,,..,, nt.cl wun tlw Uate 4.

bo .."..i6od:

t., N_ of _tltant: New York Po"er ,'lIthor; tv : po""r "utllor I tV) tbl ,..\1I"11lWldn1n: l~l Maln Stt"e\., ....

• )011." rl.Jlns. NY lO",\1 tel ToI""""", -.-: .<r.. t:<xI4I !..2!.::I_'_tl_l::..-_C_,_4_"_'____ ____ ____

(dl $uto f9OI'C'f _I\"'lion . . . - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

K ~.I by

• r_ral OIloney!

S. 11111 tho octlen bo dlr **alV I.flQoortl'on. ,_I" 1."'11"9.

'os X ... _ _ If '01. ""'en I_rol OIl"""",! tl\.l.:\~.H K~'l\.l\ .. Lory C"IMl\S5 Ion I. will tl\a ~od OCllen bo ~ In. 01' GO'I\lguouo to, 01' ""* * * "qnlll(ln l .rr"", "p""

I.

"", or tha ,.~ trM.J \~t\fhd on U'\e c.D&tt.\ at".. .,.:.:

x 1., 1111"1111:.... TIt/> Of' "Ildll', ~\tI\Jf .......... ..........

'\II"\f\~l .......... .......... .......... ..........

........ .. _x_

lbl kAntt r--..n:.u of .lIt .. .. . _x_

(tl ' __ 't .1",lt __ I....q" .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

• • • • • ~*******.,*

_x_

.......... . __ _ x_

. . . . . . . 9 * * * * * * * ....

""",Ie _\tty .., tho _tal _I......--.u .......... .......... ..........

.......... _ x_

ttl o.r...l_ l of futun>, 01' Mlltlng wa'", ~t ..... , ..........

.......... ....... _ _ _X_

tdl Q:>ontl", of tho 'tilt.', _lor ports} .......... ..........

X 1.1 t.ord 1t'd ..1M' _ .. liMn tho State', _1I~' X Ifl Lthtl"9 or P'>' .... II.1 ",""tic T'IICTMtlon """""tunlt l ..,

IlgI\llc.w>C AI t91 stNl:IurW . ,It.. or dlatr\cta of ""terle:. """""OO lul or cull,,"1 t.o ~ Stlte or .... llon .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

til I'rIylle.o\ II torH lor! of t..t:> (21 .u. , Of' ..,..

.... ,.,. or COA IU! .... t.,.,' ........................................

. or t..-d .10 '9 tN .""' .11 "., lind

"""" r fbi 1'rI y.lu { .It... nlo r! of 11.* . lSI _ **

or ror. of lind \~Ied

........................... .. y.

It'Mr .... .... .... .... .... e\.~" .n ,,,. <4I H.1 lei ~\en of ... Iltl

"", p.O \lc * .,..,1 .01 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... X or In(r oUl '\IC lv,. In ~.\ .... .... .... __

• .-- at tN .....U. I .,... ..,.., ., to. 4.".

., .... .... .... .... .... 11, hll ~ locH I!,. not .... .... .... .... .... ....

t.l Hlnl""" _l Ia n,

.Ib} oc! to Art lcl. VII or Vllt of tN ""l ie

__ x filI I"", or dr.cIQl"", In 1.,. ,,1" ~ ... , .... .... ....

In ~tlon ot ... lltl" """ ,ul ...Un l .... .... .... _ _ x_

", Of' pote nt I., p.O li.: .... .... .... .... ....

(~I Ula or dw1 ge In us, of atA t""" "';'"

ec.:an to or I.... \.... \., '"' tN sr.c

.'0'9 tN $I"IOt"W1 .... ....

.... .... .... .. _ _ .....L lhl 0.. ..1 _, "ltI \ln r.\ \". .....L II _I ..... .., n...., or or  !.I'd <<" ""o rl .... ....

.. L. .

II) o.. ..t _t an II .",. ten N ..,.., _ 1 ....

boNIctI. ~, bar rl.,. .... .... .... .... ....

1,II td or ell"*" nol...... .... .... .lI. -

pn:!ta<:t\CI'I ao<tlNl 1 t ... b.In t thAlt _ 1 -

t rtOlXlI"", or ttOf lonf

~. 1111\ tN prciClaIod .... . .

&<:11"" be !!!s!!!l! In

~ Lor;.at 110" or Nw

• 01" ,,\(\ ""1 1'11"(11' .... IUl Iut lcn .fh c! ...." . ., ..... . Ircl.

'ro or- r .... .... .... .... ..sod In ....

.... .... .... .... .... .... x Scl len '.I( al .... '.lI bl It ~od; !!!

ScU m ** He) Is ~h d ~ '.5 h _ o d ., ....

,.... ron . Sla t. !loc>tr~t or Sla t.

""," ,al ~t

'1'09'_

1'2 \4.Inlt19t<:n A Albortr. ,.... , .... t 1223 1

If Ull olln ", or r",u -..r 4r~-3~2.

i"r. "...\ ,,:.. II ~

to cor al.t e lith r_. ph... ult tI>o Oo<><o r~t of Sl. l. H (SI~

1 lIu tho rlty 1\

JAF NUCLEAR rOW ER PLANTS SALE Of THE INDIAN POINT .3 &

e New York State Department of Slal Coa stal Man agem ent Prog ram Coastal A~>essment Form - Additionallnformalion Power Plants involl'!!S lhe t J and James A. Fit:Palrick Nuclear The proposed sale of the Indian Poin permils (e.g.; Ihe Slate ent of Environmental Conservation transfer of New .York Slale Departm ear Regu latory Commission's m Permit), as well as the Nucl Pollutanl Discharge Elimination Syste Fede ral and Stale approvals will be

r. Therefore, as hath license, from Ihe seller to the buye nt form s. NYPA has rhe Federal {lnd Stale ccrutof assessme transferred, NYf A has completed both e's coas tal polic ies. per the the proposed sale un New York Slat first discussed the possible effects of stal Asse ssme nt Form , the following

. Per Ihe State's Coa Federal Consistency Assessment Form in the discu ssion of the ent Program policies not addressed discusses addilional Coastal Managem federal form.

wing questions) r "Yes" or "No" for each of the follo C. Coastal Assessment (Check eithe resuh in the following:

3. Will the proposed action involve or r watd ?

ed land located on the shoreline or unde

g. Sale Of change in the use of state-own ests of the State and of its omic, social and environmental inter

• Policy 18: To safeguaTd the vital econ tion to those interests, and the coastal area must give full considera citizens, proposed major actions in coas tal resou rce areas.

established to protect valuable to the safeguards which the State has these Policies

£jJecls of the Proposed Acri\'ities on r will acquire the sites in IP) and JAF. 1 h: prospective: buye The proposed activity is the sale of The plants. once ufIlJer new ronmental laws and reg.ulalions.

compliance with all applicable envi l~ws and regu lations. Tnt: Statt:'s inue to comply with these ownership, will be required to cont ed. As the sale will rt:\um l interests will, therefore:, be safeguard economic, social and environmenta may in ract result.

tion \0 the tax b:lse, economic benefits lands not subjecllo real properry laxa lstl!nt Why Ihe proposed Acrivilies are Cons be safeguarded, and certain l arid environmental interests will Since the State's economic, socia activity is consistent wilh Policy 18.

benefits may be rCliiz.ed, the proposed flood or erosion hazard area?

(h) Developmenl within a designated untkr C.2.b. In this Federal Consistency Assessment fonn This was previously addressed in the Polic ies II, I::! and 17.

found to be consistenl with discussion. the proposed activity was

AD DE ND UM TO EN VIR ON ME NT AL AS SE SS ME NT Proposed Action: The sale of the Indian Point 3 and The James A. Fitzpatrick Nucle ar Power Plants The Environmental Division has prepared an environmental ass of the proposed sale of the Indian essment Point 3 (IP3) and James A. Fitz facilities. This addendum summa pat rick (JAF) rizes the review process and the process. The review and ass ess res ults of that me nt dre w upon the knowledge of the Environmental Division staf and experience f, consultation with other staff thro Authority and review of numero ughout the us documents.

The review process was initiate d in Nov em ber 1999 an,d procee concurrently with the sale negotia ded tions. An Environmental Ass ess (EAF) wa t completed on Jan uar me nt Form y 6, 200 0 and transmitted to var and interested agencies along with ious involved the Authority's indication of inte the role of Lead Agency for the nt to assume purpose of conducting the review State Environmental Quality Rev req uired by the iew Act (SEQRA). The Authority replies but no objection to the ass rec eived two umption of Lead Agency status.

Department of State had no obje The ction to the Authority assuming Agency. While Andrew J. Spano, the role of Lead Westchester County Executive, Bondi, Putnam County Executive, and Robert J.

did not object to the Authority bein designated Lead Agency. they g urged that safe plant operation, impacts on local communities, imp pub lic safety, acts on existing contracts, the Decommissioning Fund, spent fuel storage and greenfielding be the review. considered in The general terms of a proposed transaction with Entergy Corpor (Entergy) wer e finalized on Feb ation ruary 14, 2000 and announced public that same day. On Februa to the gen eral ry 29, 200 0. in response to an uns by Dominion Resources Inc. (Do olicited offer minion), the Trustees agreed to bids and ma ke a timely decision accept further thereon. Subsequently, under a established by the Authority, furt process her bids were invited from all inte purchasers; Once it was establis rested hed tha t there were no other bidd and Dominion were given until ers, Ent erg y March 10, 2000 to refine 'or imp The proposed transaction is des rov e their- offers.

cribed in the President's Me mo the Trustees dated March 20, 200 ran dum to 0, on the "Proposed Agreement Indian Point 3 and Jam es A. Fitz s re: Sal e of Patrick Nuclear Plants" (Preside Memorandum) and consists of nt's the sale by the Authority of IP3 Wholly-owned subsidiary of eith and JAF to a er Entergy Nuclear Corp. (herea referred to as Entergy) or to a who fter collectively lly-owned subsidiary of Dominio Inc. (hereafter collectively referred n Resources to as Dominion) pursuant to a Pur Sale Agreement tog eth er with its cha se and associated Exhibits and Schedu "the P&SA"), The pro pos ed tran les (hereinafter, saction was reviewed to determ ine if the final

result of this Jan uar y 6, 200 0 analysis. As a proposal was con sist ent with the s find that the n rec om me nds tha t the Trustee review, the Env iron me nta l Divisio and .

ifica nt effe ct on the environment proposed action will hav e no sign d be pre par ed und er nta l Imp act Sta tem ent nee accordingly. tha t no Env iron me pro pos ed sal e of IP3 and JAF.

SE aR A in connection with the on the following:

Thi s rec om me nda tion is bas ed A. Existing Con diti ons

1. Phy sica l Facilities adjacent to the east ban k of IP3 is located on a 102 -ac re site of Buchanan and the Tow n of the Hud son Riv er in the Vill age re

. It is a part of a larger, 235 -ac Cor tlan dt in We stch est er Cou nty lea r nt 1 and Indian Point 2 nuc site tha t also hos ts the Ind ian Poi Edison Company of New Yor k, facilities own ed by Con soli dat ed 24 north of IP3. The site is abo ut Inc. (Consolidated Edison) to the crip tion of the boundary. A des miles nor th of the New Yor k City and improvements thereon, is site, including the real pro per ty use c pow er is produced thro ugh the contained in the P&SA. Ele ctri reactor. The reactor has a Net of a pressurized wat er nuc lea r 970 Megawatts (MW).

Dep end abl e Capacity rating of along the south sho re of JAF is located on a 702 -ac re site is iba in Oswego County. The site Lake Ontario in the Tow n of Scr Poi nt upon which the Nine-Mile imm edi ate ly to the eas t of the land lities are located. The Nia gar a 1 and Nine-Mile Poi nt 2 nuc lea r faci sently operates both of the se Mo haw k Pow er Cor por atio n pre s eas t of Oswego, 36 miles facilities. The site is abo ut 7 mile tion miles east of Buffalo. A descrip nor the ast of Syracuse. and 135 reo n, is perty and improvements the of the site, including the rea l pro use c pow er is produced thro ugh the contained in the P&SA.' Electri

. The reactor has a Net of a boiling wat er nuc lea r reactor 820 MW.

Oependable Capacity rating of

2. Ope rati ons The Authority acq uire d IP3 in 197 5 from Consolidated substantially all construction. IP3 Edi son afte r the com ple tion of on in August 1976. In 1998. IP3 com me nce d com me rcia l ope rati electricity. In 1999. the facility gen era ted 7.7 billion kW h net of ng outage in its history and com ple ted the sho rtes t re-fueli acity of electricity. operating at a cap gen era ted 7.27 billion kW h net fac tor of 86%.

2

License No. DPR~64 was issued to Consolidated Edison by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis sion (NRC) to operate IP3 on December 12, 1975. The license to ogerate wasJr.ansferred to the Authority on March 8, 1978. The license expires on December 12, 2015:1n additIon to1tn:rNRc lice nse. operation of the plant is subject to various federal and stat e permits and registrations. A list of those permits and registrations is part of the P&SA.

Pursuant to the permits and reg istrations cited above, the IP3 facility discharges substances to the air and water. While the NRC regulates the emission of slig htly radioactive material, the New York State Facility Air Permit governs releases to the air that may occur from the auxiliary boil ers and diesel generators.

Discharges into the surface or gro undwater are regulated under Corps of Engineers Permits and the Consolidated Edison/Authority joint State 'Pollutant Discharge Elim ination System Permit ($PDES Permit)

The Authority acquired JAF in 197 4 while it was under construction by Niagara Mohaw k Power Corporation. JAF commenced commercial operati on in July 1975. In 1998, JAF generated 4.9 billion kWh net of electricity. In 1999, the facility generated 6.57 billion kWh net of electricity, operating at a capacit factor of 93.5%. y License No. DPR-59 was issued to the Authority by the NRC to operate JAF on June 4, 1977.

The license expires on October 17, 2014. In addition to the NRC license, operation of the plant is subject to various federal and stat e permits and registrations. A list of those permits and registration s is part of the P&SA.

Pursuant to the permits and reg istrations cited above, the JAF facility discharges substances to the air and water. While the NRC regulates the emission of slightly radioactive material, the New York State Facility Air Permit governs releases to the air that ma y occur from the auxiliary boil ers and diesel generators.

Discharges into the surface or gro undwater are regulated under Corps of Engineers Permits and the Authority's SPDES Permit.

80th the IP3 and the JAF reactor s are fueled by uranium enriched with Um . Each reactor consumes approximately 30 ton of fuel each year. The Authority s has a contract (with the U. S.

Department of Energy [DOE]) to dispose of the spent nuclear fue (SNF) at a centralized repository l to be constructed by DOE in ord to receive and to provide perma er nent storage for SNF. DOE has indicated that it expects this faci lity to be completed by approximately 2010. Pending com pletion of such a repository, SNF will be stored on-site at JAF and IP3. IP3 has sufficient capacity to accommodate the SNF expected to be produced there

)

pr ior to transfer to the fed er al re po sitory in 2010. The 'FS AR lists lies. However, if this I

I ol ca pa cit y as 1345 fuel assemb the SN F po e at lP3 ma y de d, pla nn ing for on site dry cask storag da te is ex ten pacity to JA F do es no t cu rre ntly have sufficient ca be necessary. in up to 2797 Th e JA F SN F pool can conta rea ch 20 10 . in the design stage

s. Ho we ve r, the Authority is currently assemb lie e installation cti on of an ind ep en de nt spent fuel storag for constru bility at tha t facility.

ain SN F storage capa (lSFSI) at JAF to maint , when it will be FS I is ex pe cte d to be completed by 2001 The IS F's SNF.

porary storage for JA required to provide tem

3. Employment ly 1650 full and y employs approximate The Authority currentl headquarters plo ye es at IP 3, JA F and its White Plains part time em the staff is ies. Nearly one-half of in support of the facilit lle cti ve bargaining agreem ents that un ion s. Th e co represented by for represented an d co nd itions of employment addr es s't er ms el at IF3 are not at JA F an d re pr es ented security personn personn el 1, 2000, to ex pir e un til Ju ne 30, 2001 and October scheduled ment covering the ctive bargaining agree respectively. The colle el at IP3 expired in Januar y of this en ted pe rso nn remaining repres law, the terms of bu t, in ac co rd an ce with public sector labor year essor ag re em en t rem ain in force until a succ tha t ex pir ed ntal and t is ne go tia ted . Be ne fits such as medical, de agreemen k leave allowances, nce, vacation and sic hospitalization insura ns ion plans, among other thi ngs, are sa tio n an d pe deferred compen purchaser to offer SA . Th e P&SA provides for the pa rt of the P& vote virtually all of en t to all Au tho rity employees who de emplo ym addition the tim e to su pp or t the nuclear plants. In their wo rki ng ring Authority s for the pu rch as er to furnish all transfer P&SA prov ide material th a be ne fits pa ck ag e that is identical in all employees wi e. For non-th the Au tho rity's benefits packag res pe cts wi the Authority's em plo ye es the purchaser will maintain repres en ted sing. Fo r ck ag e for at lea st on e year beyond the clo benefits pa recognize the es the purchaser will represented employe rity to transferring ion rep resentative, grant senio em plo ye es ' un ce with the Authority plo ye es for their years of servi repr es en ted em and ob~erve the co lle cti ve bargaining agreements and as su me the them until their co nd itio ns of em plo yment provided for in terms and expiration dates.

4. Local Services 4

At IP3, the Authority utilizes the Village of Buchanan sewage treatment plant under an agreem ent between the Village and the Authority. Water also is supplied by the Village. Water is supplie d

to JAF by the Town of Scriba and wastewater is treated by an on*

site treatment plant. While the facilities themselves have plant security and fire protection, local police and fire organizations provide backup for on-site activities and participate in emergency plans and exercises. Plant employees generally reside within reasonable commuting distances in the communities and areas surrounding the facilities. Due to the nature of the Authority. no local property taxes are paid on either facility.

5. Power Sales Power from the IP3 facility is used to meet the demands of the Authority's customers in Southeastern New York State. IP3 is the principal power source for 111 government customers in New York City and Westchester County, all of which use the electric ity for public buildings, schools, subway and commuter trains, street lights, and various other public facilities and purposes. Since the Authority does not have a guaranteed service area, its power price has to be competitive with the regulated utilities, independent power producers, and on-site generation.

About 665 businesses and non-profit organizations receive electricity from JAF. All of JAF's power is sold to businesses.

utilities (including the Long Island Power Authority) and Muni/Coops.

New York State recently established the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The NYISO exercises operational control over most of the State's transmission facilitie s to maintain short term reliability, administer the NYISO Transmission Tariff and implement and operate New York's Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS). An Operating Committee establishes and oversees procedures for coordinating NY Power System Operations. A Business Issues Committee establishes procedures for the efficient nondiscriminatory operation of electricity markets coordinated by the NYISO. The NYISO operates day*ahead and hourly markets for energy and ancillary services. It is within the context of the ISO system that power will be marketed and sold from both IP3 and JAF.

8. Proposed Action 5

(

As noted, the proposed action encompasses the sale of IP3 and JAF. The sale includes all the assets listed in the P&SA.

It also includes the transfer of nuclea r fuel. In additio n, a fixed price the power contract will be entered into between the purchaser and Authority for output from each of the facilities. Finally, to assure delivery of power, the Interconnection and Operation Agreement (Exhibit H of the P&SA) provides for JAF's connection to the Authority's transmission system.

C. Potential Environmental Impac ts

1. Physical Environment Physically, there will be no difference in facility operation before and after the sale. No operational or physical changes will be made. Virtually the only change will be a substitution of upper management. The staff, the operating procedures and the legal requirements for operation will not change.

The P&SA lists the permits that will be transferred to the all purchaser. The purchaser will accept these permits subject to the existing conditions. Since the permits are renewed periodically, potential for a change in conditions exists regard less of who can operates the facilities. However, before any significant revision be made to state or local permits, the requirements of SEQR A would have to be met and approval received from such permitting authorities. Any revisions to federal permits would be subject to the requirements of NEPA, along with any permit requirements.

a The NRC has determined that the mere transfer of ownership of facility does not create significant environment al impact s and for that reason has categorically excluded such actions from the NEPA req uirements.

One potential issue that could arise apait from the regulatory requirements is the impact of actual operation on emissions from e

other facilities. Operation of the IP3 and JAF facilities can displac the burning of 900 million gallons of oil or 6.6 million tons of coal with a concurrent reduction in NOx, SOx and other emissions of critical concern. On the other hand, the reduction of the negative the aspects of other forms of energy production is partially offset by generation of waste products such as SNF and lOW-le vel radioactive waste at nuclear facilities.

Entergy's ability to operate the two facilities was scrutinized that to assure that operation of these facilities continues at the level the facilities have attained in recent years under Author ity .

supervision. Entergy currently operates six nuclear units at five 6

plant sites: Ar ka ns as Nu cle ar On e Units 1 Arkansas; Gr an d Gu and 2 ne ar Russellvil lf Nu cle ar Station in le, River Be nd St ati on in Po rt Gi bs on , Mississipp St. Francisville, Louis i; Taft, Lo uis ian a; an d iana; W ate rfo rd 3 in Pil gri m Nu cle ar Stati The six nu cle ar un its on in Ply mo uth . Ma ss re pr es en t three of the .

ste am su pp ly sy ste ms fou r ma jor U.S. nu cle an d incfude three Ge ar wa ter reactors, tw o Co ne ral Ele ctr ic boiling mb us tio n Engineerin reactors, an d on e Ba g pre ss uri ze d wa ter bc oc k an d W ilc ox pre In 1998, En ter gy 's nu ss uri ze d wa ter reactor.

cle ar un its sa fel y ge ne me ga wa tt- ho urs of ele rat ed ov er 38 million ctr ici ty. providing ab Entergy's ge ne ra tio n ou t 40 pe rce nt of wi th a ca pa cit y factor percent. of ap pr ox im ate ly 90 lik ew ise , Do mi nio n's ability to operate the also scrutinized to as tw o fac ilit ies wa s su re tha t op era tio n of continues at the lev el these facilities tha t the facilities ha ve years un de r Author.it att ain ed in re ce nt y su pe rvi sio n. Domi Virginia Po we r Co., cu nion, thr ou gh its su bs rre ntl y op era tes fou r idi ary plant sites: No rth An nu cle ar un ils at tw o na Un its 1 and 2 ne ar

• Surry Po we r St ati on 1999, Do mi nio n's nu and 93.8 res pe cti ve ly.

Un its 1 and 2 in Surry cle ar un its average ca Mineral, Virginia, an d Virginia. In 19 98 and pacity factors we re 91

.7 As noted ab ov e, the Po we r Purchase Ag re cause an y ch an ge in em en t will no t the cu rre nt operationa Energy, in the first ins l ch ara cteristics.

tan ce , will be supplie facilities. If the fac ilit d from the ou tpu t of ies are unavailable, the from oth er no n-s pe cif po we r will be pr ov ide ic so urc es (i.e., ma rke d tra ns fer is als o ma de t purchases). Si nc e wi th the expectation the continue to op er ate at that the facilities wi ll the ir pr es en t levels an alternate so urc es will d tha t ex ist ing ba ck up the facilities, source for the po we r no ch an ge in the type of (o the r than normal ma occur. Th ere for e, no rke t se lec tio n) wi ll me as ur ab le localized wa ter quality will oc cu impacts on air qu ali ty r no r will there be a me or sy ste m wide en vir on as ura ble ch an ge in me nta l impacts.

2. Pu bli c he alt h an d sa fety.

Th e pr op os ed tra ns fer will be subject to NR and approval. Be ca C sa fet y rev iew us e the sta ff will rem continue to op er ate ain , the fac ilities wi ll wi th pe rso nn el that ha the facilities an d ha ve ve int im ate kn ow led ge of pr ov en that they can safely. Mo reo ve r, the op era te the se fac ilit ies ex pe rtis e of the facilit su pp ort pe rso nn el wi ies' existing sta ffs an ll be su pp lem en ted by d ult im ate pu rch as er ha the ex pe rtis e Iha t the s in the nu cle ar area.

ch an ge will be ma na Vir tua lly the on ly ge me nt at the highe st co rpo rat e levels.,

7 A

I '

rchasers was a of the se lec tio n pr ocess for potential pu conditio n ilities by the pe rie nc e an d sa fe operation of nuclear fac record of ex asers, there exists of both potential purch purchaser. In the case nu mb er of nu cle ar ex pe rie nc e wi th the operation of a exten siv e purchasers' Th e En vir on me nta l Division reviewed both facilities. th NRC re pu tat ion an d pu blic critiques along wi general indus try luding inspection d to the ir facility operations inc rec ord s rel ate their resolution and SA LP rep ort s, no tices of violations and result s, onmental ati on . Ba se d on this review, the Envir other inform cur if the lud ed tha t no re du cti on in safety would oc Division conc d purchaser.

red to eit he r propose facilities were transfer t there is an review concluded tha While the Authority's rchasers' le lev el of fin an cia l assurance that both pu accep~ab erate the an ies wi ll ha ve th e financial ability to op operating co mp noted. is tho rity is no t the fin al. judge. The sale, as facilities, the Au C licenses to the the tra ns fer of the facilities' NR co nti ng en t on e the approval of g co mp an ies . Th es e transfers will requir opera tin whether to r 10 C. F.R . § 50.80. In determining the NRC un de tion with ns fer , the NR C co ns iders the same informa approve a tra ancial qualifications of an d technical and fin respect to the identity ed if the application se d tra ns fer ee as would be requir the pro po to interested ini tia l lic en se . Af ter appropriate notice were for an y be required d ob se rva nc e of su ch procedures as ma persons an NRC, the erg y Ac t or reg ula tions or orders of the by the At om ic En , only if an ap pli ca tio n for the transfer of a license NRC will approve qualified, including s (1) tha t the proposed transferee is it de ter mi ne license and (2) an d fin an cia lly , to be the holder of the technica lly with applicable fer of the lic en se is otherwise consistent that trans ued by the NRC.

ulations. and orders iss provisions of law, reg commissioning of the sale on plant de The potential im pa ct rt of the agreement. to rag e wa s als o examined. As pa an d SN F sto responsibility, the Au tho rity ret ains decommissioning the ex ten t required to be low , the pu rch as er's affiliate would be discussed Moreover, the P&SA ility for a fixed price.

decommission the fac retain its current call for the Authority to and related documents ining over $600 iss ion ing Tr us t Fund, presently conta Deco mm se or early at lea st the en d of each facility's licen million, un til ense expiration en t. It is es tim ate d that at the time of lic dismantlem available for oximately $1.9 billion the fund will have appr sis indicated that this co mm iss ion ing an d greenfielding. Analy de , including ient to decommission amount would be suffic The agreement, fac ilit ies at license expir on. ati greenfie ldi ng , the t funds will vid es a me ch an ism to assure that sufficien therefore, pro fer by the de co mm iss ion the facilities after the trans be available to 8

Authority. If there is an early dism antlement of a facility, the purchaser's affiliate would be res ponsible for decommissioning the facility utilizing amounts in the Dec ommissioning Fund and their own funds. Financial assurance

, both to the Authority and the public, is also provided not only by the retention of funds by the Authority but by a contractual req uirement that the pur cha ser supplement such funds if necess ary. If, prior to decommissioning, NRC financial requirements are imposed that require funds in excess of amounts available for decommissioning from the retained Decommissioning Fund, the pur chaser is required to deposit mo ney in a separate fund to me et the higher monetary assurance requirement. Decommissioning, whether by the Authority or by the purchaser, must comply with all applicable NRC requirements in effect at the time (including any demolition, site remediation and restoration requirements) and will be subject to public scrutiny and participation in accordance with both NRC procedures and NEP Re-use plans for the site will also A.

be subject to all applicable state and local land-use and env ironmental controls, including SEQRA. It is likely that private ownership of the IP3 and JAF facilities will subject future re-use to a higher level of local control than would be the case if title rem ained with the Authority.

The generation of electricity at a nuclear power plant entails a process by which nuclear fission converts mass to energy. The "fuel" is composed of solid, ceram ic-like pellets of enriched uranium. slightly larger than pen cil erasers, stacked atop each oth er and sealed in strong metal tubes, called fuel rods. The rods are approximately 12-15 feet long

. and are bundled tog eth er in groups to form nuclear fuel assem blies. These fuel assemblies.

when placed inside a nuclear rea ctor where the fission process takes place. produce hea t that is used to generate steam and ma electricity. The reactor at JAF ke contains 560 fuel assembHes whi the one at IP3 contains 196. Cur le rently both reactors are "refuele every two years. During the "ref d" ueling", approximately one third the assemblies are replaced with of new assemblies. As a result.

each assembly is resident in the reactor approximately six years.

Afte r that time, it no longer econom ically produces usable heat.

The assemblies that are remove d from the reactor are referred to as spent nuclear fuel assemblie s or SNF. Upon removal from the reactor the SNF is stored in the SNF pool at each site. The SNF pools are steel-lined concrete bas ins containing water. Besides helping to cool the spent nuclear fuel. water provides protection from radiation for plant workers and the public.

Spent nuclear fuel assemblies can be stored in a "dry" environment aboveground usin g heavy containers or casks ma de 9

, '>\1

are either placed upright on of steel and/or concrete. Casks te tally in metal canisters in con cre concrete pads, or stored horizon e but is storage has been proven saf bunkers. Like pool storage, dry solution.

not intended to be a permanent tainers made of steel or Dry casks are large, rugged con mo re inches thick. The casks use steel-reinforced concrete, 18 or lea d-in ste ad of wa ter -as a materials like steel, concrete and design. a dry cask can hold from radiation shield. Depending on the emblies.

seven to 56 12-foot-long fuel ass The NRC has approved sev eral designs for use by utilities.

. After 20 years, they must be The casks have a 20-year license al the license could be extended.

inspected, and with NRC approv d logies are being successfully use Various dry cask storage techno by utilities at the present time.

use one of three sto rag e The approved dry-cask designs used fuel in steel canisters that systems. The first system stores l-reinforced concrete vault. The are inserted horizontally into a stee ed vertically inside a concrete second uses steel canisters plac e systems uses the concrete storag storage building. Each of these barrier. The third system use s containment as a final radiation forced concrete that stand vertical casks made of steel or rein of reinforced concrete. This is the outside on a three-foot-thick pad for

. To make room in the fuel poo l system proposed for use at JAF emblies removed from the the hot and highly radioactive ass l hic h has been cooling in the poo reactor, the oldest stored fue l-w red to dry casks.

for at least 10 yea rs- is transfer inert gas, sealed, and stored Loaded casks are filled with an s or inside steel-reinforced either on reinforced concrete pad designed to withstand natural concrete bunkers. The casks are t ricanes and floods and to preven disasters such as tornadoes, hur the designs are passive, in that the release of radioactivity. All of ices. for cooling and ventilation.

they require no mechanical dev spent fuel. the Authority's With respect to on-site storage of with the DOE for the per ma nen t Contract DE-CR01-83NE44407 high-level radioactive waste will disposal of spent nuclear fuel and to the purchaser. The Authority be assigned (with no changes) 0 million dollars for fuel burned currently owes approximately $16 ity will retain the funds for this prior to April 7. 1983. The Author chaser only when required by the payment and pay them to the pur of E's present schedule for receipt DOE contract. Even with the DO age is required and is being spent fuel, additional on-site stor rnative techniques have bee n planned for the JAF facility. Alte feasible, employed to increase the examined previously and, where ir IP3 and JAF have re-racked the capacity of the SNF pool. Both 10

pools to the point that no addition al space can be gained based upon current technology. Presen t planning provides for the additional storage through the use of dry cask storage. A SEQRA assessment was perfonned prio r to Trustee approval of capital funds to engineer, design, procur e and construct an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at JAF. The assessment resulted in a Negative Declaration that was finalized on April 22, 1998.

The need for an ISFSI is indepen dent of plant ownership. If additional storage is not availab le for the SNF at the time the SNF pool is filled, no SNF can be off-loaded from the reactor.

Therefore, continued operation, no matter who the owner ma y be, will require the creation of addition al storage space. The Authority's design contract for the ISFSI win be assigned to the purchaser with the expectation that the purchaser will continue development of that facility in ord er to assure continued operation of JAF in substantially the same manner as the Authority. NRC approval is required for the stor age casks included in the ISFSI.

Moreover, NRC has made a gen eric determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safe and without significant environme ly ntal impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for ope ration of that reactor at its SNF or at either onsite or offsite inde pool pendent spent fuel storage installations (10 C.F.R. § 51.23)

3. Customer Needs As indicated above, the Authority will purchase energy.

installed capacity and ancillary ser vices from the facilities subsequent to the sale. The Aut hority will purchase electricity from the two plants for resale to custom ers through Dec. 31, 2004, with the opportunity for additional pur chases beyond that date.

Customer rates and alloc.ations will be unaffected by the sale.

The Authority will receive produc ts and services at prices fixed in the agreement. The y will include energy and installed capacity from the two plants, as well as "ancillary services" needed to support the transmission of elec tricity while maintaining reliabilit of the statewide system. y Under the proposed Power Purcha se Agreement, the Authority will purchase all electrici ty produced at IP3 throughout the term of the agreement at a price o.f 3.6 cents per kWh. JAF power will be purchased at 3.2 cents per kWh and resold to the Authority's customers und er its Municipal Eco nomic Development, High loa d Factor, Eco nom ic Development and Power for Jobs programs.

It

of These amounts will decline over time from 375 MW for any part 2000 to 360 MW in 2001, 303 MW in 2002 and 255 MW in 2003 and 2004. The Authority's share of JAF production will be "first-out-of-the-plant," meaning that the Authority will be served before other customers when output is limited.

When either plant is not running, or is operating at levels insufficient to meet the Authority's needs, the Authority will obtain repla'cement supplies on the open market or from its own resources. Regardless of plant performance, the Authority will be assured that its costs for replacement energy up to specified minimum entitlements (equivalent to 85 percent of design ated capacity levels) will be no greater than the prices set in the agreement. This will be accomplished by the purchaser compensating the Autho rity-su bject to certain adjust ments -for the difference between the cost of energy in New York State the markets when a plant is deficient and the lower energy price in agreement. Calculations of energy supplies and any payme nt two obligations will be keyed to two periods. The first will extend for ent. while the secon d will years from the closing date of the agreem ation on Dec. 31, run from that point through the agreement's termin the first 2004. If the amount of energy supplied by the purchaser in period exceeds the 85 percent minimum for a plant. the differe nce-u p to 5 perce nt-wil l be carried over and credited toward the second-period requirement. If the purchaser falls short of the minimum in the first period, it will be able to defer up to 5 al percent of the total energy requirement to Period 2 without financi penalty.

The 85 percent requirement at IP3 will be based on capacity levels of 985 MW for the winter months and 970 MW for the summer. The summer amount is less because higher Hudson River water temperatures reduce the plant's output.

At JAF, the 85 percent entitlement will be based on the capacity levels noted previously.

If the Authority anticipates the need for purchases from either or both plants after the agreement expires, it will notify the purchaser by the end of 2003 and the two parties will begin good-faith discussions on price and other terms. The Authority will give the purchaser an opportunity to submit sale proposals if the Authority intends to replace its supplies from either plant at speCified levels after the agreements expire. The purchaser will notify tl)e Authority when the amount of energy available from either plant for the post-agreement period falls to designated amounts (200 MW for JAF and 500 MW for IP3) and will give the Authority the opportunity to discuss purchase of this energy.

12

Und er a separate agreement, the Authority and the purchaser will share equally the difference between actual marke prices and agreed-upon forecas t ted prices for 10 years after the agreement expires. This will ena ble the Authority to realize benefits if market prices are mu ch higher than expected.

As long as the facilities produce power. pow er purchased by the Authority from the units will be used to satisfy the Authority's customer load. If the facilities are not in operation, the difference will be made up from oth er Author ity resources or the market. as would be the case if the facilities wer e to remain with the Authority.

Moreover, if a premature shutdo wn were to occur, replacement power would be from the marke

t. The power sales provisions assure the Authority a fixed purcha se price for power. They also provides a mechanism to negotia te continued supply agreements.

