Text

Official Exhibit - NYS00132A-00-BD01 - NUREG-1437, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Indian Point Units 2 and 3. Supplement 38, Volumes 1 and 2 (December 2008) (Dseis)
	ML12334A631
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/14/2011
From:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
	SECY RAS
References
	RAS 21541, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 NUREG-1437, V1, S38
	Download: ML12334A631 (180)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. In the Matter of: (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) NYS00132A ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Submitted: December 14, 2011 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS00132A-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn: Rejected: Stricken: Other: U.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-1437, Vol. 1 Supplement 38 Protecting People and the Environment Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Draft Report for Comment Main Report Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OAGI0001366_00001

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal http.://INININ.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and Publicly released records include, to name a few, congressional reports. Such documents as theses, NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal from their sponsoring organization. memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their Copies of industry codes and standards used in a attachments. substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at-NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC The NRC Technical Library regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of Two White Flint North Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 11545 Rockville Pike of these two sources. Rockville, MD 20852-2738

1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP These standards are available in the library for Washington, DC 20402-0001 reference use by the public. Codes and standards are Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the Telephone: 202-512-1800 originating organization or, if they are American Fax: 202-512-2250 National Standards, from---

2. The National Technical Information Service American National Standards Institute nd Springfield, VA 22161-0002 11 West 42 Street INININ. ntis. gov New York, NY 10036-8002 1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000 INININ. ansi. org 212-642-4900 A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request as follows: Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical Office of Administration specifications; or orders, not in Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in Washington, DC 20555-0001 contractor-prepared publications in this series are not E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov necessarily those of the NRC.

Facsimile: 301-415-2289 The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and Some publications in the NUREG series that are administrative reports and books prepared by the staff posted at NRC's Web site address (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors http://INININ. nrc. gov/read ing-rm/doc-collections/n uregs (NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences are updated periodically and may differ from the last (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from printed version. Although references to material found international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) on a Web site bear the date the material was brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations accessed, the material available on the date cited may of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and subsequently be removed from the site. Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors' decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG-0750). OAGI0001366_00002

~U.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-1437, Vol. 1 Supplement 38 Protecting People and the Environment Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Draft Report for Comment Main Report Manuscript Completed: December 2008 Date Published: December 2008 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OAGI0001366_00003

COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please specify the report number NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, draft, in your comments, and send them by March 11, 2009, to the following address: Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop TWB-05-B01 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC bye-mail at IndianPoint.EIS@nrc.gov. For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: Drew Stuyvenberg Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-11E19 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Phone: 301-415-4006 E-mail: andrew.stuyvenberg@nrc.gov OAG10001366_00004

1 ABSTRACT 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of 3 renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses for a 20-year period in NUREG-1437, 4 Volumes 1 and 2, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 5 Plants" (hereafter referred to as the GEIS),(1) and codified the results in Title 10, Part 51, 6 "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 7 Functions," of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). In the GElS (and its 8 Addendum 1), the NRC staff identified 92 environmental issues and reached generic 9 conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to 10 plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific review is required for 11 the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included in a supplement to the 12 GElS. 13 This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an 14 application submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Entergy Nuclear Indian 15 Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (all applicants will be jointly referred to as 16 Entergy) to the NRC to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 17 Nos. 2 and 3 (lP2 and IP3) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54, "Requirements for 18 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." This draft SEIS includes the NRC 19 staff's analysis which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, 20 the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures 21 available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the NRC staff's preliminary 22 recommendation regarding the proposed action. 23 Regarding the 69 issues for which the GElS reached generic conclusions, neither Entergy nor 24 the NRC staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issues that apply 25 to IP2 and/or IP3. In addition, the NRC staff determined that information provided during the 26 scoping process was not new and significant with respect to the conclusions in the GElS. 27 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the operating licenses for IP2 28 and IP3 will not be greater than the impacts identified for these issues in the GElS. For each of 29 these issues, the NRC staff's conclusion in the GElS is that the impact is of SMALL(2) 30 significance (except for the collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and high-31 level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level). 32 Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to IP2 and IP3 are addressed in this draft 33 SEIS. The NRC staff determined that several of these issues were not applicable because of 34 the type of facility cooling system or other reasons detailed within this SEIS. For the remaining 35 applicable issues, the NRC staff concludes that the significance of potential environmental 36 impacts related to operating license renewal is SMALL, with four exceptions-entrainment, 37 impingement, heat shock from the facility's heated discharge, and impacts to aquatic 38 endangered species. Overall effects from entrainment and impingement may be SMALL to (1) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GElS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1. (2) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. December 2008 iii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00005

Abstract 1 LARGE, depending on the species affected. Impacts from heat shock likely range from SMALL 2 to MODERATE depending on the conclusions of thermal studies proposed by the New York 3 State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). NRC staff did not find data that 4 suggest the effect of heat shock is likely to rise to LARGE. Given the uncertainties in the data 5 NRC staff reviewed, impacts to the endangered shortnose sturgeon could range from SMALL to 6 LARGE. 7 The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse 8 environmental impacts of license renewals for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that preserving the 9 option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This 10 recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GElS, (2) the environmental 11 report submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) 12 the NRC staff's own independent review, and (5) the NRC staff's consideration of public 13 comments received during the scoping process. 14 Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 15 This NUREG does not contain information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject 16 to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 ef seq.). These 17 information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval 18 numbers 3150-0004,3150-0155,3150-0014,3150-0011, 3150-0021, 3150-0132, and 19 3150-0151. 20 Public Protection Notification 21 The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 22 information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 23 currently valid OMB control number. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 iv December 2008 OAG10001366_00006

Table of Contents ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARy ............................................................................................................xiii Abbreviations/Acronyms ............................................................................................................ xix 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Report Contents ............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................ 1-3 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process ....................................................................... 1-4 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action .......................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................. 1-7 1.5 Compliance and Consultations ........................................................................................ 1-7

1. 6 References ....................................................................................................................... 1-8 2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction with the Environment. ........................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the Renewal Term .................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting ............................................................................. 2-2 2.1.2 Reactor Systems .......................................................................................................2-5 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems ....................................................................... 2-8 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems .............. 2-14 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems .............................................................................. 2-21 2.1.6 Facility Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................ 2-23 2.1.7 Power Transmission System ................................................................................... 2-23 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment.. ......................................................................... 2-24 2.2.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................2-24 2.2.2 Water Use ...............................................................................................................2-24 2.2.3 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................2-24 2.2.4 Meteorology and Air Quality .................................................................................... 2-26 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................................2-30 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources .............................................................................................. 2-83 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts ............................................................................................. 2-103 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors ......................................................................................... 2-110 2.2.9 Historic and Archeological Resources .................................................................. 2-130 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations .......................................... 2-135 2.3 References ...................................................................................................................2-138 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REFURBISHMENT ....................................................... 3-1 3.1 Potential Refurbishment Activities .................................................................................... 3-2 3.1 Refurbishment Impacts .................................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.1 Terrestrial Ecology-Refurbishment Impacts ............................................................ 3-7 3.1.2 Threatened or Endangered Species-Refurbishment Impacts ................................. 3-8 December 2008 v Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00007

Contents 3.1.3 Air Quality During Refurbishment (Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas) ............ 3-9 3.1.4 Housing Impacts-Refurbishment .......................................................................... 3-10 3.1.5 Public Services: Public Utilities-Refurbishment ................................................... 3-10 3.1.6 Public Services: Education-Refurbishment.. ........................................................ 3-11 3.1.7 Offsite Land Use-Refurbishment .......................................................................... 3-11 3.1.8 Public Services: Transportation-Refurbishment .................................................. 3-11 3.1.9 Historic and Archeological Resources-Refurbishment... ....................................... 3-12 3.1.10 Environmental Justice-Refurbishment ................................................................ 3-13 3.2 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Impacts of Refurbishment ................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3 Summary of Refurbishment Impacts .............................................................................. 3-13 3.4 References ..................................................................................................................... 3-13 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation ................................................................................... .4-1 4.1 Cooling System ............................................................................................................... .4-2 4.1.1 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish ......................................................................... .4-10 4.1.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Lifestages ............................................ .4-13 4.1.3 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment.. ............................................ .4-14 4.1.4 Heat Shock ............................................................................................................. .4-21 4.1.5 Potential Mitigation Options ................................................................................... .4-27 4.2 Transmission Lines ....................................................................................................... .4-31 4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields-Acute Effects .................................................................. .4-33 4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields-Chronic Effects ............................................................... .4-34 4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations .................................................................. .4-35 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations during the License Renewal Term .......... .4-37 4.4.1 Housing Impacts .................................................................................................... .4-38 4.4.2 Public Services-Public Utility Impacts ................................................................... 4-39 4.4.3 Offsite Land Use-License Renewal Period .......................................................... .4-40 4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts during Operations ................................. .4-42 4.4.5 Historic and Archeological Resources ................................................................... .4-42 4.4.6 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ .4-44 4.5 Ground Water Use and Quality ..................................................................................... .4-49 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species ............................................................................. .4-49 4.6.1 Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species ......................................................... .4-50 4.6.2 Terrestrial Threatened or Endangered Species ..................................................... .4-53 4.7 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information on Impacts of Operations during the Renewal Term .............................................................................................. .4-54 4.8 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... .4-54 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources ............................................................ .4-55 4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ....................................................... .4-58 4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts ........................................................................... .4-60 4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts ...................................................................... .4-61 4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Ground Water Use and Quality ......................................... .4-62 4.8.6 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts .......................................................... .4-62 4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations during the Renewal Term ..................................... .4-62 4.10 References ...................................................................................................................4-63 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 vi December 2008 OAG10001366_00008