The price furthermore enables the Authority to provide pow er to its customers consistent with the term s of their contracts.

In summary, the proposed agreem ent will permit the Authority to continue to meet cus tomer requirements and win not create any significant incentive for the purchaser either to increas or decrease the facilities' operati e ons in a manner materially different from the Authority's cur rent practices.

4. Personnel The P& SA minimizes the disrupt ion in employment. The sale will impact approximately 165 0 Authority employees. The purchaser. however, will offer the same or similar jobs to all these employees. Ove r time, some em ployees will realize greater opportunities under the mantle of a widespread nuclear organization, while operating effi ciencies could affect the position of others. However, even if the s facilities remained unoer Author control, the pressure for such effi ity ciencies in a competitive marke would exist. Upon transfer, the t employees will retain benefits equivalent to those that are provide d by the Authority. Among other things these employees' vac ation and sick leave balances will transfer with them to the purcha ser. Moreover, the other benefit that they receive, such as medica s l, dental and hospitalization insurance, will remain in force for at least one year after the dos ing in the case of non-represented employees and for the term of the collective bargaining agreement ir for represented personnel. The Authority has also instituted a pro gram to provide each non-represented employee with $20 00 in transition pay upon their transfer to the purchaser. The Aut hority has offered the union 13

.111\' ,1

representatives of the Autho rity's bargaining unit personnel a similar payment. In view of the foregoing there will no Significant emplo yment impacts associated with this transaction.

While change itself can be considered an impact, it happens of regardless of the alternatives taken. In the case ,of the transfer these facilities, the programs developed (contin uation of compensation and benefits and assumption of union contracts) allow for a smooth transition from public sector employment to private sector employment.

5. Local Communities Since the plant staffs will remain in the same positions following transfer of the facilities, no "boomlbust" effect will arise.

Operations at the facilities will continue as under Authority ue operation. and services now provided by the Authority will contin to be provided in the same or similar manne r by the purcha ser.

The purchaser will negotiate with the localities for mutually beneficial services in the future.

All the agreements entered into in connection with emergency planning will remain the same. Since the individuals in who currently interface with the local communities will continue the purchaser's employ, a smooth transition should result. The title P&SA provides for the transfer to the purchaser of (1) all right.

and interest of the Authority in the property and assets used or usable in providing emergency warning or associated with emergency preparedness, and (2) all rights that the Authority has under the contracts and agreements associated with emergency preparedness.

One change will be the tax status of the facility. As a private entity. the purchaser will be subject to loc,al property taxes. These to will offset contributions that the Authority has traditionally made local communities. The increased tax base. when spread across the entire local community tax base, will not have a significant socio-economic impact on the community.

The Authority. as well as other licensees of nuclear power r

plants in New York State, provides $585,000 a year per nuclea power plant to the state under legislation requiring annua l payments from plant licensees. These funds are used to help fund the State Emergency Manag ement Office and provide assistance g

to the counties in the IP3 and JAF plant areas. This state fundin requirement is expected to continue after the transfe r of the plants.

The Authority also provides funding directly to the surrounding counties for items not covered through the'state, such 14

o as a coordinator for Indian Point Affairs (Four-County Coordinator position). bus driver training. and reception centers. The Author ity, with its neighbor utilities, also coordinates and funds public education programs, including the annual printing of emergency planning booklets. The Authority and its neighbor utilities provid e

annual radiological training for their host counties as well as support medical drills for the local communities. There is no expectation that these activities or the funding therefor would diminish or change after the transfer of IP3 and JAF to the purchaser.

6. Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Sources As part of its customer services, the Authority has developed an array of energy programs involv irg conservation, renewable energy sources. new technology generation sources, and energy efficiency. The transfer of the facilities and the power purchase provisions of the Power Purchase Agreement provide money and price stability that will permit these programs to continue and. perhaps, to expand. It is expected that the proceeds of the plant sares will be used in part to enhance and expand the Authority's initiatives in these areas.

D. Consideration of Alternatives The proposed action presented the Authority with three viable alternatives. Two of the alternatives involved sale of the facilities and one involved continued operation by the Authority (the no action alternative). As discussed above. actual on-site and system-wide environmental impacts vary lit1le under any of the alternatives. Both proposed purchasers would assume ownership and operation of the facilities in exactly the same manne r as exists under Authority ownership, 80th have prov',ded financial assurances to the Authority and would be required to provide financial assurance to the NRC for continued safe operation and decommissioning of the facilities. Both, like the Authority. have long term experience in the operation of nuclear facilities, 80th would operate the facilities with essentially the same staff that works for the Authority. 80th would operate the facilities under the same lega\ permit conditions as the Authority now does. The biggest factor that will affect long term future operation is the competitive market system. That system will dictate how and when Ihese facilities operate in the future. That future, however. beside s

being uncertain, applies equally to all the alternatives. Moreover, 15

market dictates physical or to the extent that the competitive s that affect safety or the operational changes at the facilitie to federal and/or state review and environment, they will be subject approval.

ed to minimize or eliminate The transaction has bee n structur that ety, social or economic impacts any adverse environmental, saf of the facilities. The agr eem ent could be associated with the sale terms of all existing regulatory to operate the facilities und er the on in an environmentally sound permits assures continued operati to employ all the workers now and safe manner. The agreement of facilities reinforces this continuity responsible for operation of the ina tes the ent also virtually elim operation. The employee agreem l community and, by providing impact of the transfer on the loca Authority and a mo net ary benefits similar to those und er the a the work force. The proviSion for incentive, minimizes impacts on hor ity's exis ting the period of the Aut guaranteed pow er supply ove r the Authority's customers will contracts likewise assures that .

power for which they contracted continue to receive the low cost ed above. provide assurance Finally, the agreements, as indicat ommission the facilities.

that funds will be available to dec eements implementing this A description of the principal agr nt's Memorandum. The action is contained in the Preside of contains a comparative analysis President's Memorandum also no sign ifica ntly ity. There are the offers received by the Author the env ironmental or safety impacts measurable differences in

s. In essence, the alternatives associated with these alternative in s on the Authority and as noted differ only in their financial impact randum, ana lysi s" showed that item A.7. of the President's Memo was substantially superior to sale of the plants to either Buyer continued ownership."

Conclusion mental and in the January 6, 2000 Environ For the reasons set forth above nt action will not have any significa Assessment Form, the proposed of an Env ironmental s not require preparation environmental impacts and doe Impact Statement.

16

TAB Exhibit B

S-2000-0011 n ..\!-.:sn,R Ll$'1 030029 I

~

1/19 NAl>1E (PRINT)

'-3 GIVE J\DfJRES;;,

! ocr q/JI/r /

Coastal Resource Ple3se Call Jennifer Peltier @ 473-8221 for pick tip,

S~O()'~li/

DEP.'l.RTr.AENT OF STATE COASTAL PROGRAMS

~.'l' 09 '2IllJ STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENvm.ONMENT Al_ CONSERV ATION REGEl VED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF CONfMENT PERIOD t,J'P(,TCANTS: Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp., 284 South Avenue, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601*4838; Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,.:1 Irving Place, New York, New York 10003-3502; New York Power Authority, 123 Main Street, White Plains, New York 10601; and Southern Energy Bowline, LLC, 900 Ashwood Parl-.-way, Atlanta, Georgia 30318 (Application Nos. 3-3346-00075/00001, 3-5522*00011100004, and 3-3922*00003/00003).

I:RQJECT: The Applicants applied on or about April 20, 1992 for renewals oftheir State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PCfTI'jts for the following power plants; Roscton Electric Generating Facility Units 1 and 2, Indian Point Electric Generating Facility Units 2 and 3, and Bowline Point Electric Generating Facility Units 1 and 2.

For the Roseton Ele::tric Generating Facility Units 1 and 2, Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. proposes to continue using Hudson River water for once-through cooling. The Applicant also proposes to manage the rates of cooling water flow and to operate traveling screens and dual-flow screens as mitigation measures for entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. Central Hudson Gas and Electric will also test a high frequency underwater fish deterrence system to determine its potential to reduce the effects of water withdrawal on fish in the hening family.

for the Bowline Point Electric Generating Facility Unils 1 and 2, Southern Energy Bowline LLC proposes lo continue using Hudson River waler for once-through cooling. The Appliwnt also proposes to manage the rates of cooling water flow and to operate traveling screens as mitigation measures for entrairunent and impingement of aquatic organisms.. Southern Energy proposes to continue to deploy a barrier net in Bowline Point Pond from October through May.

For the Indian Point Electric Generating Facility Units 2 and 3, Consolidated Edison and the Power Authority propose to continue using HudsOll River water for once-through cooling.

The Applicants also propose to manage the rates of cooling water flow and to continuously rotate the modified Ristroph screens as mitigation measures for entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms.

PERMlTS: State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permits pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") Article 17, Title 8 and Parts 750 through 758 of Title 6 ofthe Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations ofthe State of New York ("6 NYCRR").

2 SEQRA SJ:ATIls.: Pursuant to the Slale Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA," ECL Article 8), the DepaIiment ofEnvironmenlaJ Conservation, as lead agency, issued a positive declaration on or about May 20, 1992 which required preparation of an environmental impact statement. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DElS") was prepared by the Applicants and was accepted by the Department Staff on February 28, 2000 as being adequate for public review.

r:.UBLrC HEARING: Two hearing sessions to receive unsworn statements from tbe public regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed pennit modifications and renewals will be held on June 8,2000 at 2:00 P.M. and at 7:30 P.M. at the Croton Village Rail, One Van \Vyck Strcet, Croton-on-Hudson, New York. All persons, organi7..ations, corporations or government agencies which may be affected by the proposed pennil modificatiolls and renewals are invited to attend the hearing and to submit oral or written comments on the DEIS for these actions. It is not necessary to file a written request in advance to speak in this portion of the hearing. Equal weight will be given to both oral and written statements. Lengthy statements should be submitted in writing and summarized on the record. The Administrative Law Judge may limit statements to nve minutes to ensure that all persons can be heard. Written statements may be filed with Richard Benas, DEC Division of Environmental PcrmitS, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-1750, on or before June 24, 2000. The conunent period which was identified in the notices of complete application has been extended from April 24, 2000 to June 24, 2000.

The hearing location is reasonably accessible to persons with a mobility impairment.

Interpreter services will be made available to deaf persons, at no charge, upon wrillen request to the Administrative Law Judge named below at least five business days prior to the late of the hearing.

El1B.JJ:l.E.B.J:B.OCliEDfNGS.: With the agreement of all parties to the Hudson River Settlement Agreement, the Department has not yet issued draft permits for public review and comment.

Following the close of the comment period on the DEIS, the parties intend to conduct negotiations regarding the conditions to be included in the draft permits. If the negotiations lead to agreement, the draft permits would be consistent with the agreement. {fthe negotiations do not lead to agreement, the Department Staff would issue draft permits which reflect the Department Staff's position. Under either outcome of the negotiations, a second hearing and comment period with the draft permits as its subject would be scheduled.

l2QC.UMENT AVATLABILIT¥: The DEIS is available for inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: DEC Region 3, Division of Environmental Pernlits, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Pllltz, New York 12561 (914-256-3054); Richard Benas, DEC Division

3 of Environmental Pem1its, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York (5J8-457-59<11); NYS DEC Office of HeariJlgs and Mediation Services, 50 Wolf Road, r\lbany, New York 12233-1550, 518-457-3468 (Attn.: Susan]. DuBois, Administrative Law Judge); Adriance Memorial Library, 93 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, New York; Village of Buchanan Hall, 236 Tale Avenue, Buchanan, New York, 10511; Newburgh Town Hall, Union Avenue Extension, Newburgh. New York 12550; Haverstraw Town Hall, 1 Rosman Road, Garnerville, New York 10923; Mid-Manhattan Library, 455 Fifth Avenue, New York. New York, 10016; Columbia-Greene Community College Library. 4400 Route 23, Hudson, New York 12534; and Nyack Library, 59 S. Broadway, Nyack, New York 10960.

Copies of the DEIS may be obtained trom Richard Denas at the address above. Electronic copies arc available on CD*ROM.

STATUTORY AND REGULATOI3Y PROVISIONS: Environmental Conservation Law Alticlc 1 (General Provisions); Article 3, Title 3 (General Functions); Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review); Article 11 (Fish and Wildlife); Article 13 (Marine and Coastal Resources);

Article 17, Title 8 (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System); Article 70 (Uniform Procedures); and 6 NYCRR Parts 700-706 (Water Quality Standards); Parts 750 - 753 (SPDES);

Part 617 (SEQRA); Part 621 (Uniform Procedures); and Parts 855 through 865 (Lower Hudson River Drainage Basin, Water Classes and Standards); and 33 U.S. Code § l32G (Effiuent limitations and cooling water intake structures).

Albany, New York Daniel E. Louis May 2,2000 Chief Administrative Law Judge

STATE CONSrSTl':NCY PROJECT REVIEW SHEET TO: PROJECT #:~.:£X!..-"~O,,,,-,I,-<-f _ _ __

FROM: Va,flee RECEIVED: 3 ~~ .00 SECTION I - GENERAJ~ l)ROJEeT DATA ApplicanuProject

Title:

r L,..-O+\

r- ..J i' $" rj"

~ ...."

fl \

fv YPIf w :en dr a t\ p(?\'V\ + lLl'll', i-5

( ~ 3 State Agency: U eC i (( .

Location:

Re"ton - H*(.{ a. $c+\ \A ~f'

. Co~nlY - U)e.stch.e....~*U!.,..

City/@jViIlage - Cor-i-tC'Ol-ol t-

\Valer Body - H!td.sOl\ {Li \i.r' Project Type &

Description:

Ltse., D +- (' ~I ~ UJO.;\-e..- .(:.-t:.-r COO'l i~

Submitted Project Information:

CAFfEAF Jc-DEIS FBS Adtion Needed:

Review -X- Comments Due SECTION II - STATUS OF REVIEW (TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT REVIEWER)

Preliminary Evaluation:

Specific Concerns:

Necessary Action/Justification:

Comments/Other Action:

SECTION ill - DECISION Comments Sent to Agency _ _ __ No Comments Nccessary (Revised September 3, 1998)

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Notice of Complete Application' .

Dole FEBRUARY 28, 2000 AppCcani CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO OF NY INC 4 IRVING PL RM 306-S NEW YORK NY 10003*3502 App'ica!k;n 10 3-5522-00011/00004 8Ei..J':i,RT~.':~: f~:' ;.,~:~:. ST/<~7E C()P,S7AL Pf*;C~/~;~{\t.~S Permil{s) Applied l ' ARTICLE 17, TITLES 7 & 8: INDUSTRIAL SPDES Prc!ecUs!lX-ll.d in CORTLANDT In WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

Project Desctipricn Forihe Con Edison and NeVI York Power Authority Indian Point Electric RE CL: \VED Generating Facility (Units 2 and 3), the applicants propose to continue using Hudson River waler for once-through cooling, and reduce, but out. _

eHminate, entrainment and impingement impacts to aquatic organisms, including fish, through managing the rates of cooling water How, and continuously rotating the mo:lified Rislroph screens to increase survival rate of impinged fish.

Copies of the Drait Environmenta! Impact Statement are available for public review at the NYS Department ot Environmental Conservation New Paltz Regional Headquarters, Division of Environmental Permits, 21 South Putt Corners Rd, New Paltz, NY [914-256-3054). For other locations please contact the Contact Person listed below.

SIal. £n.ironmentai Quality P.el'icw (S£OR) OelerrrJnaUon SEQR

• 4 A draft environmental impaot statement has been prepared on this project and is on file.

SEaR Lead Agency NYS Department of Environmental Conservation St~!O Historic Prsservation Act (SHPA) Detem:ination SHPA - 2 A Structural-Archaeological Assessment Form has been completed. The proposed activity will not have any impact on registered, eligible or inventoried archaeological sites or historic structures.

No further review in accordance with SHPA is required.

Tnis prOjact is located In 8 coastal msnttgement 3/M:J.J'td;5 subject to tne wtlfeifrant reYitafJzation and CoaStaIII)SQV1Ct1$ act.

AvllfJdb:1iry Fcr Public Comment ConJact Person Comments on this project must be RICHARD BENAS, NYSDEC submitted in writing to the Contact 50WOLFRD Person no later than 04/24/00. ALBANY NY 12233

'!l' {518)457-2224

WN YCR< STATE D£PAATHENT OF STATE COASTAL ~-lllAGEHENT ?rIDGAAH Ccastat Assessment form A. fIlSTRUCT!ONS (Plea." print or typ~ ntl ."..,orsl 1, State  !;e!,\~loc shaU c;::r;pl.ctlJ" tMs CAf for prcp.:scd ':ctlC{1S ltmich af"'a ~(.tJject (0 Pert 600 of Thle, ~?,:cf t~c

tYCR.~~ This asscssC"..ent is intended to supplement otter il1forrnatlc o used t>y a !;tatil 3g:Gf\CY Hi 72:l'::1r.g \l doterr:nna tfon of signlftcen ce ptJrsutnt ~o the State E"nvlro:voo ntal Quality Revi¢'.i Act (sea 6 !JYCRJ~, P<lrt bin.

If it is d-etermincd that a proposed actloo wllt not have u; s~9nlnc.!:nt effect en the cnvlrcr~entt tr.is a:::;CSS14-ent is: intended to' a.sls: a- state l!gcnC'1 \0 cC<:';ptyil19 wIth the cerrificat tc() reQtdrc7cn ts of 19 t\YCR?~

,,,,,tion £CO.~.

2. If any question in Section C cn tnls forn h ansW'ertd Ifyes ll

, then the pr-cposoo (::CtlOt1 m.:lY llffect the acnieVc-t::ef of t.h~ coe$t~\ pol'cintt ccntair.oo In Article 42 of the Executive tt l~>t/. Thus, 'lhe action shOOl.d be a.13lyzcd in f:'"Jcro dcto'll ~J'.d* 'f necessary, r.lCJd:ifie-d prier to either (a) fr.;Jk\ng Zl cortHicz:tlOi") of consistenc y pursuent to 19

~YCAA Part 600 or, (b) ""'kill9 tho f!ndill9$ re.:;ulred ur£!or SEeR. 6 flYCAA, Section 617.9, If thG action is one for

.h\ch on ,",virome otel impact st.ter..ent I. boill9 prepared.

If an action cor,'lOt bo certified us coosistcn t wi th the coastal pollcie., it shell not be UI1dertel:en.

3. Defore enswerill9 the qu<jstlons in Section C. tb.. prOjl~r.r of this form shc<Jtd review the c".stol polici".

contained In 19 fiYCAA s~tion 600.5. A proposed aetic" shc<Jtd be evatu"t!!d as to ! '" .\~n\flcbnt beneficial and

.dvene .ffects upon the coostal or"".

B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSE!) ACTIOll

1. Type of SUIte agoncy action (chod appropria te rcsp<:<lsel:

{al 0\ riletly underta~en (e.g. capit~ t conHructi cn, pler.nill9 act lv\

W, >seney regulct lon, tand tr,nsactio nl __

(b) Financi"l asolH<I!lce (e.g. 9raot, (Ol\f1, sco,idyl (e) Parmlt, lice'" ** corti ficat\<)f1 ~ --

2. COreribe nnturc and extent of 1e~~arks Section 3, LOClltion of .ction Hestchc ster cCI.l!\ty

4. If an applicatio n fcr tho proposed cctlon hn.

be provid!!d:

be." filed I-li th the state .gency, tho follCl-lill9 infcf1!'.:!tion shatt (0) 11.>.-00 of appliCUlt : Con Edison, :lev York ?01¥cr Authori ty lb) Hc\l11l9 ilddre,,: Con Edi.son of NY, 4 Irving Place.

1<'1, l-lY 10003, PAS:W> ]633 llroadl>.'uy (c) TeLophancNUri::ler: AreIlCOdo(!UJi...) ('81-640 1, (212)M; n 3JlO :l'iNY, 10019

{dl State ClIenor lIppl icatloo ourbIr:_~l.:}-:.5..5;j,2",2,-=-:.!O.J.lQ.lJOJ..1L1L!LlOJ.JOJj.J.lJj4::......

OO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

S. l1i II the action tn dlrcetly OO/Jort:oken, require fundlll9. or .ppro~t by n (!!der.l agency?

Y<I$ _ _ No L If YI!J<, ;.hlch fedora I agency1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

C. GOASTAl ASSESSMENT (Check elthar "Yes" or "No for each of the followina questions)

1. \llli tho proposed action Co ~ In, or contiguous to. or hav.. a sl<mincan t .ffoct upon any of tha resource area.< identified en tfu> =st~l ~rOll ...lip:

(a) SignifiCMlt fish or wildlife h.bltat.? ..******.* ** , ...**.*..*

(b) scenic resources of statew!d~ signl flcance7 *.....*... ***..**.. **.*..*..*

{el llr;Xlrtant agricultur al landl:7 .......... .......... .......... ..........

2. I1lll tfu> prcpoaed actlcn hav~ a sl::oHIc"" t effect u;:cn:

(a) Carrnercial or recreatioo al US! of fish and wildt He rescurc ....

? .......... .......... .......... .  ;{

(b) Scenic quality of the coutat envll""Of'Vt<<1t? . n . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(el Devclo;:ment of futile<>, or existill9 Io.uter de;>erdent uses? ..........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ..... H. H *** ~""'"

---

x-

-(d) Opuaticn of tho State's ~.!IJcr portS? .......... .........7:

(e) tu.d and water uses within th9 State's sC'.all harbors? ..*....*.*

(f) Existlll9 o~ pot..... tl.l pJbllc ro-;reation opportcni tiu1 .....**.*.

(g) StructLrcs , .it<l$ or districts of historic, archoolog icat or cultural si9nifk ce to tho State or natlCfl? .......... ...*...*.* .*....*.* ..*.......

YES ti.Q

3. \llll the propo$oo .etion ~ or result in MY of tho foll0A1ng:

ia) Physical "ltoration of tw:l (21 acres or ")()f0 of leM "long the shorelioe. laM uMcr water 0;'" coastaL waters: ..... ~ *.*... ~.~ *........* ,.. * ************** , **** ".~ **** _ ************* ~

(b) Physical at teration of fly .. is) acres or !!Xlrs of LaM lceated els""here in the COlIstaL area? ...................................................................................... . X tc) Expansion of existir.g public services or infrMtruclurc in uMo.cloped Or lOA don.lty arells of the: coast~l .or"Cl!:? *.**********. ~., ********..******.*****.************..*.* , ***** , *** X (d) En0l1lY facility not subject to Article VI! or Vll! of the Public Serv;c. la",7 ............... . )(

{ol Mining. exoavation, fillin,. or dredging in coastal water.? ................................. .. -::;{

(f) Rt!duction of existing or pOtential p'Jollc access to or clong the shoro? ..................... . X (9) Sale or chong. in US" of .tate-o,.m*", l.nd. lccott!d on the shoral Inc or tiMer w.ter? .....*.. ,. ~

(h) O<tvelopneot wi thin" des Igna tt!d Heed or e",slen hazard are.? ............................... . .L..

{Il O<tv&[op<r..... t on a beach, dvnc, b.rrier Island or other notur.l (eatur. that ;:>rovide.

protection lI9alnst neading or erasion? ...................................... , .............. . 'j

4. Will the propO.t!d .etlen bo ~ in or have a significant effect upon M .r.a included In an approved local waterfront Revlh\lzatien Program? ................................................ . X O. SUBMISSION REOUlREHEHTS If /lilY question in Section C Is a:awerod "Ye,", AND 6lth"r or the (oilewing tw:> (CndHlco. Is oot:

Soctlon B. Ha) or n.1<b) Is chocked; ru::

Sectlro B. He) Is Checkt!d t,1!Q a.5 I. bn"".rt!d "Yes*,

I!!Ql coe copy of the CCll'Ptotod CoaHal As .... sment Form sholl be sul:mittt!d to:

New YorK State Oepartm<:nt of state Coa!l't;al Hanllg<<nMt Progftm 162 Washington Avenuo Albany. Nil York 12231 If a"istnnce or furthor informlltion is need"': to c<X1pleto this (ann. please cell the Dcpert::lMt of Stete at (518l 474-3642.

The rencHal of. the State: Pol J utant ~ischat'ge Llilr:inati0i1 System (3PD:-:::)) pacnit for the COi.1 Edison and New York PO'.*)()r Authority indian Point ;:::l.ectric Ge.:1Crnth1g Facility (Units 2 !'I"d 3).

The proposed levels of protection froC'! entrainment and impingcment tTi11 bc at least cqu£\i to those ensurecl~ Oil sverage ncTOSS yc,.'ll"s) by the 1981 D.nd i 987 SPDES 9crraits for five representative tai(£!. of rish~ ':he levels of protection uill be (1chic-vcd by mr.nngil\g the rates of cooling \Jt~tQ:r £10\1:') arlci continuously tot.:1tin 0 tile nodifi~i! J..iSL~Oph screens to reduce ir.lpingel"Jent and increase survival of i:npir:.ged fish.

Prepererls Nt-one: '1jr!' 17jf"nrs,  :';11y.,~nD-1tlvst 2 91 (Pleas. print)

-- Tl~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Agency; :r:iS D~p t .. c f i':nvi 1-0n:r..en t.Hl oatt": _ _2;..!_l_1.:,I_O_J_ _

Gonse::Vtitlon CAF Revised 9/84

TAB Exhibit C

STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a sessi on of the Publi c Servi ce Comm ission held in the City of Alban y on Augu st 16, 2001 COMMISSIONER PRESENT:

Leona rd A. Weiss , Comm ission er Ediso n Compa ny CASE 01-E- 0040 - Joint Petit ion of Cons olida ted of New York, Inc. and Enter gy Nucle ar India n Point 2, LLC for Auth ority to Trans fer Certa in Gene rating and Relat ed Asse ts and for Relat ed Relie f.

ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING ISSUANCE OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (Issu ed and Effec tive Augu st 17, 2001)

BACKGROUND ric On May 3, 1996, the Comm ission issue d a Final Gene etitiv e Envir onme ntal Impac t State ment (FGEI S) in the Comp Oppo rtuni ties Proce eding 1

that addre ssed the poten tial polic y openi ng envir onme ntal, socia l and econo mic impac ts of a was ackno wledg ed New York 's elect ric mark ets to comp etitio n. It as a resul t of in the FGEIS that local ized impac ts could arise polic y.

measu res taken by the utili ties to imple ment this Under the State Envir onme ntal Qual ity Revie w Act of the India n (SEQRA), the consi derat ion of the propo sed sale and IP2) and Point 1 and 2 Nucle ar Gene rating Stati ons (IP1 New York, Inc.

relat ed asset s by Cons olida ted Ediso n Compa ny of LLC (ENIP 2)

(Con Ediso n) to Enter gy Nucle ar India n Point 2, mina tions in cons titute s a subse quent actio n to the polic y deter Cases 94-E- 0952, et , Comp etitiv e Oppo rtuni ties Regar ding Elec tric Serv ice.- -

CASE 01-E- 0040 Case 94-E- 0952. 2 The comp anies joint ly filed a petit ion for appro val of the trans actio n pursu ant to Publi c Servi ce Law § 70 on Janua ry 12, 2001.

On Janua ry 22, 2001, the comp anies filed a draft suppl emen tal envir onme ntal impac t statem ent (SElS

) analy zing the spec ific envir onme ntal, socia l and econo mic impac ts relat ed to the propo sed trans fer. Infor mal comm ents on the draft were solic itedi while comm ents were recei ved in respo nse to this solic itatio n, no chang es to the draft SEIS were deeme d neces sary. There fore, on April 25, 2001, the Comm ission accep ted the draft SEIS as comp lete and order ed that it be issue d for publi c comm ent. 3 Notic e of the draft SEIS was publi shed in the Envir onme ntal Notic e Bulle tin on May 2, 2001.

By Notic e issue d June 4, 2001, the publi c comm ent perio d was exten ded to June 21, 2001. Comm ents were recei ved from Envir onme ntal Advo cates (EA), the Town of Cortl andt and the Hend rick Hudso n Schoo l Distr ict (Tow n/Sch ool),

and ENIP2 .

The comm ents are summ arized in Secti on IV of the Final SEIS, attac hed heret o. Based on the comm ents recei ved, and upon furth er consi derat ion and analy sis by Depar tment of Publi c Servi ce Staff (Staf f), a numbe r of chang es to the draft SEIS were made. A discu ssion of the chang es made is set forth below and in Secti on IV of the Final SEIS.

2 Case 94-E- 09S2, supra , Opini on No. 96-12 (issu ed May 20, 1996) .

Case 01-E- 0040, Joint Petit ion of Cons olida ted Ediso n ComPa ny of New York, Inc. and Enter gy Nucle ar India n Point 2, LLC for Auth ority to Trans fer Certa in Gene rating and Relat ed Asset s and for Relat ed Relie f, Notic e of Comp letion of Draft Supp lemen tal Envir onme ntal Impac t State ment (issu ed April 25, 2001) .

-2

CASE 01-E- 0040 DISCUSSION Prior to the forma l comm encem ent of this proce eding ntal impac ts Staff iden tified a numbe r of poten tial envir onme ted Con Ediso n assoc iated with the propo sed trans actio n and direc impa cts. As and ENIP2 to prepa re a draft SEIS to addre ss such n is a expla ined above , consi derat ion of this trans actio in Case 94-E-subse quent actio n to the polic y consi derat ions deter mine if they 0952. There fore, the impac ts were analy zed to FGEIS .

were withi n the cond itions and thres holds of the and If the trans actio n is appro ved, ENIP 2's owne rship ved opera tion of IP2 is likel y to resul t in its impro ted by virtu e of perfo rman ce. Addi tiona lly, syner gies are expec Nucle ar its affil iate' s owne rship of the India n Point 3 Gene rating Stati on. Howe ver, and as discu ssed in the attac hed appro val of Final SEIS, it is not reaso nably antic ipate d that fican t adver se the trans actio n would resul t in pote ntial ly signi Furth er, almos t impac ts, with one excep tion, discu ssed below .

fican t, all of the impac ts ident ified were eithe r not signi or found to be withi n the cond itions and thres holds of the FGEIS s.

same wheth er Con Ediso n or ENIP2 owns the asset sed The excep tion relat es to the impac t of the propo t was gene rally sale on local prope rty taxes . While that impac s that discu ssed in the FGEIS , the Final SEIS deter mine the poten tial addit ional mitig ation is warra nted to amel iorate the sale is dimin ution of the host comm unity' s tax base if appro ved.

r of In their comm ents, the Town /Scho ol noted a numbe deter mined to defic ienci es in the draft SEIS, some of which were requi re furth er analy sis (~, the envir onme ntal impac ts of impro ved capac ity facto rs at IP2). The Town /Scho ol and EA nucle ar power ,

raise d a numb er of conce rns gene rally relat ed to issue s that are decom missi oning , spent fuel stora ge, and relat ed were not outsi de the scope of this proce eding and there fore CASE 01-E- 0040 fully analy zed. They also raise d issue s that are prope rly addre ssed in other proce eding s (~, the conce rns relat ed to the State Pollu tion Disch arge Preve ntion Syste m perm its shoul d be raise d in the DEC perm itting proce eding s and the conce rns relat ed to the poten tial new gener ation at the site will be review ed in a PSL Artic le X proce eding ) .

Havin g incor porat ed the comm ents recei ved and the chang es discu ssed above and in Secti ons IV and VI of the Final SEIS, this porti on of the envir onme ntal revie w proce ss is comp lete. With the Final SErS, the Comm ission will have fully addre ssed the poten tial adver se impac ts assoc iated with Con Ediso n's dive stitu re of IP1 and IP2 and taken the requ isite hard look requi red by SEQRA. The mitig ation measu re conta ined in the Final SElS, in comb inatio n with the mitig ation measu res previ ously propo sed in the FGEIS , mitig ate, to the maxim um exten t pract icabl e, the local ized impac ts that may arise as a resul t of appro ving the trans actio n.

CONCLUSION The attac hed Final SElS is accep ted as comp lete and adopt ed by the Comm ission .

It is order ed:

1. The attac hed Final Suppl emen tal Envir onme ntal Impac t State ment is accep ted as comp lete and is adopt ed.

2. Notic e of the comp letion of the Final Suppl emen tal Envir onme ntal Impac t State ment shall be publi shed in the Envir onme ntal Notic e Bulle tin in accor dance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.

3. This proce eding is conti nued .

(SIGNED)

Comm ission er FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT in Ediso n CASE 01-E- 0040 - Joint Petit ion of Cons olida ted India n Compa ny of New York, Inc. and Enter gy Nucle ar Point 2, LLC for Auth ority to Tran sfer Certa in Relie f.

Gene rating and Relat ed Asset s and for Relat ed Prepa red by Lead Agenc y:

New York State Depar tment of Publi c Servi ce Three Empir e State plaza Alban y, NY 12223 -1350 Actio n: Cons idera tion of wheth er to appro ve the propo sed dives titure of the India n Point 1 and India n Point 2 Nucle ar Gene rating Stati ons and relat ed asset s by Cons olida ted Ediso n Compa ny of New York, Inc. to Enter gy Nucle ar India n Point 2, LLC Locat ion of the Actio n: City of Alban y, Alban y Coun ty, New York and Villa ge of Bucha nan, Town of Cortl andt, West chest er Count y, New York Date of Accep tance by Lead Agenc y: Augu st 16, 2001 Agenc y Conta ct Perso n: John Smoli nsky (518) 474-5 368 Envir onme ntal Anal ysis by DPS Staff : Marti n Cumm ings Richa rd Powe ll John Smoli nsky Kevin Lang

CASE Ol-E- 0040 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. . 1 I. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. . 2 II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

... 4 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SET TIN G.... ...... ...... . .....

..... .. 5 IV. REGULATORY FRAM EWO RK.... ..... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

... 7 V.

SUMMARY

OF AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ..... ..... ....

15 VI. EVALUATION OF IMP ACT S.... ...... ...... ...... ......

. 31 VII. MITIGATION OF IMP ACT S.... ...... ...... ......

...... . 48 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . 50 Comp etitiv e Oppo rtuni ties and SEQRA Miles tones .....

ATTACHMENT 1 Histo rical Setti ng of India n Point 2 State Pollu tion Disch arge Elim inatio n Syste m Perm it .....

. ATTACHMENT 2 Depa rtmen t of Envir onme ntal Cons ervat ion Appro val of Corre ctive Actio n Work Plan, dated Augu st 2, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.... ATTACHMENT 3 Nucle ar Regu latory Comm ission Annu al Asses smen t

Lette r for India n Point 2, dated May 31, 2001 .....

. ATTACHMENT 4

-i-

CASE 01-E-0440

SUMMARY

The Public Service Commission's (Commission) consideration of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 's (Con Edison) proposed sale of its Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2 Nuclear Generating Stations (IP1 and IP2) to Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC (ENIP2) under Public Service Law (PSL) § 70 constitutes a subsequent action to the policy determinations issued in Opinion No. 96-12,1 and to the subsequent rate/restructuring decisions made by the Commission in Opinion No. 97-16 in Cases 96-E-0897, et al .. 2 Therefore, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act {SEQRA)3 and its implementing regulations,4 the Commission must determine whether the impacts associated with the proposed transaction are within the conditions and thresholds of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) issued in connection with Opinion No.

96-12.

This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) analyzes the detailed site-specific information provided by Con Edison and ENIP2 in the draft SEIS submitted as part of their PSL § 70 filing and other factual information assembled herein, and responds to public comments on the draft SEIS noticed by the Commission. It identifies and addresses the environmental, social and economic impacts found to arise as a 1 Cases 94-E-0952, et al., Competitive opportunities Regarding Electric Service, Opinion No. 96-12 (issued May 20, 1996).

2 Cases 96-E-0897, et al., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 's Plans for Electric Rate/Restructuring Pursuant to Opinion No. 96-12, Order Adopting Terms of Settlement Subject to Conditions and Understanding (issued September 23, 1997) i Opinion and Order Adopting Terms of Settlement Subject to Conditions and Understandings, Opinion No. 97-16 (issued November 3, 1997).

3 Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8.

4 6 NYCRR Part 617 and 16 NYCRR Part 7.

CASE 01-E-0040 result of the proposed sale, and determines whether such impacts are within the conditions and thresholds of the FGElS.

One impact that was addressed in the FGEIS which may warrant additional mitigation concerns the effect of the proposed sale on local property tax revenues. Additional mitigation for this impact should include encouragement for ENlP2 and the host community to negotiate gradual changes in the facilities' assessments.

With the adoption of the above mitigation measure, the requirements of SEQRA will be met; consistent with environmental, social and economic considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the divestiture of lP1 and IP2 avoids or minimizes adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The action is also consistent with applicable coastal zone policies set forth in 19 NYCRR §600.S.

I. BACKGROUND

. On May 3, 1996, the Commission issued an FGElS in Case 94-E-0952 that addressed the environmental, social and economic impacts of a policy supporting increased competition in electric markets. Alternative approaches to achieving electric competition, a no-action alternative, and several scenarios incorporating uncertainty were studied.

The Commission took this action to satisfy the requirements of SEQRA and its implementing regulations. SEQRA requires the existing planning, review and decision-making processes of state, regional and local government agencies to consider environmental factors at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they are requested to approve may have a significant impact on the environment. If any significant adverse impacts are identified, social and economic impacts associated with the proposed actions must also be examined; CASE 01-E-0040 mitigation should be proposed to avoid or minimize any impacts found, to the extent practicable.

The Commission determined that the environmental effects of a more competitive market for electricity, while not fully predictable, will be modest or not distinguishable from those of other alternative actions, including the no-action alternative. s The FGEIS process undertaken by the Commission did not identify any reasonably likely significant adverse impacts that could not be satisfactorily dealt with through mitigative measures.

The Commission, however, recognized that individual utility proposals might bring to light new concerns,6 so it required each utility to file with its restructuring plan a draft EAF with a recommendation on whether further environmental review would be necessary. These submissions were expected to assist the Commission in determining the need for additional mitigation measures with respect to each utility's restructuring plan.

Con Edison filed its EAF and recommendation in support of its restructuring plan on April 9, 1997, then amended it on September 9, 1997. The Commission adopted a final EAF, which found that the proposed restructuring would be carried out in conformance with the conditions and thresholds of the FGEIS and findings adopted in Case 94-E-0952, in Opinion No. 97-16.

In conjunction with its request for the Commission's approval of the instant transaction, on January 22, 2001, Con Edison and ENIP2 filed a draft SElS analyzing the specific environmental, social and economic impacts related to the proposed transfer.

Informal comments on the draft were solicited; while comments were received in response to this solicitation, no 5

Opinion No. 96-12, supra, p. 77.

5 Opinion No. 96 -12, su,era, p. 78, n. 1 (further clarified in Opinion No. 96-17, p. 7, n. 1) .

CASE 01-E-0040 changes to the draft SElS were deemed necessary.? Therefore, on ,

)

April 25, 2001, the Commission accepted the draft SElS as complete and ordered that it be issued for public comment. s Notice of the draft SEIS was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on May 2, 2001. Comments were received by the Town of Cortlandt and Hendrick Hudson School District (filed jointly), Environmental Advocates and ENIP2; they are summarized and discussed in Section V. For ready reference, Attachment 1 contains a complete chronology of the SEQRA actions associated with this case and considered in this determination.

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Can Edison and ENIP2 filed their PSL § 70 petition for approval of the sale of lP1 and IP2 from Con Edison to ENIP2 on January 12, 2001. The petition sets forth the terms and conditions upon which the plants will be sold, associated accounting and ratemaking treatment for the sale, and justification that the sale is in the public interest (the Proposed Action) .

The only alternative to the proposed transaction is to maintain the generating facilities under current ownership in a fully regulated environment. 9 This is the No Action alternative.

7 The comments received are nevertheless summarized in Section V.

8 Case 01-E-0040, Joint Petition of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC for Authority to Transfer Certain Generating and Related Assets and for Related Relief, Notice of Completion of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (issued April 25, 2001).

While the plants could also be transferred to an unregulated affiliate of Con Edison or spun-off to an unaffiliated entity, the impacts of these alternatives would be the same as the impacts of the proposed sale to ENIP2. Therefore, they do not need to be analyzed in this final SEIS.

CASE Ol-E-0040 The purpose of this Final SElS is to examine the site-specific impacts of the proposed transfer. In this document, it has been determined that one impact that was addressed in the FGEIS that may warrant additional mitigation concerns the effect of the transfer on local property tax revenues.

Given the significant changes occurring in the electric generation industry, it is equally likely that the same impact could arise under the no action alternative. Regardless, it has been determined that this impact would arise as a result of the transfer, requiring the preparation of this final SEIS.

ENIP2 was selected as the purchaser of IPl and IP2 in an auction process conducted by Con Edison, in consultation with Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (Morgan Stanley). The auction process started with the solicitation of bids from a broad universe of potentially interested entities. Entities that signed confidentiality agreements were provided an information memorandum that described the assets and the proposed terms of the transaction agreements and were invited to submit non-binding initial bids (Phase I). Morgan Stanley made recommendations as to which bidders should be invited to Phase II of the process, which involved further due diligence inquiries by the bidders.

The Phase II bidders submitted binding bids containing the prices and terms upon which they would purchase IP1, IP2 and related assets. These bids were evaluated by Con Edison and Morgan Stanley based on the bidders' technical and financial qualifications and on the bidders' ability to fulfill the obligations contemplated under the transaction documents. Con

. Edison consulted with Staff prior to the selection of ENIP2 as the winning bidder.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IPl and IP2 are located proximate to the east bank of the Hudson River in the Village of Buchanan, Town of Cortlandt, CASE 01-E- 0040 West chest er Count y, New York, on a parce l comp rising appro xima tely 176 acres (the Site) . IP1 was a nucle ar-po wered gener ating facil ity that began comm ercial opera tions in 1962; opera tions were suspe nded in 1974 and the facil ity was retir ed in 1980. A porti on of the facil ity remai ns in servi ce to suppo rt IP2 opera tions . IP2 began comm ercial servi ce in 1974. The India n Point 3 Nucle ar Gene rating Stati on (IP3)

, owned by Enter gy Nucle ar India n Point 3, LLC (ENIP 3), is locat ed on an appro xima tely aD-ac re parce l imme diatel y east of and adjac ent to IP2. IP2 and IP3 are of a simil ar desig n, confi gurat ion and age, and the units also share certa in facil ities and servi ces.

IP2 is a nucle ar-po wered gene ratin g facil ity, the opera tion of which is regul ated by the Nucle ar Regu latory Comm ission (NRC) throu gh licen sing which inclu des the on-S ite stora ge and use of speci al nucle ar sourc e and bypro duct mate rials. IP2 is licen sed by NRC to opera te until 2013.

Publi c acces s to the Site is restr icted in accor dance with IP2/s NRC-issue d opera ting licen se, altho ugh an energ y educa tion cente r locat ed outsi de the secur ity-p rotec ted area of the Site is open to the publi c by appoi ntmen t. In addit ion to IP1, IP2 and their vario us suppo rt facil ities , the Site inclu des three inter nal-comb ustion , natur al gas-f ueled turbi ne units .

Gas Turbi ne 1 is locat ed adjac ent to IP2i Gas Turbi nes 2 and 3 are locat ed adjac ent to Con Ediso n's Bucha nan Subs tation prope rty, which is situa ted to the east of and acros s a publi c roadw ay from the Site. The Todd ville Train ing Cente r, which also is being trans ferre d to ENIP2 , is locat ed nearb y, but off-S ite, and house s classr ooms and labor atori es for IP2's techn ical train ing progr ams, comp uter-b ased gener al emplo yee train ing facil ities ,

and offic e space for the train ing staff .

The princ ipal activ ities on the Site are the gene ratio n of elect rical energ y for elect ric consu mers. IP2 has a net elect rical capac ity of 941 mega watts (MW) in the summ er and 976 MW in the winte r, based on testin g condu cted in 1999. Inclu ding CASE 01-E-0040 the three Gas Turbines, the entire facility has a net electrical capacity of 990 MW in the summer and 1,040 MW in the winter.

More than 700 persons are currently employed by Con Edison at the Site. The area surrounding the Site is generally residential, with some sizeable proximate military compounds and park lands. Approximately 50 people reside within a 1,100 meter radius of the Site, most in the Village of Buchanan. The population concentration in the vicinity of the Site is in the City of Peekskill, the center of which is about 2.5 miles northeast of the Site. The estimated year-2000 population within a 15 miles radius is approximately 1.0 million, and, according to 1990 estimates, approximately 15.5 million people live within a 50-mile radius, including in New York City, an area approximately 25 miles south of the Site. The New York State Department of Commerce projects no substantial increases in population from 1986 to the year 2013 in any of the four counties in the vicinity of the Site. Increased commercial development has occurred within a mile of the Site since 1980. The only substantial agricultural areas within 15 miles*are south or northwest of the Site, across the Hudson River.

IV. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK This section augments the FGEIS by highlighting specific environmental regulatory aspects of IP2's operations.

A. Air Resources The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state, including New York State, to regulate the emission of certain air pollutants. The Federal government sets national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain regulated or criteria pollutants, including sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen oxides (NO x ) f carbon dioxide (C0 2 ) , ozone (0)), and particulate matter (PM), which each state is required to meet through the control of emission of pollutants. A brief description of each of these air pollutants is provided below:

CASE 01-E- 0040

• S02 - emiss ions that are direc tly relat ed to acid rain "acid ic depo sition " and also react in the atmos phere to form sulfa tes, a form of secon dary respi rable parti culat es.

• NO x - emiss ions that, toget her with react ive hydro carbo ns, are precu rsors of groun d-lev el ozone ; groun d-lev el ozone is forme d throu gh comp lex chem ical react ions of NO x , acidi c compo unds and vola tile organ ic compo unds (VOCs) in the prese nce of sunli ght; it is an air pollu tant direc tly relat ed co respi rator y disea ses.

• CO 2 - a green house gas that, becau se of its slow decay and corre spond ing long- term resid ence in the atmos phere , may be thoug ht to be assoc iated with globa l warm ing.

• PM - solid or liqui d parti cles suspe nded in ambie nt air.

The Unite d State s Envir onme ntal Prote ction Agenc y (EPA) has deleg ated to the New York State Depar tment of Envir onme ntal Cons ervat ion (DEC) autho rity to admi niste r certa in feder al CAA perm itting requi reme nts withi n New York State ,

inclu ding the Title V perm itting system gover ning "majo r sourc es" of certa in air pollu tants .

There are sever al perm itted air emiss ion sourc es at IP2, inclu ding two house boile rs ("mid -size boile rs") that share one stack and the three Gas Turbi nes. IP2 opera tes these emiss ions sourc es subje ct to and with the bene fit of a Title V perm it, #3-55 22-00 011/0 0019, issue d by DEC, and indiv idual perm its issue d by the West chest er Count y Depa rtmen t of Healt h.

(Envi ronm ental perm its are ident ified in Table I, in Secti on IV.H. below .)

In gene ral, nucle ar gene ratin g facil ities , inclu ding IP2, emit negli gible DEC- regul ated air pollu tants (S02. NO x and CO 2 ) comp ared to fossi l-fue led gener ating facil ities , for comp arable power outpu t. Howe ver, at IP2, the Gas Turbi nes, the emerg ency gene rator s (whic h provi de auxil iary and mand atory emerg ency power suppl y to the facil ity) and the house boile rs all burn fossi l fuels , altho ugh their air emiss ions are relat ively CASE Ol-E-0040 minor. Thus, generation from IP2, to the extent it displaces generation from fossil-fueled power plants that do emit air pollutants such as S02' NO x , CO 2 , PM and hazardous air pollutants, may assist New York State in meeting federal and state air pollution goals. In fact, the FGEIS characterizes air impacts (NO x and 80 2 as the most important of the potential environmental impacts associated with the generation of electricity, see FGEIS,

p. s-5) and concludes that the early retirement of New York's nuclear units, including IP2, would have a significant negative environmental impact on air resources, see FGEI8, p. 5 3.

B. Water Resources Water quality considerations include the discharge of pollutants to surface waters. These discharges include cooling water containing heat (transferred to cooling water in condensers), residual water-treatment chemicals, and trace metals. In addition, IP2 withdraws quantities of water from the Hudson River for cooling purposes. Cooling water withdrawal may result in the mortality of smaller aquatic biota, such as fish eggs and larvae, in a process referred to as entrainment.

Cooling water withdrawals also may impact larger aquatic biota, such as juvenile fish, in a process referred to as impingement.

The EPA has delegated to DEC authority to administer certain federal Clean Water Act requirements, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) within New York State, administered by DEC as the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program, under ECL Article 17, Title 8. IP2 operates subject to and with the benefit of four SPDES permits issued by DEC as follows: Permit No. NY-0234826 for wastewater discharge from Gas Turbines 2 and 3, Permit No. NY-0250414 for the Indian Point Simulator and Transformer Vault, Permit No. NY-0251135 for the Indian Point Tank Farm, and Permit No. NY-0004472 for cooling water discharges from IP1, IP2 and IP3 through a common discharge canal. This latter SPDES permit is jointly held with ENIP3.

CASE 01-E-0040 Discharges under the IP2/IP3 SPDES Permit No. NY 0004472, in conjunction with SPDES permits issued to the Bowline and Roseton Generating Stations (collectively, the Hudson River power plants) I are currently being reviewed by the DEC, consistent with pending requests for renewal timely made by each of the plant owners on April 3, 1992 under a consolidated SEQRA proceeding. As noted in the PGEIS, p. 5-59, the owners originally submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to the DEC in July 1993. After a series of technical workshops involving regulators and participants to the SEQRA process, on December 14, 1999, the owners submitted a revised DEIS, the review of which is ongoing. 1o The history of the SPDES permitting for IP2 is further detailed in Attachment 2.

Consistent with their respective SPDES permits and the pending SEQRA process, the Hudson River power plant owners have conducted an extensive ongoing environmental monitoring program, a goal of which is to allow the DEC to better evaluate the potential"environmental effects of these operating Hudson River power plants, including their potential environmental effect on aquatic life in the Hudson River. Utilizing results of this extended monitoring program, the revised DEIS concludes that the existing once-through cooling systems of the four power plants have had and are expected to have minimal adverse effect on certain representative fish populations in the Hudson River.ll Pending issuance of a decision by DEC on that renewal application, IP2 operates subject to its existing SPDES permit, which continues in force and effect as a matter of New York State law.

10 The DEIS was declared complete on March 8, 2000.

11 These conclusions are presently being discussed in the ongoing DEC SPDES permitting proceeding.

CASE 01-E-0040 The FGEIS states that thermal pollution attributable to discharges associated with power plant operations, including nuclear units, are not a significant potential environmental impact associated with the generation of electricity, see FGEIS,

p. 5-59.

C. Endangered Species Past operations of the Hudson River power plants have occasionally resulted in the impingement of short-nose sturgeon on the facilities' traveling screens. Short-nose sturgeon is currently listed as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act. In the previous SPDES permit proceedings, the Hudson River power plant owners supplied the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) all data on short-nose sturgeon that were collected in biological sampling programs. In testimony to the EPA in 1979 as part of the SPDES proceedings, NMFS concluded in its Biological Opinion,' pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, that once through cooling systems of the power plants did not pose a threat to the short-nose sturgeon population in the Hudson River.

In the DEIS prepared in the DEC SPDES permitting proceeding, it was reported that the Hudson River Estuary population appears to have increased over the past few decades and the Estuary currently contains the largest discrete population of short-nose sturgeon reported anywhere. In 1998, NMFS recommended that the Hudson River's population of short-nose sturgeon be changed from endangered to threatened.

D. Waste Generation, Storage and Disposal IP2 generates solid and hazardous waste, as well as "mixed" waste. Solid and hazardous wastes are primarily generated from the normal day-to-day operations of the facility, maintenance operations, and chemical laboratory processes. The solid wastes generated at the facility largely consist of protective clothing and trash, while the hazardous wastes at the facility largely consist of spent solvents and oils. Solid and CASE 01-E- 0040 hazar dous waste s are temp orari ly store d on-S ite, prior to trans port to and dispo sal at perm itted off-S ite facil ities , in accor dance with EPA and DEC issue d autho rizat ions, inclu ding an EPA hazar dous waste ident ifica tion numbe r (NYD 99130 -4411 ). See Secti on IV.H. . IP2 utili zes speci alize d vendo rs for trans port and dispo sal of solid and hazar dous waste s.

"Mixe d" waste is hazar dous waste that exhib its low-level radio activ ity as defin ed in 10 CFR Part 61.

Mixed waste s are large ly gener ated from maint enanc e opera tions insid e the radio logic ally- contr olled plant area. These waste s are gener ated in relat ively small quan tities and prim arily inclu de lead-conta minat ed paint chips and sludg e conta ining trace amou nts of PCBs. Mixed waste s are drumm ed and store d at an EPA- and DEC-licen sed on-S ite perm itted (purs uant to 6 NYCRR Part 373) stora ge facil ity pendi ng final dispo sal. Curre ntly, appro xima tely 45 drums and about 1,200 cubic feet of mixed waste s are store d at the Site.

E. Petro leum Stora ge Tanks IP2 has two petro leum stora ge tanks , Tanks 11 and 12, each with a total capac ity of 2,350 ,000 gallo ns.

Tank 12 has been retir ed in-pl ace, in comp liance with appli cable laws. The capac ity of Tank 11 is limit ed to 1,000 ,000 gallo ns, cons isten t with the volum e of secon dary conta inmen t avail able to conta in poten tial spill s.

A Major Oil Stora ge Faci lity Licen se (No.3 -2140

) has been issue d by DEC for these tanks . In suppo rt of the licen se and state /fede ral regul ation s, the Site main tains Spill Preve ntion and Coun terme asure Contr ol and USCG Faci lity Respo nse Plans .

F. Chem ical Bulk Stora ge IP2 has two tanks used to store sodiu m hypo chlor ite regul ated under the New York State Chem ical Bulk Stora ge (CBS)

Law and 6 NYCRR Part 596. IP2 opera tes subje ct to and with the bene fit of a CBS Certi ficat ion issue d by DEC (Reg istrat ion CASE 01-E-0040 Certificate No. 3-000107). In accordance with the CBS regulations, IP2 also maintains a Spill Prevention Report for these tanks.

G. Environmental Management System Con Edison has established comprehensive environmental management systems, the respective goals of which are to assure attention to and compliance with environmental laws, and to further the efforts to ensure that on-Site operations are conducted in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

H. Environmental Permits A summary of environmental permits, authorizations, certificates or licenses held by Con Edison for IP2, and to be transferred to or obtained by ENIP2, follows.

TABLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS Agency Permit For Permit No. Term Expiration Date A. Air Emission Permits DEC Title V (covers Gas 3-5522- 5 9/29/2005 Turbines I, 2, & 3, 00011/00019 years and House Boilers)

WCDOH* Gas Turbine 1 0152-00021 3 12/31/2000 years WCDOH Gas Turbine 2 0152-00022 3 12/31/2000 years WCDOH Gas Turbine 3 0152-00023 3 12/31/2000 years WCDOH House Boilers 52-4493 No expo Date

• Westchester County Department of Health B. Water Discharge (SPDES)

CASE 01-E-0040

~ .

TABLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS Agency Permit For Permit No. Term Expiration Date DEC IPl, IP2 & IP3 NY-0004472 5 10/01/1992 (shared with ENIP3) years (Renewal app.

Submitted 4/92; pending)

DEC IP Tank Farm NY-0251135 5 02/01/2005 years DEC IP Simulator Transformer Vault NY- 0250414 5 03/01/2003 years DEC Gas Turbines 1 & 2 NY-0234826 5 03/01/2003 years Agency Permit For Permit No. Term Expiration Date C. Hazardous and Mixed Wastes DEC 6 NYCCR Part 373 3-5522- 10 02/28/2007

'Permit for Mixed 00011/00018 years Waste Storage EPA Hazardous and Solid NYD991304411 5 10/14/2002 Waste Amendments years Permit - Mixed Waste D. Oil Storage DEC Major Petroleum Facility License 3-2140 2 03/31/2002 years E. Chemical Storage DEC Hazardous Substance 3-000107 2 06/15/2001 Bulk Storage years Registration F. Hazardous Materials USDOT Hazardous Materials 062300001 0331K 1 06/30/03 Certificate of year Registration CASE 01-E-0040 TABLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS Agency Permit For Permit No. Term Expiration Date South Radioactive Waste 0019-31-00 1 12/31/01 Carolina Transport Permit year DHEC EPA EPA Identification NYD991304411 N/A No expo Number Date New York Asbestos Handling 99-0304 1 06/03/01 DOL License year Tennessee Radioactive Waste T-NY010-LOO 1 12/31/01 DEC License for Delivery year V.

SUMMARY

OF AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

1. Summary of Comments Environmental Advocates Environmental Advocates (EA) expresses concern that ENIP2 is not financially qualified to safely and responsibly operate and maintain IP2. EA is concerned that ENIP2 may have insufficient revenues, assets, earnings and cash reserves to properly operate IP2 and cover both its investment in the facility and all of its expenses.

EA also contends that the petition does not adequately address the potential downside risks if the decommissioning fund is not sufficient to complete decommissioning, and that the method by and time frame in which ENIP2 will decommission IP1 and IP2 are not specified. EA notes that the terms of the IP2 power purchase agreement (PPA) are not as favorable to Con Edison as the terms of the PPA for IP3 are to the New York Power Authority (NYPA) .

EA is troubled that the generic nuclear proceeding (Case 98-E-0405) was never concluded, and argues that that proceeding should be completed before evaluating this and other pending nuclear plant sales. EA continues that Con Edison's recent problems at IP2 indicate that nuclear safety is not CASE 01-E-0040 receiving enough attention under a regulated marketplace, and moving to a competitive marketplace could exacerbate these concerns.

EA suggests that the SElS should contain an assessment of the condition of IP2, including an update to the facility's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) , a document required by the NRC. EA questions the status of the IP2 FSAR, arguing that conditions at the facility cast doubt on its ability to operate safely. EA suggests that all problems at IP2 be corrected to prevent ENIP2 from operating the facility in an unsafe manner.

Last, EA asserts that the SElS should aSsess the environmental externalities of nuclear power, generally. The assessment should include the impact of once-through cooling on aquatic life. EA claims nuclear power is not as "clean" as many government and industry officials claim, that the future storage of nuclear waste remains unsettled and that investments in nuclear power preclude investments in renewable energy developme"ht.

Town of Cortlandt/Hendrick Hudson School District The Town of Cortlandt and Hendrick Hudson School District (Town/School) filed two sets of extensive comments on 12 the draft SEIS--on March 16 1 2001 and June 21, 2001. Their comments pertain to a number of issues directly associated with the Proposed Action l as well as numerous tangential issues and issues only indirectly associated with the Proposed Action.

Directly related to the Proposed Action, the Town/School express concern that the SElS does not fully consider: (1) the impact of the proposed transfer and the PPA on ENlP2's ability to obtain sufficient revenues to safely operate lP2 and comply with its NRC 12 In their June 21, 2001 comments, the Town/School also incorporated their March 21 2001 comments on ENIP2's petition for lightened regulation in Case 01-E-0113. Therefore these I

comments, although not directed to the SEIS will be I

considered to the extent they relate to issues within the scope of the environmental review.

CASE 01-E-0040 license; (2) alternative structures to the proposed transaction, such as elimination of the PPA, that would provide ENIP2 with additional revenueSi (3) the likely change in operations under ENIP2, as compared to the manner in which Con Edison historically operated IP2, including the impacts associated with increases in IP2's capacity factor; (4) the impacts of the transfer of IP2 from Con Edison, a highly regulated utility, to ENIP2, an entity likely to be lightly regulated with IP2 as its only source of income; (5) the overall impact on the State and system reliability resulting from the transfer: and (6) that the proposed transfer will have a negative impact on local property tax revenues.

The Town/School claim that the SEIS must address the implications of the exhaustion of IP2's spent fuel pool in 2004, as well as the possibility that ENIP2 may seek to extend the license for IP2. Additionally, they suggest that the SEIS needs to address the ability of ENIP2 to safely and completely decommission IPl and IP2 and restore the Site to a greenfield condition. They do not believe ENIP2 will have sufficient funds to do so and that the Commission will not have regulatory oversight over the decommissioning trust funds. Related to this concern, they believe the possibility that ENIP2 may delay decommissioning, or employ a decommissioning method other than dismantlement and removal, must be considered, and the impacts of such possibilities analyzed.

Noting that IPl, IP2 and IP3 will be under common ownership, the Town/School contend the SEIS should analyze and discuss the impacts of combined ownership on the operation and future of IP2, including the increased likelihood common ownership will have on potential for ENIP2 to seek to extend IP2's license life and delay decommissioning.

The Town/School also express concern that the environmental site assessments performed by Con Edison during the course of the auction identified a number of areas of CASE 01-E- 0040 conta mina tion. They belie ve the SElS shoul d addre ss how this conta minat ion will be reme diated . Simi larly , the Town /Scho ol expla in that the prima ry SPDES perm it for lP2 has not yet been renew ed. They conte nd ENlP2 will not appro ach the perm itting proce ss in the same manne r as Con Ediso n, that ENlP 2's plans for IP2 will resul t in diffe rent impac ts than would have exist ed under the No Actio n alter nativ e, and that the terms of a SPDES perm it issue d to ENIP2 will not be same as a new SPDES perm it issue d to Con Ediso n. Based on this expla natio n, the Town /Scho ol conte nd all SPDE S-rela ted issue s and impac ts shoul d be addre ssed in the SElS.

Notin g that ENlP2 and its affil iates have propo sed sitin g new fossi l-fue led gener ation on the Site, the Town /Scho ol asser t that this SElS must addre ss the poten tial impac ts assoc iated with this propo sal. They also asser t that the choic e of alter nativ es in the SElS is defic ient. They claim the SElS shoul d consi der the poss ibilit y of closi ng lP2 in addit ion to the No Actio n and Propo sed Actio n alter nativ es.

On a more gener al level , the Town /Scho ol claim that this SElS shoul d not be prem ised or rely on the FGElS becau se of numer ous chang es in the indus try over the past six years . They conte nd the FGElS did not suffi cient ly addre ss the poten tial impac ts of chang es in the nucle ar indus try that have occur red, nor the poten tial impac ts of the sale of nucle ar gene ratin g facil ities . They point to Case 98-E- 0405, in which the futur e of New York 's nucle ar indus try was addre ssed on a gene ric basis , and note that a broad , gener ic envir onme ntal impac t statem ent was going to be prepa red in that proce eding but was never comp leted.

They recom mend that the gener ic study be comp leted prior to consi derat ion of this SElS and the propo sed trans actio n. They also sugge st that the move to a comp etitiv e elec trici ty gener ation mark etpla ce shoul d be reeva luate d becau se of recen t energ y short ages and price incre ases.

CASE 01-E-0040 The Town/School argue that the Commission would engage in impermissible segmentation under SEQRA if it fails to combine the analysis of the transfer with the analysis of potential new generation on the Site, extension of the current IP2 license, or delays in or alternate forms of decommissioning.

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 21 LLC ENIP2 provided comments in response to certain issues raised by the Town/School. On the issue of operational improvements I ENIP2 agrees that the capacity factor of IP2 is likely to increase under its management, but that such increased capacity is not expected to produce adverse environmental impacts. Rather ENIP2 suggests that improved performance at IP2 could reduce reliance on fossil-fueled generating facilities and cause overall air quality benefits. ENIP2 explains that it will bring substantial operational experience to IP2 by virtue of the extensive nuclear holdings and experience of its parenti Entergy Corporation. On a related note l ENIP2 points out that IP1, IP2 and IP3 will not be under common ownership in that ENIP2 and ENIP3 (which owns IP3) are separate legal entities. However, ENIP2 expects to share positive synergies with ENIP3 due to the fact that they are affiliates and operations at IP2 and IP3 are likely to be merged over time.

On the issue of spent nuclear fuel storage, ENIP2 explains that the issue exists without regard to the owner of IP2, and that its options are no different than those open to Con Edison under the No Action alternative. ENIP2 expects to continue Con 'Edison's efforts to develop an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. It asserts that this issue rests with the NRC, that the Town/School are participating in related NRC proceedings, and therefore, that they already have a forum in which to express their concerns. 13 13 NRC Docket No. 72-22, Private Fuel Storage Limited Liability Company License Application for Private Fuel Storage Facility.

I CASE 01-E-0040 With respect to the environmental site assessments and identified contamination, ENIP2 explains that remediation is a matter of state and federal law that applies to the Site regardless of the Site's owner. DEC has already approved the remediation plan, ENIP2 continues, so there is no basis to conclude the transfer will have adverse impacts on clean-up activities (see Attachment 3). As to the SPDES renewal permitting proceeding, ENIP2 says that it will participate in the case in Con Edison's place, and that the transfer will not delay, cause any changes to, or adversely impact the proceeding. That proceeding, being conducted before the DEC, is independent of this proceeding and is subject to its own, extensive SEQRA review where all pertinent issues will be analyzed. ENIP2 also notes that the Town/School are not participating in the DEC proceeding and its SPDES-related concerns in this proceeding are therefore suspect.

ENIP2 concedes that its affiliates are considering the possibility of constructing a new, fossil-fueled generating facility on the Site or adjacent to IP3 (the IP3 location is identified as the preferred site). The size of the project, if developed, is not likely to exceed 400 MW. It contends that all environmental issues and impacts associated with the project, if it proceeds, will be addressed under PSL Article X and the Town/School will have an opportunity to participate in that proceeding. Therefore, ENIP2 does not agree that this matter needs to be addressed in this SEIS.

On the issue of future employment, ENIP2 concedes that one synergy saving resulting from consolidated operation of IP2 and IP3 will be reduced employment needs. However, it explains that reductions will occur through decreased use of contractors, retirements and natural attrition, not through lay-offs or terminations. Also, under the November 9, 2000 Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement (APSA) entered into by Con Edison and ENIP2, CASE 01-E-0040 employment levels in the short-term will remain relatively unchanged.

Finally, ENIP2 notes that similar SEQRA arguments raised by the Town/School in the context of the sale of IP3 from NYPA to ENIP3 were rejected by the Supreme Court. Analogizing that case to this proceeding, ENIP2 contends that the SEIS fully addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed transfer and complies with the requirements of SEQRA.

2. Discussion of Comments Environmental Advocates Many of EA's comments are unrelated to or beyond the scope of the Proposed Action. The issues pertaining to nuclear power in general will be the same whether IP1 and IP2 are owned by Con Edison or ENIP2. This SEIS and the underlying PSL § 70 proceeding are not the appropriate forum for a debate on nuclear power. The impact of once-through cooling is similarly outside the scope of this proceeding, as it will remain the same whether Con Edison or ENIP2 owns IP2. The proper method of cooling is best addressed in the ongoing DEC SPDES proceeding described in Part IV.

The concerns expressed by EA about the financial qualifications of ENIP2, the terms of the PPA between Con Edison and ENIP2, and the adequacy of the decommissioning fund, while important, are not appropriate topics to be addressed in this SEIS. They are, however, topics that should, and will, be substantively addressed in the PSL § 70 administrative proceeding. The other decommissioning issues raised by EA are the same regardless of whether Con Edison or ENIP2 owns IP1 and IP2. They are also issues outside the Commission's jurisdiction and best addressed by the NRC in its consideration of the companion filing made by Con Edison and ENIP2 to the NRC for approval of the transfer of the IP1 and IP2 licenses. The current physical status of IP2 is also an issue within the CASE Ol-E-0040 primary jurisdiction of the NRC. Compliance with the FSAR is solely an NRC matter and need not be addressed by the Commission.

Finally, there is no reason to generically examine the future treatment of New York's nuclear plants in Case 98-E-0405, given this proceeding and Case Ol-E-OOll, related to the proposed sale of Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2. The impacts of the move to a competitive marketplace have been addressed in the FGEIS and need not be repeated herein. As to the current problems with IP2, it is anticipated that the transfer to ENIP2 will result in superior management and oversight of the facility and a heightened focus on safety and reliability. The potential impacts of this transaction are addressed in Part VI.

Town of Cortlandt/Hendrick Hudson School District The issues raised by the Town/School are generally addressed below and in Section VI.

Applicability of the FGEIS:

In Case 94-E-09S2, and in conformance with SEQRA, the Commission issued the FGEIS to address the statewide environmental, social and economic impacts of a policy opening New York's electric markets to competition. The consideration of the divestiture of utility-owned nuclear power plants constitutes a subsequent action to the policy determinations made in Case 94-E-0952. Therefore, contrary to the Town/School's assertion, the use of this limited scope SEIS in this proceeding, rather than a new EIS, is appropriate.

Under SEQRA, if the impacts found in this subsequent action are within the conditions and thresholds of the FGEIS, no further SEQRA analysis is necessary. However, an SElS must be prepared if a potential significant adverse impact is found that was not addressed or adequately considered in the FGEIS. 6 NYCRR

§ 617.10(dl (4).

Because the likelihood that the transfer of lPl and IP2 from Con Edison to ENIP2 could result in significant impacts beyond those covered in the FGEIS, the companies were instructed CASE 01-E-0040 to prepare a draft SEIS. While many of the impacts identified in the SElS are within the conditions and thresholds of the FGElS, the impact on property taxes was determined to warrant additional mitigation than that addressed in the FGEIS.

Impacts Related to the Possibility of Life Extension:

Con Edison has the same ability to extend the life of IP2 under the No Action alternative as ENIP2 would have under the Proposed Action alternative. Therefore, this issue is not reasonably related to the proposed action and need not be fully analyzed in this SEIS. Moreover, the ability of the owner of IP2 (whoever it may be) to extend its license is subject to the NRC's review and approval. Should the sale be approved and ENIP2 gecide at some point in the future to seek life extension, the NRC would commence a formal proceeding to consider the matter.

Such a proceeding would include an environmental review to study the potential implications of a decision to extend IP2's license.

That proceeding would be the appropriate forum for the Town/School to advance their concerns related to life extension.

Consideration of a Third Alternative - Closure:

IP2 is an operating nuclear generating facility.

Recently, Con Edison spent over $150 million to replace the plant's four steam generators. ENIP2 has agreed to pay over $500 million to purchase the facility and related assets. These facts strongly indicate that IP2 is not likely to close in the near future.

The action being considered by the Commission is whether to approve the sale of IP2 to ENIP2. It is not reasonably anticipated that ENIP2 would pay over $500 million, then close the facility. It is similarly unlikely that Con Edison would close IP2 in the event the transaction is not approved. Moreover, after recently completing an annual assessment of IP2, the NRC found that it is being operated in a 23-

CASE Ol-E-0040 manner that preserves public health and safety and has met all cornerstone objectives. 14 For these reasons. this SEIS need not address the impacts of the closure of IP2 as a reasonable alternative to the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.

Financial Ability of ENIP2 to Operate IP2:

The issue of whether ENIP2 will have sufficient resources and access to funds to competently and safely operate IP2 and maintain IPl is an important issue that must be addressed substantively in the PSL § 70 proceeding. However. because it is an economic issue. it is not properly subject to environmental review in this SElS. Moreover. the Town/School's contention that the consequences of ENIP2 not having sufficient resources includes significant adverse environmental impacts is without support. Th~ likely possibilities in the event of ENlP2's inability to continue to operate IP2 (should the pending transaction be approved) include the sale of the assets or closure of the facility. No factual or substantive showing has been made that either event would lead to significant adverse environmental impacts.

Completion of Case 98-E-0405:

The Commission's generic assessment of the future treatment of New York's investor-owned nuclear generating facilities was pre-empted by the interest expressed in and subsequent potential acquisition of IP2 and Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 by prospective buyers.

Because of these proposed transactions. there is no reason to continue to generically study the future rate and associated treatment of the facilities. However, should the 14 See IP2 Annual Assessment Letter from Hubert J. Miller, NRC Regional Administrator to John Groth. Senior Vice President -

Nuclear.Operations for Con Edison, dated May 31, 2001, Attachment 4.

CASE 01-E-0040 pending transactions not be approved or consummated, the generic proceeding would likely resume.