Contents 5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents .................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.2 Severe Accidents ...................................................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ........................................................................... 5-4 5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5-4 5.2.2 Estimate of Risk ........................................................................................................ 5-5 5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements ................................................................................... 5-7 5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements ....................................... 5-8 5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison .......................................................................................... 5-8 5.2.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 5-10 5.3 References ..................................................................................................................... 5-11 6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management.. ........... 6-1 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle ..................................................................................................6-2 6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 6-7 6.2.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................6-7 6.2.2 IP2 and IP3 ...............................................................................................................6-8 6.2.3 GElS ..........................................................................................................................6-8 6.2.4 Other Studies ............................................................................................................6-8 6.2.5 Qualitative .................................................................................................................6-8 6.2.6 Quantitative ...............................................................................................................6-9 6.2.7 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal. ................... 6-11 6.2.8 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas ........ 6-13 6.2.9 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy Sources ......................................................................................................6-13 6.2.10 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................6-15 6.3 References .....................................................................................................................6-16 7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning ....................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Decommissioning ............................................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 References .......................................................................................................................7-4 8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to License Renewal ................................................ 8-1 8.1 Alternatives to the Existing IP2 and IP3 Cooling-Water System ...................................... 8-2 8.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative .............................................................................. 8-4 8.1.2 Modified Existing Once-Through Cooling System with Restoration Alternative .............................................................................................................. 8-16 8.2 No-Action Alternative ..................................................................................................... 8-25 8.3 Alternative Energy Sources ............................................................................................ 8-31 8.3.1 Supercritical Coal-Fired Generation ........................................................................ 8-33 8.3.2 Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Generation ..................................................... 8-46 8.3.3 Purchased Electrical Power .................................................................................... 8-56 8.3.4 Other Alternatives ................................................................................................... 8-58 8.3.5 Combination of Alternatives .................................................................................... 8-65 8.4 Summary of Alternatives Considered ............................................................................. 8-78 8.5 References ..................................................................................................................... 8-78 December 2008 vii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00009

Contents 9.0 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................. 9-1 9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action-License Renewal ................................ 9-4 9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................. 9-6 9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments ................................................. 9-6 9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity ...................................................... 9-7 9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 9-7 9.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 9-8 9.4 References ..................................................................................................................... 9-12 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 viii December 2008 OAG10001366_00010

Figures Figure 2-1. Location of IP2 and IP3, 50-mi (80-km) radius ........................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-2. Location of IP2 and IP3, 6-mi (10-km) radius .......................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3. IP2 and IP3 property boundaries and environs ....................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-4. IP2 and IP3 site layout.. .......................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-5. IP2 intake structure ................................................................................................ 2-10 Figure 2-6. FIP3 intake structure .............................................................................................2-11 Figure 2-7. IP2 intake system ..................................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-8. IP3 intake system ..................................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-9. Topographic features surrounding IP2 and IP3 ..................................................... 2-25 Figure 2-10. Hudson study area and river segments ............................................................... 2-31 Figure 2-11. Hudson river area and national estuarine research sites ................................... 2-32 Figure 4-1. Percentage of impingement comprised of RIS fish and RIS fish plus blue crab in relation to the total estimated impingement at IP2 ........................................................ .4-11 Figure 4-2. Percentage of impingement comprised of RIS fish and RIS fish plus blue crab in relation to the total estimated impingement at IP3 ....................................................... .4-11 Figure 4-3. Percentage of entrainment comprised of RIS fish and total fish in relation to the total estimated entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined ............................................... .4-14 Figure 4-4. General weight-of-evidence approach employed to assess the level of impact to population trends attributable to IP cooling system operation ..................................... .4-15 Figure 4-5. Minority block groups in 2000 within a 50-mi radius of IP2 and IP3 ..................... .4-46 Figure 4-6. Low-income block groups in 2000 within a 50-mi radius of IP2 and IP3 .............. .4-47 December 2008 ix Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00011

Tables Table 2-1. Historical Impacts on the Hudson River Watershed ............................................... 2-41 Table 2-2. Facilities Discharging at Least 50 mgd (190,000 m3/day) into the Lower Hudson River ..................................................................................................................................2-43 Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Hudson River Environmental Studies Table .......................................... 2-50 Table 2-4. Representative Important Aquatic Species ............................................................. 2-51 Table 2-5. Locations in the Hudson River Estuary (see Figure 2-6) Where the Presence of RIS Life Stages Represented at Least 10 Percent of the Total Number Collected in Referenced Surveys or Studies ..................................................................... 2-54 Table 2-6. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially Occurring in Westchester County ..........................................................................................................2-89 Table 2-7. IP2 and IP3 Employee Residence by County in 2006 .......................................... 2-111 Table 2-8. Housing in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam and Westchester Counties, New York .... 2-112 Table 2-9. Major Public Water Supply Systems in 2005 (mgd) ............................................. 2-115 Table 2-10. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts on US 9 Near IP2 and IP3, 2004 ............. 2-117 Table 2-11. Population and Percent Growth in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties, New York, from 1970 to 2000 and Projected for 2010 and 2050 ..........................................................................................................................2-121 Table 2-12. Demographic Profile of the Population in the IP2 and IP3 .................................. 2-122 Table 2-13. Demographic Profile of the Population in the IP2 and IP3 Four-County ROI in 2006 (Estimate) ............................................................................................................2-123 Table 2-14. Seasonal Housing within 50 mi (80 km) of the IP2 and IP3 ................................ 2-124 Table 2-15. Migrant Farm Worker and Temporary Farm Labor within 50 mi (80 km) of IP2 and IP3 ......................................................................................................................2-126 Table 2-16. Major Employers in Westchester County in 2006 ............................................... 2-128 Table 2-17. Income Information for the IP2 and IP3 ROI. ...................................................... 2-128 Table 2-18. IP2 and IP3 PILOT and Property Tax Paid and Percentage of the Total Revenue of the Town of Cortlandt, Hendrick Hudson Central School District, and Village of Buchanan, 2003 to 2006 ........................................................................... 2-130 Table 2-19. Cultural Sequence and Chronology .................................................................... 2-131 Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation ..................................................... 3-5 Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation ..................................................... 3-7 Table 4-1. Generic (Category 1) Issues Applicable to the Operation of the IP2 and IP3 Cooling System during the Renewal Term ......................................................................... .4-2 December 2008 x Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00012

Tables Table 4-2. Site-Specific (Category 2) Issues Applicable to the Operation of the IP2 and IP3 Cooling System during the Renewal Term ......................................................................... .4-6 Table 4-3. Assumed Cumulative Mortality and Injury of Selected Fish Species after Impingement on Ristroph Screens .................................................................................... .4-12 Table 4-4. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River RIS ................ .4-20 Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the IP2 and IP3 Transmission Lines during the Renewal Term .................................................................................................................. .4-31 Table 4-6. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the IP2 and IP3 Transmission Lines during the Renewal Term .................................................................. .4-33 Table 4-7. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations during the Renewal Term ................................................................................................. .4-36 Table 4-8. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics during the Renewal Term ........ .4-37 Table 4-9. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice during the Renewal Term ................................................................................................. .4-38 Table 4-10. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species during the Renewal Term .................................................................................................................. .4-49 Table 4-11. Impingement Data for Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon at IP2 and IP3, 1975-1990 .........................................................................................................................4-52 Table 5-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents during the Renewal Term ... 5-2 Table 5-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents during the Renewal Term .. 5-4 Table 5-3. IP2 and IP3 Core Damage Frequency ...................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Failure Mode ................................ 5-7 Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management during the Renewal Term ............................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2. Nuclear GHG Emissions Compared to Coal. .......................................................... 6-11 Table 6-3. Nuclear GHG Emissions Compared to Natural Gas ............................................... 6-13 Table 6-4. Nuclear GHG Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy Sources ...................... 6-14 Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of IP2 and IP3 Following the Renewal Term ...............................................................................................................7-2 Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative and a Modified Existing Once-Through Cooling System with Restoration Alternative at IP2 and IP3 .................................................................................................................... 8-23 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative .......................... 8-26 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Coal-Fired Plant Alternative Located at an Alternate Site ............................................................................................................ 8-44 December 2008 xi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00013

Tables Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Natural Gas-Fired Plant Alternative Located at IP2 and IP3 and an Alternate Site .................................................................... 8-53 Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Combination Alternatives .......................... 8-76 Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation ............................................................ 9-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xii December 2008 OAG10001366_00014

1 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

2 By letter dated April 30, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an 3 application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses 4 for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (lP2 and IP3) for an additional 20-year 5 period. If the operating licenses are renewed, State regulatory agencies and Entergy will 6 ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need 7 for power, issues falling under the purview of the owners, or other matters within the State's 8 jurisdiction, including acceptability of water withdrawal, consistency with State water quality 9 standards, and consistency with State coastal zone management plans. If the operating 10 licenses are not renewed, then IP2 and IP3 must be shut down at or before the expiration date 11 of their current operating licenses which expire September 28, 2013, and December 12, 2015, 12 respectively. 13 The NRC has implemented Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 14 amended (42 U.S.C. 4321), in Title 10, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for 15 Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," of the Code of Federal Regulations 16 (10 CFR Part 51). In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an 17 environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor 18 operating license. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the operating 19 license renewal stage will be a supplement to NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, "Generic 20 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" (hereafter referred to 21 as the GEIS).(1) 22 Upon acceptance of the IP2 and IP3 application, the NRC began the environmental review 23 process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and 24 conduct scoping. The NRC staff visited the IP2 and IP3 site in September 2007, held two public 25 scoping meetings on September 19, 2007, and conducted two site audits on September 10-14, 26 2007, and September 24-27,2007. In the preparation of this draft supplemental environmental 27 impact statement (SEIS) for IP2 and IP3, the NRC staff reviewed the IP2 and IP3 environmental 28 report (ER) and compared it to the GElS, consulted with other agencies, conducted an 29 independent review of the issues following the guidance in NUREG-1555, "Standard Review 30 Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License 31 Renewal," issued October 1999, and considered the public comments received during the 32 scoping process. The public comments received during the scoping process that were 33 considered to be within the scope of the environmental review are contained in the Scoping 34 Summary Report for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, issued by NRC staff in 35 December, 2008. In Appendix A of this SEIS, the NRC staff adopt, by reference, the comments 36 and responses in the Scoping Summary Report and provide information on how to electronically 37 access the scoping summary or view a hard copy. 38 The NRC staff will hold public meetings in Cortlandt Manor, New York, in February 2009 to 39 describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review, to answer questions, and to 40 provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments on this (1) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GElS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1. December 2008 xiii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00015