From the perspective of environmental review, there is no need to complete a supplemental generic EIS prior to considering this transaction. All of the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action can be and are discussed and analyzed in this SElS. Moreover, a generic examination of all potential future implications for nuclear power, which would have been included in the supplemental generic EIS, are outside the scope of the instant proceeding and need not be considered in this SElS.

System Reliability:

As explained previously, New York is transitioning from a heavily regulated, cost-based electric system to a competitive, market-based system. The cost of power is no longer set administratively through Commission rate proceedings. Rather, it is determined based on open market principles via agreement between generators and load serving entities and set forth bilateral power purchase agreements between the parties or participation in the New York Independent System Operator's day ahead, real time and other markets.

Presently, there are over 20 new generating plants in various stages of construction or certification under PSL Article X.IS Additionally, there are a number of generating facilities under 80 MW either operating or slated to commence operations in the near future. While IP2 still comprises an important part of New York's system reliability, its importance will diminish over time as new facilities come on-line. While not all of these projects will be constructed, there should be sufficient capacity over the long-term to meet New York's energy needs. In the short-term, the PPA between Con Edison and ENIP2 ensures that Con Edison's customers will receive the output from IP2.

15 See http://www.dps.state.ny.us/xtable.PDF.

CASE Ol-E-0040 Accordingly, the Town/School's concern that the transaction documents do not require ENIP2 to sell all of the output of IP2 to Con Edison or within New York State is without merit and is inconsistent with the functioning of a competitive market. Given the PPA and the likelihood of substantial new generation in New York over the long-term, it is not reasonably foreseeable that this transaction, if approved, would have or lead to significant adverse impacts on system reliability.

Light Regulation of ENIP2:

The Town/School raise numerous concerns over the possibility that ENlP2 will be lightly regulated, and r.hat such reduced regulatory oversight will lead to significant adverse impacts. While this issue is outside the scope of this SElS, a brief response to this contention is warranted.

Should ENlP2's request for lightened regulation in Case Ol-E-Ol13 be granted, ENlP2 will still be subject to extensive state and federal regulation and oversight. For example, if the petition is granted, ENIP2 would likely still be required to comply with the Commission's safety regulations and numerous reporting and compliance requirements. ENlP2 must also likely be required to comply with all DEC and EPA permits, as well as pervasive NRC regulations.

The Commission has approved the sale of dozens of generating facilities across the state to companies that qualified to be lightly regulated. To date, there have been no adverse environmental impacts associated with the operation of those plants that are any different from impacts that arose under their previous utility ownership. Moreover, the NRC and other state public service commissions have approved the sale of a number of nuclear generating facilities to limited liability companies similar to ENIP2. None of these transactions has resulted in significant adverse environmental impacts, or impacts different from those experienced by the facilities' former owners. Accordingly, it cannot reasonably be concluded that

.. 26-

CASE Ol-E-0040 allowing ENIP2 to be lightly regulated is likely to lead to any significant adverse impacts, or any impacts that would be different from the impacts experienced by Con Edison under the No Action alternative.

ImDact of Common Ownership:

As noted by ENIP2, IP1, IP2 and IP3 will not be under common ownership. However, there are likely to be some synergies related to consolidated operation of IP2 and IP3. The impacts of these synergies is addressed in Section VI.

Impact of Improved Operations; The Town/School are correct that the draft SEIS was deficient in failing to acknowledge and evaluate the likely impacts of improved operations and an increased capacity factor for IP2 under ENIP2's ownership. This deficiency has been remedied in this SEIS, and the impacts and identified and addressed in Section VI.

Potential for New Generation at the Site; The Town/School are also correct that the draft SEIS failed to include any discussion of the possibility that ENIP2 and/or its affiliates may construct a new generating facility on the Site. This omission has been remedied and is discussed in Section VI.

Decommissioning Concerns:

The Town/School suggest that ENIP2's approach to decommissioning will be substantially different from Con Edison's approach, and that the impacts of these difference must be addressed in this EIS. This contention is unsupported by the record in this proceeding and applicable law. Both Con Edison and ENIP2 would have the same options available for the timing and manner of decommissioning and would be subject to the same NRC requirements and regulations pertaining to decommissioning.

They would also be subject to the same consequences in the event DOE does not accept title to the spent nuclear fuel and/or if CASE 01-E-0040 there is no off-Site location at which to dispose of low level nuclear wastes.

Under the ASPA, Con Edison will transfer $430 million in decommissioning funds to ENIP2 and ENIP2 will assume responsibility for decommissioning IPl and IP2 and restoring the Site. The $430 million amount was determined in accordance with NRC guidelines and is considered sufficient to complete decommissioning. The possibility that this amount is insufficient is the same whether Con Edison or ENIP2 owns IPl and IP2. In addressing this possibility, the NRC stated in NUREG-1628 that "[IJf there is insufficient money in the trust fund, licensees would be required to obtain the additional funds needed to complete the decommissioning of the facility."

The Town/School's concern about the lack of a specific mandate for a specific decommissioning methodology is outside the scope of this proceeding. Con Edison has not committed to a specific mannex of decommissioning, and none has been heretofore imposed on it. Moreover, because decommissioning is an issue under the NRC's jurisdiction, it would highly questionable whether the Commission could impose any mitigation measures related to decommissioning, even if potentially significant adverse impacts are found under the Proposed Action alternative.

Regardless, because the potential range of impacts are the same under the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives, no mitigation measures are deemed to be necessary.

Commitment to Full Site Restoration:

Con Edison has never previously committed to decommissioning the Site to a "greenfield" status. However, in Con Edison rate cases in 1991 and 1995, Staff advocated that the decommissioning funding reserves assume a return of the site to greenfield status. This recommendation was adopted by the Commission and the funding was adjusted accordingly.

In the APSA, ENIP2 expressly agreed to decommission the Site to a greenfield status. Should the transfer be approved and CASE 01-E-0040 ENIP2 not ultimately restore the Site, a portion of the decommissioning funds transferred to ENlP2 will be returned to Con Edison's ratepayers. Thus, the treatment of this issue under the Proposed Action alternative is more favorable than under the No Action alternative.

While the Town/School express apprehension that ENIP2 will follow through with this commitment, their concern is without merit. Given the express provisions of the APSA, the size of the decommissioning funds being transferred, the NRC minimum decommissioning funding requirement, the ability of ENIP2 to place lPl and IP2 in Safstor to allow the decommissioning fund to grow to a level needed to complete decommissioning, if necessary, and Staff's review of ENIP2's financial qualifications, it is not reasonably anticipated that ENIP2 will not satisfy its commitment to full Site restoration.

Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage:

The Town/School claim there is a significant concern over spent nuclear fuel storage and the fact that IP2's spent fuel pool will reach full capacity in 2004. While this matter is important, it is not related to the Proposed Action and the impacts under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives are the same. For this reason, and as further discussed in Section VI, this issue need not be addressed in this SElS.

Contamination Remediation Plans:

Con Edison prepared Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments for the Site that included a historical records review, site walkdown, field measurements, and analysis of surface soil, borings and groundwater. The analysis showed a number of areas of contamination requiring remediation, slight residual radioactivity detected at locations of previous spills, and unusual occurrences involving the spread of contamination in and around the facilities, equipment, and site areas.

Copies of the assessments were submitted to DEC, and Con Edison and ENIP2 have worked with DEC to prepare a CASE 01-E- 0040 comp rehen sive reme diatio n plan. Attac hmen t 3 conta ins DEC's lette r appro ving the propo sed plan. The APSA addre sses the respe ctive respo nsibi lities of Con Ediso n and ENIP2 and does not restr ict in any way futur e regul atory decis ions on possi ble reme diatio n that may be neces sary.

Given these circu mstan ces, there is no reaso n to furth er addre ss this issue or to impos e any addit ional mitig ation meas ures. Shoul d the Town /Scho ol have spec ific quest ions about the remed iaton plan, they shoul d be direc ted to DEC, the agenc y with statu tory respo nsibi lity for overs eeing satis facto ry comp letion of the plan.

Renew al of SPDES Perm it:

Attac hmen t 2 to this SElS provi des a discu ssion of the histo rical settin g of the IP2 SPDES perm it. As expla ined by ENIP2 , its affil iate, ENIP3 , is a joint holde r of the SPDES perm it with Con Ediso n becau se of its owne rship of IP3 and is alrea dy a party to the DEC SPDES renew al perm itting proce eding .

Curre ntly, nego tiatio ns are under way betwe en the invol ved regul atory agenc ies, Con Ediso n, ENIP3 and the other Hudso n River power plant owne rs, envir onme ntal group s and other s in an attem pt to reach settle ment on the issue s relat ed to the SPDES perm it renew al.

There is no suppo rt for the Town /Scho ol's posit ion that the sale to ENIP2 would delay the perm itting proce eding s or that ENIP2 would appro ach the matte r diffe rentl y than Con Ediso n. In fact, ENIP 3's and the other gene rator s' invol veme nt demo nstra tes the oppo site-- that there is no diffe rence in appro ach betwe en the forme r nucle ar and other power plant o~~ers and the new owne rs.

Cons idera tion of Alter nate Sale Terms :

The Town /Scho ol recom mend that alter nativ es to the propo sed trans actio n, such as a sale witho ut a PPA, be consi dered . They claim in their comm ents that the reaso n for this propo sal is to consi der an optio n where by ENIP2 would recei ve more reven ues from the sale energ y and have great er CASE 01-E-0040 financial strength. However, during the course of this proceeding, they have argued that the purchase price for IP2 would have been higher without a PPA 1 and thus 1 a higher real property tax assessment would have been justified.

In either instance, this issue is outside the scope of 16 the SEIS. Moreover/ it is not reasonably anticipated that the Commission would consider approving the transaction without a PPA as that agreement adds substantial value to ratepayers. It provides a hedge against fluctuations in the price of energy and protection against increasing energy prices over the next three years.

Segmentation:

This SEIS addresses the impacts reasonably anticipated to arise if the proposed sale is approved. The SElS is not a generic review/ it is a site-specific analysis. The Town/School contend that this SEIS must generically evaluate a number of issues unrelated to the Proposed Action and which are either the same under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives or are more properly addressed by other agencies in separate proceedings. A majority of the issues raised relate to matters solely within the jurisdiction of the NRC, and, given the Town/School's involvement in the NRC proceedings, they are the proper forum for addressing the Town/School's concerns.

For these reasons and those set forth in Section VI, the Town/School's allegation that the Commission has engaged in impermissible segmentation under SEQRA is without merit.

16 Review of the price paid for the assets/ while important in the PSL § 70 context, is an economic consideration and not an appropriate matter to be evaluated in the SEIS.

31-

CASE 01-E-0040 VI. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS This analysis will examine the potential significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed sale of IP1 and IP2 from Con Edison to ENIP2.

A. Overview of Impacts The Commission's SEQRA evaluation of the impact of the move to a competitive electric generation marketplace on electric generating stations, including nuclear units, is discussed in the FGEIS. This Section augments the FGEIS by highlighting environmental aspects of the transfer of IPl and IP2 from Con Edison to ENIP2.

Generally, while no significant or substantial modifications to IP2 and its supporting facilities are anticipated if the transfer is approved, ENIP2 is expected to improve operations at IP2. Much of this improvement is expected to occur in management philosophy, planning, employee and plant performance, and improved maintenance. Con Edison recently completed the installation of four new steam generators, a major capital improvement; no other significant capital improvements are anticipated, and ENIP2 has not identified any significant physical changes it would make to IP2. 17 From an company-wide economic perspective, Con Edison entered into an energy PPA with ENIP2, effective from the date of the closing through December 31, 2004, for the output of IP2 (the agreement allows Con Edison to purchase IP2 power at an annual average price of 3.9 cents per kilowatt hour through the end of 2004, an amount close to or below anticipated market prices) .

Additionally, Con Edison and ENIP2 entered into an installed capacity power purchase/market power mitigation agreement for an 11 It is likely that ENIP2 will eliminate many of the duplicative structures at IP2 and IP3 (e.g., security gates and entrances). However, these changes are relatively minor and will not have any environmental impacts.

CASE Ol-E-0040 extended time period. It is expected that these agreements, if approved, will help stabilize electric supply pricing for Con Edison's electricity customers and reduce the potential for a large generator in the State to profitably exercise market power.

The development of the competitive energy market, which may affect the decision by power plant owners (including ENIP2) to run or retire generating units, exists irrespective of the transfer and consequently will similarly affect ENIP2 as it would Con Edison. ThUS, the mere change in ownership is not expected to have a substantial impact on the decision whether to continue to operate or retire IP2.

As a result, it can reasonably be concluded that the IP2 will be operated in a superior manner under the Proposed Action with no little or no impacts on Con Edison's customers.

As will be addressed below, the anticipated changes are likely to have either no or positive environmental impacts as a result of the sale.

B. Potential Impacts on Air Quality Under the No Action alternative, air quality impacts of the facility under continued ownership and operation by Con Edison are expected to remain as they currently exist.

As discussed in Section VI.A. above, the change in ownership of IP2, if approved, is likely to result in the improved performance (i.e., increased capacity factor) of the facility. In that nuclear-fueled generating facilities produce virtually no air emissions, as the capacity factor of IP2 increases, reliance on coal-, oil-, and gas-fueled generating facilites may be reduced at certain times, thereby reducing overall air emissions. While there are three fossil-fueled Gas Turbines associated with IP2, there is no basis to believe that ENIP2 would operate them more frequently than Con Edison did.

Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that the Proposed Action would not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts to air quality. It also can be CASE Ol-E-0040 reasonably concluded that future air emission impacts of the facility would be approximately the same under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives, while future air emissions impacts in New York State, generally, may be lessened under the Proposed Action and may assist the State in meeting its air quality goals.

C. Potential Impacts on Water Quality Under the No Action alternative, water quality impacts of the facility under continued ownership and operation by Con Edison are expected to remain as they currently exist.

As discussed in Section VI.A. above, the change in ownership of IP2, if approved, is likely to result in, inter alia, a higher capacity factor. While an increased capacity factor could require increased water usage for both steam generation and cooling purposes, all such water usage is governed by federal and state permits, including the SPDES permits described in Section IV. Because IP2 will continue to operate within the bounds of its existing permits, it is not reasonably anticipated that the Proposed Action would result in significant adverse impacts on water quality, including to Hudson River aquatic life.

D. Potential Impacts on Visual Aesthetics Under the No Action alternative, visual aesthetics of the facility under the continued ownership and operation by Con Edison are expected to remain as they currently exist.

As discussed in Section VI.A. above/ the Proposed Action is not expected to result in any significant physical changes to the facility, or to have a substantial impact on the decision whether to continue to operate or retire the facility in the future. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that the Proposed Action would not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts to visual aesthetics of the area surrounding IP2. It also can be reasonably concluded that the future visual aesthetic impacts of the facility would be CASE 01-E-0040 approximately the same under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.

E. Potential Impacts to Land and Coastal Areas

1. Land Under the No Action alternative, Site impacts under the continued ownership and operation by Con Edison are expected to remain as they currently exist.

Site conditions have been delineated by Con Edison, which commissioned an investigation of existing on-Site environmental conditions in conjunction with the proposed transfer. In particular, Con Edison retained a professional consultant, Earth Tech, Inc., to perform Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments for the Site and issued reports/

dated January and March 2000/ consistent with applicable industry standards. Briefly, the Phase I assessment consisted of: (1) a review of documents, including aerial photographs, maps and permits to identify past and current land uses at the Site and adjacent properties; (2) a search of environmental databases to determine if the Site or adjacent properties are listed as having any recognizable environmental conditions; (3) a walk-through of the Site and on-Site facilities to observe any signs of or potential for soil/ groundwater/ or surface water contamination; and (4) interviews with IP2 personnel relative to facility practices and the potential for presence of recognized environmental conditions on the subject property. The Phase I Assessment identified several areas of potential concern that received a further investigation and evaluation in the Phase II Assessment.

The Phase II Assessment consisted of a collection of surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater samples appropriate to allow investigation and evaluation of the areas of potential concern identified in the Phase I Assessment. In addition/ the Phase II Assessment also included a limited radiological survey of the Site. The Phase II results have been CASE 01-E- 0040 provi ded to the DEC and to ENIP2 . DEC has found Con Ediso n's final workp lan for addre ssing the cond itions found as a resul t of the phase I and Phase II Asses smen ts accep table

. See Attac hmen t 3.

Under the No Actio n alter nativ e, the reme diatio n of these envir onme ntal cond itions remai ns with Con Ediso n. Under the Propo sed Actio n alter nativ e, ENIP2 and Con Ediso n have alloc ated their reme diatio n respo nsibi lities , as provi ded in the APSA. There fore, it can reaso nably be concl uded that the Propo sed Actio n would not resul t in any addit ional poten tially signi fican t or likel y adver se impac ts to land.

2. Coas tal Areas As discu ssed in Secti on III above , IP2 is locat ed proxi mate to the lower Hudso n River . This segme nt of the Hudso n River is part of the New York State coast al zone. 18 Under the No Actio n alter nativ e, coast al area impac ts of the facil ity under conti nued opera tion by Con Ediso n would remai n the same.

As discu ssed in Secti on VI.A. above , ENIP2 , if perm itted to purch ase the Site, is not expec ted to signi fican tly modif y the exist ing struc tures at IP2, altho ugh opera tions are likel y to impro ve. While impro ved opera tions could lead to incre ased water usage , ENIP2 must remai n withi n the bound s of its SPDES and other water perm its. Acco rding ly, it can reaso nably be concl uded that the propo sed Actio n will not resul t in any addit ional pote ntial ly signi fican t or likel y adver se impac ts to the coast al zone in the area surro undin g IP2.

It also can reaso nably be concl uded that the futur e coast al zone impac ts of 18 The New York State coast al zone inclu des Lake Erie, Lake Ontar io, the St. Lawre nce River , Niaga ra River ,

and the Hudso n River south of the feder al dam at Troy, New York, Long Islan d Sound , the New York City water ways, and the conn ectin g water bodie s.

CASE 01-E-0040 the facility would be approximately the same under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.

F. Potential Impacts on Plants and Animals Under the No Action alternative, impacts on plants and animals at or near the Site under continued operation by Con Edison would remain as they currently exist.

As discussed in Section VI.A. above, the potential changes in operation resulting if the sale of IP2 to ENIP2 is approved would likely primarily relate to culture and management; significant physical changes are not expected. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that the Proposed Action would not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts on plants or animals. It also can be reasonably concluded that any such impacts would be approximately the same under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.

G. Potential Impacts on Agricultural Land Resources The Site does not encompass any agricultural land tracks. Therefore, there are no potential impacts under either the Proposed Action or No Action alternatives. Con Edison's continued ownership and operation of IP2 is not expected to have any significant impacts on agricultural lands in the vicinity of the Site. While approval of the change in ownership would likely to lead to improved operations, such changes would not expected to have off-Site impacts. Therefore, it can be reasonable concluded that any impacts on agricultural lands in the vicinity of the Site would be the same under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.

H. Potential Impacts on Historic and Archeological Resources There is an ancient Indian burial ground located within the northern wooded area near the on-Site pond. Under the No Action alternative, Con Edison's continued ownership and operation of the facility is expected to have no significant CASE 01-E-0040 impacts this or any other historical and archeological resources on-Site or off-Site.

As discussed in Section VI.A. above, ENIP2 is not expected to significantly modify the existing structures at IP2 if the transfer is approved. While ENIP2 has expressed some interest in adding new generation to the Site (discussed below) ,

ENIP2's stated plans do not encompass the area of any known historical or archeological resources. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that the Proposed Action would not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts on historical and archeological resources.

I. Potential Impact on Open Space and Recreation Under the No Action alternative, Con Edison's continued ownership and operation of the Site is expected to have no significant impacts on open space and recreation resources.

None of ENIP2's contemplated changes or improvements at IP2, nor the proposed new generation, would be likely to change open space or recreation resources available to the public.

While some areas of the Site may be used for the new generation, such areas are not open to and used by the public and cannot therefore be considered to be adversely impacted by the proposed sale. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that the proposed Action would not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse impacts on open space and recreation.

J. Potential Impact on Transportation Under the No Action alternative, IP2 continue to be operated by Con Edison in the same manner, and staffing levels, traffic volumes and flows would remain consistent with the current levels.

Under the Proposed Action, ENIP2 is likely to bring efficiencies to the facility, and in combination with ENIP3, to eliminate duplicative functions and positions. Over time, the workforce at IP2 and IP3 is likely to decrease, resulting in lower traffic flows and volumes. The size of such decreases CASE Ol-E-0040 cannot be estimated with accuracy at this time, but are not expected to be significant. Other significant impacts on transportation (e.g., increased work force during refueling outages) are not expected to be significantly different between Con Edison and ENIP2. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that transportation impacts would be approximately the same or possible diminished under the Proposed Action as compared to the No Action alternative.

K. Potential Impacts on Energy Issues relating to energy supply and reliability have been fully addressed in the FGEIS and need not be repeated herein. Under the No Action alternative, Con Edison's continued ownership and operation of IP2 is expected to have no significant impact on energy supply and reliability.

As discussed in Section VI.A. above, the Proposed Action is not expected to have a substantial impact on the decision whether to continue to operate or retire IP2 in the future. However, the potential change in ownership would likely result in improved operations and an increased capacity factor.

These changes would increase the overall system capacity in New York and contribute to system reliability and satisfying energy demands. As discussed in the FGEIS, these are positive impacts and consistent with the move to a competitive electricity marketplace. Accordingly, the impacts on reliability and supply are likely to be more beneficial under the Proposed Action than under the No Action alternative, and, in any event, not be significantly adverse.

L. Potential Noise and Odor Impacts Under the No Action alternative, Con Edison's continued operation and ownership of IP2 is expected to impact noise and odor in the same or similar manner as current levels.

While the Proposed Action is likely to result in improved performance, the changed operations are not reasonably likely to result in different noise or odor emissions from

CASE Ol-E-0040 current levels. Should ENIP2 decide to add new generation, potential noise and odor impacts associated with any specific proposal would be fully addressed in the PSL Article X siting process. Such impacts, if any, cannot be addressed herein because no specific proposal has yet been made and consideration of particular impacts would be speculative.

For the foregoing reasons, it can reasonably be concluded that the Proposed Action would not result in any additional potentially significant or likely adverse noise or odor impacts, and that noise and odor emissions would be approximately the same under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.

L. Potential Impacts on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood

1. Employment Impacts Under the No Action alternative, Con Edison's staffing at the facility is expected to remain at current levels. A certain level of fluctuation is to be expected, caused in large part by retirement, job transfers, resignations, changes in job classifications and work requirements.

Under the APSA, ENIP2 and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) are required to offer employment to substantially all IP2 employees and stabilize employment levels, at least for the next few years. However, over the long term, if the sale is approved, it is likely ENIP2, ENIP3 and ENO would take advantage of the synergies associated with jointly operating IP2 and IP3.

One of the synergies is the elimination of duplicative positions.

ThUS, one impact of approving the transfer would be the potential for reduced staffing levels at IP2.

ENIP2 explained that its intention is to reduce staffing through retirement, decreased use of outside contractors and natural attrition. Because ENIP2 and ENO do not contemplate lay-offs or large-scale terminations, it is not reasonable to CASE 01- E-0 040 a sig nif ica nt in ow ner shi p wo uld hav e con clu de tha t the cha nge ent lev els .

adv ers e im pac t on em plo ym uir es EN IP2 and ENO to Ad dit ion all y, the APSA req em plo yee s tha t be ne fit s for tra nsf err ed ma int ain com pen sat ion and Ed iso n at the at lea st equ iva len t to tho se pro vid ed by Con are yea rs for lig ati on run s for thr ee tim e of clo sin g. Th is ob pli cab le un til the end of the ap ma nag em ent em plo yee s and

s. EN IP2 is eem ent for uni on em plo yee co lle cti ve bar gai nin g agr yee s cre dit for to giv e tra nsf err ed em plo req uir ed und er the APSA int ain pen sio n of the ir ser vic e wit h Con Ed iso n, and mu st ma all wi th Con l in all ma ter ial res pe cts pla ns tha t are ide nti ca ed to pro vid e Fu rth er, EN IP2 is req uir Ed iso n's pen sio n pla ns.

plo ym ent is uni on em plo yee s wh ose em sev era nce to tra ns fer red of the pri or to the ex pir ati on inv olu nta ril y ter mi nat ed em plo yee s who se lle cti ve bar gai nin g agr eem ent and to ma nag em ent co yea rs aft er is inv olu nta ril y ter mi nat ed pri or to thr ee em plo ym ent the clo sin g.

com mit me nts , it is no t Giv en the se co ntr act ua l wo uld hav e a tha t the Pro pos ed Ac tio n rea son abl e to con clu de ion or be ne fit s.

nif ica nt adv ers e imp act on em plo yee com pen sat sig

2. Im pac t on Pu bli c Se rvi ces and s ati ve , pu bli c ser vic e dem Un der the No Ac tio n alt ern of IP2 are n's con tin ued op era tio n ass oc iat ed wi th Con Ed iso tia lly unc han ged .

exp ect ed to rem ain ess en if the wo uld be lik ely to ma ke Al l of the cha nge s EN IP2 era tio ns and wo uld be int ern al to op tra nsa cti on is app rov ed be exp ect ed to nag em ent . Non e of the an tic ipa ted cha nge s wo uld ma IP2 wi ll Mo reo ver , bec aus e IPl and im pac t pu bli c ser vic es.

te and loc al to tpe sam e fed era l, sta con tin ue to be sub jec t c ser vic es ent s, the dem and s on pu bli reg ula tio ns and req uir em the Pro pos ed Ac tio n. Fu rth er, as wo uld no t cha nge s und er sal e to ENIP2 is cu sse d in Se cti on VI. A. abo ve, the po ten tia l dis ion wh eth er ed to hav e a su bs tan tia l imp act on the de cis no t exp ect ure . Th ere for e, or ret ire IP2 in the fut to con tin ue to op era te CASE Ol-E- 0040 Actio n would not it can reaso nably be concl uded that the Propo sed t or likel y resul t in any addit ional poten tially signi fican impac ts on publi c servi ces. It also can reaso nably be concl uded would be that the deman ds and impac ts on publi c servi ces n and No Actio n appro xima tely the same under the Propo sed Actio alter nativ es.

N. Poten tial Impac ts on Local Prope rty Taxes the Liste d below are prope rty taxes paid for IP2 for past five years :

Conso lidated Edison Compan y of New York, Inc.

Schedu le of Taxes Paid on a Calend ar Year Basis Indian Point Comple x Town of Cortla ndt, Villag e of Buchan an

~ School Distri ct Villas e ~

~ 25,079 ,602 1999 7,198, 802 15,994 ,047 1,886, 753 15,552 ,586 1,100, 571 22,920 ,060 1998 6,266, 903 6,683, 592 15,181 ,926 1,884, 299 23,749 ,817 1997 14,760 ,996 1,879, 973 23,574 ,495 1996 6,933, 526 14,155 ,746 1,876, 635 22 t 7'98,34 2 1995 6,765, 961 d that Under the No Actio n alter nativ e, it is antic ipate to the Site would prope rty taxes paid by Con Ediso n with respe ct then- curre nt be cons isten t with appli cable law, subje ct to to eithe r nego tiate prope rty asses smen ts and Con Ediso n's effor ts sched ules or asses smen t reduc tions or paym ent in lieu of tax of the Real litig ate the value of the Site under Artic le 7 Prope rty Tax Law.

used The fact that a comp etitiv e aucti on proce ss was ved is the fair the sell the Site indic ates that the value recei and other mark et value of the prope rty. The propo sed sale, erty may no simil ar nucle ar sales , also indic ate that the prop that term is longe r be consi dered a "spec ialty prope rty" as defin ed by New York case law.

In that the curre nt asses smen t indic ates a value it is possi ble signi fican tly in exces s of the purch ase price ,

, perha ps ENIP2 would seek signi fican t asses smen t reduc tions Ediso n. Howe ver, great er than those sough t in the futur e by Con CASE Ol-E-0040 ENIP2 has reported that its preference is to negotiate a gradual assessment reduction over time, rather than engage in extensive and costly litigation.

The impacts of a significant assessment reduction, whether through negotiation or litigation, were generally addressed in the FGEIS. However, additional mitigation of this potential adverse impact is warranted and is discussed in Section VII.

O. Potential Health and Safety Impacts The major health and safety concerns associated with IPl and IP2 relate to potential exposure of workers and the public to radiation. The NRC is responsible for setting standards and monitoring operator compliance with these standards so that operations do not result in an unreasonable risk of accidents that could expose workers and the public to harmful levels of radiation. Current regulatory policy is to keep radiation within certain limits and as low as reasonably achievable. Nuclear units that do not meet the regulatory requirements for exposure to radiation or otherwise violate safety requirements are forced to take actions, including shutting down the unit, until applicable health, safety and exposure requirements are met.

Under the No Action alternative, Con Edison's continued ownership and operation of Ipl and IP2 is expected to have no significant health and safety impacts.

Under the Proposed Action, ENIP2 would be required to operate IP2 and maintain IPl in accordance with the same standards and requirements applicable to Con Edison. ENIP2 and ENO would be subject to extensive and stringent safety regulation by the NRC. Moreover, none of the anticipated operational or management improvements resulting from the change in ownership would impact adherence to these standards and requirements.

Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that the proposed Action would not result in any additional potentially significant CASE 01-E-0040 or likely health or safety impacts. It also can reasonably be concluded that health and safety concerns and impacts at IPl and IP2 will be approximately the same under the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.

P. Potential Impacts Related to Nuclear Materials This section addresses potential environmental impacts associated with nuclear materials used, generated and stored at IPl and IP2.

1. Low Level Radioactive Waste Similar to any nuclear power plant, IP2 generates various amounts of low level radioactive wastes, temporarily stored on-Site prior to shipment for permanent disposal at a permitted off-Site disposal facility. The NRC, EPA, and DOT monitor the handling, storage, transport and disposal of low level radioactive wastes. The requirements imposed by these regulatory agencies are designed to ensure that public health, safety and the environment are adequately protected. IP2 has disposed of its low level radioactive wastes at the Barnwell facility located in South Carolina, which is one of the two commercial U.S. disposal facilities currently licensed by the NRC.

Under the No Action alternative, no significant change in the generation, handling and disposal of low level radioactive wastes by Con Edison is expected.

Although one result of the Proposed Action is likely to be the improved operation of IP2, such improvement is not reasonably anticipated to produce significantly more low level radioactive waste than currently being produced. As to the waste produced, ENIP2 would be required to follow the same guidelines and regulations governing storage, transport, and disposal of low level radioactive wastes. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not expected to result in any potentially significant or likely adverse impacts related to the handling and disposal of low level radioactive wastes.

CASE 01- E-0 040 dio act ive Wa ste )

2. Sp ent Fue l (Hi gh Lev el Ra ing ar pow er rea cto r, inc lud The ba sic fue l of a nu cle ins ura niu m-cto r pow eri ng IP2 (an d for me rly , IP1 )/ co nta the rea Be for e the se me tal rod s (fu el rod s).

235 in pe lle ts ins ide of cti ve and can be l rod s are use d/ the y are on ly sli gh tly rad ioa fue the cha in rea cti on cia l shi eld ing . Du rin g han dle d wi tho ut any spe rad ioa cti ve . The fue l rod s bec om e hig hly ins ide the rea cto r/ the hea vy ura niu m rea cti on inv olv es the sp lit tin g of rel ati ve ly cha in l lig hte r cti ve iso top es of sev era ato ms and cre ate s rad ioa lle d "fi ssi on me nts l suc h as ces ium -13 7 and str on tiu m- 90 (ca ele pe ne tra tin g for mo st of the hea t and pro du cts ) tha t acc oun t ll cap tur e neu tro ns fro m rad iat ion . Som e ura niu m ato ms als o han -ur ani um nea rby and for ms hea vie r-t fis sio nin g ura niu m ato ms o cal led

-23 9. Th ese hea vie r, als ele me nts lik e plu ton ium s hea t and an sur an ic" l ele me nts pro duc e su bs tan tia lly les "tr t the y tak e g rad iat ion tha n the fis sio n ele me nts dOl bu pe ne tra tin nts (ce siu m- 137 and Wh ile the fis sio n ele me mu ch lon ger to dec ay.

rs 19 m- 90 ) hav e ha lf- liv es of app rox im ate ly 30 yea 1 str on tiu 000 yea rs.

le, has a ha lf- lif e of 24, plu ton ium -23 9, for exa mp rod s tin ues the fue l in fue l As the cha in rea cti on con has beg unl the tim e aft er the rea cti on irr ad iat es. At a ce rta in co ntr ibu tes po int wh ere it no lon ger fue l is irr ad iat ed to the fue l. n en tly to the cha in rea cti on and bec om es "sp ent eff ici It ioa cti ve .

ho t as we ll as hig hly rad Sp ent fue l is the rm all y

. Pe rio dic all y ins bo th the fis sio n and tra nsu ran ic ele me nts co nta and rep lac ed by rem ove d fro m the rea cto r spe nt fue l rod s mu st be In gen era l tai n the cha in rea cti on .

I new rod s in ord er to sus on -Si te are tem po rar ily sto red in spe nt fue l rod ass em bli es to saf ely sto re wa ter -fi lle d po ols . Th ese po ols are des ign ed

, the dec ay fue l wh ile its rad ioa cti vit y dec ays . Ho we ver spe nt ioa cti ve wa ste pro ces s by wh ich the rad pro ces s, the on ly kno wn qu an tity rad ioa cti vit y of a giv en 19 Th is me ans tha t ha lf the wi ll dec ay in 30 yea rs.

of the se fis sio n ele me nts CASE 01-E- 0040 final ly becom es harm less, is very long. As expla ined above , for some isoto pes conta ined in spent fuel, the decay proce ss can take thous ands of years . Thus, spent fuel must be store d in a way that provi des adequ ate prote ction for very long perio ds of time.

Perma nent dispo sal of comm ercial spent fuel is the respo nsibi lity of the feder al gover nmen t. DOE has been mand ated by Cong ress to devel op a perma nent stora ge facil ity and is curre ntly evalu ating and inves tigat ing a site in Yucca Moun tain, Nevad a, for such a repos itory . This repos itory is not expec ted to be opera tiona l befor e 2010 and, there fore, spent fuel conti nues to be store d in tempo rary on-S ite stora ge facil ities at indiv idual react or sites aroun d the coun try, inclu ding IP1 and IP2. This stora ge is autho rized , contr olled , and subje ct to NRC inspe ction , under the same NRC- issued licen ses that autho rize react or opera tion.

At prese nt, IP2 is licen sed to opera te until 2013.

At curre nt burn level s, howev er, IP2's spent fuel pool can only accom modat e addit ional spent fuel assem blies until 2004. Since 1994, a conso rtium of nucle ar utili ties, inclu ding Con Ediso n, has been worki ng on the devel opme nt of a centr alize d Indep enden t Spent Fuel Stora ge Insta llatio n (ISFS I) to be locat ed in the Weste rn Unite d State s. The ISFSI is curre ntly in licen sing proce eding s befor e the NRC. In addit ion, Con Ediso n has initi ated engin eerin g and licen sing activ ities to enabl e it to build an on-S ite ISFSI . This plan, if appro ved, will elimi nate the need for an off-S ite stora ge facil ity prior to decom missi oning . ENIP2 repor ted that it expec ts to conti nue Con Ediso n's ISFSI initi ative s.

Under the No Actio n alter nativ e, no signi fican t chang e in the gener ation , handl ing and dispo sal of high level radio activ e waste s by Con Ediso n is expec ted.

Altho ugh the capac ity facto r of IP2 is likel y to rise under ENIP 2's manag ement and overs ight, shoul d the sale be appr oved ,this incre ase would not cause more spent fuel to be CASE Ol-E- 0040 gener ated. Rathe r, it would cause the exist ing fuel to be more effic ientl y utiliz ed. Thus, it is not reaso nably expec ted that there would be any signi fican t chang e in the gener ation of high level radio activ e waste at IP2 as a resul t of the Propo sed Actio n. Furth er, ENIP2 would be requi red to follow the same guide lines and regul ation s gover ning stora ge, trans port, and dispo sal of high level radio activ e waste s, and would be antic ipate d to appro ach the tempo rary spent fuel stora ge issue in a simil ar mann er as Con Ediso n. There fore, the Propo sed Actio n is not expec ted to resul t in any pote ntial ly signi fican t or likel y adver se impac ts relat ed to the handl ing and dispo sal of high level radio activ e waste s, and there are no signi fican t diffe rence s betwe en the Propo sed Actio n and No Actio n alter nativ es.

3. Decom missio ning Impa cts, The NRC exten sivel y and comp rehen sively regul ates decom missi oning , inclu ding by requi ring the estab lishm ent of fundi ng dedic ated to payin g costs attrib utab le to decom missi oning of nucle ar units , inclu ding IP1 and IP2, and reme diatio n, if requi red, of the sites . Decom missio ning is expec ted to occur at the end of the exist ing or exten ded NRC- issued licen se life of IP2. If an exten sion of the curre nt NRC- issued licen se is sough t, an appli catio n will be filed with the NRC at least five years prior to the expir ation of the licen se.

Curre nt indus try exper ience indic ates that two to three years will be requi red to prepa re such an appli catio n. It can be expec ted that ENIP2 ,

under the Propo sed Actio n, or Con Ediso n, under the No Actio n alter nativ e, would seek a licen se exten sion, parti cular ly if a licen se exten sion cons titute s a prude nt inves tment decis ion and IP2 provi des neede d cost- effec tive gener ation for New York State elect ricit y custo mers.

Con Ediso n curre ntly main tains two decom missi oning trust s for IPl and IP2, a Qual ified Decom missio ning Trust and a Nonq ualifi ed Decom missio ning Trust . The APSA requi res Con Ediso n

CASE Ol-E- 0040 to trans fer to ENIP2 at closi ng $430 milli on from the nucle ar decom missi oning trust funds main taine d by Con Ediso n and other sourc es, to satis fy the minim um fundi ng requi reme nts of the NRC for decom missi oning IP1 and IP2 at the end of the curre nt licen se for IP2. On Janua ry 31, 1996, the NRC accep ted a plan for the decom missi oning of IP1 which provi des that IP1 1

will be main taine d in a safe stora ge cond ition until the end of the IP2 s l curre nt licen se in 2013. Upon the appro val and subse quent closi ng of the sale ENIP2 would assum e the respo l

nsibi lity for decom missi oning IPl and IP2. In addit ion, upon closi ng ENIP2 l

would assum e title to and respo nsibi lity for the manag ement ,

inter im stora ge and ultim ate dispo sal of spent nucle ar fuel at IP1 and IP2. If the trans actio n is appro ved, Con Ediso n also would assig n, and ENIP2 would assum e, Con Ediso n's right s and oblig ation s under the Stand ard Contr act for the Dispo sal of Spent Nucle ar Fuel and/o r High Level Radio activ e Waste with DOE, exclu ding any claim s with respe ct to damag es to prope rty or other econo mic loss of Con Ediso n perta ining to DOE's defau lts under the Stand ard Contr act accru ed as of the closi ng date.

As the FGEIS (page 6-45) state s, the NRC has sole respo nsibi lity to assur e adequ ate fundi ng for decom missi oning resul ting from the trans fer of nucle ar gene ratin g units to priva te entit ies. Witho ut limit ing the foreg oing, under the No Actio n alter nativ e, Con Ediso n's conti nued owne rship and opera tion of IPl and IP2 is subje ct to the NRC's decom missi oning requi reme nts and it is reaso nably expec ted that there will be no chang e in the metho d for fundi ng decom missi oning costs .

Under the Propo sed Actio n alter nativ e, ENIP2 would be subje ct to the same decom missi oning requi reme nts.

Addi tiona lly, the APSA requi res ENIP2 to fully decom missi on and resto re the Site to a green field cond ition at the expir ation of IP2's opera ting licen se. There fore, the Propo sed Actio n is not expec ted to resul t in any pote ntial ly signi fican t or likel y CASE Ol-E- 0040 adver se impac ts relat ed to decom missi oning that are any diffe rent from the poten tial impac ts of the No Actio n alter nativ e.

Q. Poten tial Impac ts of New Gene ration Affil iates of ENIP2 have annou nced that they are evalu ating the possi ble const ructi on of a new fossi l-fue led gene ratin g facil ity on the Site or adjac ent to IP3. The poten tial size of the facil ity would be over 80 MW, perha ps as large as 400 MW. While prelim inary feasi bilit y studi es are being perfo rmed , there has not yet been any comm itmen t to proce ed with the proje ct.

If ENIP 2's affil iates do proce ed, the size of the proje ct falls withi n the thres holds of PSL Artic le X, re~Jiring appro val of the New York State Board on Elec tric Gene ration Sitin g and the Envir onme nt. Artic le X is exemp t from SEQRA but provi des for an exten sive review of the envir onme ntal impac ts of any new gene ratin g facil ity.

Until a spec ific proje ct is propo sed, it is not reaso nably possi ble or pract ical to analy ze poten tial envir onme ntal impa cts. Given the requi reme nts of Artic le X, the new gene ratio n will not avoid envir onme ntal revie w, and the local comm unity and other inter ested parti es will have a full oppo rtuni ty to parti cipat e in the revie w proce ss and ensur e their views and conce rns are heard .

For the foreg oing reaso ns, the impac ts of the poten tial new gene ratio n at the Site need not be addre ssed herei n.

VII. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS One area of poten tial mitig ation was ident ified in Secti on VI. IPl and IP2 comp rise a signi fican t porti on of the Town of Cort landt 's and Hend rick Hudso n Schoo l Dist rict's tax bases . As expla ined above , when the curre nt asses smen ts for the facil ities are comp ared to the purch ase price proff ered by ENIP2 ,

it is reaso nably likel y to assum e that the asses smen ts may be reduc ed. The effec ts of a large reduc tion could be lesse ned or CASE 01-E-0040 avoided if the transition away from reliance on tax revenues received from the Site is gradual. Therefore! a non-binding mediation program is established to assist ENIP2 and the host community in alleviating this potential impact. The mediation program established herein shall not override or void any existing agreement between the parties! nor shall it be used or relied upon to alter any existing agreement.

The mediation program will consist of the provision of the services of DPS Staff to facilitate a settlement or mediate disagreements in an effort to assist the parties, if they are willing! in seeking a reasonable and expeditious resolution of assessment issues brought about as a result of the sale. Such involvement may be in conjunction with the services provided by the State Office of Real Property Services! and will be available upon the following conditions:

i. the parties have made reasonable attempts to resolve their differences themselves! firstj and ii. the parties are willing to accept a phase-down of the assessment(s) over a period of years.

The goal of this program is to provide a means for ENIP2 and the host community to resolve their differences without the need for or cost of litigation. If the parties are unable to resolve their differences amicably and must resort to the Courts!

the Commission will not impose any burdens! requirements or limitations on ENIP2 if the sale is approved. 20 It is recognized that there is a correlation between the percentage a generating facility comprises of a local tax base, the size of the reduction being sought and the impact resulting from such reduction. Therefore, the phase-down

.0 Clearly, if any case proceeds to trial, the Court would be able to! and presumably would! impose any requirements it deems appropriate. No other obligations should be placed on NIP2 besides those required by the Court.

CASE 01-E- 0040 conte mpla ted above shoul d be scale d to the size of the reduc tion (i.e. , the great er the reduc tion, the longe r the phase -down perio d). Addi tiona lly, to ensur e that the parti es act in good faith and with the inten t of truly resol ving their diffe rence s, a publi c statem ent will be issue d at the concl usion of the medi ation sessi ons conta ining gener al comm ents about the proce ss and indic ating wheth er a settle ment has been achie ved. This statem ent, howev er, will not conta in any discu ssion of confi denti al matte rs raise d by any party or of nego tiatio ns betwe en the parti es or settle ment offer s made and rejec ted, nor will it assig n blame on one party or anoth er, excep t in extra ordin ary circu mstan ces, if settle ment is not achie ved.

The Comm ission 's objec tive in settin g up this progr am is to provi de the parti es an exped itious and confi denti al alter nativ e to litig ation . There fore, altho ugh the progr am is not desig ned to be the same as bindi ng arbit ratio n, the parti es shoul d use this progr am with the inten t not to engag e in futur e litig ation .

Altho ugh this media tion progr am is not mand atory on eithe r ENIP2 or the host comm unity, they shoul d both be encou raged to take advan tage of it to assis t in easin g any impac ts that may arise as a resul t of the chang e of owne rship of IPl and IP2 and overa ll move towar d comp etitio n in New York.

Shoul d the parti es elect not to take advan tage of this medi ation progr am, they shoul d neve rthel ess attem pt in the first insta nce to seek to resol ve any asses smen t dispu tes via a phase -

down of the asses smen ts over a perio d of years ,

rathe r than via large , imme diate reduc tions .

VIII. CONCLUSIONS ~~D RECOMMENDATIONS This final SElS demo nstrat es that, with the adopt ion of the above mitig ation measu re, the propo sed sale of IPl and IP2 by Con Ediso n to ENIP2 will be carri ed out in confo rmanc e with the cond ition s and thres holds estab lishe d in the FGEIS and its CASE Ol-E- 0040 findi ngs statem ent, and will not have a signi fican t effec t on the envir onme nt.

All concl usion s conta ined herei n were reach ed after a

syste matic and caref ul revie w of the detai led site-spec ific infor matio n provi ded in the draft SEIS subm itted in this proce eding , the parti es' comm ents, addit ional subm ission s by the petit ione rs and the other resou rces and docum ents menti oned above . Nearl y all of the impac ts found and consi dered had alrea dy been adequ ately addre ssed in the FGElS ,

and in most cases , the mitig ation measu res iden tified in the FGEIS or adopt ed by the Comm ission in its findi ngs statem ent are suffi cien t.

In one insta nce, addit ional mitig ation is recom mende d, as set forth in detai l in Secti on VII. With the adop tion of this mitig ation measu re, the requi reme nts of SEQRA have been met.

Cons isten t with envir onme ntal, socia l, econo mic and other essen tial consi derat ions from among the reaso nable alter nativ es avail able, with appro priat e mitig ation , the sale of IPl and IP2 under the terms and cond ition s set forth in the APSA avoid s or minim izes poten tial signi fican t adver se impac ts to the maxim um exten t pract icabl e.

CASE 01-E-0040 ATTACHMENT I Page 1 of 2 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC Cases 94-E-09S2, 96-E-0897 and Ol-E-0040 Competitive Opportunities and SEQRA Milestones 7/5/95 Department of Public Service Staff (Staff) and Public Interest Intervenors jointly raised environmental concerns in the Competitive Opportunities of Bypass (COB) I Case 94-E-0952.

11/17/95 Staff filed a motion with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) regarding SEQRA compliance, and at the same time, submitted a proposed environmental assessment form (EAF).

12/21/95 ALJ's Recommended Decision accepted the EAF and positive declaration and recommended that a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) be prepared.

2/13/96 Public Service Commission (PSC) issued a memorandum and resolution determining that PSC is lead agency and that the EAF supported a determination that there could be significant adverse environmental impact.

2/14/96 Notice of positive Declaration was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENE).

3/6/96 PSC deemed the Draft GEIS was complete and a notice was published in ENB.

4/5/96 Comments were received on Draft GEIS.

5/3/96 PSC issued Final GEIS (FGEIS).

5/20/96 PSC issued Opinion and Order Regarding Competitive Opportunities for Electric Service, Opinion No.

96-12 and SEQRA findings.

7/17/96 PSC issued Opinion and Order Deciding Petitions for Clarification and Rehearing, Opinion No. 96-17, clarifying the need for individual utility restructuring EAFs.

4/9/97 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) submitted a draft restructuring EAF in Case 96-E-0897 in connection with the parties'

CASE 01-E-0040 ATTACHMENT I Page 2 of 2 March 12, 1997 Restructuring Agreement and Settlement.

9/9/97 Con Edison submitted a revised draft EAF based on the parties' August 29, 1997 Restructuring Agreement and Settlement.

9/23/97 PSC issued Order Adopting Terms of Settlement Subject to Conditions and Understandings ( with finding that potential environmental impacts of restructuring settlement are within the bounds and thresholds evaluated in the FGEIS.

11/3/97 PSC issued Opinion and Order Adopting Terms of Settlement Subject to Conditions and Understandings, Opinion No. 97-16, with final EAF attached.

1/12/01 Con Edison and ENIP2 filed a petition under PSL

§ 70 for approval of the sale of IP1 and IP2 and related assets; Case 01-E-0040 instituted.

1/22/01 Con Edison and ENIP2 filed a draft SEIS in Case 01-E-0040.

2/01 - Informal comments on companies draft SEIS 3/01 solicited, received and analyzed.

4/25/01 pst declared draft SEIS complete and issued it for public comment; PSC also directed that a notice be published in the ENB.

5/2/01 ENB Notice published inviting comments on the draft SEIS.

6/4/01 PSC issued Notice extending comment deadline on draft SEIS to June 21, 2001.

6/21/01 Comment deadline on draft SEISi two sets of comments received.

All of the foregoing documents have been considered in the preparation of this final SEIS and are incorporated herein by reference.

CASE 01-E- 0040 ATTACHMENT II Page 1 of 4 Hist oric al Sett ing of India n Poin t 2 SPDES Perm it On Febru ary 24, 1975, EPA issue d a propo sed NPDES perm it for the India n Point gener ating statio ns that would have calle d for a sever e reduc tion in the amoun t of waste heat that could be introd uced into the Hudso n River . The prac tical effec t of the propo sed perm it was to requi re the erect ion of cooli ng tower s at India n Point as a cond ition of conti nued opera tion. At subs tanti ally the same time, EPA propo sed simil ar NPDES perm it requi reme nts for both the Bowli ne Point and Roset on Gene rating Stati ons. Betwe en March and July 1975, Con Ediso n, Centr al Hudso n Gas and Elec tric Corp oratio n, and Orang e and Rockl and Utili ties, Inc. filed reque sts pursu ant to EPA's proce dural regul ation s for adjUd icato ry heari ngs on the propo sed perm it cond ition s in their respe ctive perm its. By Augu st 28/ 1975/ EPA form ally annou nced its inten t to condu ct a heari ng befor e an EPA admi nistra tive law judge that would addre ss the appro priat e cond ition s to be impos ed in each of the subje ct NPDES perm its.

NYPA becam e a party to the proce eding s upon its assum ption of owne rship and opera tion of IP3 from Con Ediso n.

Cons olida ted admi nistr ative heari ngs conti nued inter mitte ntly until late 1980.

On Decem ber 19, 1980, DEC, the State of New York, and the Hudso n River power plant owner s as well EPA, as vario us inter vene rs in the EPA heari ngs enter ed into an agree ment settl ing the EPA proce eding and relat ed litig ation (the "Sett lemen t Agree ment" ). The Settle ment Agree ment cons titute d a comp lex excha nge of comm itmen ts by and among the parti es to resol ve the issue s under lying the lengt hy heari ngs then in progr ess. Under the 10-ye ar term of the Settle ment Agree ment, DEC agree d to issue perm its allow ing the utili ties conti nued opera tion of their once- throu gh cooli ng water syste ms. Among other thing s, the utili ties agree d to: (1) insta ll and main tain scree ns at India n Point to prote ct fish from impin geme nt; (2) const ruct and opera te a strip ed bass fish hatch ery; (3) deplo y a barri er net at Bowli ne Point durin g certa in times of the year to prote ct fish from becom ing impin ged; (4) main tain certa in flow sched ules regul ating the quan tity and timin g of water intak e at the plant si (5) compl y with speci fied outag e sched ules for the plant s in conju nctio n with fishe ry spawn ing cycle s; (6) expen d at least $2 milli on per year (in 1980 dolla rs) in biolo gical moni toring of Hudso n River speci es of inter est; and (7) provi de an endow ment to estab lish the Hudso n River Foun datio n.

The Settle ment Agree ment by its terms expir ed 10 from the date it becam e effec tive (May 14, 1981) years

. While the

CASE 01-E- 0040 ATTACHMENT I I Page 2 of 4 Settle ment Agree ment provi ded for certa in oblig ation s to exten d beyon d its term, none of those oblig ation s relat ed to facil ity opera ting requi reme nts. The Settle ment Agree ment provi ded in perti nent part that "at the expir ation of said term no party heret o shall have any furth er oblig ation s hereu nder. "

In addit ion, the Settle ment Agree ment provi ded prom ptly after its effec tive date: that "DEC in accor dance with appli cable law shall issue to each of the Utili ties SPDES perm its for their respe ctive Hudso n River Plant s which will perm it, durin g the entir e ten-y ear term of this Agree ment, conti nued opera tion with the exist ing once- throu gh cooli ng system s unalt ered by therm al or intak e requi reme nts, subje ct only to perfo rman ce by the Utili ties of their respe ctive coven ants as set forth in this Agree ment. "

Indiv idual SPDES perm its for the India n Point ,

Roset on, and Bowl ine Point gener ating statio ns were issue d in April 1982 for a five- year term with an effec tive date of May 14, 1981, and were renew ed Octob er I, 1987, with an expir ation date of Octob er If 1992, some 17 month s after the Settle ment Agree ment expir ation of May 1991. The terms of the 1987 SPDES renew al perm its were virtu ally ident ical to the 1982 perm its with the excep tion of an inser ted Addi tiona l Requi remen t, which for Bowl ine Point and Roset on provi ded that DEC could seek perm it modi ficati on based upon Settle ment Agree ment expir ation or the resul ts of biolo gical moni toring studi es, and for India n Point allow ed modi ficati on based solel y upon biolo gical moni toring studi es.

The Settle ment Agree ment requi red the insta llatio angle d scree ns at the India n Point units to enhan n of ce fish prote ction . Howe ver, in May 1984, after revie w and analy sis, EPA and DEC notif ied Con Ediso n and NYPA that angle d scree ns were not a desir able mitig ation measu re at India n Point .

After furth er resea rch and revie w, a propo sal for the insta llatio n of Ristr oph scree ns was deeme d gene rally satis facto ry to both EPA and DEC; after addit ional modi ficati ons to these scree ns were agree d to by all the parti es, the Settle ment Agree ment parti es enter ed into an agree ment in Octob er 1988 for the insta llatio n of modi fied Ristr oph scree ns at India n Point . The term of that agree ment was made co-ex tensi ve with the term of the 1987 India n Point SPDES renew al perm it, i.e., Octob er I, 1992. In addit ion in separ ate f

lette rs to the India n Point utili ties both DEC and envir onme ntal group s that were parti es to the Settle ment Agree ment ackno wledg ed that modi fied Ristr oph scree ns cons titute d the best avail able

CASE 01-E- 0040 ATTACHMENT II Page 3 of 4

~

I intak e struc ture techn ology for India n Point , statin g that such scree ns were "the best techn ology avail able, or likel y to be avail able in the fores eeabl e futur e, to minim ize the impac t of fish impin gemen t in the cooli ng water intak es at India n Point ."

Befor e the Settle ment Agree ment expir ed, DEC and the utili ties comm enced discu ssion s conce rning modi ficati on of the plan ts' SPDES perm its to addre ss post- Settle ment Agree ment SPDES cond ition s. These discu ssion s led to the May 15, 1991, execu by DEC and the utili ties of a Lette r Agree ment tion pursu ant to which the utili ties volun tarily agree d to vario us proto cols for plant opera tions betwe en Settle ment Agree ment expir ation in May 1991 and SPDES perm it expir ation in Octob er 1992. DEC also deter mined that the actio ns that the utili ties volun teere d to perfo rm "are not modi ficati ons to the plan ts' respe ctive SPDES perm its .... "

The parti es to the Lette r Agree ment furth er agree d to initi ate good faith nego tiatio ns conce rning draft terms and cond ition s for the 1992 SPDES perm it renew als.

The Lette r Agree ment was oppos ed by sever al organ izatio ns that had been party -inte rvene rs to the 1980 Settle ment Agree ment. This oppo sition was based in large measu re on the lack of publi c parti cipat ion in nego tiatio ns leadi ng to the Lette r Agree ment. These organ izatio ns conte nded that the Lette r Agree ment was incon siste nt with the SPDES perm its since ,

in their view, certa in terms of the expir ed Settle ment Agree ment conti nued as cond itions of the SPDES perm its.

In Septe mber 1991 the Natur al Resou rces Defen se Coun cil, Sceni c Hudso n Inc., and the Hudso n River Fishe rmen 's Asso ciatio n comm enced an Artic le 78 proce eding again st DEC seeki ng resci ssion of the Lette r Agree ment. In Novem ber 1991 the utili ties were perm itted to interv ene Settle ment and Judic ial Conse nt Order pursu ant to which the parti es agree d to suspe nd litig ation until Septe mber I, 1993, void the Lette r Agree ment, and conti nue vario us utili ty opera tiona l and fundi ng progr ams.

The parti es also agree d to use their best effor ts to condu ct nego tiatio ns and final ize regul atory proce eding s pursu ant to the proce dures estab lishe d in the Conse nt Order with a view towar d the issua nce of final SPDES perm it renew als by the fall of 1992.

The Conse nt Order was subse quent ly exten ded by four amend ments to accom modat e the longe r than expec ted SPDES renew al proce ss outli ned below . The last exten sion expir ed on Febru ary I, 1998.

On April 3, 1992, appli catio ns for the renew al of the SPDES perm its for the India n Point , Roset on, and Bowli ne Point gene ratin g statio ns were subm itted by the utili ties to DEC in accor dance with the requi reme nts of 6 NYCRR Part 755.2 . On April 29, 1992, DEC deter mined that the renew al appli catio ns were

CASE 01-E- 0040 ATTACHMENT II Page 4 of 4 incom plete becau se envir onme ntal asses smen t forms (RAF) had not been subm itted. DEC direc ted the utili ties to subm it Part 1 of the RAF. The utili ties subm itted Part 1 in May and DEC comp leted the EAFs on May 26, 1992. Based upon its inter preta tion of the exist ing perm it cond itions , DEC deter mine d that the perm it renew als were unlis ted actio ns requi ring prepa ratio n of an EIS and revie w pursu ant to proce dures estab lishe d under SEQRA. By

~etter dated July 16, 1992, the utili ties agree d to parti cipat e in the EIS proce ss but reser ved their right to conte st any deter mina tions made by DEC in conne ction with the SEQRA proce ss.

The DEC comm enced meeti ngs of all inter ested parti i.e., the utili ties, and the envir onme ntal group es, s that had been parti es to the Settle ment Agree ment, gover nmen t agenc ies, and non-g overn ment organ izatio ns. At the same time the utili ties prepa red a Draft Envir onme ntal Impac t State ment (DEIS ) f which was subm itted to the DEC in July 1993. The DEC and other s' revie w of the DEIS led to a serie s of techn ical works hops and a conti nuati on of the DEC meeti ngs of the parti es.

The meeti ngs conti nued until Octob er 1998, while the utili ties respo nded to quest ions raise d by the parti es conce rning the DEIS and conti nued to condu ct fUrth er studi es and vario us analy ses of accum ulatin g data regar ding the state of the Hudso n River and, parti cular ly, of the fish popu lation s ident ified by the parti es of inter est.

Under mutua l agree ment, furth er meeti ngs were postp oned while the Utili ties comp leted the revis ed DEIS.

Con Ediso n, in conju nctio n with NYPA, filed with revis ed DEIS in suppo rt of an appli catio n for the DEC a renew al of IP2 and IP3's SPDES perm it in Decem ber 1999. DEC's Notic e of Comp letene ss of Appl icatio n for the DEIS was publi shed in The Journ al News newsp aper on March 14, 2000. A legis lativ e heari ng was held on June 8, 2000 for the purpo se of obtai ning addit ional publi c comm ents. Addi tiona l meeti ngs among all inter ested parti es have recom mence d.

ATTACHMENT New York State*.Department of En vir on me nta l Conservation Olv lslo n of So lid and Hazardous Materials, Re

~"'\~, South Put t Co mm Road.

gion 3 1i5;i~ ') 'ho ne: (...... 1;\ 256-3136 New Paltz.. New Yor1c: 12.56f.1Sgs

~.' ..,...... .)

• FAX: (845) 255-3414

. Website: www.dec.state.ny.us Allgust 2.. 2oo 1 Mr. A. Ala.n Bl.iJld V'lCC President, Nuclear Pawer CcmsoUdated .Edison Company of New Yorl c

Indian Poirlt StatiOD.

Broadway and BlAkley AV1IQUO 8udwwl. 'NowYol'k 10511 lte; Work 'Plan for Areas de.scn'"be in Phase n Enviromn.en bll Site Assessmerrt - March 2000 The iinal worlc plan submitted to the aecepta.blc k> the Dc:pa:rtmcsx. Attached Dcpl1'tD1eat dated July t9, 2001 bu been to 1his approval is a si;nc:d copy oftb reviewed and is acc:ompanied the work pJan submittal.  : coneumnoe wbich At tb.is.tlmt aU reports and monitoring dab

. p~ u part ofth c app tow d. -WO copy to Mr. E.dward Miles, Olict:. Pngineo tX plan cbould bt subto.itu:d with.one 00py to myself and ODe Section. NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, Albany ring Geology

, New York 12233-1252.

/~/v Tho m.u 1. Xilleal. P..E..

bai aoa J Hazardous ~ Engmeer cc: Ed. Miles, DEC, Albany At Homyk. Coasolidabd Edisoll Elise Zcli, Ooodwin-Pt'OCtet'LLP Carlos Torres, We:str:hester DOH

Mr. Tom Killeen RegioUAl Hmrdous Materials Engineer Rcgicm 3 New Yorlc State Depertmcnt ofEnviroIJ.metltal Conset"lation Division of Solid and Hu:ardous M.atmials 21 South Putt Comers Road New pattz. NY 12561-1696 Dcar Mr. Killeen:

" This letter rapercedcs my culler letter dated 1une 29, 200] purswmt to your discussions with Alan Homyk, TbaDk you fat .tJ:I,eeting with. Consolida.ted Edison Comp any of New York.

Inc. ("Con EdUon1') amd. P.mq y Nuclear Indtau PoiJ;l.t 2. t.LC, OD April l Oth to discuss our propos actions to ~, oertain ueu identiW by EarthTcc:h Corp<ntion, as de&:nbc:d in ed the n

Indian Paint 1 &; 2 Final Phase Environmental Site ~ dated M.stt.b.

2000.

Con Edison now amends its proposed worlc pleD. to refloct NYSDEC's recomm endations and CODSensua as follows; L Propo aed Aetio u AttDchcd for your roview b additicmal, mare deWled information idendfyi:ng the su1:tsu:rfa.ce future s tba% aet as burien to migration of cotltanrination (e.g., atillty tm::I:ael wall., discharge canal wall, rock outcroppings. fOlmdatiOJU), as well as information on sub-surface fCledcrs. piping. and supports that prevrm1 or complicate area excava tion work (see attacbmerds). In addition, subsurtBce features that act as banicrs to miirat ion of COIrtmninatiOIl in this ~ include 'the utility tunnel -wa1110 the I1~ dischar ge canal wall to b WCS1, and a rock outc:oppina w the south and cut. The gcocral site hydrau lic aradient is to the south and west. In tho unlikely C'VCat that pottoleum-eontAmina

~ were to teach the di.scharge C3Ilal, it would be intcrcc ted pte4 by a floating boom 1bs1 is pennancmtl.y installed in the ca.Il2ll This infonnation confi:tms the low poten.tial for off-lite migraUOl1 of OO:l1t&rn;n*tlon from 'this aroa of ~

~ also mentioned in our discussions.. Area #7 contains electrical feeder cables, and other equipment that are considered vital for '!he nuclear safety of the pWrt. piping.

This

~ POIOS &. significtot and seriola obstacle to the practical excavation of soils in this area.

Based. on the above-re!ercn.ced information, as wen as the infoIIll8tion provid Edison's March 9, 20011ctter to you, tha:e is arclatively low potea:ti.a1 for ofl'si1e Coll ed in l11iaatiOll ~ signifi calt difficulty in obtaining access to the contaminated soils.

T'hercf'ote, Con EdilOn propolCS the following work plm: .

. 1. I.aspeot and resamplo moni~ wells MW..108 and MW-I09 far non-ch J.orinated volatila ~c compounds (Voes) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs) ideatJfi~ in NYSDp'c's STARS #1 guidance. This.initial sampli ng round will be completed by Septembclr 30, 2001 and the mnlts will be provided to NYSDEC bctbrc November 15, 2001. Thereafter, sample MW-I08 and MW-I09 on or sc:mi-ermually for~ volstile orptic compounds (VOCs) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocm:boD.s (PAIls) idcntifit,d in NYSDEC's STARS fl.1 guidance.

2. IflNA PL is obsc:rv'cd, disanss with NYSDBC iD.ItaIlation ofup to two additional monitoring ~ It D1lltUIll,. agn:oab1e, acccIslbIo locaIioDS,. to the extent such

. additimial WJJ CO pecescasy to mrtbcr define tho soarcc. Ifsuch llCW wells are insulll.t. mesa 1UJWwdls and MW-I08 and MW-I 09 will be p:npd on a.r:D.ODtbly buis for six m.ombs, to d<<erminc tho preacz1CO and tbir:krwJS of my LN'APL.

~. tht new wells, ifinstll1cd, woald be sampled ~ the Am8 time: IS !.{W.

I DB an4 MW-109 d.utinI any later sampling round.. Any recove:ab1e LNAPt would be rernovecl (e..g., by baUer) IS an interim measure.

3. Submi~ semi-tUlllUJ1 reports to NYSDEC with the results of all pnemg. produc t

~. and analytic:a1 VOC and. PAR results dmina the previou s 6-month period. If addi~ IIlOnitoJ:in& weJl.t cc ira1Il1od. a.uocfm:d. ~

~on logs will be ~ to NYSDEC, cithet fa. & 6-monthreport or itt scpm.to CO

~

4. MaiatwfD matlIIicmem camrolJ tbrtbe area., which incl:u.dc viaua1 monito ring ofstoc n dnin catch basins and the UBOCiated outfall/discharge amal; and use of oil absorb pigs* . ent Jil, Am;; !* 1~' TraW'olIllf( Yard Akz periods ofhip nWaU, an oily sheen has been observed originating from a catch basin located in the 15' EU:vation Transformer Yard. 'Ilw outlet from this caIcl1 basin ba3 been blocked oft: The orlainal source of this oil wu from the diesel gC%lel'2tOr building floor drains which lUG cocneeted to the outlet bea.d!:Ir of a stcmn drain located immediate).y aq;acent to 1bc diesel gCllClltOr building. This beadcr emptiea to alcvad on ~nbole. A11b.ough the source of tho oU has be6Q elinrlna~ hi&h the IS' raii1Wl flushes ~ reaidual film from the pipes into the 1S' elevatioo. catch. basin where it is m~

)

1. ~ two semi-annual rou nda c:.b~d vol&tflg orp nio QClm ot sampling for m.cnitoring wd l MW -ll1 for non-jX)uud.a (V~) a:04 poI.ynuoloar hydroc;arb~ (PA Hs) identifie &U'01l11IXio d in NYSDBC's STARS #1 guidance, The firs sampli?S row d will occur by Septem t ber 30. 200l.

2. S~t a:oport to NYSDEC with aU unalytical results fro:zn tho pte'Vioos sam round. 'Tho t'i.m report shall be so.hmiU pling Cd ttl NYSDEC on. or befbIe November IS, 2001. and the second and final report abo ut ~ months ~.

3. Maintam tho lllID &gC mcn t oontrol s for the area. which include damming of the stam i drain, use of oil absorbent pigs area

, visual imp ec:tio~ and temaV11 of 1J:tJ.'f bluutone that may become stained as the result of area W'IIIe:1" rwtecrtio.n.

4. CoustrUCtion or ath.er aot1v1ties in

'Chis area will be oomrolled by tho plan t W'O cantrol system to CIIlSUl'O that any d!.sc mbed sails are properly ma nap d for bacIkkfiI or remOval Wasm cbara.otaiD.ti.ns Iina are Donn ally c:o.oduc.ted ftx Indian Pal cc.eav&1ianwork. m C. Area #11 FOllTu;rllSTa- Dr1SCh"PG Ss;Y icc <;.enter

1. CCDChiot two n.mi-ezm:ual rounds of MW-l'9! and analyze tho samples forsam plitJa for monitoring WIlls MW*I01 wi notKiUorinattd volatile orpnie compotD'lds (V~) and semi-volatllo cqa nic eompotDfs (SVOCS) identified in NYSD STAllS '1 gui.dan.cc. "l'be fia t samplin BC's g round will occ ut by September 30, 200 1.

2. cOJItin\w the semi-an.nn.al ~

mcmjtnring proeram until the t.tWytical mu for ~ consccutiw sampli:Dg cvtDtS i:QdJ oa1e that groundwater ~ are met tts wh.i.chtlme ANFAR wil l be sequm cd, md if granted, the monitoring ~ , at closcd. will be

3. S~ a report to NYSDBC with all analytic rotmd... 'I'bc:finrt report aball be suba:dUcd al results from the previOUS sampling sub seq uco t reports will be submitt on or bcfmc Novcmhc:r IS, 2001, and ed ~jmmnaIly~

u. No Fnr the r Ad ioll ~

As we previously disoussocl,. co.ch oft bc tell (10) remaimng arc&S idcmitic:

~ in the Indian Point 1 d by EarthTcch

& 2 Fin deed ~ 2000, have been evaluated byIl Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, rcquiIc IlO'further aetion.. NYSDEC did Con Edison and NYSDEC and determined to tequclt addition:! infoDll.Etion relating

1. 6

• H~ Tlanstbrmcr. Attached to Az =

per your request is the manifest data use shipmem of the n.o~-hu.axdous oily debris d to mpport

~ u a. teSUlt of the Hellgat Transfar.mt.:r clcaaup work. The ~ c

.bldWl ~ 1 &. 2 F'mal Plw e II Buvirom data for this sample is oontained mthe Bu ed on-thil additional information nCDt!l Site Assessmcm:. datt:d March 200

. Con Edison. requests that NYSDBC dete 0.

no b1hcI:~on is required. rmine that

III. COQ.Cl UlloQ At descnDCd a.bo~ we und.astlmd that ~ further action is required ("NFARj for the areas i~ed in the Phase II Environmental Site Asscss:m= listee in Table any of this lettOt, cxtlCpt for Areas 7. 8 I.lld 11 for which only the ~ a.ct:iona1 of rcqg:inId.. }llea.se countersign heJow to provide NYSDEC's 'WIitteD c:oncum arc

nce to 1he action plans dcsa:ibed above fQr Areu 7, 8 and 11, II well as to provi~ confirm ation of NFAR for tho Rmcirrin &arcu imuti pted in the PbA$e II Study.

Tllis lc't:t.er, onco NYSDEC bad hxlicated iu ocm::un:mce below. shall canstitu:tc NYSDOC's dctean inl1ion omFAR. for most of1hc areas ~ and the specified actions that me requ.hed. for1b.c rctOUoing area. At this time, DO ~ memar in. any pco:Qh will oeem., in light o£the EPA's rCOC'lIt ru1c:makina, At mch ial.ization time u DBC determines, ~ and to w1w extent It sbal1 adopt similar mri&ioJ:ls to its regulatiON, DEC may determtne whctbm' and how to mc.tnOJiaJlzc the above NPAR detemliDa:tiaDB and crmtimiina ~ actions in lID applicable pcmrlt. In particula:r. Enttq y Nuclea r

Indian PoiJIt 2, uc, will rcqucs t ~ from BPA*5 mixed waste pamrlt ting requireracQtI. to tho full extent allowable under 66 Pedeal Rt:gjstcr Z7l1& (May 16, 2001). and.:Wil1requc1t rach an exemption IS soon J.! available lIl:Ider New- Yark law.