Executive Summary 1 draft SEIS. When the comment period ends, the NRC staff will consider and address all of the 2 comments received. These comments will be addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, to the final 3 SEIS. 4 This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the 5 environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the 6 proposed action, and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also 7 includes the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action. 8 The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal 9 from the GElS: 10 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) 11 is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 12 term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system 13 generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where 14 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. 15 The purpose of the NRC staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the 16 GElS, is to determine the following: 17 ... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so 18 great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning 19 decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 20 Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that 21 there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an 22 existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current operating 23 license (or licenses). 24 NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) contain the following statement regarding the content of 25 SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage: 26 The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not 27 required to include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and 28 economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed 29 action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a 30 determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives 31 considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental environmental 32 impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss other 33 issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the 34 alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the 35 scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) ["Temporary storage of 36 spent fuel after cessation of reactor operation-generic determination of no 37 significant environmental impact"] and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b). 38 The GElS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an 39 operating license and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates 40 92 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance-SMALL, 41 MODERATE, or LARGE-developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. 42 The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xiv December 2008 OAG10001366_00016

Executive Summary 1 Appendix 8, "Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power 2 Plant," to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, "National Environmental Policy Act-Regulations 3 Implementing Section 102(2)": 4 SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 5 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 6 MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 7 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 8 LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 9 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 10 For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GElS, the analysis in the GElS reached the following 11 conclusions: 12 (1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply 13 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system 14 or other specified plant or site characteristics. 15 (2) A single significance level (that is, SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned 16 to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and 17 from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal). 18 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the 19 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures 20 are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 21 These 69 issues were identified in the GElS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and 22 significant information, the staff relied on conclusions in the GElS for issues designated as 23 Category 1 in Table 8-1 of Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A. 24 Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2 25 issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GElS. The remaining two issues, 26 environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. 27 Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant-28 specific supplement to the GElS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields 29 was not conclusive at the time the GElS was prepared. 30 This draft SEIS documents the NRC staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues 31 identified in the GElS. The NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with 32 alternatives to license renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and 33 the alternatives. The alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action 34 alternative (not renewing the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3), alternative methods of power 35 generation, and conservation. The NRC staff also considered two alternatives that included 36 continued operation of IP2 and IP3 with either a closed-cycle cooling system, or a combination 37 of intake modifications and habitat restoration projects that may achieve similar effects on 38 aquatic organisms as closed cycle cooling because the New York State Department of 39 Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issued a preliminary determination, in its 2003 draft 40 State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit that closed cycle cooling is the 41 site-specific best technology available to reduce impacts on fish and shellfish. NYSDEC's 2003 42 draft SPDES permit indicated that Entergy could propose another alternative that would have December 2008 xv Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00017

Executive Summary 1 similar effects on aquatic species. The 2003 SPDES permit is currently subject to adjudication 2 and has not gone into effect. 3 Entergy and the NRC staff have established independent processes for identifying and 4 evaluating the significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license 5 renewal. Neither Entergy nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant 6 related to Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GElS. Similarly, 7 neither the scoping process nor the NRC staff has identified any new issue applicable to IP2 8 and IP3 that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the NRC staff relies on the 9 conclusions of the GElS for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to IP2 and IP3. 10 Entergy's license renewal application presents an analysis of the 21 Category 2 issues that are 11 applicable to IP2 and IP3, plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic 12 fields, for a total of 23 issues. The NRC staff has reviewed the Entergy analysis and has 13 conducted an independent review of each issue. Six of the Category 2 issues are not 14 applicable because they are related to the type of existing cooling system, water use conflicts, 15 and ground water use not found at IP2 and IP3. Entergy has stated that its evaluation of 16 structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, "Contents of Application-Technical 17 Information," did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications as 18 necessary to support the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 for the license renewal period. 19 Entergy did, however, indicate that it may replace reactor vessel heads and control rod drive 20 mechanisms at IP2 and IP3, though it has no firm plans to do so at this time. The NRC staff has 21 evaluated the potential impacts of these activities using the framework provided by the GElS for 22 addressing refurbishment issues. 23 Seventeen environmental issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during 24 the renewal term are discussed in detail in this draft SEIS. These include 15 Category 2 issues 25 and two uncategorized issues, environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic 26 fields. The NRC staff also discusses in detail the potential impacts related to the 10 Category 2 27 issues that apply to refurbishment activities. The NRC staff concludes that the potential 28 environmental effects for most of these issues are of SMALL significance in the context of the 29 standards set forth in the GElS with four exceptions-entrainment, impingement, heat shock 30 from the facility's heated discharge, and impacts to aquatic endangered species. The NRC staff 31 jointly assessed the impacts of entrainment and impingement to range from SMALL to LARGE 32 (depending on species affected), based on NRC's analysis of representative important species. 33 Impacts from heat shock likely range from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the 34 conclusions of thermal studies proposed by the New York State Department of Environmental 35 Conservation (NYSDEC). NRC staff did not find data that suggest the effect of heat shock is 36 likely to rise to LARGE. Given the uncertainties in the data NRC staff reviewed, impacts to the 37 endangered shortnose sturgeon could range from SMALL to LARGE. The NRC staff 38 considered mitigation measures for each applicable Category 2 issue. 39 The NRC staff also determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a 40 consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, 41 no further evaluation of this issue is required. 42 For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, 43 comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the 44 SAMAs for IP2 and IP3 and the plant improvements already made, the NRC staff concludes that Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xvi December 2008 OAG10001366_00018

Executive Summary 1 several SAMAs may be cost-beneficial. However, these SAMAs do not relate to adequate 2 management of the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they do 3 not need to be implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, 4 "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." 5 Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were 6 considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 7 other actions. For purposes of this analysis, the NRC staff determined that the cumulative 8 impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources in the IP2 and IP3 environs would be LARGE, due 9 primarily to past development and pollution, much of which preceded IP2 and IP3 or occurred 10 as a result of other actions (for example, suburban development and hardening of the Hudson 11 River shoreline). 12 NRC analysis indicates that the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will differ from those of the 13 proposed action. Most alternatives result in smaller impacts to aquatic life, while creating 14 greater impacts in other resource areas. Often, the most significant environmental impacts of 15 alternatives result from constructing new facilities or infrastructure. 16 The preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the 17 adverse environmental impacts of license renewals for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that not 18 preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be 19 unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GElS, 20 (2) the ER submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, 21 (4) the staff's own independent review, and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments 22 received during the scoping process. December 2008 xvii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00019

1 ABBREVIA TIONS/ACRONYMS 0 2 degree(s) 3 IJm micron(s) 4 ac acre(s) 5 AC alternating current 6 ACC averted cleanup and decontamination 7 ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 8 AEC Atomic Energy Commission 9 AFW auxiliary feed water 10 AGTC Algonquin Gas Transmission Company 11 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 12 ANOVA analysis of variance 13 AOC averted off-site property damage costs 14 AOE averted occupational exposure costs 15 AOSC averted on-site costs 16 APE averted public exposure 17 ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 18 ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 19 ASSS alternate safe shutdown system 20 ATWS anticipated transient without scram 21 AUTOSAM Automated Abundance Sampler 22 BA biological assessment 23 Bq/L bequerel per liter 24 Bq/kg bequerel per kilogram 25 BSS Beach Seine Survey 26 BTA best technology available 27 BTU British thermal unit(s) 28 C Celsius 29 CAA Clean Air Act 30 CAFTA computer aided fault-tree analysis code 31 CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 32 CCF common cause failure 33 CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 34 CCW component cooling water 35 CDF core damage frequency 36 COM Clean Development Mechanism 37 CET Containment Event Tree 38 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 39 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 40 cfs cubic foot (feet) per second 41 CHGEC Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation 42 Ci curie(s) 43 cm centimeter(s) December 2008 xix Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00020

Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 CMR conditional mortality rate 2 CNP Cook Nuclear Plant 3 CO carbon monoxide 4 CO 2 carbon dioxide 5 COE cost of enhancement 6 COL Combined License 7 Con Edison Consolidated Edison Company of New York 8 CORMIX Cornell University Mixing Zone Model 9 CPUE catch-per-unit-effort 10 CST condensate storage tank 11 CSET Containment Safeguards for Event Tree 12 cu ft cubic feet 13 CV coefficient of variation 14 CVCS Chemical and Volume Control System 15 CWA Clean Water Act 16 CWIS Circulating Water Intake System 17 CWS Circulating Water System 18 CWSH Circulating Water Screenhouse 19 cy cubic yards 20 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 21 dB(A) decibel(s) 22 DBA Design-basis accident 23 DC direct current 24 DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 25 DNA deoxyribonucleic acid 26 DO dissolved oxygen 27 DOC dissolved organic carbon 28 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 29 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 30 DPS distinct population segment 31 DSM demand-side management 32 DWR Division of Water Resources 33 ECl Environmental Conservation law 34 EDG emergency diesel generator 35 EIA Energy Information Administration 36 EIS environmental impact statement 37 ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field 38 Enercon Enercon Services, Inc. 39 Entergy Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 40 EO Executive Order 41 EOP emergency operating procedure 42 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 43 EPACT2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 44 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 45 ER Environmental Report Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xx December 2008 OAG10001366_00021

Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 ER-M effects-range-median 2 ERS Environmental Radiation Surveillance 3 ESA Endangered Species Act 4 ESP Early Site Permit 5 ESWS Essential Service Water System 6 F Fahrenheit 7 F&O Facts and Observations 8 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 9 FDA Food and Drug Administration 10 FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 11 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 12 FES Final Environmental Statement 13 FFTM far field thermal model 14 FIVE fire-induced vulnerability evaluation 15 FJS Fall Juvenile Survey 16 FMSY fishing mortality rate that can produce the maximum sustainable yield 17 FPC Federal Power Commission 18 fps feet per second 19 FPS fire protection system 20 FR Federal Register 21 FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 22 FSS Fall Shoals Survey 23 ft foot (feet) 24 ft2 square feet 25 fe cubic feet 26 ftlmi feet per mile 27 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 28 g gram(s) 29 gCeq/kWh gram(s) of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt-hour 30 GElS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 31 Plants, NUREG-1437 32 GHG greenhouse gas 33 GL Generic Letter 34 gpm gallon(s) per minute 35 GW gigawatt 36 HAP hazardous air pollutant 37 HCLPF high confidence of low probability of failure 38 HEPA high efficiency particulate air 39 HLW high-level waste 40 hr hour(s) 41 HRA Human Reliability Analysis 42 HRERF Hudson River Estuary Restoration Fund 43 HRF Hudson River Foundation 44 HRFI Hudson River Fisheries Investigation December 2008 xxi Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00022

Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 HRIF Hudson River Improvement Fund 2 HRPC Hudson River Policy Committee 3 HRSA Hudson River Settlement Agreement 4 HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 5 Hz hertz 6 in. inch(es) 7 INEEL Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory 8 IP1 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.1 9 IP2 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.2 10 IP3 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.3 11 IPE individual plant examination 12 IPEE individual plant examination of external events 13 ISFSI Independent Fuel Storage Installation 14 ISLOCA Interfacing Systems Loss of Coolant Accidents 15 IWSA Integrated Waste Services Association 16 kg kilogram(s) 17 kg/yr kilograms per year 18 km kilometer(s) 19 km 2 square kilometer(s) 20 kV kilovolt(s) 21 kW kilowatt 22 kWh kilowatt hour(s) 23 Ibs pounds 24 L liter(s) 25 LERF Large Early Release Frequency 26 LLMW low-level mixed waste 27 LOCA loss of coolant accident 28 LOE Line(s) of Evidence 29 LOS level of service 30 Ipm liters per minute 31 LPSI low pressure safety injection 32 LRS Long River Survey 33 LSE load serving entities 34 m meter(s) 35 mm millimeter(s) 36 m2 square meter(s) 37 m3 cubic meter(s) 38 m3/sec cubic meter(s) per second 39 mA milliampere(s) 40 MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program 41 MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 42 MBq megabequerel 43 MCL maximum contaminant level Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xxii December 2008 OAG10001366_00023

Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 MDS Minimum Desirable Streamflow 2 mg milligram(s) 3 mgd million gallons per day 4 mg/L milligram(s) per liter 5 mGy milligray 6 mi mile(s) 7 min minute(s) 8 MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9 mL milliliter(s) 10 MMACR Modified Maximum Averted Cost-Risk 11 MMBtu million British thermal unit(s) 12 mov motor-operated valve 13 mph miles per hour 14 mps meter(s) per second 15 mrad millirad(s) 16 mrem millirem(s) 17 MSE mean squared error 18 MSL mean sea level 19 MSPI Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator 20 mSv millisievert 21 MT metric ton(s) 22 MTU metric ton of uranium 23 MUDS Makeup Discharge Structure 24 MUSH Makeup Water Screen House 25 MW megawatt 26 MWd megawatt-days 27 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 28 MW(h) megawatt hour(s) 29 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 30 MWSF Mixed Waste Storage Facility 31 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 32 NAS National Academy of Sciences 33 NCP normal charging pump 34 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 35 NESC National Electric Safety Code 36 NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 37 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 38 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 39 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 40 NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 41 NJPDES New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 42 N0 2 nitrogen dioxide 43 NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 44 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 45 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 46 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 2008 xxiii Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00024

Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 NRDC Natural Resource Defense Council 2 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 3 NSPS New Source Performance Standards 4 NSSS nuclear steam supply system 5 NWJWW Northern Westchester Joint Water Works 6 NY/NJ/PHL New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia 7 NYCA New York Control Area 8 NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection 9 NYCEF New York City Environmental Fund 10 NYCRR New York Code of Rules and Regulations 11 NYISO New York Independent System Operator 12 NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program 13 NYPA New York Power Authority 14 NYPSC New York Public Service Commission 15 NYRI New York Regional Interconnect, Inc. 16 NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 17 NYSDOH New York State Department of Health 18 NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 19 NYSHPO New York State Historic Preservation Office 20 03 ozone 8-hour standard 21 OCNGS Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 22 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 23 OL operating license 24 PAB primary auxiliary building 25 PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 26 PAYS Pay as You Save 27 PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 28 pCilL picoCuries per liter 29 pCilkg picoCuries per kilogram 30 PDS plant damage state 31 PILOT payment-in-lieu-of-taxes 32 PM 2 .5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter 33 PM1Q particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter 34 POC particulate organic carbon 35 PORV power operated relief valve 36 POTW publicly owned treatment works 37 ppm parts per million 38 ppt parts per thousand 39 PRA probabilistic risk assessment 40 PSA probabilistic safety assessment 41 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 42 PV photovoltaic 43 PWR pressurized water reactor 44 PWW Poughkeepsie Water Works 45 PYSL post yolk-sac larvae Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xxiv December 2008 OAG10001366_00025

Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 2 R-EMP regional environmental monitoring and assessment program 3 radwaste radioactive waste 4 RAI request for additional information 5 RCP reactor coolant pump 6 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 7 RCS reactor cooling system 8 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 9 RHR residual heat removal 10 Riverkeeper Hudson River Fishermen's Association 11 RIS Representative Important Species 12 RKM river kilometer(s) 13 RLE review level earthquake 14 RM river mile(s) 15 RMP Risk Management Plan 16 ROD Record of Decision 17 ROI region of influence 18 ROW right-of-way 19 RPC long-term replacement power costs 20 rpm revolutions per minute 21 RRW risk reduction worth 22 RWST refueling water storage tank 23 s second(s) 24 SAFSTOR safe storage condition 25 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 26 SAR Safety Analysis Report 27 SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 28 SBO station blackout 29 Scenic Hudson Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference 30 SCR selective catalytic reduction 31 SEC POP sector population, land fraction and economic estimation program 32 SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 33 SER Safety Evaluation Report 34 SFP Spent Fuel Pool 35 SGBD steam generator blowdown 36 SGTR Steam Generator Tube Ruptures 37 S02 sulfur dioxide 38 SOx sulfur oxide(s) 39 SOP standard operating procedure(s) 40 SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 41 SPU stretch power update 42 sq mi square mile(s) 43 SRP Standard Review Plan 44 SSBR spawning stock biomass per-recruit 45 SSE safe shutdown earthquake December 2008 xxv Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00026

Abbreviations and Acronyms 1 Sv person-sievert 2 SWS service water system 3 T temperature 4 TO turbine driven 5 TDS total dissolved solids 6 TI-SGTR thermally-induced Steam Generator Tube Ruptures 7 TL total length 8 TLD Thermoluminescent dosimeter 9 TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 10 TOC total organic carbon 11 TRC TRC Environmental Corporation 12 UHS ultimate heat sink 13 U.S. United States 14 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 15 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 16 USD Unified School District 17 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 18 UWNY United Water New York 19 V volt(s) 20 VALNF value of non-farm wealth 21 VOC volatile organic compound 22 WET whole effluent toxicity 23 WJWW Westchester Joint Water Works 24 WOE weight of evidence 25 WOG Westinghouse Owner's Group 26 YSL yolk-sac larvae 27 YOY young of year 28 yr year(s) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 xxvi December 2008 OAG10001366_00027

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2 Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) environmental protection regulations 3 in Title 10, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 4 Regulatory Functions," of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), which implement 5 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear 6 power plant operating license requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement 7 (EIS). In preparing the EIS, the NRC staff is required first to issue the statement in draft form for 8 public comment and then to issue a final statement after considering public comments on the 9 draft. To support the preparation of the EIS, the NRC staff prepared NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 10 and 2, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" 11 (hereafter referred to as the GElS) (NRC 1996,1999).(1) The GElS is intended to (1) provide an 12 understanding of the types and severity of environmental impacts that may occur as a result of 13 license renewal of nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of 14 Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants," (2) identify and assess the impacts that are 15 expected to be generic to license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 by defining the 16 number and scope of issues that need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant 17 renewal proceedings. Use of the GElS guides the preparation of complete plant-specific 18 information in support of the operating license renewal process. 19 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, operate the 20 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (lP2 and IP3) nuclear power reactors, 21 respectively, as indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation and indirect wholly 22 owned subsidiaries of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). IP2 and IP3 are located in 23 Buchanan, New York. 24 IP2 has operated under operating license DPR-26, which was issued by the NRC, since 25 August 1974. The IP2 operating license will expire on September 28,2013. IP3 has operated 26 under operating license DPR-64, which was issued by the NRC, since August 1976. The IP3 27 operating license will expire on December 12,2015. Unit No.1 (lP1) was shut down in 1974. 28 Entergy, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, are joint 29 applicants for the renewal of the operating licenses (the joint applicants will be referred to as 30 Entergy). Entergy submitted an application to the NRC to renew the IP2 and IP3 operating 31 licenses for an additional 20 years each under 10 CFR Part 54 on April 30, 2007 (Entergy 32 2007a). Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23, "Contents of Application-Environmental Information," and 33 10 CFR 51.53(c), Entergy submitted an environmental report (ER) (Entergy 2007b) as part of 34 the license renewal application in which Entergy analyzed the environmental impacts associated 35 with the proposed license renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and 36 evaluated mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental effects. Entergy submitted 37 supplemental information clarifying operating licenses and applicant names in a letter on May 3, 38 2007 (Entergy 2007c). 39 This report is the draft facility-specific supplement to the GElS (the supplemental EIS (SEIS)) for 40 the Entergy license renewal application. This draft SEIS is a supplement to the GElS because it (1) The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the "GElS" include the GElS and its Addendum 1. December 2008 1-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00028