AllocatlOll:otrospOAllhlli:ty bct.wc= Caa B4t.Jon and ~ Noolear In iJr impl~OIl ot1hil woz:k pIau is cstAb]ishcd by the Asset Parcba e md. Sale

~ for lDifimPomt Ocncrating ~ Units 1 andl; and au Turbino Units 1,

2. amd 3; aDd T~ TI'IIixdq Center (APSA), wl:d.ch il attIc.bcd.. After1r aDSfcr, please .

fonvard allofticial c;oa~ to Michael R. KInsler, Stmior Vice ~

Chief Opea;atiug omcer ofErIrcqy Nuclear Indian Point 2. I..LC, 440 Hamilton Aand. VCI1lUe, White PlaiDI, New Yolk 10611. Prlor to tra:nsfer, Elise N. loll, Esq., of ~

Procter & Hoar LLP, is the teoha.ioal contact person for Eutargy Nw::J.car, md ma.y be teache d at (617) S70-1612.

Ifyou havo 'l!/1J.Y queatiOllS, pleue call Al Homykat (212) 460-2100 or Batty CohtJl (212) 460-62 91.

at SiIlcc:tely. :

v4-.,~~

A..AhnBlind V1ce-Prcsi~Nuc1eaJ' PO'We:{

CONCURiUID 'WITH AND AGREED TO BY NYSDEC:

Name~~-

(1) Table 1 - SUmmaty of Area! Invcst1gatM (2) Photographs of Gas Turbine #1 A:oa (3) HazzIrdo'cI Waste Mimife.st cr F 0901391 (4) Isomcuic Diagntm of Gas Turbine #1 Area Subsurface F~

(5) The "APSA'"

Ce: rml Mc-achem, NYSDEC - Albany BmyC obeD.

RopK eppcl

~avidRubtn AlHOmyk

~ Sicbcnnan EU.sc2.0n (Goodwin-Procter UP)

JeanillC Grachuk (Goodwin-Procter LO)

Mr.!' Carlos Toxm (W~ Coumy Depart:mcnt ofHca lth)

ATTACHMENT 4 May 31.200 1 Mr. John Groth Senior Vice Preside nt - NucJea r Operati ons Consol idated Edison Compa ny of New York., Inc.

Indian Point 2 Station Broadw ay and Bleakley Avenue Buchan an. NY 10511 SUBJE CT: ANNUA L ASSES SMENT LETTER

• INDIAN POINT UNIT 2

Dear Mr. Groth:

On May 8, 2001. the NRC staff comple ted its el'ld-of-cycJe ~nt perform ance assessment of Indian Point Unit 2 (1P2). The end-of-cycle review for 1P2 involve d the particip ation of III technical division s In evaluatil'lQ pedorm ance indiCatcn (Pis) for the most recent quarter and the inspecti on results for the period April 2. 2000 to Match 31. 2001. The ptJf1X)S e of this letter is to inJonn you 01 our assessm ent of your safety pedonn ance during this period and our plans for future ins{:lectioclS at your faciity.

Overall , 1P2 operate d in a manner that preselVed pubfic health and safety. While 1P2 met all comers tooe objectiv es, it remain ed In the Mt.itip(e lRepetit ive Degrad ed Comers tone coUm of the NRC's Action Matrix. The degraded cornerstones W8f'8 based on several inspect ion findings and perfonn arIee indlc:atonl in the initiatin g events, rnttigat.ing system s, and emergency prepare dness comers tones. These degraded comers tones are associa ted principa lly with performance problem s identified during an August 1999 reactor bip with eiectric at disbibu tion system complic ations. and a Februa ry 2000 steam generator tube failure (SGTF) . Additionally, there were two white Pis that occul'T8d during the assessm ent period in the initiatin g events and mitigati ng system s corners tones. Enclosures 1 and 2 prcMde addition al details regarding perform ance indicato rs and sjgnific ant inspedi oo findings for degrad ed corners tones.

Severa l signific ant actMtie s occurre d over the assess ment period.

The plant began the assess ment period in a cokf shutdow n condition due to the Februa ry 15. 2000. SGTF event. In August 2000, you initiated the SO replacement project which was comple ted in eany November.

The NRC noted genera lly good perfonnal1C8 during SG replace ment. Subseq uently, the plant was readied for startuP. heatup began in December, and the reactor was brough t critical on Decem ber 30. Although there were some emergent issues during power escalat ion. the piant reached full power by the end of January . In parallel with your activitie s. the NRC completed a number of inspect ions and assess ments. For exampl e, our Decem ber 22, 2000. letter.

highlighted. among other activitie s, system readiness walkdo wns; augmen ted restart cover.Jg e by NRC inspect ors; and inspect ion of emergent issues affectin g design inputs and analyses, incJuding an assess ment of your COITective actions in address ing recunin g issues.

Mr. J. Groth Dunng the time frame encomp assing plant stanup, you had a number of issues in design control.

equipm ent reliability, problem identific ation and resoluti on. and human perform ance. In the area of design control. for example. a Decem ber 2000 inspect ion identifie d further exampl es of the lack of formal design interfac e controis . and weakne sses in your organiz ation's abiity to correct this conditio n. Equipm ent reliability issues were illustrat ed by second ary plant equipm ent probleffi$

which caused severa. power reducti ons in the plant restart phase.

With respect to human perform ance. a January 2. 2001, turbine trip reveale d problem s wtth procedu re quality and usage, crew communications. and reactivi ty manage ment. Throughout this time frame. we monitored your correcti ve actions to addres s these issues. .

In January and February 2001. an extensi ve supplem ental team inspection was conduc ted by 14 inspectOlS using NRC Inspect ion Proced ure 95003. The team condud ed that the IP2 facility is being operate d safety. The team also noted problef fi$ similar to those that have been previously identifie d at the 1P2 facility. includin g those in the areas ot design controC, human and equipm ent perform ance, problem identific ation and res.o&ution. and emerge ncy prepare dness. While some perform ance improvements were noted, progress was stow overall and limited in some areas.

One such 8Ie8 is that ot design controt. whet'e recurrent problem s have been noted. for exampie.

in the translation of important design assumptions into plant operating procedures, drawing s, calculatiolWt, and testing programs. Also, the team noted that althoug h some improvement in your problem idenIIfication and resolution program has occ:uned, aspects of your program warrant confjnu ed attention (e.g., prioritizing issues for resoluti on, trending causai factors. timeliness and the effectiveness of correct ive actions).

While the team noted that your business plan relies heavily on departrn slrategiea that VCIried In quality and depth, the team found that eOt "'vel implem entation appropriate alignme nt exi$ts betwee n the busines s plan and previou sly identified perfonn ance issues at the facility. We conside r your May 7, 2001. letter captured wel1he nature of the issues that you are facing. We agree. as you stated in this response, that the issues facing 1P2 are not amenab le to "fast fuce$.*

and that many of your improv ement efforts will necess itate multi-ye ar efforts. The NRC plans to carefull y monitor the ettectivefl6S$ of your perlorm ance improve ment efforts. includin g the effect of any significa nt change s to your busines s plan or the departm ent \eveI actMtie s either prior to or subseq uent to any license transfer.

In order to verify that approp riate correct ive actions have been taken to address the previously identifie d perfonn ance issues, the NRC s;Xans to conduc t several adivitie s beyond the NRC basefin e inspect ion program at the facility. These activities include supplem ental inspect ions to review progress in addressing the underly ing issues that resulted in the degrad ed comers tones.

These focused inspect ions will also provide insights into your perfonn ance improve ment efforts. details inspect ions that are planned through May 31.200

2. The inspect ion pian is provide d to minimiz e the resoun :e impact on your staff and to allow for schedu ling confticts and personn el availab ility issues to be resolve d prior to onsite arrival.

Routine residen t inspections are not listed due to their ongoing and continu ous nature. Addition ally, site visits, manage ment meeting s. and Quarterly assess ments, will be conducted as necessa ry. In this regard. we conduc ted a meeting on April 30. 2001. focused principa lly on design and enginee ring Issues.

Mr. J. Groth 3 Consis tent with the Reactor Oversig ht Process . we are finalizin g plans to meet with you to discuss NRC's assess ment of your perform ance. and your continuing actions 10 effect perfOf11'lal1Ce improv ement at IP2. This meeting . which wUI be open for public obServation. is schedu led for 7:00 p.m ** June 13. 2001. at the Energy Educat ion Center. Addition ally. consiste nt with guidanc e in the NRC Action Matrix. the NRC conside red the need for addition al regulatory actions beyond those describ ed herein. and has conclud ed that none are required conside r the appropriateness of addition al regulato ry actions at this time. The staff wm continue to as new perform ance information becom es availab le. Finally, in accord ance with IMC 0305. *Operat ing Reacto r Assess ment Progra m,* IP2 will be discussed at the upcomi ng Agency Action Re'Vlew meeting . We wit notify you via separa te COIT8Spondence if any agency actions change. as an outcom e of this meeting.

For your informa tion. the NRC is in the process of aligning the inspecti on and assess meot cyde with the calende r year. In order to transition to a ca&ender year cycle (Januar y 1- December 31 ),

the next inspect ion and assess ment cyde will consist of only three quart8fS (i.e .* the second . third and fourth caiende rquarte rs of CY 2001). As a result. for all plants a quarter ty review will be conduc ted for the third calende r Quarter (July 1- Septem ber 30) in lieu of a mkl-cyd e review.

In accord ance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of P'ractice

.* a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electron ically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicty Avaiatwe Records (PARS) compon ent of NRC's do<:urnent system (ADAMS).

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at h!tD:lb'!<<w.nrc.QOY1lf flClAQAMSIlndex'J!m/ (the Pubaic Electro nic Reading Room). To get Information about the assessment terms used in this docum ent refer to NRC's program for oversee ing the safe opet'3tio n of comme rcial nudear potN9f' reactors. It Is described in the'NR C ResetOf' Oversig ht PI'OCe$$ web site at http://w ww.nrc .govINR RlOVER SIGHTr tndex.h tml. .

If circums tances arise which cause us to change this inspecti on ptan, we will contact you to discuss the change as soon as possibM . Please contact Mr. Peter Eselgroth at 610-337 *5234 with any questio ns you may have regardi ng this letter or the inspectjoo plan.

Sincerely.

IRAI Hubert J. Miller Regional Adminis trator DocketNo.OSOOO247 license No. OPR*26 Enclosu res:

1. iP2 Performance History Chart

2. IP2 Perform ance History Details

3. IP2 inspect ion Schedule

Mr. J. Groth cc w/eoo:

A. Blind. Vice Preside nt - Nuclea r Power J. Baums tark. Vice President. Nuclear Power Engine ering J. McCan n. Manage r, Nudea r Safety and Licensi ng B. Brande nburg. Assista nt General Counsel C. Faison. Licensi ng. Entergy Nuclea r Operations. Inc.

W. Smith. Operations Manage r C. Donald son. Esquire , Assista nt Attorney Genera l. New YOMt Department of Law P. Eddy. Electric Division, Department of Public Servic8 , State of New YOMt T. Rose, NFSC Secretary W. Flynn. Pl'8Sident. New York State Energy Resear ch and Develo pment Authority J. Spath, Progra m Director. New York State Energy Resear ch and 0eYeI0 pment Authority The Honora ble Sandra GeBel. NYS Assemb ly County Clerit, West Cheste r County Legislature A. Spano. Westchester County Executive R. Bondi. Putnam County Executive C. Vandec1'Ioef. Rockla nd County Executive J. R.ampe. Orange County Executive T. Juc:tson. CenCraI NY Citizens Awarenesa Networ it M. Elie. CItizens Awaren ess NetwoJt D. Lochba um. Nuclea r Safety Engineer. Union of Concerned Scientis ts J. Riccio, PubflC Citizen's Critical Mass Enetgy Project M. Mariotte. Nude8 r Infonnation & Resoon:::es SeMce E. Smeioff, Pace University Schooi of Law D. MUrphy, Manage r, Training

Mr. J. Groth 5

Distribution w/ en d: (V IA E- M AI L)

H. Miller. RA J. Wiggins. D~

F. Conge!. O E (2

) (R ID SO EM AI LC R Jenkins. RI EO EN TE R)

O Coordinator W. Raymond. SR I

• In di an Po in t 2 E. Adensam. NR R (ridsnm:Jlpmlpd P. Eselgroth. DR i)

P P. Milano, PM , NR R

R. Laufer. PM . NR R

R. Clark. PM, NR R

D. Se re nd , PAO.

N. Sh ee ha n, PA C S. Figueroa. O E S. Barber, DR ?

L. Harrison. DR ?

R. Junod, DR?

R. Martin, OR?

D. Barss, NR R S. W on g, NR R Re gio n I Ooc::bt Room (w /concurreoces)

DOCUMENT NAM E: G: I8 RA NC H2 \fP Af te r de da rin g \h 2\ l? 2E OC Lt rfl n.

is do cu m en t "'An wp d To rK aM a

• IOO Of flc ia l Ar;Jency P'Y 01. IN Re co rd - it wilt be OFFICE RI:DRP s Ind~ "'tNt box: 'C ". COO\' ~

~

re le as ed to \he Public.

NAME SBarber IGSII I RI : ORA I RI:DRP T C(l(I'f WIIh ;a~endoI IIon .". .. No COQ'l' BHoHan 1 R I:R A I DATE IIEIII ABlough lA D ! ID H ll er l 05131101 Im/

05 /3 1/ 01 05 /3 1/ 01 05 /3 1/ 01 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

TAB Exhibit D

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT By the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION As Lead Agency Concerning the Applications to Renew NEW YORK STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES) PERMITS For the ROSETON 1 & 2, BOWLINE 1 & 2 AND INDIAN POINT 2 & 3 STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS, ORANGE, ROCKLAND AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES HUDSON RIVER POWER PLANTS FEIS Accepted:

June 25, 2003 Prepared by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

Contact:

Betty Ann Hughes, NYS DEC, Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750 (518) 402-9167; bahughes@gw.dec.state.ny.us

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NEW YORK STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS For the ROSETON 1 & 2, BOWLINE 1 & 2, and INDIAN POINT 2 & 3 STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Project History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Permitting Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Hudson River Settlement Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Department SPDES Permits ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Consent Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 The Draft Environmental Impact Statements . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Public Hearings. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . " 11 Ownership Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 11 Final Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . ,.... 12 REGULATORY SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 13 Federal Clean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 NPDES Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 13 CWA §316(b) and Cooling Water Intake Structures . . . . . . , 15 New York State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 SPDES Permitting Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Legislative Findings and Commissioner's Powers . . . . . . . . , 22 New York State Coastal Management Program . . . . . . . . .. 24 Hudson River Estuary Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Hudson River Valley Greenway Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 The New York State Energy Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) . . . . . . . . .. 28 MITIGATION AND ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Available Mitigation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Alternatives Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 30 PUBLIC COMMENT

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 List of Commentors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 47 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

-iii-

Fish Populations - 1. "Cropping" (that, is, consumption of some portion of one or more populations) by power plants is not a legitimate use of NYS's fisheries and other aquatic resources .. 49 The State's fish and wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 The State's waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 50 Ecosystem values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Impacts on the aquatic community .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51 Fish Populations - 2. Many species in the Hudson River system are actually declining. While the striped bass (SB) population is up, that increase may be the result of other management decisions and activities. Historic baseline or trend data is not substantially discussed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Fish Populations - 3. Several commentors questioned one or more of the assumptions used in one or more of the population models; in particular, density-dependence is unproven. . . . . . . . . .. 59 Atlantic Tomcod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Striped Bass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63 White Perch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 American Shad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 64 Bay Anchovy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Fish Populations - 4. Climate, disease, and the changing ecology of the Hudson River system are not considered in the population models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Rainbow Smelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 Atlantic Tomcod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Comb Jellies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69 Zebra Mussels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70 Fish Population - 5. Thermal analyses need to be updated to reflect recent, more extreme conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Fish Protection Points - 6. Fish protection pOints (FPP) would provide operational flexibility but even less protection than conditions in the Hudson River Settlement Agreement (HRSA). . . . . . . .. 76 Mitigation - 7. DEIS includes little information on barrier systems and acoustic deterrents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82 Wedge-Wire Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82 Fish Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83 Acoustic Deterrent System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84 Mitigation - 8. The DEIS significantly overstates costs and energy impacts of closed cycle cooling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 Mitigation - 9. DEIS alternatives and proposed action do not present a fair picture of available alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Other Topics - 10. The DEIS needs to consider effects of New York's recent conversion to a competitive energy market, take the State Energy Plan into account, or impose parity among facilities.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88

-iv-

Other Topics - 11. Radiation discharges are not discussed in the DEISt but should be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Other Topics - 12. Several commentors expressed generalized opposition to renewal for one or more facilities. . . . . . . . . . 92 Please note that appendices are not available on the website. However, you may request one or more of the appendices by contacting Betty Ann Hughes at bahughes@Qw.dec.state.ny.us.

List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 F-L Notices and Comments on 1999 DEIS . . . . . . . . . . . .

F-II. Text of HRSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F-III. Fourth Amended Consent Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F-IV. ESSA reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F-V. Other cited references and letters not readily available ..

-v-

-vi- (This page intentio nally left blank.)

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The action before the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) is the decision whether to renew State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits which would allow three steam electric generating stations to discharge waste heat, a pollutant, to the waters of the Hudson River; the permits would also allow the facilities to continue to withdraw water from the Hudson River for use as cooling water.

The three facilities are:

• Bowline Point (Units 1 and 2), West Haverstraw, Rockland County;

• Indian Point (Units 2 and 3), Buchanan l Westchester County; and

• Roseton (Units 1 and 2), Newburgh, Orange County (See Figure 1 in main text for general locations of all 3 facilities).

In December 1999, the owners and operators of the three facilities submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to the Department which assessed the resources likely to be impacted by the facilities; evaluated alternative technologies and management strategies to mitigate impacts from each facility's operations; and proposed a preferred action intended to reduce the respective impacts. In March 2000, the Department accepted the DEIS for purposes of review and subsequently issued a Notice of Complete Application in the Environmental Notice Bulletin and in newspapers in the vicinity of each facility.

Department staff have further reviewed the DEIS and conclude that, while it was acceptable as an initial evaluation and assessment, it is not sufficient to stand as the final document, and additional information as to alternatives and evaluation of impacts must be considered. These considerations have been undertaken by Department staff to develop a final environmental impact assessment. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) consists of the original DEIS submitted by the facilities' operators; comments received on the DEIS; the Department's responses to those comments, with similar comments grouped for response purposes; plus expanded discussions of the regulatory setting and alternatives for mitigation of impacts from the operation of the HRSA plants.

The Hudson River is rich with aquatic life, providing habitat for the early, sub-adult! and adult life stages of many aquatic species, including a number of game, commercial, and forage fish species. The Department's regulatory role includes limiting thermal discharges from each facitity to ensure the survival of aquatic resources and also preventing aquatic organism mortality Page 1 of 93

resulting from impingement and entrainment at each facility's cooling water intake structure (CWIS).l To illustrate the magnitude of impacts of entrainment, Table 1 (below) uses data from the DEIS to calculate the average annual number of organisms of six of the fish species entrained by the three facilities. 2 If one assumes that all entrained fish die, as does the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in its proposed rulemaking for cooling water intakes, then the total number of fish entrained is equal to total mortality from entrainment. 3 Table 1. Estimated Average Numbers of Selected Fish Species Entrained Annually at Roseton, Indian Point, and Bowline Stations, Based on In-plant Abundance Sampling, 1981-1987. 4

~Species American Roseton 3,128,571 Indian Point 13,380,000 Bowline 346,667 Total 16,855,238 Shad Bay 1,892,500 326,666,667 81,000,000 409,559,167 Anchovy River 345,714,286 466,666,667 13,814,286 826,195,238 HerringS 1 Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life forms are carried into and through the cooling system as water is withdrawn for use in a plant's cooling system; impingement occurs when larger aquatic life forms are caught against racks or screens at the intakes, where they may be trapped by the force of the water, suffocate or be otherwise injured.

2 DEIS Appendix VI-I-D-2, "Estimated Total Number of Fish Entrained", and DEIS Appendix VI-I-D-1, "Estimated Number of Fish Kifled Due to Entrainment",

(both utilizing generator estimates of through-plant survival), and calculating the mean mortality over the years presented for each species at each facility.

3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities. USEPA Docket No. OW-2002-0049; see 67 FR 17122.

<\ Figures are absolute numbers of entrainable life stages, including eggs, yolk-sac larvae, post-yolk-sac larvae, and some juveniles, of the species studied.

5 "River Herring" includes both Blueback Herring and Alewife, which are difficult to differentiate in their early life stages. It does not include other herring species like shad.

Page 2 of 93

Striped 129,857,143 158,000,000 15,571,429 303,428,571 Bass White 211,428,571 243,333[333 13,257,143 468,019,048 Perch Atlantic No Data This No Data This No Data This No Data This Tomcod 6 4

Study Study Study Study Total 692,021,071 1,208,046,66 123,989,524 2,024, 057 7

The generators attempted to estimate through-plant survival, and using those adjustments, the calculations result in a slightly lower number of fish ki!led by entrainment mortality, as shown in Table 2 (below).

Table 2. Estimated Annual Entrainment Mortality of Six Fish Species at Roseton, Indian Point, and Bowline Stations, Using Generator Estimates of Through-plant Survival.

~I Specie America Roseton 2,500,000 I Indian Point 10,640,000 I

Bowline 281,667 I

Total 13,421,667 I

n Shad Bay 1,892,500 326,666,667 78,285,714 406,844,881 Anchovy River 277,142,857 371,666,667 11,085J14 659,895,238 Herring Striped 40,428,571 46,500,000 4,671,429 91,600,000 Bass White 130,000,000 138,666,667 8,071,429 276,738,095 Perch Atlantic No Data This No Data This No Data This No Data This Tomcod Study Study Study Study otal 451,963,929 894,140,000 102,395,952 I 1,448,499,8811 6 No numbers are available for AtlantiC tomcod because, for the source study, no collections were made during the early part of the season when Atlantic tom cod entrainment and mortality would be a serious issue.

Page 3 of 93

Based on data presented in the DEIS and analyses in that and in this FEIS, Department staff conclude that the generators' estimates represent the lower boundary of the actual mortality range, that is, the actual mortality lies somewhere between the generators' number (low end) and 100%

(upper end, all entrained organisms die). Later sections of this FEIS discuss the significance of entrainment mortality; other impacts of continued operation of the HRSA generating stations, including thermal impacts; and potential control or mitigation measures.

As a result of the Department's further review of the DEIS plus the additional information and analysis provided by staff, a draft permit can be developed for each facility. Each draft permit will be based on this FEIS together with a detailed, site-specific application for that station and will contain a decision on the "best technology available" (BTA) to minimize entrainment and impingement mortality at that station. These BTA decisions are required by §316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act.7 Supplemental application materials relating to existing facilities and system designs are still necessary for each site. An individual draft permit will be issued for each site, but in general terms, each permit will require the covered facility to meet BTA by designating as SPDES permit conditions, a compliance l

schedule to implement one or more of the technologies now available to substantially reduce entrainment and impingement mortalities from the COOling water intake at that station.

7 33 U.S.c. §§ 1251 - 1376 Page 4 of 93

PROPOSED ACTION The action before the New York State (NYS) Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) is the decision whether to renew State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits which would allow three steam electric generating stations to discharge pollutants, including waste heat, to the waters of the Hudson River. The permits, if renewed, would also allow the continued withdrawal of water from the Hudson River to be used as cooling water. The three facilities are:

• Bowline Point (Units 1 and 2), West Haverstraw, Rockland County;

• Indian Point (Units 2 and 3), Buchanan, Westchester County; and

• Roseton (Units 1 and 2), Newburgh, Orange County.

Figure 1, on the following page, shows the location of the three generating stations Page 5 of 93

Fig. 1. General Location of HRSA Plants S

• .*~7-"_. _. __ 1'::.. 1,/ .'~"L.~c-~ ~~.

HRSA Power PI~nts tij I'~

on the r1 Hudson River U

[!] Power Plant 8 Scale about 20% reduced from original.

Page 6 of 93

Project History Permitting Authority Bowline POint, Indian Point, and Roseton steam electric generating stations are all facilities which were in operation prior to enactment of the federal Clean Water Act in 1972. The Department regulates Bowline POint, Indian Point, and Roseton pursuant to its authority as the State agency approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to issue SPDES permits. On October 28, 1975, the USEPA gave its approval to the Department to administer the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program by virtue of a memorandum of agreement signed by the Department's Commissioner, Ogden R. Reed, and the Acting Region II Administrator for the USEPA, Eric B. Outwater. The Department's SPDES program is set forth in Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation law (ECl), with underlying regulations promulgated at 6 NYCRR Parts 700 et seq and 750 et seq.

The Hudson River Settlement Agreement Prior to authorizing the NYS SPDES program, earlier in 1975, the USEPA issued NPDES permits for the Indian Point nuclear power facility and the Roseton and Bowline Point fossil fuel power facilities. All three permits contained conditions to restrict thermal discharges, that is, water heated by the process of cooling the condenser coils at the fossil plants and by the secondary cooling phase of the nuclear power generation systems. At the time those permits were issued, the operators of these Hudson River power plants, Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) for Indian Point Unit 2, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) for Indian Point Unit 3, Central Hudson Gas and Electric (CHG&E) for Roseton, and Orange and Rockland Utilities (O&R) for Bowline Point used once-through cooling systems, withdrawing cooling water directly from and discharging the warmed effluent back to the Hudson River.

Among the issues considered by USEPA in issuing those 1975 NPDES permits were concerns regarding thermal discharges, cooling water intakes, and fish mortalities associated with the cooling water intakes. The USEPA's 1975 NPDES permits would have in effect required retrofitting of cooling towers at all three of these Hudson River power plants. In 1977, Con Ed, NYPA, CHG&E, and O&R (collectively, the "generators") sought an administrative adjudicatory hearing against the USEPA draft permits to overturn those cooling water intake conditions and other requirements of the 1975 NPDES permits. That and subsequent proceedings were joined by a number of other government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGO's).

Page 7 of 93

In 1981, after a number of years of adjudicatory proceedings, the generators signed the Hudson River Settlement Agreement (HRSA) to resolve the disputes relating to the USEPA's 1975 NPDES draft permits. 9 The HRSA was a la-year agreement designed to obtain necessary data, impose needed analytical assessments, and develop an impact assessment to determine how best to mitigate impacts to the Hudson River from the three generating facilities. The HRSA was also executed by the USEPA, the NYS Attorney General, the Department, and involved NGO stakeholders including the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference (Scenic Hudson), Hudson River Fishermen's Association (Riverkeeper), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The HRSA was effective for the ten year period from May 10, 1981 to May 10, 1991.

The HRSA provided, among other things, for mitigative measures to reduce fish mortalities at each generation facility as a result of: (a) impingement of adult and juvenile fish on racks and screens at the plants' intake structures, and (b) entrainment of fish eggs and larvae through the respective units' cooling apparatus. Those measures included seasonal "outages", or discontinuing cooling water usage by ceasing plant operations. Those measures also included installation of variable speed pumps at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 within three and one-half years after the effective date of the agreement, to keep the volumes of Hudson River water used for cooling to the minimum required for efficient operation. In addition, the HRSA established a biological monitoring program for monitoring fish species and their life stages at different Hudson River locations during each season.

Department SPDES Permits By statute, SPDES permits for surface water discharges have a maximum duration of five years. 10 In 1982, the Department issued a SPDES permit to each of the facilities covered by the HRSA, including limitations governing the release of thermal discharges, and incorporating the terms of the HRSA agreement into the permit so that the enVironmentally protective mitigation measures set forth in the Agreement were included as conditions. These permits expired in 1987.

In 1987, the Department issued SPDES permit renewals to each of the three HRSA generation facilities (Indian Point Units 2 and 3 were issued a single permit even though the two units had different owners). These most recent SPDES permits for Indian Point Units 2 & 3, Bowline Point Units 1 & 2, and Roseton Units 1 & 2 Generating Stations became effective on October 1, 1987, with a common expiration date of October 1, 1992. Again, along with 9 The complete text of the HRSA is included as Appendix F-II to this FEIS.

10 EeL §17-0817(1)

Page 8 of 93

appropriate thermal discharge conditions, the HRSA agreement was incorporated into these permits and the HRSA mitigation provisions were continued as conditions for operation.

Prior to the expiration of the 1987 permits, on April 3, 1992, the generators submitted timely applications to the Department for renewal of their respective SPDES permits. Pursuant to the New York State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) and the Department's implementing regulations,

"[w]hen a licensee has made a timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency ... ".ll Also prior to the expiration of the 1987 SPDES permit, by correspondence dated May lS, 1991, the Department and the generators executed an agreement to continue the mitigative measures established in the 1981 agreement until SPDES renewal permits were issued. With respect to Indian Point Units 2 and 3, the fetter agreement also memorialized Con Ed's and NYPA's commitment to install special fish protective screens to reduce fish impingement at the intake structures. In addition, the agreement provided that the parties would negotiate in good faith to develop a long-term resolution of: cooling water intake structures (CWIS), thermal discharges, fish mortality reductions due to mitigative measures, the costs of mitigative measures, and alternatives. Public notice was to be given of such negotiations and the parties expressed their understanding that intervener, including such groups as the Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson, would be involved as participants in the negotiations.

On September 13, 1991, Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson, and NRDC filed a law suit against the Department and the four generators seeking:

• annulment of the May lS, 1991 agreement between the Department and the generators;

• participation by those three NGO entities in the permitting process; as well as

• resolution of outstanding issues regarding mitigation measures.

Consent Orders On March 23, 1992, the parties to that legal proceeding executed a judicially approved Consent Order resolving the matter which provided that the generators would continue the HRSA mitigative measures, such as the "outages" timed to reduce impacts to certain fish species, and to continue 11 f\Jew York State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) §401(2); 6 f\JYCRR Part 621.

Page 9 of 93

underwriting significant Hudson River fish species studies and data acquisition .12 The 1992 Consent Order was extended by the parties on four separate occasions, having expiration dates of September 1[ 1994[ September 1, 1995, September 1, 1997{ and February 1, 1998. When the Fourth Amended Consent Order expired on February 1, 1998{ the parties, who were by then actively engaged in negotiations regarding elements of draft SPDES permits, did not reach agreement to continue with a fifth extension of the Consent OrderY However, the generators agreed to continue the mitigative measures included in the continuing SPDES permit and provisions of the Fourth Amended Consent Order until new SPDES permits were issued to them.14 The Draft Environmental Impact Statements On May 20, 1992, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the Department issued a positive declaration requiring the generators to prepare an environmental impact statement regarding the 1992 applications for permit renewals. is That determination was based on the Department's assessment that the measures proposed in the generators' 1992 renewal applications were less protective of the Hudson River and its aquatic resources than the HRSA terms had been. In June 1993[ the generators submitted a preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to the Department in accordance with the regulatory requirement to submit a draft environmental impact statement for the renewal of their respective SPDES permits.

On September 3, 1993, the Department advised the four HRSA generators that it had reviewed the June 1993 preliminary DEIS and that their respective SPDES renewal applications remained incomplete pending receipt of additional information. The Department advised the generators of inadequacies of the preliminary DEIS, to which the generators later responded.

12. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc" Hudson River Fishermen's Association, et aI., v. NYSDEC, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York Power Authority, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Central Hudson Gas &

Electric Corp., Albany County, Index No. 6570-91.

13 The Fourth Amended Consent Order is attached as Appendix F-III.

14 In the remainder of this FEIS, the general term "Consent Order" will apply to the entire series of extensions unless a particular date or extension is named.

15 ECl §8-0109.4; 6 NYCRR §617.7.

Page 10 of 93

From 1993 to 1999, the Department, the generators, the New York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), the USEPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Riverkeeper, NRDC, Scenic Hudson and New York Rivers United (NYRU) participated in an extensive effort to address numerous technical and procedural issues regarding the generators' plants, including conducting technical meetings or "workshopsll of experts representing each participant or group, and conducting plenary meetings of all participants to draw together the technical and legal expertise devoted to resolving issues with the SPDES renewal applications for the HRSA plants.

On December 14, 1999, CHG&E, Southern Energy New York (successor to O&R), Con Ed, and NYPA presented the Department with a revised DEIS.

Department Staff reviewed the DEIS and issued a Notice of Complete Application dated February 28, 2000, which was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) on March 8, 2000, and in newspapers in the vicinity of the plants during the week following March 8, 2000. 16 The Notice sought public comments on the DEIS, which were to be submitted to the Department by April 24, 2000.

Public Hearings Subsequently, on May 2, 2000, the Department's Office of Hearings and Mediation Services issued a Notice of Hearing and Notice of Extension of Comment Period .15 The Notice of Hearing announced a public legislative hearing to receive unsworn statements about the DEIS at the Croton Village Hall, Croton-on-Hudson, New York, at 2: 00 PM and 7 :30 PM on June 8, 2000. The Notice also extended the public comment deadline from April 24, 2000 to June 24, 2000. The May 2, 2000, Notice of Hearing was also published in the ENB and in newspapers in the vicinity of the plants. These notices included the times and location of the June 8, 2000, public hearing and also identified eight locations where the DEIS was available for review by the public. Sixteen written comments were received, and seventeen individuals spoke at the hearings, including representatives of the generators, NGO's, individuals, and the Department. The Department also provided the generators with several pages of comments.

Ownership Changes As part of NYS's energy market restructuring, the HRSA plants have undergone ownership changes since the submission of the DEIS. Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are now owned and operated by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC. Bowline Point is now owned and operated by Mirant Bowline, LLC. Roseton is now owned and operated by Dynegy Northeast Generation.

16 Notices are included in Appendix F-I to this FEIS.

Page 11 of 93

Final Environmental Impact Statement This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FElS) consists of multiple sections.

The fundamental underlying data and studies are contained in the 1999 DEISt which is incorporated as part of this FEIS. An augmented discussion of the regulatory setting for and history of the proposed action in this FEIS augments the materials in the DEIS. The full texts of all comments received by the Department are included in Appendix F-I, and public comments are excerpted and summarized in Table 3 (page -) of this FEIS; a list of all com mentors is provided at the end of Table 3.

The Department's responses to public comments complete the FEIS. In the interest of responding most effectively to the submitted comments, Department staff grouped the comments under related themes and responded to each theme.

Page 12 of 93

REGULATORY SETTING Federal Clean Water Act NPDES Permitting The basic federal law governing water pollution control in the United States is the federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), more commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA).16 Although the FWPCA itself dates to 1948, the CWA as we now know it was largely shaped by comprehensive amendments in 1972 which completely overhauled the existing system. 17 The 1972 CWA is properly viewed as the starting point for modern water pollution control law.

While the CWA has been amended several times since 1972, the heart of the Act which has remained intact is its system of regulating both direct and indirect discharges of pollutants into U.S. waters: the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).lB The fundamental premise of the CWA, expressed in

§301{ is not to regulate an otherwise lawful activity, but to make unlawful the discharge of any pollutant from a point source by any person. 19 Thus, the discharge of pollutants is not a right and may only be allowed as specifically provided in the CWA. The bulk of the CWA may, therefore{ be viewed as a detailed and highly regulated exception to the "no discharge" rule of §301.

Pollution control standards under the Act are of two general types:

(1) effluent standards which limit the quality and quantity of pollutants discharged from the source, also called "technology-based" standards; and (2) ambient standards which limit the concentration of pollutants in a defined water segment, also called "water quality-based" standards.

By establishing limits tailored to the nature of a discharge rather than its location, a uniform nationwide playing field was established that removed incentives for dischargers to relocate to other states to avoid treatment requirements.

The focus of an ambient standard is on the capacity of the receiving water to absorb or dilute a given poilutant. Thus, water quality-based standards vary according to 16 33 U.S.c. §§ 1251 - 1376.

17 FWPCA Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No.92-500, 86 Stat. 816.

18 See CWA § 402; 33 U.s.c. § 1342.

19 "Pollutant" is defined as including solid, industrial, agricultural and other wastes, sewage, sludge, heat, rock, sand, and biological and radioactive materials; CWA § 502(6), 33 U.s.c. § 1362(6). "Point source" is defined as any "discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance"; CWA § 502(14), 33 U.S.c. § 1362(14).

Page 13 of 93

the use of the receiving water - for example, recreational, industrial, or public drinking water - and on local conditions, such as the size and flow of the receiving water, its turbidity, and other factors unique to the segment.

Technology-based effluent standards, on the other hand, do not focus on the qualities of the receiving water, but on the treatment a pollutant receives prior to its discharge. Technology-based standards define and mandate a level of effluent quality that is achievable using pollution control technology so that a pollutant's capacity to degrade the water segment into which it is discharged is lessened. Of the two, technology-based effluent standards dominate the CWA's regulatory system.

Both of these standards are implemented and enforced through the NPDES permit program, administered by the USEPA. Under §402 of the CWA, a discharger must obtain an NPDES permit from EPA or from a state that has an EPA-approved program. 20 The technology-based and water quality-based standards are written into the permits and are tailored to meet the particular permittee's situation, such as the pollutant-producing operation, the type and amount of pollutants to be discharged and the condition of the receiving water.

The CWA mandated development of water quality standards for water bodies and effluent limitations based on those standards, and it set forth the mechanism for incorporating water quality standards into NPDES permits. States were required to adopt classifications of water bodies according to their best uses. They were also required to develop standards for various pollutants that would establish maximum levels of pollutants in water bodies that would be allowable so that the water bodies could retain their best uses. 21 These standards are then, in turn, incorporated into the NPDES permit as effluent limitations, along with any other relevant technology-based effluent limitations.

NPDES permits may also contain other conditions a permittee must meet, such as requirements for monitoring and reporting effluent discharges. 22 Discharge without a permit or in violation of its conditions may subject the discharger to an enforcement action by the federal or state government, which in turn may result in civil and criminal penalties. 23 A noncomplying discharger may also be subject to enforcement by private individuals or groups under the Act's citizen suit provision. 24 In sum, the NPDES permit program is the focal point of the CWA's regulatory system, and compliance with an NPDES permit's conditions is deemed to be compliance with almost all of the Act's regulatory provisions. 25 20 CWA § 402(a) and (b), 33 U.s.c. § 1342(a) and (b).

21 CWA § 303,33 U.s.c. § 1313.

22 40 C. F. R. §§ 122.41 to 122.50 (permit conditions).

23 CWA § 309, 33 U.S.c. § 1319.

24 CWA § 50S, 33 U.S.c. § 1365.

25 CWA § 402(k), 33 U.s.c. § 1342(k).

Page 14 of 93

CWA §316(b) and Cooling Water Intake Structures

§ 316(b) of the CWA provides that any "point source" discharge standard established pursuant to §§301 or 306 of the CWA must require that the location, lf design, construction, and capacity of CWIS reflect the "best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts.

EPA has defined a "cooling water intake structure" as the total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to withdraw water from waters of the U.S., extending from the point at which water is withdrawn from waters of the U.S. up to and including the intake pumps. EPA has defined "cooling water" as water used for contact or non-contact cooling, including water used for eqUipment cooling, evaporative cooling tower makeup, and dilution of effluent heat content. 26 The intended use of cooling water is to absorb waste heat from production processes or auxiliary operations.

CWA §3l6(b) addresses the adverse environmental impact caused by the intake of cooling water, not discharges into water. Despite this special focus, the requirements of §316(b) are closely linked to several of the core elements of the NPDES permit program established under §402 of the CWA to control discharges of pollutants into navigable waters. For example, §316(b) applies to paint sources (facilities) that withdraw water from the waters of the U.s. for cooling through a CWIS and are subject to an NPDES permit. Conditions implementing §316(b) are included in NPDES permits on a case-by-case, site-specific basis.

The majority of impacts to aquatic organisms and habitat associated with intake structures is closely linked to water withdrawals from the various waters in which the intakes are located. Based upon preliminary estimates from an EPA questionnaire sent to more than 1,200 existing power plants and factories, industrial facilities in the U.S. withdraw more than 279 billion gallons of cooling water each day from waters of the U.sY The withdrawal of such quantities of cooling water affects large numbers of aquatic organisms annually, including phytoplankton (tiny, free-floating photosynthetic organisms suspended in the water column), zooplankton (small aquatic animals, including fish eggs and larvae, that consume phytoplankton and other zooplankton),

fish, crustaceans, shellfish, and many other forms of aquatic life. 28 Aquatic organisms drawn into CWIS are either impinged on components of the CWIS or entrained in the cooling water system itself.

Impingement takes place when organisms are trapped against intake screens by the force of the water passing through the cooling water intake structure. This can result in starvation and exhaustion (organisms are trapped against an intake screen 26 See 66 Fed. Reg. 65259 (Dec. lS, 2001).

27 See generally, 65 Fed. Reg. 49071 through 4 (Aug. 10, 2000) and 66 Fed.

Reg. 65262 (Dec. 18, 2001).

28 66 Fed. Reg. 65262 (Dec. 18, 2001).

Page 15 of 93

or other barrier at the entrance to the cooling water intake structure), asphyxiation (organisms are pressed against an intake screen or other barrier at the entrance to the cooling water intake structure by velocity forces which prevent proper gill movement, or organisms are removed from the water for prolonged periods of timeL descaling (fish lose scales when removed from an intake screen by a wash system), and other physical harms. 29 Entrainment usually occurs when relatively small benthic, planktonic, and nektonic organisms, including early life stages of fish and shellfish l are drawn through the cooling water intake structure into the cooling system. In the normal water body ecosystem, many of these small organisms serve as prey for larger organisms that are found higher on the food chain. As entrained organisms pass through a plant's cooling system they are subject to mechanical, thermal, or toxic stress. Sources of such stress include physical impacts in the pumps and condenser tubing, pressure changes caused by diversion of the cooling water into the plant or by the hydraulic effects of the condensers, sheer stress, thermal shockl and chemical toxemia induced by antifouling agents such as chlorine. 3o In addition to impingement and entrainment losses associated with the operation of CWIS/ another concern is the cumulative degradation of the aquatic environment as a result of:

(1) multiple intake structures operating in the same watershed or in the same or nearby reaches; and (2) intakes located within or adjacent to an impaired waterbody.

Historically, impacts related to CWIS have been evaluated pursuant to CWA §316(b) on a facility-by-facility basis. While the potential cumulative effects of multiple intakes located within a specific waterbody or along a coastal segment are largely unknown, there is concern about the effects of multiple intakes on fishery stockS. 31 29 66 Fed. Reg. 65263 (Dec. 18, 2001); see also Thurber, N.J. and D.J. Jude, Impingement Losses at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant During 1975-1982 With a Discussion of Factors Responsible and Possible Impact on Local Populations, Special Report No. 115 of the Great Lakes Research Division, Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center, Univ. of Mich. (1985).

30 66 Fed. Reg. 65263 (Dec. 18, 2001) citing Mayhew, D.A., L.D. Jensen, D.F. Hanson, and P.H. Muessig, A Comparative Review of Entrainment Survival Studies at Power Plants in Estuarine EnVironments, EnVironmental Science & Policy, 3:S295-S301 (2000).

31 66 Fed. Reg. 65263 (Dec. 18, 2001) referring to Request by member States of Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to investigate the cumulative impacts on commercial fishery stocks attributable to cooling water intakes located in coastal regions of the Atlantic in 2001.

Page 16 of 93

New York State Laws SPDES Permitting Program Pursuant to authority granted by Congress in CWA § 402, USEPA has authority to allow states to carry out specified permitting functions, which would otherwise be performed by USEPA, for discharges into both interstate and intrastate waters. New York State received USEPA approval of such authority in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement between the state and USEPA in October 1975. The Memorandum established the basis for the SPDES permit program in New York State in lieu of a federally administered program.

Originally enacted in 1973, Article 17, Title 8 of the Environmental Conservation law (ECl) authorizes The Department to administer the SPDES permitting program that governs the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state at a given facility.l The pu rpose of ECl Article 17, Title 8 is:

To create a state pollutant discharge elimination system (SPDES) to insure that the State of New York shall possess adequate authority to issue permits regulating the discharge of pollutants from new or existing outlets or point sources into the waters of the state, upon condition that such discharges will conform to and meet all applicable requirements of the [FWPCA]

'" and rules, regulations, guidelines, criteria, standards and limitations adopted pursuant thereto relating to effluent limitations, water quality related effluent limitations ... L The discharge must also meet all applicable requirements of the ECl and the implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Parts 700, et seq. and 750, et seq. The permitting objective is to prospectively control the discharge of point-source pollutants, including heat, by establishing chemical-specific limits and other requirements intended to assure that water quality standards in the receiving water body are achieved. Additional environmental objectives are to assure that aquatic communities are not unduly harmed by discharges, and to protect the public health and best usage of the water body.

Generally, thermal discharges to the waters of the State must meet water quality standards to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water. 3 In addition, thermal criteria apply to all waters of the State receiving thermal discharges. 4 These criteria may be modified upon application of a permittee to the Department if the Department finds them to be unnecessarily restrictive and that modification 32 "Pollutant" is defined as any "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water." ECl § 17-0105(17).

33 ECl § 17-0801.

34 6 NYCRR § 704.1(a).

3S NYCRR § 704.2.

would still assure the protection and propagation of a balanced{ indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is to be made. 36 The discharge of heat as a pollutant, a "thermal discharge", is addressed in the Department's regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 704.

In making a modification to thermal criteria, the Department typically imposes a "mixing zone" which limits the physical extent within which heated water can exceed specific applicable criteriaY Outside of the mixing zone l thermal criteria must be met to assure compliance with water quality standards. Temperature limitations are established and imposed on a case-by-case basis for each facility subject to Part 704 jurisdiction. NYS has adopted the federal CWA §316(b) BTA requirement for CWIS as part of the Department's thermal discharge criteria at 6 NYCRR §704.S.

The HRSA facilities which are the subject of this FEIS, Indian Point l Bowline Point, and Roseton, must demonstrate their compliance with water quality standards. 38 Since 1981, these facilities' operations, and their resulting thermal discharges, have been condItioned by their SPDES permits. Their current permits were due to expire in 1992 but were extended under SAPA.

According to the Consent Order, the HRSA facilities were required to use their "best reasonable efforts" to operate the respective plants to keep the volumes of water withdrawn for cooling at the minimum required for efficient operation. 39 The original 1981 HRSA contained similar general language, and also provided charts for each facility which identified average maximum river temperatures and specified approximate flows for each unit at Indian Point and for all units at Bowline and at Roseton for different periods throughout the year.

The thermal limitations associated with the HRSA facilities' existing SPDES permits Include the following:

Bow/ine Point:

As of the 1987 - 1992 SPDES permit term, Bowline did not exceed the thermal criteria and a mixing zone did not need to be specified to meet the water quality standard. The use of multipart high velocity diffusers provided sufficient mixing with ambient water sufficient to meet thermal criteria. As a consequence, additional specifications to meet thermal criteria have not been imposed. The SPDES permit provides a daily maximum discharge temperature (102°F).

36 6 NYCRR § 704.4.

37 6 NYCRR § 704.3.

38 See App. F- II.

39 See App. F-III.

Page 18 of 93

Roseton:

As of the 1987 - 1992 SPDES permit term, Roseton did not exceed the thermal criteria and a mixing zone did not need to be specified to meet the water quality standard and additional specifications to meet thermal criteria were not imposed. The use of multiport high velocity diffusers provided sufficient mixing with ambient water to meet water quality criteria. The SPDES permit provides a daily maximum discharge temperature (99°F).

Indian Point:

As of the 1987 - 1992 SPDES permit term, thermal discharges from Indian Point did not meet applicable thermal criteria. To control thermal discharges, the SPDES permit for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 requires that the maximum discharge temperature for condenser cooling water not exceed 110°F. In addition, the daily average discharge temperature between April 15 and June 30 is not to exceed 93.2°F for an average of more than ten days per year during the term of the permit, beginning in 1981, provided that it not exceed 93.2°F on more than 15 days during that period in any year.

The Consent Order also provided that Indian Point give "due regard to ambient river water temperature, plant operating status, and the need to meet water quality standards or other permit conditions".l Figures B-1 and B-2 to Attachment D of the Fourth Amended Consent Order provide graphic representations of "Predicted Condenser Cooling Water Flow Rate Schedules to Achieve Efficient Operations of Indian Point [Units 2 and 3]". That Consent Order provides that there may be some deviation from these schedules because "the minimum flow rate for any given period is dependent upon ambient river water temperature".

These provisions alone, however, are not sufficient for Indian Point to meet thermal criteria. Thermal modeling indicates that the thermal discharge from Indian Point causes water temperatures to rise more than allowed, which is four degrees (F.)

over the temperature that existed before the addition of heat, or a maximum of 83°F, whichever is less, in the estuary cross sections specified in 6 NYCRR

§704.2(b)(S).2 A mixing zone was not specified in the previous SPDES permit for the Indian Point facility.

Even though thermal discharges from Bowline and Roseton meet water quality criteria, their thermal contribution to the Hudson River is additive with that of Indian Point and must be taken into account in determining whether the water quality standard is met. If the standard is not met, the circumstances can trigger the water quality standard requirement to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population. If analyses specified in the proposed SPDES permits are unable to make this assurance to the Department's satisfaction, the next level of action would be for the Department to determine how thermal discharges would be limited to ensure that water quality standards are met.

40 See App. F-III.

41 1999 DEIS, Appendix VI-3-A, Thermal Modeling of Ebb and Flood Tide Thermal Plumes (CORMIX model). Page 19 of 93

New York has adopted the appropriate regulations for the operation of the SPDES permit program, including standards for the development and issuance of permits as well as for the types of effluent limitations to be imposed in these permits. 42 In addition to the federally developed categorical effluent limitations l The Department has developed approximately 100 water quality standards for various pollutants in its regulations and less formal "guidance" values for many more pollutants. 43 The Department has also categorized through regulation all significant water bodies in the State, based upon the best use of each water body.44 The Department's overall SPDES permitting activity is intended to implement the declared public policy of the State of New York that water resources not be wasted or degraded and "shall be adequate to meet the present and future needs for domestic, municipal, agricultural, commercial, industrial l power, recreational and other public, beneficial purposes."45 Goals for water discharge permitting are also articulated in the Eel:

Reasonable standards of purity and quality of the waters of the state be maintained consistent with public health, safety and welfare and the public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of fish and wildlife l including birds, mammals and other terrestrial and aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state, and to that end, to require the use of all known available and reasonable methods to prevent and control pollution, wastage and unreasonable disturbance and defilement of the waters of the state. 46 Any source proposing to discharge pollutants requiring a SPDES permit must file an application with The Department at least 180 days before the proposed commencement of the discharge 47 or l if renewing an existing SPDES permit, at least 180 days before the expiration of the existing permit. 48 Submission of a timely renewal application continues the terms of the existing SPDES permit until the renewal permit is issued by the Department.<l9 If the Department determines to 42 See 6 NYCRR Part 750.1 43 6 NYCRR Part 703; Department Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) § 1.1.1.

44 See 6 NYCRR Parts 701 and 800 to 941.

45 Eel § 15-0105(3).

46 Eel § 15-0105(7); see a/so, Eel § 17-010l.

47 6 NYCRR § 750-1.6 486NYCRR§750-1.16 49 SAPA § 401(2).

Page 20 of 93

issue the permit, it prepares a draft permit, including proposed effluent limitations and other conditions. 50 The Department is required to provide public notice of every draft SPDES permit which gives a description of the discharge and the terms of the draft permit, and sets forth a public comment period of no less than 30 days during which interested parties may submit written comments concerning the application. Sl During the public comment period any person, including the applicant, may submit written comments or request a hearing. The Department is required to hold a legislative hearing to receive unsworn public comments if it determines that there is significant public interest and sufficient reason for such a hearing. 52 If no hearing is held, only the written comment period occurs, and the Department will issue a final SPDES permit following the close of the public comment period.

In certain instances, an adjudicatory hearing may also be held, where evidence and sworn testimony is presented before an Administrative Law Judge (AU). Any interested party, as well as the applicant, may request an adjudicatory hearing with respect to any aspect of a draft SPDES permit so long as the request is made during the public comment period. 53 At such a hearing, parties have an opportunity to contest issues the AU has determined to be adjudicableY' The Department is required to determine the existence of the following facts in a SPDES permit renewal context:

1. That the permittee is in compliance with or has substantially complied with all the terms, condition, requirements, and schedules of compliance of the expiring SPDES permit;

2. That The Department has up-to-date information on the permittee's production levels, waste treatment practices, and the nature, contents, and frequency of the permittee's discharge, pursuant to new forms and applications or monitoring records and reports; and

3. That the discharge is consistent with currently applicable effluent and water quality standards and limitations, and other legally applicable requ irements. 5S Upon a determination of the existence of these facts, the Department may issue a renewal permit.

The Department also has authority to modify SPDES permits for a number of reasons, including significant changes in a discharger's operations or new 50 6 NYCRR § 750-1.9 51 6 NYCRR § 750-1. 9 S2 6 NYCRR § 750-1.9 53 6 NYCRR § 750-1.1(d)

S4 6 NYCRR § 624.4(b)(5), (c) 55 6 NYCRR §750-1.16 Page 21 of 93

information, such as the promulgation of new standards by either the State or USEPA. 55 Permits can also be modified or revoked in response to violations of permit conditions, misrepresentations by the permittee, or changes in conditions. 57 Legislative Findings and Commissioner's Powers In enacting legislation to preserve and protect the water resources and wildlife of the State of New York, the NYS Legislature made findings of fact and vested the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation with broad powers and authority germane to the regulation of electricity generating facility operations that use and impact such resources.

The Legislature has found:

The State of New York owns all fish, game, wildlife! shellfish, crustacea and protected insects in the state, except those legally acquired and held in private ownership. Any person who kills, takes or possesses such fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crustacea or protected insects thereby consents that title thereto shall remain in the state for the purpose of regulating and controlling their use and disposition. 58 The general purpose of powers affecting fish and wildlife, granted to the department by the Fish and Wildlife Law, is to vest in the department, to the extent of the powers so granted, the efficient management of the fish and wildlife resources of the state. Such resources shall be deemed to include all animal and vegetable life and the soil, water and atmospheric environment thereof, owned by the state or of which it may obtain management, to the extent they constitute the habitat of fish and wildlife as defined in § 11-0103 .... 59 New York State has been generously endowed with water resources which have contributed and continued to contribute greatly to the position of preeminence attained by New York in population, agriculture, commerce, trade, industry and outdoor recreation. 6o All fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crustacea and protected insects in the state, except those legally acquired and held in private ownerShip, are owned by the state and held for the use and enjoyment of the people of the state, and the state has a responsibility to preserve, protect and 56 6 NYCRR § 750-1.18 57 6 NYCRR § 750-1.20 58 ECl § 11-0105.

59 ECl § 11-0303(1); see a/so, ECl §s 11-0303(2) and 11-0305.

50 ECl § 15-0103(2).

Page 22 of 93

conserve such terrestrial and aquatic resources from destruction and damage and to promote their natural propagation. 51 It is in the best interests of this state that provision be made for the regulation and supervision of activities that deplete, defile, damage or otherwise adversely affect the waters of the state and land resources associated therewith. 62 The Department Commissioner has the power to:

Promote and coordinate management of water, land, fish, wildlife and air resources to assure their protection, enhancement, provision, allocation, and balanced utilization consistent with the environmental policy of the state and take into account the cumulative impact upon all such resources in making any determination in connection with any license, order, permit, certification or other similar action or promulgating any rule, regulation, standard or criterion. 53 Provide for the propagation, protection, and management of fish and other aquatic life and wildlife and the preservation of endangered species. 54 Provide for the protection and management of marine and coastal resources and of wetlands, estuaries and shorelines. 55 New York State Coastal Management Program The NYS Coastal Management Program was developed under authority of New York State Executive Law 910-22 and 19 NYCRR Part 600. The operative sections of the Executive Law provide 11 points of policy that have been detailed in a single set of 44 decision-making criteria in the Coastal Management Program and final environmental impact statement. The Department, as a state agency, must find that all direct and funding actions, and any permitting actions that are the subject of an EIS under SEQR, are consistent with the Coastal Management Program. 56 In addition, SEQR regulations provide that, for any state agency action in a coastal area, a draft EIS must contain an identification of the applicable coastal resources/waterfront revitalization policies and a discussion of the effects of the 61 ECl § 15-0103(8).

62 ECl § 15-0103(13).

63 ECl § 3-0301(1)(b).

54 Eel § 3-0301(1)(c).

65 ECl § 3-0301(1)(e).

65 6 NYCRR 617.9(e); 19 NYCRR 600.4(a)

Page 23 of 93

proposed action on such policies. 67 The SPDES permit renewals that are the subject of this DEIS will not result in any new effects on coastal zone policies. Coastal zone consistency forms are contained in DEIS Appendix IV-5.

State law also requires that state agencies provide timely notice to local governments whenever an identified action will occur within an area covered by an approved local waterfront revitalization program (LWRP). The NYS Secretary of State is required to confer with state agencies and local governments when notified by a local government that a proposed state agency action may conflict with the policies and purposes of its approved lWRP, and may modify the proposed action to be consistent with the local plan. 68 None of these facilities is in an lWRP area.

The consistency provisions of the New York State Coastal Management Program enable the Department to consider the full range of coastal poliCies prior to undertaking and approving a specific action.

Hudson River Estuary Management Program In 1987, ECl §11-0306 was amended in order to establish a Hudson River estuarine district including "the tidal waters of the Hudson River, including the tidal waters of its tributaries and wetlands from the federal lock and dam at Troy to the Verrazano-Narrows. 069 This section also directed the Department to establish a Hudson River estuary management program "in order to protect, preserve and, where pOSSible, restore and enhance the Hudson River estuarine district."7o The district was also to consider the remainder of the Hudson River, New York Bight, and the waters around Long Island, as they impact the Hudson River estuary.

A Hudson River estuary management advisory committee, consisting of representatives of commercial fishing, sportsmen, research, conservation, and recreation, as well as a Hudson River estuary coordinator, was created within the Department to manage the Hudson River estuary management program and assist in the development and implementation of the program. 71 A Hudson River estuarine sanctuary was also established "for the purpose of protecting areas of special ecological significance within the Hudson River estuarine district and associated shorelands ... ",72 The sanctuary also serves as a "long-term estuarine field laboratory for research and education concerning the Hudson River ecosystem. "

67 6 NYCRR 617.14(d)(10) 68 Executive Law 91S-a.

69 ECl §11-0306(1).

70 ECl §11-0306(2).

71 ECl §11-0306(4).

72 ECl §11-0306(S)

Page 24 of 93

The Department and the advisory committee were directed to develop a continuing estuary management program "for the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the Hudson River estuarine district and associated shorelands including but not limited to its natural resources, its fish and wildlife and the habitats within it:,73 The strategy was required to include, among other things, the following:

e. Evaluation of the impact of the uses of water on the Hudson River estuarine district including present and future demands for water and their impact on the balance of fresh and salt water in the estuary.

f. Identification of areas of potential ecological significance which may require rehabilitation.

g. A status report on the levels of toxicants in and their effects on important estuarine indicator species and for species that have potential or existing recreational or commercial value.

h. Identification of the anthropogenic activities and the conservation and management problems that pose an existing or potential threat to the resources and the functioning of the estuary.74 In enacting Eel §11-0306, the legislature made the following findings and declarations:

The legislature further finds that the Hudson River estuary is of statewide and national importance as a habitat for marine, anadromous, catadromous, riverine and freshwater fish species and that it is the only major estuary on the east coast to still retain strong populations of its historical spawning stocks. Such species are of vital importance to the ecology and the economy of the state and to the recreational and commercial needs of the people of the New York state and neighboring states. A lack of sufficient and reliable research and documentation has resulted in recurring disputes on the movements, life cycles and habitats of these species.

The legislature further finds that the Hudson River estuary possesses a fishery of outstanding commercial and recreational value, and the economic potential of the Hudson river estuary's fishery is at present underdeveloped. Improper management and use of the Hudson River estuary will deprive present and future generations of the benefit and enjoyment of this valuable resource.

The legislature further finds that the protection of estuarine species throughout their life history; the protection of their spawning habitat, nursery habitat, wintering habitat and feeding and foraging habitat; and the protection, enhancement and restoration of the state's natural resources upon which these species and their habitat depend requires a specific program for the proper management of the Hudson River estuary.

73 Eel §11-0306(6).

74 See Eel §11-0306(6)(e)-(h).

Page 25 of 93

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to preserve[ protect and, where possible, restore and enhance the natural resources, the species, the habitat and the commercial and recreational values of the Hudson River estuary.

Hudson River Valley Greenway Program Article 44 of the ECl was amended in 1991 to establish a Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council (Greenway Council) to assist Hudson River Valley communities in the 10 counties of Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Columbia, Rennselaer, Albany, Green, Ulster, Orange, and Rockland in their plans for development. Article 44 was enacted as companion legislation to the Hudson River estuary management program discussed earlier. 75 The statute authorizes the Greenway Council to provide and support cooperative planning to establish a voluntary regional compact among Hudson Valley localities to protect the valley's natural and cultural resources and promote regional planning. The ECl also provides that, upon compact effectiveness, state agency actions for which an EIS is being prepared under SEQR, including Department actions, must be assessed in light of the Greenway compact and applicable rules and regulations, and that the Greenway Council should review and comment in writing on the DEIS.76 As of early 2003, six counties and several localities were actively engaged in Greenway Compact planning and programs. 77 Endangered Species Act Past operations at the Roseton Units 1 & 2, Bowline Units 1 & 2 and Indian Points Units 2 & 3 have occasionally resulted in the impingement of shortnose sturgeon on the facilities' traveling screens. Shortnose sturgeon are currently listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. 78 In previous permit proceedings, the generators supplied the NMFS with all data on shortnose sturgeon that were collected in biological sampling programs. In testimony to the EPA in 1979, NMFS concluded in a Biological Opinion made pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that the once-through cooling system of the power plants did not pose a threat to the shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson River. The generators are currently in the process of obtaining updated Incidental Take Permits from NMFS.

75 ECl § 11-0306 76 ECl §44-011S(3).

77 Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council website, http://www.hudsonqreenway.state.ny.us!commcoun!commcoun.htm 78 Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1531 - 1544.

Page 26 of 93

The New York State Energy Plan The NY State Energy Plan (SEP) is published every four years pursuant to § 6-104 of the State Energy Law (effective until January 1, 2003). The SEP was last published in 2002.

§ 6-102 of the State Energy Law creates the State Energy Planning Board. Among other things, the State Energy Law requires that the State Energy Planning Board include in the SEP twenty-year forecasts of the demand for electricity and energy supply requirements needed to supply that energy demand; an assessment of the ability of existing energy supply sources and transmission systems to satisfy such energy requirements; and identification and analysis of costs, risks, benefits and uncertainties of energy supply source alternatives for satisfying energy supply requirements which are not reasonably certain to be met by existing energy supply sources.

The SEP is intended to be a reflection of the State's policies for promoting and adopting "fleXible, yet stringent, environmental policies that balance the need for more energy with the need for improved public health and safety.fll Among its major policy strategies and recommendations, it includes supporting "the continued safe operation of nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, and hydroelectric generation as part of a diverse portfolio of electricity generation resources". 2 The SEP does not take into account the specific need to renew the Roseton, Bowline or Indian Point SPDES permits or the need to complete this EIS. However, the SEP does observe that mortalities to aquatic organisms associated with impingement and entrainment from the operation of CWIS and thermal discharges from older electricity generation facilities are negative environmental impacts for which minimization should be provided. 3 The SEP finds that, since the 1998 SEP was released, the State has made significant gains in reducing the environmental impacts associated with energy generation and consumption. It also finds that the impacts of energy generation on the State's aquatic resources are analyzed and addressed through existing regulatory programs. 4 The SEP will inform the Department's assessment of the impacts to and general alternatives for mitigation of adverse environmental impacts from the Roseton, Bowline and Indian Point generation facilities.

NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR)

SEQR requires that NYS agencies and local governments consider the potential adverse environmental impacts of decisions they make, including approval of applications from regulated entities. s SEQR provided the Department's authority for 79 2002 SEP, p. S-1.

80 2002 SEP, p. S-4.

81 2002 SEP, p. 2-56.

82 2002 SEP, p. 2-58.

83 ECl Article 8 Page 27 of 93

requiring an EIS on the proposed renewal of the facilities' SPDES permits. Before issuing a final decision on each of the applications, the Department will be required to make findings based on this FEIS concluding whether, among other tests, the selected alternative(s) will minimize or avoid adverse environmental impacts, " ... to the maximum extent practicable .. ,fI, Page 28 of 93

MITIGATION AND ALTERNATIVES Available Mitigation Technologies Based on information in the 1999 DEISt including DEIS Appendices VII and VIII, and on information obtained and analyses conducted since the DEIS was prepared, the Department believes that a range of available technologies exist to minimize aquatic resource mortality from the cooling water intake structures (CWIS) at the Indian Point, Roseton, and Bowline Point generating stations. This discussion will focus on conclusions relating to potential applicability to the HRSA facilities of a range of technology and management systems to reduce impacts on aquatic organisms from their CWIS operations. The "Response to Comments" section of this FEIS contains more detailed descriptions, background and updates on several of the technologies, and several supporting reports are attached in Appendix F- V.

At present, the existing cooling water system at each of the HRSA generating stations is a "once-through" system, that is, Hudson River water is taken into the cooling system, circulated past the condenser coils to absorb waste heat from operation of the generation equipment, and discharged back to the Hudson River at a higher temperature than at the intake. In the process, some larger aquatic organisms are impinged on intake screens and many more are entrained within the circulating cooling water. Under the HRSA and Consent Orders, and currently by concurrence of the generators, Indian Point has achieved some reductions in intake volumes through the use of variable flow pumps while Roseton cycles pumps on and off to reduce water volumes used. Additionally, Indian Point has installed Fletcher-modified Ristroph traveling screens to help reduce impingement mortality at those facilities, and Bowline Point uses a seasonally-deployed fine mesh barrier net to reduce both impingement and entrainment mortality.84 While these represent some level of improvement compared to operations with no mitigation or protection, there are still significant unmitigated mortalities from entrainment and impingement at all three of the HRSA facilities.

In addition to proposing a "Fish Protection Point" (FPP) management system as the generators' preferred alternative,8S the DEIS presented information on a wide range of other technologies to reduce water intake volumes, prevent impingement or entrainment, or reduce thermal discharges, and also discussed a range of management options which might achieve one or more of the same goals. 86 Those alternatives described by the generators included:

• outages, that is, reduction of water demand by ceasing generation at specified plants during specified time periods; 84 DEIS § VIII; Radle, E. W. and M. J. Calaban, 2003. Implementation of CWA 316(b) in New York. Proceedings (in pressL A Symposium on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms. Washington, D. c., May 2003.

85 DEIS § VII.

86 DEIS § VIII.

Page 29 of 93

• technology to reduce water demand l including dry, wet, and wet/dry (a/k/a "hybrid") cooling towers;

• minimizing flow rates with variable speed pumps or modified pumping schedules;

• barrier systems to minimize numbers of aquatic organisms impinged or entrained, including Ristroph traveling screens, fine-mesh screens, cylindrical wedge-wire screens, barrier nets, and fine-mesh barrier systems;

• behavioral deterrent systems designed to "steer" one or more classes of aquatic organisms away from CWIS, including acoustic systems, electrical barriers, air bubble curtains, several light systems, water jet curtains, and hanging chains;

• district heating/cooling, that is, exporting waste steam to a nearby industrial or institutional user, which in effect makes the receiving steam circulation system function as a large heat diffuser and thereby reduces the need for cooling water intake from and discharge to a water body like the Hudson;

• replacement of power provided by the HRSA plants with power from other sources, which would essentially mean exporting impacts by importing power;

• a so-called "multiple choice" alternative which would have required a commitment to not extend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Indian Point licenses; to operate the existing Bowline Point and Roseton plants until 2015 and then repower those stations with closed-cycle cooling; and provide 32 weeks of outages annually, until the NRC licenses expire for Indian Point and until 2015 for the other two plants;

• enhancements provided elsewhere than the HRSA plants, such as fish stocking and habitat improvement; and

• dismissal of a "no action" alternative, as the Department must by law take one of only 3 actions on SPDES renewal applications - approve, approve with conditions, or deny.

Alternatives Assessment Generally speaking, the most effective aquatic resource protection can be achieved by greatly reducing actual water usage, particularly during seasons of peak abundance of entrainable life stages. 8 ? Complete retrofit of the HRSA plants to closed-cycle ("dry") cooling systems would result in an approximately 95% water demand reduction and so must be given serious consideration for feasibility at each of the HRSA stations. Despite all of the benefits, however, closed-cycle systems do not come without impacts, and those potential impacts must also be weighed for each site. The success of closed-cycle cooling in other NYS deployments causes this technology to be given a relatively high level of conSideration among available technologies, while not excluding other proposals.

87 In the Matter of an Application for a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit by Athens Generating Company, LP, Commissioner's Interim Decision, June 2,2000, pp. 11 - 17 (Athens Interim Decision).

See also Wantuck, R. lo, 2003. Resource Agency Views of Technology Employed to Prevent Fish Mortality at Cooling Water Intakes. Proceedings (in press), A Symposium on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms.

Washington, D. c., May 2003.

Page 30 of 93

Among the potential impacts of closed-cycle cooling are so-called "energy penalties" associated with operation of cooling towers, that is, losses of generation efficiency under certain operating and climatic conditions plus the energy required to run component systems like fans. In addition, there are certain expenses associated with installing closed-cycle cooling. ss Actual costs tend to vary widely depending on individual site characteristics combined with plant and tower configurations, so potential costs to install cooling towers can only be estimated based on a specific design proposal for an individual site. a9 Several classes of cooling tower system designs exist, each of which can substantially reduce water demand but also have associated "energy penalties" and other potential impacts of specific systems which must be evaluated based on individual proposals for particular sites. Dry, or closed cycle cooling systems rely on fans and air cooling with recovery of condensate for recirculation. "Wet" cooling towers use evaporative cooling, and "hybrid" or "wet/dry" towers have cooling cells with both evaporative and dry components. 90 Evaporative systems tend to produce ll condensate "plumes which can be visible for considerable distances in some climatic conditions. Frequency of plume visibility and relative water losses can vary substantially depending on the operating parameters of a given system.

Furthermore, evaporated water is permanently lost to the source water body; in the Hudson River system, there is evidence indicating that such losses could be sufficiently significant to affect salt levels. Thus, were a wet or hybrid tower to be proposed for any of the HRSA facilities, the potential impacts of evaporative losses, plumes, and energy losses would require careful evaluation based on a specific design proposal for that site. 91 Finally, modern cooling tower systems, whether dry, hybrid or wet, require a sufficient amount of land to support a series or array of cooling "cells", Again, potential impacts would be site and design specific but include possible visibility from sensitive receptors as well as potential impacts on sensitive land resources. The mid-to-Iower Hudson Valley has a number of sensitive visual receptors as identified in the Visual Impact Assessment Policy developed by the Department's Division of Environmental Permits, but the ability to more precisely evaluate potential visual impacts would depend on knowing precise height, configuration and site placement of any proposed tower system. 92 Similarly prediction and evaluation of potential f

88 Grogan, D. B. & Assoc., Inc. 2000. Hudson River Power Plants, Cooling Water System Design Assessment. Technical Report prepared for ESSA Technologies, Ltd., Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada; included in Appendix F-IV of this FEIS.

89 Maulbetsch, J. and K. Zammit, 2003. Cooling System Retrofit Costs.

Proceedings (in pressL A SympOSium on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms. Washington, D. c., May 2003.

90 Grogan, 2000; Maulbetsch, 2003; see also DEIS Section VIII and appendices for basic descriptions and diagrams of cooling tower systems.

91 Grogan, 2000.

92 Department Program Policy DEP 00-2, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts. July 31, 2000. www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs!policy/visuaI2000.pdf Page 31 of 93

land resource impacts would require that proposed site placement and size of the tower array, at least, be known.

A modification of generating station design that can be incorporated with new lf construction or when an existing electric generating plant is "repowered that is! ,

has its core combustion and generating systems replaced, is combined-cycle generation. In the most basic terms, a combined-cycle plant is designed to use some of the waste heat from the initial combustion/generation process to power a secondary turbine. Use of combined-cycle technology greatly reduces the amount of waste heat which must be managed, thereby greatly reducing the total demand for cooling and, thus, the size of the necessary cooling system.