Introduction 1 relies, in part, on the findings of the GElS. The NRC staff will also prepare a separate safety 2 evaluation report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. 3 1.1 Report Contents 4 The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for the preparation of this 5 draft SEIS, including the development of the GElS and the process used by the NRC staff to 6 assess the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, (2) describe the proposed 7 Federal action to renew the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses, (3) discuss the purpose and need 8 for the proposed action, and (4) present the status of IP2 and IP3 compliance with 9 environmental quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, 10 regional, and local agencies that are responsible for environmental protection. 11 The ensuing chapters of this draft SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the 12 GElS. Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the 13 environment. Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of 14 plant refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an 15 evaluation of potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of 16 severe accident mitigation alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid 17 waste management. Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses 18 alternatives to license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding 19 chapters and draws conclusions about the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, the 20 relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and 21 enhancement of long-term productivity, and the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 22 resources. Chapter 9 also presents the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation with respect to 23 the proposed license renewal action. 24 Additional information is included in appendices. Appendix A contains public comments related 25 to the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses to those comments. 26 Appendices B through G include the following: 27

the pre parers of the supplement (Appendix B) 28
the chronology of the NRC staff's environmental review correspondence related to this 29 draft SEIS (Appendix C) 30
the organizations contacted during the development of this draft SEIS (Appendix D) 31
the IP2 and IP3 compliance status in Table E-1 and copies of consultation 32 correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process) (Appendix E) 33
GElS environmental issues that are not applicable to IP2 and IP3 (Appendix F) 34
NRC staff evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives (Appendix G) 35 1.2 Background 36 Use of the GElS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a 37 result of renewing individual nuclear power plant operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 54, and Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-2 December 2008 OAG10001366_00029

Introduction 1 the established license renewal evaluation process support the thorough evaluation of the 2 impacts of operating license renewal. 3 1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement 4 The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the 5 license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting 6 the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This 7 assessment is provided in the GElS, which serves as the principal reference for all nuclear 8 power plant license renewal EISs. 9 The GElS documents the results of the systematic approach that the NRC staff used to evaluate 10 the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants 11 and operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the 12 GElS (1) describes the activity that affects the environment, (2) identifies the population or 13 resource that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected 14 population or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of both beneficial and adverse effects, 15 (5) determines whether the results of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) considers whether 16 additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the same 17 significance level for all plants. 18 The NRC's standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on 19 Environmental Quality (CEQ) term "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires consideration 20 of both "context" and "intensity"). Using the CEQ terminology, the NRC established three 21 significance levels-SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the three significance 22 levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, "National 23 Environmental Policy Act-Regulations Implementing Section 102(2)," Appendix B, 24 "Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant," as follows: 25 SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 26 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 27 MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 28 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 29 LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 30 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 31 The GElS assigns a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that ongoing 32 mitigation measures would continue. 33 The GElS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be 34 applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues 35 are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GElS, Category 1 36 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria: 37 (1 ) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been 38 determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants 39 having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site 40 characteristics. 41 (2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has December 2008 1-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00030

Introduction 1 been assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological 2 impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel 3 disposal). 4 (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been 5 considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional 6 plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently 7 beneficial to warrant implementation. 8 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is 9 required in this draft SEIS unless new and significant information is identified. 10 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1; 11 therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required. 12 In the GElS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as 13 Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues were not categorized. The 14 two issues not categorized are environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic 15 fields. Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a 16 plant-specific supplement to the GElS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic 17 fields was not conclusive at the time the GElS was prepared. 18 Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment, 6 are related only to decommissioning, 19 67 apply only to operation during the renewal term, and 8 apply to both refurbishment and 20 operation during the renewal term. A summary of the findings for all 92 issues in the GElS is 21 codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. 22 1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process 23 An applicant seeking to renew its operating license is required to submit an ER as part of its 24 application. The license renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant's 25 ER and assurance that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in 26 or available during the GElS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the 27 environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal. 28 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must do the 29 following: 30

provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 31 Appendix B, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) 32
discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action and 33 environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action 34 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to do the following:

35

consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the 36 proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either (1) essential for 37 making a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of 38 alternatives considered or (2) relevant to mitigation Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-4 December 2008 OAG10001366_00031

Introduction 1

consider the need for power and other issues not related to the environmental effects of 2 the proposed action and the alternatives 3
discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic 4 determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b) 5
pursuant to 10 CFR 51.23(c)(3)(iii) and (iv), contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue 6 unless there is significant new information on a specific issue 7 New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental issue 8 not covered in the GElS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, or 9 (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GElS and that leads 10 to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GElS and codified in 11 10 CFR Part 51.

12 In preparing to submit its application to renew the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses, Entergy 13 developed a process to ensure that (1) information not addressed in or available during the 14 GElS evaluation regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal for IP2 and IP3 would 15 be properly reviewed before submitting the ER and (2) such new and potentially significant 16 information related to renewal of the licenses for IP2 and IP3 would be identified, reviewed, and 17 assessed during the period of NRC review. Entergy reviewed the Category 1 issues that 18 appear in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of 19 the GElS remain valid with respect to IP2 and IP3. This review was performed by personnel 20 from Entergy who were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved in the 21 preparation of a license renewal ER. 22 The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process 23 is described in detail in NUREG-1555, "Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for 24 Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal," issued March 2000 (NRC 25 2000). The search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant's ER and the process 26 for discovering and evaluating the significance of new information, (2) review of records of 27 public comments, (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations, 28 (4) coordination with Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies, 29 and (5) review of the technical literature. New information discovered by the NRC staff is 30 evaluated for significance using the criteria set forth in the GElS. For Category 1 issues where 31 new and significant information is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues 32 is limited in scope to the assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope 33 of the assessment does not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new 34 information. 35 Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GElS that are 36 applicable to IP2 and IP3. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, there is a 37 table that identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GElS where the 38 issue is discussed. Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For 39 Category 1 issues for which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by 40 a set of short paragraphs that state the GElS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 41 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, followed by the staff's analysis and conclusion. For 42 Category 2 issues, in addition to the list of GElS sections where the issue is discussed, the 43 tables list the subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and December 2008 1-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00032

Introduction 1 the draft SEIS sections where the analysis is presented. The draft SEIS sections that discuss 2 the Category 2 issues are presented immediately following the table. 3 The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal 4 and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of 5 the Entergy license renewal application began with the publication of a notice of acceptance for 6 docketing, notice of opportunity for a hearing, and notice of intent to prepare an EIS and 7 conduct scoping in the Federal Register, May 11,2007 (72 FR 26850; NRC 2007). A public 8 scoping meeting was held on June 27,2007, in Cortlandt Manor, New York. Comments 9 received during the scoping period have been summarized by the NRC in a summary report 10 issued in December of 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 11 (ADAMS) Accession No. ML083360115). The NRC staff adopts by reference the scoping 12 summary report in Part 1 of Appendix A to this draft SEIS. 13 The NRC staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (NRC 14 2000). The NRC staff, and the contractor retained to assist the NRC staff, visited the IP2 and 15 IP3 site on September 11 and 12, 2007, and again on September 24 and 25,2007, to gather 16 information and to become familiar with the site and its environs. The NRC staff also reviewed 17 the comments received during scoping and consulted with Federal, State, regional, and local 18 agencies. A list of the organizations consulted is provided in Appendix D. Other documents 19 related to IP2 and IP3 were reviewed and are referenced within this draft SEIS. 20 This draft SEIS presents the NRC staff's preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the 21 environmental effects of the proposed renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3, the 22 environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal, and mitigation measures available for 23 avoiding adverse environmental effects. Chapter 9, "Summary and Conclusions," provides the 24 NRC staff's preliminary recommendation to the Commission on whether the adverse 25 environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license 26 renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 27 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental 28 Protection Agency Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS to allow members of the public to comment 29 on the preliminary results of the NRC staff's review. During this comment period, a public 30 meeting will be held in Cortlandt Manor, New York, in February 2009. During this meeting, the 31 NRC staff will describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and answer 32 questions related to it to provide members of the public with information to assist them in 33 formulating their comments. 34 1.3 The Proposed Federal Action 35 The proposed Federal action is renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 (lP1 was shut 36 down in 1974). IP2 and IP3 are located on approximately 239 acres of land on the east bank of 37 the Hudson River at Indian Point, Village of Buchanan, in upper Westchester County, New York, 38 approximately 24 miles north of the New York City boundary line. The facility has two 39 Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors. IP2 is currently licensed to generate 40 3216 megawatts thermal (MW(t)) (core power) with a design net electrical capacity of 41 1078 megawatts electric (MW(e)). IP3 is currently licensed to generate 3216 MW(t) (core 42 power) with a design net electrical capacity of about 1080 MW(e). IP2 and IP3 cooling is Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-6 December 2008 OAG10001366_00033

Introduction 1 provided by water from the Hudson River to various heat loads in both the primary and 2 secondary portions of the plants. The current operating license for IP2 expires on 3 September 28,2013, and the current operating license for IP3 expires on December 12,2015. 4 By letter dated April 23, 2007, Entergy submitted an application to the NRC (Entergy 2007a) to 5 renew the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses for an additional 20 years. 6 1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 7 Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the 8 existing operating license, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions 9 that must be met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed 10 license. Once an operating license is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the 11 plant will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as 12 the need for power or matters within the State's jurisdiction-including acceptability of water 13 withdrawal, consistency with State water quality standards, and consistency with State coastal 14 zone management plans-or the purview of the owners, such as whether continued operation 15 makes economic sense. 16 Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and 17 need (GElS Section 1.3): 18 The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) 19 is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the 20 term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system 21 generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where 22 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. 23 This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are 24 findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or 25 findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license 26 renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State 27 regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to 28 operate. From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of 29 renewing an operating license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system 30 energy requirements beyond the current term of the unit's license. 31 1.5 Compliance and Consultations 32 Entergy is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as 33 meet relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. In its ER, Entergy provided a list of the 34 authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well as 35 environmental approvals and consultations associated with the IP2 and IP3 license renewals. 36 Authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed operating license renewal actions are 37 included in Appendix E. 38 The NRC staff has reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local 39 agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of 40 concern to the reviewing agencies. These agencies did not identify any new and significant December 2008 1-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00034

Introduction 1 environmental issues. The ER states that Entergy is in compliance with applicable 2 environmental standards and requirements for IP2 and IP3. The NRC staff has not identified 3 any environmental issues that are both new and significant. 4 1.6 References 5 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 6 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." 7 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for 8 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." 9 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 10 Part 1508, "Terminology and Index." 11 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 United States Code 2011, et seq. 12 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007a. "Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License 13 Renewal Application." April 23,2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML071210512. 14 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. "Applicant's Environment Report, 15 Operating License Renewal Stage." (Appendix E to "Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License Renewal 16 Application".) April 23, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML071210530. 17 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007c. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Indian Point 18 Energy Center Site Vice President, to the U.S. NRC regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating 19 Units Nos. 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50-247, 50-286. May 3,2007. ADAMS Accession No. 20 ML071280700. 21 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 United States Code 4321, et seq. 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement 23 for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants." NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, 24 DC. 25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement 26 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report," Section 6.3, "Transportation," Table 9.1, 27 "Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants." 28 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC. 29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. "Standard Review Plans for Environmental 30 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal." 31 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Washington, DC. 32 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. "Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice 33 of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 34 Nos. 2 and 3; Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for an Additional 20-Year 35 Period." Federal Register, Volume 72, Number 91, p. 26850. May 11, 2007. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1-8 December 2008 OAG10001366_00035

1

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND SITE 2 AND PLANT INTERACTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENT 3 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (lP2 and IP3) are located on approximately 4 239 acres (97 hectares (ha)) of land in the Village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, 5 New York. The facility is on the eastern bank of the Hudson River at river mile (RM) 43 (river 6 kilometer (RKM) 69) about 2.5 miles (mi) (4.0 kilometers (km)) southwest of Peekskill, the 7 closest city, and about 24 mi (39 km) north of New York City. 8 Both IP2 and IP3 use Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and nuclear steam supply 9 systems (NSSSs). Primary and secondary plant cooling is provided by a once-through cooling 10 water intake system that supplies cooling water from the Hudson River. The plant and its 11 surroundings are described in Section 2.1, and the plant's interaction with the environment is 12 presented in Section 2.2. 13 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1 (lP1, now permanently shut down) shares 14 the site with IP2 and IP3. IP1 is located between IP2 and IP3. IP1 was shut down on 15 October 31, 1974, and has been placed in a safe storage condition (SAFSTOR) awaiting final 16 decommissioning. 17 2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During 18 the Renewal Term 19 The entirety of the Indian Point site is surrounded by a perimeter fence, establishing an area 20 known as the "owner controlled area." Security personnel patrol all roads within the site. Within 21 the fence lies an area of greater security known as the "protected area." The protected area is 22 more heavily guarded and controlled by a second fence and an intrusion detection system. The 23 protected area is accessible only through manned security buildings and gates requiring 24 electronic identification. In addition, spaces within the protected area designated as "vital areas" 25 have additional access controls (Entergy 2006a). 26 The area within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the IP2 and IP3 site includes the Village of Buchanan, 27 located about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) southeast of the site, and the City of Peekskill, located 2.5 mi 28 (4.0 km) northeast. In the 2000 U.S. census, populations of these towns were 2,189 and 29 22,441, respectively. The largest town within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the site is Haverstraw, 30 New York, with a 2000 population of approximately 33,811 (USCB 2000). Haverstraw is located 31 to the southwest on the western bank of the Hudson River. Several other small villages, 32 including Verplanck and Montrose, lie within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the IP2 and IP3 site. The 33 area within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the site also includes several thousand acres of the Bear 34 Mountain State Park located across the Hudson River, the nearly 2000-acre (809-ha) Camp 35 Smith (a New York State military reservation) located 2.3 mi (3.7 km) north of the site, and a 36 portion-about 2000 acres (809 ha)-of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. 37 The area within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the site includes parts of New York, New Jersey, and 38 Connecticut. New York City, located approximately 24 mi (39 km) south of the plant, is the 39 largest city within 50 mi (80 km) with a 2006 population of approximately 8,214,426 (USCB 40 2006). Other population centers include Danbury and Stamford, Connecticut; Newark, New December 2008 2-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00036

Plant and the Environment 1 Jersey; and Poughkeepsie, New York. The area within a 50-mi (80-km) radius also includes all 2 of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, located 7.5 mi (12 km) northwest of the site, and the 3 Picatinny Arsenal, located 35.5 mi (57.1 km) southwest of the site in New Jersey (Entergy 4 2007a). 5 The region surrounding the Indian Point site has undulating terrain with many peaks and 6 valleys. Dunderberg Mountain lies on the western side of the Hudson River 1 mi (1.6 km) 7 northwest of the site. North of Dunderberg Mountain, high grounds reach an elevation of 8 800 feet (ft) (244 meters (m)) above the western bank of the Hudson River. To the east of the 9 site lie the Spitzenberg and Blue Mountains. These peaks are about 600 ft (183 m) in height. 10 There is also a weak, poorly defined series of ridges that run in a north-northeast direction east 11 of IP2 and IP3. The Timp Mountains are west of the facility. These mountains rise to a 12 maximum elevation of 846 ft (258 m). Elevations south of the site are 100 ft (30.5 m) or less 13 and gradually slope toward the Village of Verplanck (Entergy 2007a). 14 The site location and features within 50-mi (80-km) and 6-mi (10-km) radii are illustrated in 15 Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. 16 2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting 17 As discussed in Section 2.1, the immediate area around the Indian Point site is completely 18 enclosed by a security fence. Access to the site is controlled at a security gate on Broadway 19 (main entrance). Controlled access to the site is also available using the existing wharf on the 20 Hudson River. The wharf is used to receive heavy equipment shipped to the site by barge. 21 There are no rail lines that service the site. The nearest residence is less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 22 from IP2 and IP3 and about 100 meters (m) (328 ft) beyond the site boundary to the east-23 southeast (ENN 2007a). 24 The facility can be seen easily from the river. Surrounding high ground and vegetation make it 25 difficult to see the facility from beyond the security fence on land, except from Broadway. The 26 334-ft (102-m) tall superheater stack for IP1, the 134-ft (40.8-m) talllP2 and IP3 turbine 27 buildings, and the 250-ft (76.2-m) tall reactor containment structures are the tallest structures on 28 the site (Entergy 2007a). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-2 December 2008 OAG10001366_00037

Plant and the Environment

                                              .......... ...............
     ........... L<m~*".jt;C:,:"H c::=J C::,~~ti                         ~8-{-:) p~{.:~~~~~ * ~j~~*w~..t..r,'il~

7i~- i;:'~5;)-~

     ........... H !!;m.*:::"t          t; Oi',:.~~i r

MM 1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-1. Location of IP2 and IP3, 50-mi (80-km) radius December 2008 2-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00038

Plant and the Environment 1 2 Source: Entergy 2007a 3 Figure 2-2. Location of IP2 and IP3, 6-mi (10-km) radius Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-4 December 2008 OAG10001366_00039

Plant and the Environment 1 Other visible IP2 and IP3 site features include auxiliary buildings, intake structures, the 2 discharge structure, electrical switchyard, and associated transmission lines (Entergy 2007a). 3 The site boundary and general facility layout are depicted in Figures 2-3 and 2-4, respectively. 4 The facility contains several stationary bulk petroleum and chemical storage tanks. Bulk 5 chemical storage tanks are registered with the New York State Department of Environmental 6 Conservation (NYSDEC) via Hazardous Substance Bulk Storage Registration Certificates. The 7 tanks and their contents are managed in accordance with the NYSDEC Chemical Bulk Storage 8 Regulations. The IP2 bulk petroleum storage tanks are registered with NYSDEC via a Major Oil 9 Storage Facility License, while the IP3 tanks are registered with the Westchester County 10 Department of Health via a Petroleum Bulk Storage Registration Certificate. 11 IP2 and IP3 each use two main transformers to increase voltage from their respective turbine 12 generators. The transformers increase generator output from 22 kilovolts (kV) to 345 kV. 13 Power is then delivered to the Consolidated Edison Company (Con Edison) transmission grid by 14 way of two double-circuit 345-kV lines. These lines connect the main onsite transformers to the 15 offsite Buchanan substation which is located across Broadway near the main entrance to the 16 site. The lines that connect the transformers to the substation are about 2000 ft (610 m) in 17 length and, except for the terminal 100 ft where they cross over Broadway (a public road) and 18 enter the substation, lines are located within the site boundary (Entergy 2007a). The 345-kV 19 transmission lines that distribute power from the substation are shown in Figure 2-3. 20 2.1.2 Reactor Systems 21 As noted in Section 2.0, both IP2 and IP3 employ Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors and 22 four-loop NSSSs. Each NSSS loop contains a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator. 23 The reactor coolant system transfers the heat generated in the reactor core to the steam 24 generators, which produce steam to drive the electrical turbine generators (Entergy 2007b). 25 IP2 is currently licensed to operate at a core power of 3216 megawatt thermal (MW(t)), which 26 results in a turbine generator output of approximately 1078 megawatt electric (MW(e)). IP3 is 27 currently licensed to operate at 3216 MW(t), which results in a turbine generator output of 28 approximately 1080 MW(e). IP2 and IP3 have similar designs with independent functional and 29 safety systems. The units share the following systems (Entergy 2007b): 30

discharge canal, outfall structure, and associated instrumentation and sampling systems 31
electrical supplies and interties 32
station air interties 33
demineralized water, condensate makeup, and hydrogen interties 34
city water and fire protection interties 35
dedicated No.2 fuel oil systems for diesel generators 36
sewage treatment facility 37
auxiliary steam system intertie December 2008 2-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00040

Plant and the Environment PLANT J TRUE NORTf< NORTH

\,

PROPERTY lJ~r

//

EASEM[NT.*.*/ EXCLUSION AREA aOJNQAR¥ r~ INDIAN POINT 2 AND 3

                 £~~

fONERCON SERVICES, INC, A

            ~IT ARU:NG:ON. r-.lJ                          ';C/,,_~ ~H)"C 1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2                          Figure 2-3. IP2 and IP3 property boundaries and environs Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38                       2-6                         December 2008 OAG10001366_00041

Plant and the Environment S:~~' pl;.m _".oc* 1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-4. IP2 and IP3 site layout 3

service boiler fuel oil supply system 4
liquid steam generator blowdown, radioactive waste processing, and discharge (to IP1) 5 facilities 6 The nuclear fuel for IP2 and IP3 is made of low-enrichment (less than 5 percent by weight 7 uranium-235) uranium dioxide pellets stacked in pre-pressurized tubes made from zircaloy or 8 ZIRLO. The fuel tube rods have welded end plugs. Based on core design values, IP2 and IP3 9 operate at an individual rod average fuel burnup of no more than 62,000 megawatt-days per 10 metric ton of heavy metal. This ensures that peak burnups remain within the acceptable limits 11 specified in Table B-1 of Appendix B, "Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License 12 of a Nuclear Power Plant," to Subpart A, "National Environmental Policy Act-Regulations 13 Implementing Section 102(2)," of Title 10, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for 14 Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," of the Code of Federal Regulations 15 (10 CFR Part 51) (Entergy 2006a). Reactor fuel that has exhausted a certain percentage of its 16 fissile uranium content so that it is no longer an efficient fissile fuel source is referred to as spent 17 fuel. The spent fuel is removed from the reactor core and replaced by fresh fuel during routine 18 refueling outages. Refueling outages at IP2 and IP3 typically occur every 24 months. The 19 spent fuel assemblies are then stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) in the fuel storage building.