Other approaches can also reduce water demand, usage or flow rates, which can then result in reductions in entrainment, impingement, or both. Permanent, structural measures, such as modified intake structures to reduce intake velocities, are one example of this approach. In addition, management systems and seasonal adjustments like the outage schedule employed for the HRSA plants can reduce water withdrawn during critical seasons. Monitoring and verifying such systems can require substantial recordkeeping by generators and agencies. There are also potential conflicts resulting from outage requirements in a competitive market where actual generating schedules are determined by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). On the other hand, such systems may be more rapidly implemented as they do not typically require major new infrastructure construction.

Structural protection can be added at intakes to reduce entrainment, impingement, ll or both. Traveling screens, barrier nets, "aquatic filter barriers (AFB) like the Gunderboom Marine Life Exclusion System' (MLES'), and wedgewire intake structures can all protect some or many life-stages from being trapped against or entering into cooling water intake systems. 93 Traveling screens are used at many intakes to reduce the load of small solids entering and potentially damaging the cooling system; in some cases, like at Indian Point, those screen systems have been modified to incorporate "fish return" components. 94 These screens are most effective at reducing impingement of larger aquatic organisms but do very little to reduce entrainment. Similarly, barrier nets are typically relatively coarse mesh (3 -

5 mm opening, or wider) and are more effective in reducing impingement than entrainment. Barrier nets have been used in a range of fresh- and saltwater systems in the United States. 95 A fine-mesh barrier net (3 mm opening) has been seasonally deployed at Bowline Point under the HRSA and subsequent Consent Orders.

93 See a/so Responses to Comments, following, plus individual technology assessments in App. xx - yy of this FEIS.

94 Radle and Calaban, 2003.

95 Taft, E., T. Cook, J. Black, and N. Olken, 2003. Fish Protection Technologies for Existing Cooling Water Intake Structures and Their Costs.

Proceedings (in press), A Symposium on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms. Washington, D. c., May 2003.

Page 32 of 93

AFB's are a variant on barrier nets. Instead of relatively coarse openings, AFB's have micropores which allow water passage but block most floating or suspended organisms and objects. These micropores are sufficiently fine to act as a barrier to many fish eggs and larvae as well as other floating and suspended aquatic organisms. Depending on a facility's intake configuration, an AFB can be installed as an in-water, surface-to-bottom "curtain" surrounding an open-water intake, or as panels running along a shoreline, parallel to river flow, to screen a shoreline intake.

The Department has monitored a series of deployments of a "curtain" installation of the Gunderboom MLES' at the Lovett generating station, also on the Hudson River, on the opposite shore and slightly downstream from Indian Point (Figure 2, following this text section). In those deployments, the MLESTM showed effectiveness approaching that of closed cycle cooling for reducing both entrainment and impingement. 96 Other researchers have identified "fouling" (clogging openings with debris or organisms) as a concern with both barrier nets and AFB's at other locations,97 and shoreline or channel bottom modifications can be necessary for deployment. Thus, again, site- and design-specific evaluations and impact assessments must be made of any proposed installation of AFB or barrier net system, and effectiveness monitoring should be required for some time after installation.

Wedge-wire intake screens have also been shown to be very effective in reducing impingement but variably successful in reducing entrainment. 98 Wedge-wire screens essentially provide a filtering hood over an intake that both physically blocks many organisms from entering the intake and reduces intake flow rates l by essentially "spreading" the intake's draw over a relatively large surface area. How effective a specific wedge-wire screen installation will be in reducing entrainment depends on the "slot" size of the screen and on the size distribution of potentially entrainable aquatic organisms in that water body. Two millimeter (mm) slots, or openings between metal parts to provide water passage, will generally block organisms 15 mm and larger; smaller slot openings will protect smaller organisms but also reduce the flow rate through a given area of screen. Where water volume and flow rate requirements of a generating facility plus the local populations of entrainable organisms match the capabilities of the wedge-wire screen system, this can provide an effective intake protection system, however, determining that match will require detailed, site-specific analyses.

Behavioral and deterrent systems like acoustic deterrents have also shown promise for reducing mortality of some species or classes of aquatic organisms in specific 96 See reports in Department application file for the 2003 Lovett SPDES renewal, Department # 3-3928-00010/00002 and 3-3928-00010/00045 97 McLean, R. 2003. State of Maryland Perspectives on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms; and Henderson, P., R. Seaby and R.

Somes. 2003. Fi!ter Curtain Materials, Entrainment, Biofouling and Permeability.

Both in Proceedings (in press), A Symposium on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to Protect AquatiC Organisms. Washington, D. c., May 2003.

9B Taft, E., T. Cook, J. Black, and N. Olken. 2003. Fish Protection Technologies for Existing Cooling Water Intakes and Their Costs. Proceedings (in press), A Symposium on Cooling Water Intake Technologies to Protect Aquatic Organisms. Washington, D. c., May 2003.

Page 33 of 93

situations. Most notably, sonic deterrent systems have been shown to be effective in protecting adults of some herring species from impingement at intakes in Lake Ontario, on the English Channel, and in Belgium. 99 Key design criteria of these deployed systems differ widely, including operating pitches, timing, and speaker placement. Because there are still wide differences in designs and an apparently narrow range of species susceptible to sonic deterrence, application at any of the HRSA plants would require site and resource assessments to determine likelihood of success as well as fo!lowup studies to monitor effectiveness. Other deterrent technologies do not have sufficient performance records to be considered available at this time.

The most promising BTA approach for the HRSA plants at this time appears to be combinations of technologies, or technologies plus management systems, deployed in such a manner as to provide increasingly effective aquatic resource protection.

This conclusion is consistent with that of other researchers working with cooling water intakes at existing power stations. 100 Significantly for NYS, this approach of combined technologies would also be consistent with the BTA determinations recently reached for several new or repowered electric generating stations on the Hudson River and estuary system, which have generating capacities similar to units at the HRSA facilities;

• Athens Generating Station (Athens), between Albany and Kingston/o 1

• Bethlehem Energy Center (Bethlehem)[ slightly south of Albany;102

• Bowline 3, adjoining Bowline Point 1 and 2, West Haverstraw;103

• Lovett Electric Generating Station, Stony POint;104

• Astoria Generating Company (Reliant/Astoria), Queens, New York City(NYC); 105 99 Radle et ai, 2003; Ross, Q. E., D. J. Dunning, J. K. Menezes, M. J. Kenna, Jr. and G. Tiller. 1996. Reducing Impingement of Alewives with High-Frequency Sound at a Power Plant Intake on Lake Ontario. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16:548-559; Maes, J., A. Turnpenny, D. Lambert, J. Nedwell, A.

Parmentier and F. Ollevier. 2002. The Impact of Cooling Water Abstraction On Fish At The Electrobel Power Plant Doel (Belgium) After Installation Of A Fish Guidance Sound System. Journeew D'etude Du Cebedeau, Nov/Dec 2002. Pp. 75-78.

100 Taft et ai, 2003; Maulbetsch et ai, 2003.

101 Athens Interim Decision.

102 In the Matter of The Applications for Clean Air Act Title IV and SPDES permits by PSEG Power New York, Inc. (Bethlehem Energy Center), Interim DeCision, January 31, 2002.

103 In the Matter of the Application for a SPDES permit and Air Pollution Control permits by Mirant Bowline, LLC. (Bowline 3 Decision), Decision, March 19, 2002.

104 Lovett Electric Generating Station, SPDES Permit (and supporting Fact Sheets), DEC # 3-3928-00010/0002; NY-0005711; February 6, 2003.

105 In the Matter of the Application of Astoria Generating Company, L.P. for a Certificate to Construct and Operate a 1,816 MW Electric Generating Plant pursuant Page 34 of 93

• Astoria Energy (SCS/Astoria), Queens, NYC/06 and

• New York Power Authority (NYPA/Astoria), also in Queens, Nyc. 107 Locations of these facilities are shown on Figures 2. and 3, following this section.

For the Athens project, a new plant employing combined-cycle technology, potential impacts on aquatic resources were found to be a very compelling concern, and a dry cooling system was determined to be BTA. At Bethlehem, a repowering incorporating combined-cycle technology, third parties voiced strong concerns over potential visibility of the taller structures required for a full dry cooling system as opposed to wet or hybrid cooling tower systems, but significant numbers of species and life stages susceptible to both entrainment and impingement were present at the site. Thus, for that project, a plan was developed and approved to construct hybrid cooling towers, install a wedgewire structure over the intake, and seasonally deploy an MLES' to further screen the intake during peak periods of potential entrainment. The MLES' installation at Bethlehem will be flat panels generally paralleling the shoreline.

Bowline 3, a new combined-cycle plant, will use a combination of technologies similar to that at Bethlehem. In addition, Bowline 3's sponsors propose to use discharge water from Bowline 1 and 2., when available, instead of Hudson River water for its cooling water source. This management strategy could further reduce the amount of fresh river water required for the new generating plant. At the Reliantl Astoria facility, a repowering project on the Queens side of the East River, combined-cycle generation with hybrid towers plus intake protection will be provided; the towers will use a reverse osmosis treatment system to minimize salt drift impacts. The SCSI Astoria and NYPAI Astoria projects, both new plants employing combined-cycle generation, will use dry cooling.

In each of these recent decisions, consistent with established law, the aquatic and other natural resources present at and site-specific constraints of each project factored into the individual BTA determination. Each BTA decision must also be found to maximize fish protection while minimizing or avoiding other impacts" ... to the maximum extent practicable ... " to satisfy SEQR as well as CWA §316(b). These decisions reiterate that each SPDES permit application involving a CWIS will present an opportunity to make an independent BTA decision. lOS By their very nature, BTA decisions are application-specific, based on site-specific characteristics rather than to Article X of the Public Service law (Reliantl Astoria Decision), Recommended Decision, April 3, 2003.

106 In the Matter of an Application by Astoria Energy llC for a Certificate to Construct and Operate a 1000 MW Electric Generating Plant pursuant to Article X of the Public Service Law (SCSI Astoria Decision), Order and Opinion Granting Certificate, November 21, 2001.

107 In the Matter of an Application by the New York Power Authority for a Certificate to Construct and Operate a 500 MW ElectriC Generating Plant pursuant to Article X of the Public Service law (NYPA/Astoria Decision), Recommended DeciSion, December 17, 2001.

108 Athens Interim DeciSion, p.12.

Page 35 of 93

pre-established quantitative goals applicable to applications generally. This appropriately addresses the unique physical and regulatory aspects of each site, including issues that are land-based and water body-specific, as weI! as its particular technological limitations or parameters.

Fig.3, facing page. Locations of Selected New and Existing Power Plants on the Lower Hudson Estuary, Hudson River, Ny.109 109 Scale reduced from original by about 55%.

Page 36 of 93 Back to FEIS Sections

Selected Power Plants on the Lower Hudson Estuary Scale 1:250000 Page 37 of 93

Fig.3. General location Map, Athens Generating Station and Bethlehem Energy Center, Hudson River, NyllO Selected Power Plants on the Mid Hudson Estuary Approximately 50 miles to Roseton and Danskammer c< ;,?, .d '\.

110 Scale reduced from original by about 20%.

Page 38 of 93

PUBLIC COMMENT

SUMMARY

Table 3 (following pages) presents a summary of comments received on the 1999 DEIS, both in writing and orally, at the June 8, 2000, legislative hearing. Comments addressing similar themes are grouped together. The final page of this summary contains a list of all com mentors with a key to name abbreviations. Full texts of all written comments plus the hearing transcripts are attached in Appendix F-I.

Table 3. Summary of Public Comments Received on DEIS111 TOPIC PUBLIC II COMMENTS FISH POPULATIONS

1. "Cropping" (that, is, EA: continued operation of plants at current levels consumption of some of entrainment and impingement are inconsistent portion of one or more with prior NYS statements that power plants should populations) by power not "crop" fish stocks plants is not a legitimate NMFS: alternatives discussion weakened by use of NYS's fisheries presumption that "cropping" aquatic resources by and other aquatic power plants is acceptable resources. Riverkeeper: DEIS provides no basis for concluding that mitigation measures should be accepted instead of closed-cycle cooling - technology and policy have advanced to point where [continued] fish mortality at power plants is an unnecessary anachronism

2. Many species in the EA: some fish stocks actually showing declines -

Hudson River system are utilities' own data shows substantially reduced year actually declining. While classes and abundance for several species the striped bass (SB) PISCES: DEIS seriously underestimates potential population is up, that impacts on bay anchovy, especially early in season increase may be the Riverkeeper: DEIS assessment of health of result of other populations and estuary "overly sanguine" - system management decisions actually far from equilibrium with several species in and activities. Historic decline; shad and tomcod deserve "more sober baseline or trend data assessment" of current low levels not substantially Scenic: plants have killed billions of fish over last 20 discussed. years; evidence of long-term declines 111 A list of all commentors and abbreviations is included at the end of this table.

Page 39 of 93

TOPIC PUBLIC II II COMMENTS

3. Several com mentors DEC (@ hearing): accepting DEIS for comment question one or more of doesn't mean agency agrees with it the assumptions used in EA: concur with Riverkeeper's conclusion that one or more of the assumptions for models are flawed so underestimate population models; in impacts of plants on Hudson River fish; because particular, density- analyses do not include pre-power plant conditions, dependence is unproven. no basis for saying plants have not changed conditions PISCES: large changes in fish species abundance over time plus small decrease in total species richness/diversity suggest that Hudson estuary far from equilibrium; density-dependence unproven, and in SB probably causes serious understatement of importance of numbers of fish killed; by assuming denSity-dependence and not considering other factors, models ignore disproportionate impacts of reductions in strong year classes Riverkeeper: model does not accurately represent impacts of entrainment so should not be basis for decisions; does not account for year-to-year variability in year class strength; models force-fit some datal with biased or unsupportable conclusions

4. Climate, disease, and ASA: 20+ years of studies and data are represented the changing ecology of in the DEIS the Hudson River system DEC (@ hearing): accepting DEIS for comment are not considered in the doesn't mean agency agrees with it population models Jacobs - M: cites Croton Landfill cleanup NMFS: SB analyses neglect other factors in asseSSing current abundance - need to take a wider view Riverkeeper: their experts conclude that the DEIS

'contains a naive ecological analysis which completely ignores the role of climate and disease in determining population'

5. Thermal analyses PISCES: use of 1981 thermal data for far-field need to be updated to model may seriously underestimate thermal impacts reflect recent, more Riverkeeper: thermal model based on older data so extreme conditions don't reflect extreme summer conditions of later years; DEIS does not address general warming in Hudson estuary Page 40 of 93

TOPIC PUBLIC J COMMENTS FISH PROTECTION POINTS

6. Fish protection points ASA: existing technologies at all 3 plants plus (FPP) would provide proposed operating schemes would achieve future operational flexibility fish protection levels similar to those required in last but even less protection 20 years than conditions in the DEC (@ hearing): accepting DEIS for comment Hudson River Settlement doesn't mean agency agrees with it Agreement (HRSA) . HRSA levels not sufficient level of protection; FPP likely to lead to larger fish kills so is not sound approach NMFS: FPP are comparable to HRSA standards, but those standards were only intended to be interim and should not now be considered as meeting objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA); should be looking to"." build[s] on the prior successes rather than simply taking advantage of them" NRDC: DEIS scheme would weaken fish protection in Hudson PISCES: FPP appear designed more to benefit power plants than fish and may result in increased entrainment and impingement mortality; "banking" between years could lead to excessive population impact if critical year classes hit by disproportionate entrainment Riverkeeper: their experts conclude that FPP system is really just a way to trade credits and has "serious weakness and seems designed to aid power plant profitability rather than to protect fish"; could actually result in greater harm being inflicted on fish populations, for example, trading credits among years could lead to devastating impacts on strong year classes; represents an extreme initial negotiating position Scenic: concur with NRDC & Riverkeeper; continuation of Settlement Agreement conditions not acceptable objective; DEIS scheme would weaken fish protection in Hudson Page 41 of 93

TOPIC PUBLIC

\I COMMENTS MITIGATION

7. DEIS includes little PISCES: insufficient information on acoustic information on acoustic deterrents deterrence and barrier systems.

8. DEIS significantly NRDC: have changed opposition to cooling towers overstates costs and with changes in technology since the 1970's energy impacts of closed NYRU: cooling tower analyses should include more cycle cooling analysis of their potential environmental impacts Riverkeeper: cooling technology changes have eliminated prior objections to towers Page 42 of 93

TOPIC PUBLIC 1 COMMENTS

9. DEIS alternatives and ASA: once-through with protection measures best proposed action do not balance of all interests present a fair picture of CHV: tragedy to allow continued killing of billions of available alternatives fish by antiquated cooling technologies; require plants to be brought up to modern standards COE: look at boom in Tompkins Cove DEC (@ hearing): accepting DEIS for comment doesn't mean agency agrees with it; draft permits and supporting documents will consider multiple alternative technologies Downs: plants should get on schedule to either convert to dry cooling or close NMFS: alternatives discussion weakened by presumption that "cropping" aquatic resources by power plants is acceptable; accepting these proposals would not meet CWA obligation to protect public trust resources NYRU: Gunderboom should be included in DEIS; incorporate results of river flow pattern research into mitigation alternatives; restoration projects must be regional in scope and on same scale as impact PISCES: insufficient treatment of barriers Riverkeeper: their experts conclude that the DEIS "constructs an argument in favor of the lack of impact ... "; DEIS provldes no basis for concluding that mitigation measures should be accepted instead of closed-cycle cooling - technology and policy have advanced to point where [continued] fish mortality at power plants is an unnecessary anachronism Scenic: DEIS does not consider pre-plant conditions; permits should require closed-cycle or 32-week outages Page 43 of 93

TOPIC PUBLIC

! COMMENTS OTHER TOPICS

10. The DEIS needs to Downs: if permits create easier standards for older consider effects of New plants, competitive market will not shift generation York's recent conversion to newer, less-impacting plants to a competitive energy conversion to market system means there will market, take the State be pressures to run as much as possible so Energy Plan into imperative that renewal permits include conditions account, or impose "highly protective of Hudson River fish ... "; in parity among facilities. deregulated market, there would be increased incentive for these plants to run in preference to newer, more protective units unless these plants are compelled to retrofit to closed-cycle or shut down Gordon/Kennedy/Lee: competitive market increases urgency to impose environmental controls on older facilities NRDC: should be parity of permit conditions lf between these "old and newer plants on Hudson; look to Athens decision for model; need to now move rapidly to final decision NYRU: outages or reduced operations can be "alternatives to reduce cooling water use", but deregulated market may make harder to control or achieve so should factor that uncertainty into permit terms or conditions Riverkeeper: need to follow Athens decision model and truly minimize impacts Page 44 of 93

TOPIC PUBLIC I COMMENTS

11. Radiation Balman: history of radiation discharges causes discharges are not multiple concerns (cites NYS Health Department discussed in the DEIS, reports); should shut down all the nuclear plants but should be. EA: submitted NYS Health Department radiation survey numbers Elie: [DEIS] should consider radiation Gabrielle: wants more information on radiation impacts especially on reservoirs; do not renew Indian Point permits Jacobs - B: monitoring of leak from Indian Point 1 should be included in this permit Jacobs-M: EIS needs to consider radioactive discharges, including results of monitoring reports from NYS Department of Health which show increased levels in summer; renewals should prohibit all pollutant discharges Likes: concerned that any radioactive release is permissible; prefer that plants be closed; actual discharge should be monitored for radioactivity Schepart: should consider reports by NYS DOH on radiation levels in Hudson - records show radiation discharges in excess of health limits; should include radiological limits in new permits Weinstein: look at radioactive discharges and chemicals used in piping system Page 45 of 93

TOPIC PUBLIC l COMMENTS

12. Several commentors Carlin: downwind - close Indian Point expressed generalized Downs: ironic to be looking at continuation of these opposition to renewal withdrawals in face of Athens decision for one or more facilities Goodman: do not permit Indian Point Jacobs - 5: evacuation plans appear inadequate; laws should be fully enforced Jordan: don't renew Indian Point - poorly maintained facilities should be shut down Mirabito: do not issue permits Moon: concerns with Indian Point plant safety (radiation leaks, old equipment); shut the plant down Nelson-Epstein: close Indian Point Riverkeeper: lO-year SPDES permit term as proposed in DEIS would be illegal; thermal discharges, at least at Indian Point, do not meet water quality standards so should not renew permit(s)

Scenic." power plant entrainment & impingement not a valid use of resources; lO-year permit would be illegal Smallev: move from unconscionably hazardous energy sources; shut plants down Wren: oppose nuclear power so don't renew Indian Point permit Page 46 of 93

List of Commentors Oral Comments Benas, Richard (DEC) for NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Clempner, Jean Downs, Roger with Susquehanna shad restoration project Elie, Marilyn of Westchester Citizens Awareness Network Gabrielle, Susan Hudson Riverkeeper (Riverkeeper) by David Gordon! Esq.

Jacobs, Barbara Jacobs, Mark of Westchester Greens and of WESTPAC (Westchester People's Action Coalition)

Jacobs, Stanley KennedYI Katherine for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Lee, Cara for Scenic Hudson (Scenic)

Likes, Philip Moon, Dan Schepart, Margo of Westchester Citizens Awareness Network Smallev, Jillian [phonetic sp, from transcript)

Weinstein, Lucille Young, John (ASA) for generators/utilities Written Comments Baiman, Sydney Carlini Lynne Citizens for the Hudson Valley (CHV) by Dimitri Sevastopoulo Environmental Advocates (EA) by Kyle Rabin Gabrielle, Susan Goodman, Sidney J.

Hudson Riverkeeper (Riverkeeper) by David Gordon, Esq.

Jacobs l Mark of Westchester Greens and of WESTPAC (Westchester People's Action Coalition)

Jordan, John of Catskill Alliance for Peace Likes, Philip Mirabito, Stephen National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), by Michael Ludwig Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) by Katherine Kennedy Nelson-Epstein, David New York Rivers United (NYRU) by Ivan Vamos PISCES Conservation Ltd (PISCES) by Peter Henderson, Ph.D., for Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson, and Natural Resources Defense Council Scenic Hudson (Scenic) by Cara Lee Schepart, Margo U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COEL by Richard L. Turner Wyler, Megan Page 47 of 93

Page 48 of 93 (This page intentionally left blank.)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Consolidated responses follow to each of the comment themes identified in Table 3 (preceding). Each topical response is considered to reply to all of the comments identified within that theme group.

Fish Populations - 1. "Cropping" (that, is, consumption of some portion of one or more populations) by power plants is not a legitimate use of NYS's fisheries and other aquatic resources.

Some com mentors have suggested that fish populations should not be "cropped" by power plants. In other words, they object to any argument that electric generating facilities be permitted to cause injury or death to any life stages of fish and other aquatic organisms, provided only that specified populations of adult fish of selected species be maintained.

The Department agrees that fish should not be "cropped" by power plants. Instead, the Department asserts, and is supported through statute r regulation, policy and practice, that it is in the public interest to minimize the loss of fish and other aquatic resources at electricity generation facilities. The Department further asserts that significant impacts to aquatic resources are not an inevitable result of electric power generation.

The mission of the Department is to provide for the best uses of the State's waters and of its fish and wildlife resources. These resources belong to the people of the State and are held in trust for the use and enjoyment of current and future generations of New Yorkers. The Department's obligations regarding fish and wildlife are described in ECl Articles 11 and 13; its obligations regarding the waters of the State are described in ECl Articles 15 and 17. (See also FEIS Regulatory Setting -

legislative Findings and Commissioner's Powers.)

The State's fish and wildlife Fish and wildlife are the property of the State but numerous uses of fish and wildlife which result in their deaths are permitted. Recreational and commercial fishing, hunting, trapping, scientific collection, and relief from nuisance or damage are examples. In each instance, the permissible methods of take are defined explicitly in statute or regulation.

Fishing, hunting, trapping and scientific collection are highly regulated. The species, age (or its surrogate, size) and sometimes even the sex of the animal to be taken are specified. The time of year is also determined for most species of game, through "open seasons." GenerallYr breeding seasons are avoided and the "crop" of fish or wildlife is made available to its human consumers when populations are highest or the values in flesh or fur are at their peaks. In order to ensure that populations are Page 49 of 93

not over-exploited t populations are monitored, either directly or indirectly. At a minimum, the goal of management for such harvested species is to ensure sustainable populations.

Similar considerations apply when permitting the destruction of wildlife which pose a threat to human safety or property. Generally, the taking of such wildlife is permitted either as a last resort or where the magnitude of the take is believed to be insignificant to the species' population or its ecological function.

That fish should not be wasted as a part of energy production was made clear by former Commissioner Jorling, in 1991 letters to the generators, in which he stated:

"The inadvertent mortality of fish by utilities is not a legitimate use of fishery resources. Therefore, the Department will not allocate a portion of fishing mortality to utilities and will seek elimination if possible, and otherwise minimization, of mortality caused by utilities ... u. 112 The State's waters The waters of New York, too, are the property of the State. Numerous uses are recognized and permitted. New York's waters are used for human consumption/

recreation, agriculture, industry, commerce, navigation, and as habitat for fish and wildlife. New York State laws and regulations recognize these uses and provide a regulatory framework which ensures that water quality is maintained at levels which can support particular uses. Generally, the "cleaner" waters are classified for those activities which require the highest water quality, such as for drinking. The goal of the regulatory program is to maintain or improve water quality to enable the designated "best usage." 1l3 The waters near the Hudson River plants have been classified as either Class A, B, C, S8, or Sc. Each of these classifications has "fishing" as at least one of the designated best use(s). Each also includes the condition that, " ... These waters shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival ... ".

Historically, the water classification system recognized industrial cooling and process water as "best usages" for Class D water supplies. The listing of these activities as "best usages" was removed by amendments to the regulations prior to 1972.

Currently, the least protective deSignation in NYS is Class D. In fresh surface waters, the best usage of even Class D waters is fishing and the waters must be " ...

suitable for fish survival ... 114 If.

If a water cannot achieve the usages for which it has been deSignated, it is deemed to be impacted. Pursuant to § 305(b) of the CWA, the Department biennially publishes a report on the State's water quality which, among other things, describes 112 Copies of letters in Appendix F-V.

113 6 NYCRR Parts 800 - 941.

114 See 6 NYCRR § 701.9 Page 50 of 93

such impairments. 1l5 The NYS Water Quality Report for 2002 lists the Hudson River downstream from the federal dam at Troy as being impacted by cooling water use by power plants. As discussed more thoroughly below and in several other responses, the effects of the use of Hudson River water for generating plant cooling include the loss each year of a substantial percentage of annual fish propagation. Under alternative density-dependent hypotheses, maximum sustainable yield of shad could double if entrainment mortality at all generation facilities was eliminated. 1l6 Thus, current levels of impingement and entrainment impair and may preclude the best usage components of propagation and survival. The thermal effects of power plants on Atlantic tomcod and rainbow smelt also appear to preclude or impair fish survival. 117 Ecosystem values Numerous public agencies have formally recognized the especially significant values of the Hudson's fisheries. For example, the NMFS has designated the Hudson an Essential Fish Habitat, in recognition of the role it plays in maintaining 34 commercially important fish species. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has designated four sections, Piermont Marsh, rona Island, Tivoli Bays and Stockport Flats, as a National Estuarine Research Reserve. NYS Department of State has designated 41 sections of the Hudson as significant tidal habitat, and the USfWS has recognized a number of regionally significant habitats along the River, including Papscanee Marsh, Vosburg Swamp and the Esopus Estuary.

Impacts on the aquatic community Hudson River fish populations have been studied both intensively and extensively.

Survival and mortality investigations have been conducted over long periods of time to measure the impacts, primarily mechanical and thermal, of the power plants on particular fish populations. Although the DEIS asserts that the generating facilities have caused no harm to the aquatic community, numerous findings suggest otherwise. Henderson and Sea by (2000) summarize the differing views:

"The DEIS concludes that there is no evidence of community change that can be attributed to the power stations. 'While changes in the composition and abundance of this fish community have been observed, 115 CWA § 305(b); 33 U.s.c. § 1315.

116 Deriso, R., K. Hattala & A. Kahnle, 2000. Hudson River Shad Assessment and EquHibrium Calculations: Revision of the 1995 Report to include data through 1997. In: ESSA Technologies, Ltd. 2000. Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for SPDES Permits for the Bowline Point 1 & 2, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton 1 & 2 Steam Electric Generating Stations. Report to the Parties to the Application. Prepared by ESSA Technologies, Ltd., Richmond Hi!!, ON, for NYSDEC, Albany, N.Y. 31 pp. plus appendices.

117 See Atlantic Tomcod and Rainbow Smelt discussions under response 4 in this section of the FEIS.

Page 51 of 93

all appear attributable to factors other than power plant operations.'

(VI-36) Second, a key conclusion in the DEIS is that the Hudson ecosystem is healthy. For example, the DEIS states: 'The relatively large number of taxonomic groups collected in these surveys as post yolk-sac larvae demonstrates that the Estuary is a species rich environment and is consistent with the Hudson being [a] healthy ecosystem.' (V-159). The conclusion relies on no particular measure of ecological quality and probably represents a simplistic assumption that because there are many fish present it must still be in good health.

This observation would be more convincing if it considered how many species would be expected in the estuary in a completely natural state.

"From these observations it is concluded that: 'the fish community in the system remains healthy and robust' ([1999 DEIS] Section VI page 36). All the observed changes are attributable to causes other than those linked to the operation of power plant[s] including, water chestnut growth, zebra mussel invasion, changes in commercial fishing, increases in salinity and improved water quality in New York harbour.

"The available facts can be interpreted differently. The foHowing account better reflects the available data.

"Large temporal changes in fish species abundance together with a small decrease in total species richness and diversity suggest that the Hudson estuary ecosystem is far from equilibrium. There is a small long-term decline in both species richness and diversity within the fish community. These losses are not confined to rare or infrequent visitors. A number of common or once abundant fish have long-term trends of declining abundance including tomcod, Atlantic sturgeon, bluefish, weakfiSh, rainbow smelt, white perch and white catfish. The rate of decrease in abundance of a number of these species is in their

[sic] range of 5-8% per annum. If these trends were to continue, they will quickly result in profound changes in the fish community.

"Since the improvement in water quality in New York harbour [from sewage treatment plant completion]t blue crab, Atlantic silversides and striped bass have increased in abundance. In the case of striped bass this is probably related to a decrease in fishing pressure as well as increased habitat for juveniles at the mouth of the estuary. The power stations can affect the fish populations by increasing mortality, principally via entrainment, so that the populations are no longer able to fully replace themselves. For the species which breed in the Hudson estuary and have young stages vulnerable to entrainment, the estimated power station mortality rate is sufficiently high to cause a significant reduction in adult numbers.

"Because the tomcod is a short-lived fish which stays for its entire life within the Hudson estuary, is not commercially fished and suffers the highest level of entrainment mortality of any fish in the estuary, it is a key species to study for the detection of power station effects. The Page 52 of 93

population of this fish is in long-term decline and entrainment losses must be considered a probable contributory cause. This would not be the case if strong density-dependence were operating after the early juvenile stages. However! there is no compelling evidence in favor of density-dependence and good reasons to believe it is not operating.

Not least of which is the rapid decline in abundance.

"In conclusion, it is not possible to dismiss the influence of the power plants on the fish community, particularly when it is proposed to further increase fish mortality rates. The present community is far from equilibrium and undergoing considerable change. The DEIS's simple declaration [of] it as 'healthy' is a complacent over-generalization." 118 The aquatic resource mortality from power plants is not comparable to the "selective cropping" that occurs in a regulated fishing or hunting season. Under such regulation, only selected species are harvested, and the forage base remains intact or is improved because fewer individuals higher on the food chain are available to consume lower food chain organisms. Furthermore, fishing and hunting seasons are generally established during that part of the annual cycle which provides both maximum benefit to the users and ensures the sustainability of the population.

Mortality at these Hudson River power plants is not limited to a specific, benign season; it occurs throughout the annual cycle, whenever the plants operate their "once-through" pumps. Finally, although impingement and entrainment mortality is measured, it is typically measured only for several of the 140 species of fishes found in the Hudson. Information about the impact on the full suite of aquatic organisms is limited.

Rather than "selective cropping", the impacts associated with power plants are more comparable to habitat degradation; the entire natural community is impacted.

These "once-through cooling" power plants do not selectively harvest individual species. Rather, impingement and entrainment and warming of the water impact the entire community of organisms that inhabit the water column.

For example, these impacts diminish a portion of the forage base for each species that consumes plankton (drifting organisms in the water column) or nekton (mobile organisms swimming through the water column) so there is less food available for the survivors. In an intact ecosystem, these organisms serve as compact packets of nutrients and energy, with each trophic (food chain) level serving to capture a diffuse resource and make it more concentrated. Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs, larvae and very small fish which drift in the water column) and small fish feed on a base of zooplankton (drifting animal life) and phytoplankton (drifting plant life). The loss of these small organisms in the natural community may be a factor that leads to 118 Henderson, P. A. and R. M. Seaby, 2000. Technical Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Renewal for Bowline Point 1 & 2, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton 1 &

2 Steam Generating Stations. June 2000, Pisces Conservation Ltd. (PISCES report; included in App. F- 1.)

Page 53 of 93

harmful algal blooms.1l9 The small fish themselves serve as forage for the young of larger species, which serve as forage for larger individuals, and so on up the food chain, more correctly understood as a "trophic pyramid".

Once-through cooling mortality "short-circuits" the trophic pyramid and compromises the health of the natural community. For example, while an individual bay anchovy might ordinarily serve as food for a juvenile striped bass or even for a common tern, entrainment and passage through a power plant's cooling system would render it useful only as food to lower trophic level organisms. It could no longer provide its other ecosystem functions of consuming phytoplankton, digesting and concentrating it into its tissues, and ranging over a wide area, distributing other nutrients as manure. This is just a single example from a very complex natural system, where the same basic impact is multiplied millions of times over more than one hundred fish species.

The direct reduction of the quantity of organisms within the water column by water intakes is known as draw-down. The draw-down of organisms can be understood from the work which HydroQual performed for one of the generators to quantify probabilities of entrainment or re-entrainment for passive particles such as plankton. no This study produced multiple profiles of the velocities at various depths across multiple sections of the Hudson in the vicinity of the HRSA generating stations. The measurements were done continuously through time and gave an hourly, three-dimensional profile of water particle travel through time and space in the Hudson; both high flow and low flow conditions were considered. Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate the probability of any single egg or larva or other plankton organism being entrained within seven days of momentarily occupying a single location.12l The actual draw-down is likely even greater because the three HRSA generating plants (combined with other facilities in the same river reaches) act cumulatively on the entire aquatic community; many organisms live in this reach of the River for more than seven days; and any organisms coming from upstream, such as tomcod, would also be subject to the draw-down from the Danskammer and Lovett Stations (located in the same river reach but not part of the HRSA nor the subject of this FEIS; see Fig. 2 at end of Regulatory Setting). The most important effect of drawdown is that it dramatically reduces food availability within the ecosystem and, thus, survivability of multiple speCies over significant stretches of the Hudson River.

119 Capriulo, G. M., G. Smith, R. Troy, G. H. Wikfors, J. Pellet, and C. Yarish.

2002. The planktonic food web structure of a temperate zone estuary, and its alteration due to eutrophication. Hydrobiologia 475/476: 263-333.

20 HydroQual, Inc. 1999. Modeling the Entrainment of Passive Particles Into Hudson River Power Plants. For Orange and Rockland Utilities, February 1999, by HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.

121 From HydroQual, 1999.

122 HydroQual, 1999.

Page 54 of 93

Fig. 4. Entra inmen t Proba bility at Low FloW 122

"'I § § I

<" 8

is li5 o-s S c;

0 0..

~ S ,~;g 5>

OS

.§ E:l1 cr: j a"

S ~

?,

"S ~

~ i ~1 <:'C,.

N I S"-; ¢,

<C>

co 2 ~ 2 ""

h)'d'3 Page 55 of 93