December 2008 2-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00042

Plant and the Environment 1 Located north of IP2 inside the protected area fence, the spent fuel will be transferred to dry 2 storage (Entergy 2007a) at an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (lSFSI). The 3 first fuel was moved from IP2 to the ISFSI pad, which is approximately 100 ft (30.5 m) wide by 4 200 ft (61.0 m) long, during the first week of January 2008 (Entergy 2008a). 5 IP2 and IP3 containment buildings completely enclose each unit's reactor and the reactor 6 coolant system. The containment buildings are designed to minimize leakage of radioactive 7 materials to the environment if a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident were to occur. The 8 containment structures have an outer shell of reinforced concrete and an inner steel liner 9 (Entergy 2007b). 10 The IP2 containment building contains a containment purge supply and exhaust system and a 11 containment pressure relief system. The purge supply and exhaust system provides fresh air to 12 the containment and filters air released from containment. The containment pressure relief 13 system regulates normal pressure in the containment during reactor power operation (Entergy 14 2007b). 15 The IP3 containment building contains a vapor containment heating and ventilation purge 16 system and a vapor containment pressure relief system. The heating and ventilation system 17 regulates fresh air flow into the containment and filters air before its dispersion to the 18 environment. The vapor containment pressure relief system regulates pressure changes in 19 containment during reactor power operation (Entergy 2007b). 20 2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 21 IP2 and IP3 have once-through condenser cooling systems that withdraw water from and 22 discharge it to the Hudson River. The systems are described in detail in the IP2 and IP3 23 environmental report (ER) (Entergy 2007a). This section provides a general description based 24 on the information provided by Entergy in the ER. 25 The maximum design flow rate for each cooling system is approximately 1870 cubic feet per 26 second (cfs), 840,000 gallons per minute (gpm), or 53.0 cubic meters per second (m 3/s). 27 Two shoreline intake structures-one for each unit-are located along the Hudson River on the 28 northwestern edge of the site and provide cooling water to the site. Each structure consists of 29 seven bays, six for circulating water and one for service water. The IP2 intake structure has 30 seven independent bays, while the IP3 intake structure has seven bays that are served by a 31 common plenum. In each structure, six of the seven bays contain cooling water pumps, and the 32 seventh bay contains service/auxiliary water pumps. Before it is pumped to the condensers, 33 river water passes through traveling screens in the intake structure bays to remove debris and 34 fish. 35 The six IP2 circulating water intake pumps are dual-speed pumps. When operated at high 36 speed (254 revolutions per minute (rpm)), each pump provides 312 cfs (140,000 gpm; 37 8.83 m3/s) and a dynamic head of 21 ft (6.4 m). At low speed (187 rpm), each pump provides 38 187 cfs (84,000 gpm; 5.30 m3 /s) and a dynamic head of 15 ft (4.6 m). The six IP3 circulating 39 water intake pumps are variable-speed pumps. When operated at high speed (360 rpm), each 40 pump provides 312 cfs (140,000 gpm; 8.83 m3 /s); at low speed, it provides a dynamic head of 41 29 ft (8.8 m) and 143 cfs (64,000 gpm; 4.05 m3 /s). In accordance with the October 1997 42 Consent Order (issued pursuant to the Hudson River Settlement Agreement; see Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-8 December 2008 OAG10001366_00043

Plant and the Environment 1 Section 2.2.5.3 for more information), the applicant adjusts the speed of the intake pumps to 2 mitigate impacts to the Hudson River. 3 Each coolant pump bay is about 15 ft (4.6 m) wide at the entrance, and the bottom is located 4 27 ft (8.2 m) below mean sea level. Before entering the intake structure bays, water flows under 5 a floating debris skimmer wall, or ice curtain, into the screen wells. This initial screen keeps 6 floating debris and ice from entering the bay. At the entrance to each bay, water also passes 7 through a subsurface bar screen to prevent additional large debris from becoming entrained in 8 the cooling system. Next, smaller debris and fish are screened out using modified Ristroph 9 traveling screens. Figures 2-5 through 2-8 illustrate the IP2 and IP3 intake structures and bays. December 2008 2-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00044

Plant and the Environment 6AARAGKS~ AN:D OeBRiS

BARRIERS SERVICE WA'TER PUMP AISTRO~

                                                                                 $GREENS
                                       ~.          .~.
                                       ~           !                           C!RCULATiNrJ R'!STROf'H     -~i!-:'-~~7>::;'" i                              WATER SCREENS               <><{        ~

PUMP

                                        ....

C~ACl.Jl..A.T1Na :j WATER --.-.::~:~)~r... tNTME ""

.;

~ .,.u~

1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-5. IP2 intake structure Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-10 December 2008 OAG10001366_00045

Plant and the Environment

,>

r ! C!OOWl...AllNG

                                                             ~f-+--   W:tl1'E4 ruM~

1 Source: Entergy 2007a 2 Figure 2-6. FIP3 intake structure December 2008 2-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00046

Plant and the Environment o (

                                        !!!!!!!!!!!!t 1

2 Source: Entergy 2007a 3 Figure 2-7. IP2 intake system Ci:?r':"::: ..6.*n::'~:,::; "'+:-l-.'-~'-"'-'~

                                                      '\lllFT~P Y;..I:~~P
                                                                                     '\

f [ I j

                                 \,
                                  ~   ,                                               "'..........L
                                    \

4 5 Source: Entergy 2007a 6 Figure 2-8. IP3 intake system Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-12 December 2008 OAG10001366_00047

Plant and the Environment 1 The modified Ristroph traveling screens consist of a series of panels that rotate continuously. 2 As each screen panel rotates out of the intake bay, impinged fish are retained in water-filled 3 baskets at the bottom of each panel and are carried over the headshaft, where they are washed 4 out onto a mesh using low-pressure sprays from the rear side of the machine. The 0.25-by-5 0.5-inch (in.) (0.635-by-1.27 centimeters (cm)) mesh is smooth to minimize fish abrasion by the 6 mesh. Two high-pressure sprays remove debris from the front side of the machine after fish 7 removal. 8 From the mesh, fish return to the river via a 12-in. (30-cm) diameter pipe. The pipe extends 9 200 ft (61.0 m) into the river north of the IP2 intake structure and discharges at a depth of 35 ft 10 (11 m). 11 After moving through the condensers, cooling water is discharged to the discharge canal via a 12 total of six 96-in. (240-cm) diameter pipes. The cooling water enters below the surface of the 13 40-ft (12-m) wide canal. The canal discharges to the Hudson River through an outfall structure 14 located south of IP3 at about 4.5 feet per second (fps) (1.4 meters per second (mps)) at full 15 flow. As the discharged water enters the river, it passes through 12 discharge ports (4-ft by 16 12-ft each (1-m by 3.7-m)) across a length of 252 ft (76.8 m) about 12 ft (3.7 m) below the 17 surface of the river. The increased discharge velocity, about 10 fps (3.0 mps), enhances mixing 18 to minimize thermal impact. 19 The discharged water is at an elevated temperature, and therefore, some water is lost because 20 of evaporation. Based on conservative estimates, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 21 Commission (NRC) estimates that this induced evaporation resulting from the elevated 22 discharge temperature would be less than 60 cfs (27,000 gpm or 1.7 m3/s). This loss is about 23 .5 percent of the annual average downstream flow of the Hudson River, which is more than 24 9000 cfs (4 million gpm or 255 m3/s). The average cooling water transient time ranges from 25 5.6 minutes for the IP3 cooling water system to 9.7 minutes for the IP2 system. 26 Auxiliary water systems for service water are also provided from the Hudson River via the 27 dedicated bays in the IP2 and IP3 intake structures. The primary role of service water is to cool 28 components (e.g., pumps) that generate heat during operation. Secondary functions of the 29 service water include the following: 30

protect equipment from potential contamination from river water by providing cooling to 31 intermediate freshwater systems 32
provide water for washing the modified Ristroph traveling screens 33
provide seal water for the main circulating water pumps 34 The IP2 service water bay has six identical centrifugal sump-type pumps, each having a 35 capacity of at least 11 cfs (5000 gpm; 0.31 m3/s) at 220-ft (67-m) total design head. The IP3 36 service water bay also has six similar pumps, each rated at 13 cfs (6000 gpm; 170 m3/s) and 37 195-ft (59.4-m) total design head. The average approach velocity at the entrance to each 38 service water bay when all pumps are operating is about 0.2 fps (0.06 mps). Each service 39 water bay also contains two Ristroph screens to reduce fish entrainment.

40 Additional service water is provided to the nonessential service water header for IP2 through the 41 IP1 (which is decommissioned) river water intake structure. The IP1 intake includes four intake 42 bays each with a coarse bar screen and a single 0.125-in. (0.318-cm) mesh screen. The intake December 2008 2-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00048

Plant and the Environment 1 structure contains two 36-cfs (16,000-gpm; 1.0-m3/s) spray wash pumps. The screens are 2 washed automatically and materials are sluiced to the Hudson River. 3 2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems 4 IP2 and IP3 radioactive waste systems are designed to collect, treat, and dispose of radioactive 5 and potentially radioactive wastes that are byproducts of plant operations. These byproducts 6 include activation products resulting from the irradiation of reactor water and impurities therein 7 (principally metallic corrosion products) and fission products resulting from their migration 8 through the fuel cladding or uranium contamination within the reactor coolant system. 9 Operating procedures for radioactive waste systems are designed to ensure that radioactive 10 wastes are safely processed and discharged from the plant within the limits set forth in 11 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection against Radiation"; Appendix I, " Numerical Guides 12 for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low as Is 13 Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor 14 Effluents," to 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities"; the 15 plant's technical specifications; and the IP2 and IP3 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) 16 (Entergy 2007a). 17 Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are classified as liquid, gaseous, or solid. 18 Liquid radioactive wastes are generated from liquids received directly from portions of the 19 reactor coolant system or were contaminated by contact with liquids from the reactor coolant 20 system. Gaseous radioactive wastes are generated from gases or airborne particulates vented 21 from reactor and turbine equipment containing radioactive material. Solid radioactive wastes 22 are solids from the reactor coolant system, solids that came into contact with reactor coolant 23 system liquids or gases, or solids used in the reactor coolant system or steam and power 24 conversion system operation or maintenance. 25 As indicated in Section 2.1.2, reactor fuel that has exhausted a certain percentage of its fissile 26 uranium content is referred to as spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies are removed from the 27 reactor core and replaced with fresh fuel assemblies during routine refueling outages, typically 28 every 24 months. Spent fuel assemblies are then stored for a period of time in the SFP in the 29 fuel storage building and may later be transferred to dry storage at a recently constructed onsite 30 ISFSI. Entergy has constructed an ISFSI in the north end of the IP2 and IP3 site in an area that 31 was previously undeveloped. The facility is planned to hold up to 78 Holtec International HI-32 STORM 100S(8) casks (Entergy 2007a) . 33 The IP2 and IP3 ODCM contains the methodology and parameters used to calculate offsite 34 doses resulting from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and the gaseous and liquid 35 effluent monitoring alarm and trip setpoints used to verify that radioactive discharges meet 36 regulatory limits. The ODCM also contains the radioactive effluent controls and radiological 37 environmental monitoring activities and descriptions of the information that should be included in 38 the annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report and annual Radioactive Effluent 39 Release Report (Entergy 2007a) . 40 2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 41 The liquid waste processing system collects, holds, treats, processes, and monitors all liquid 42 radioactive wastes for reuse or disposal. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-14 December 2008 OAG10001366_00049

Plant and the Environment 1 IP2 2 In IP2, the liquid waste holdup system collects low-level radioactive waste from throughout the 3 facility and holds the waste until it can be processed. During normal plant operations the 4 system receives input from numerous sources, such as equipment drains and leak lines, 5 chemical laboratory drains, decontamination drains, demineralizer regeneration, reactor coolant 6 loops and reactor coolant pump secondary seals, valve and reactor vessel flange leak lines, and 7 floor drains. Liquid waste is divided into two general classifications-high-quality liquid waste 8 from the reactor coolant drain tank and routine liquid waste from the waste holdup tank which 9 contains reactor coolant. The IP2 liquid wastes are transferred from the waste holdup tank to 10 the IP1 waste collection system (described later in this section). The liquid waste can also be 11 transferred from the waste holdup tank to the waste condensate tank, where its radioactivity can 12 be analyzed to determine whether the waste is acceptable for discharge into the condenser 13 circulating water and into the Hudson River. 14 In the event of primary reactor coolant water (radioactive) leakage into the secondary-side water 15 (nonradioactive) system, potentially contaminated water that collects in the secondary-side 16 drains may be collected and sent to a collection point in the auxiliary boiler feedwater building 17 for eventual processing. 18 IP3 19 In IP3, the liquid waste holdup system collects low-level radioactive waste from throughout the 20 facility and holds the waste until it can be processed. During normal plant operations, the 21 system receives input from numerous sources, such as equipment drains and leak lines, 22 radioactive chemical laboratory drains, decontamination drains, demineralizer regeneration, 23 reactor coolant loops and reactor coolant pump secondary seals, valve and reactor vessel 24 flange leak-offs, and floor drains. The system consists of three tanks-a 24,500-gallon (gal) 25 (92,700-liter (L)) waste holdup tank located in the waste holdup pit, and the two 62,000-gal 26 (235,000-L) waste holdup tanks located in the liquid radioactive waste storage facility. 27 The liquid radioactive waste storage facility, which houses the 62,000-gal (235,000-L) waste 28 tanks, is an underground concrete structure. The 62,000-gal (235,000-L) tanks are supported 29 on concrete piers. The building is supported on hard rock. The foundation consists of a rigid 30 2-in. (5.0-cm) thick slab that is waterproofed. The reinforced concrete walls of the building are 31 also waterproofed. The roof is made of 3-in. (7.6-cm) reinforced concrete poured on a steel 32 deck and beam system. 33 When the waste has been sampled and analyzed and found to be acceptable for discharge, it is 34 pumped from the waste holdup tank to the monitor tanks. When one monitor tank is filled, it is 35 isolated, and the waste liquid is recirculated and sampled for radioactive and chemical analysis 36 while the second tank is in service accumulating waste. If the waste material in the filled 37 monitor tank meets release standards, the waste liquid is pumped to the service water 38 discharge for release into the Hudson River. If it does not meet release standards, it is returned 39 to the waste holdup tanks for additional processing. Entergy performs radioactive and chemical 40 analyses to determine the amount of radioactivity released. There is also a radiation monitor 41 which provides surveillance over the operation to ensure that the discharge is within radiation 42 standards. If the radioactivity in the liquid waste being discharged exceeds the radiation 43 standard, the discharge is terminated. December 2008 2-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00050

Plant and the Environment 1 IP1 2 Radioactive waste storage and processing facilities located in IP1 provide additional waste 3 processing services for the two operating units. IP1 contains four tanks with a capacity of 4 75,000 gal (284,000 L) each. From these tanks, the liquid can be processed by use of sluicable 5 demineralizer vessels. There is also a portable demineralization system located in the IP1 6 Chemical System Building to process liquid waste. This system uses a number of inline ion 7 exchanger resin beds and filters to remove radionuclides and chemicals from the waste stream. 8 Once the contents of the waste tanks meet release criteria, the liquid waste is discharged into 9 the river. 10 Liquid Releases 11 Liquid releases to the Hudson River are limited to the extent possible to satisfy the dose design 12 objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. IP2 and IP3 have controls, described in their 13 ODCMs, for limiting the release of radioactive liquid effluents. The controls are based on the 14 concentrations of radioactive materials in liquid effluents and the calculated projected dose to a 15 hypothetical member of the public. Concentrations of radioactive material that may be released 16 in liquid effluents are limited to the concentrations specified by 10 CFR Part 20. For the 17 calendar year, the ODCM limits the dose to a member of the public from liquid effluents to 18 3 millirems (mrem) (0.03 millisievert (mSv)) to the total body and 10 mrem (0.10 mSV) to any 19 organ (Entergy 2007a). 20 Entergy maintains radioactive liquid effluent discharges in accordance with the procedures and 21 methodology described in the ODCM. The liquid radioactive waste processing system is 22 effectively used to reduce radioactive materials in liquid effluents before discharge to meet the 23 as-Iow-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 24 The NRC staff reviewed the IP2 and IP3 radioactive effluent release reports for 2002 through 25 2006 for liquid effluents (Entergy 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005a, 2006b, 2007c) to determine 26 whether releases were reasonable. In 2006, 5.99x107 gal (2.27x10 8 L) of radiological liquid 27 effluents diluted with 1.47x1012 gal (5.58x10 12 L) of water were discharged from the IP2 and IP3 28 site. The amount of radioactivity discharged in the form of fission and activation products from 29 the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006 totaled 5.92x10-2 curies (Ci) (2.19x10 3 megabecquerels (MBq)). A 30 total of 1.56x103 Ci (5.77x10 7 MBq) of tritium was released from the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006. A 31 total of 3.82x1 0- 1 Ci (1.41x1 04 MBq) of dissolved and entrained gases was released in liquid 32 discharges from the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006 (Entergy 2007c). The liquid discharges for 2006 33 are consistent with the radioactive liquid effluents discharged from 2002 through 2005. The 34 NRC staff expects variations in the amount of radioactive effluents released from year to year by 35 Entergy based on the overall performance of the plant and the number and scope of 36 maintenance and refueling outages. The liquid radioactive wastes reported by Entergy are 37 reasonable, and the NRC staff noted no unusual trends. 38 Though Entergy has indicated that it may replace IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel heads and control 39 rod drive mechanisms during the period of extended operation, such replacement actions are 40 not likely to result in a significant increase of liquid radioactive effluents being discharged 41 compared to the amount discharged during normal plant operations. This is based on 42 consideration that liquids generated, processed, and released during the outage will likely be 43 offset by the amount of liquid waste that would not be generated, processed, and released 44 during normal plant operations during the outage period. Based on the NRC staff's evaluation Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-16 December 2008 OAG10001366_00051

Plant and the Environment 1 of recent historical releases in the previous paragraph and based on the NRC staff's expectation 2 that no significant increase in liquid effluents from the potential replacement of the reactor heads 3 and control rod drive mechanisms is likely to occur, the NRC staff expects similar quantities of 4 radioactive liquid effluents to be generated during normal operation and outages from IP2 and 5 IP3 during the period of extended operation. 6 Releases to Ground Water 7 In addition to the planned radioactive liquid discharges made through the liquid waste 8 processing system, Entergy identified a new release pathway as a result of the discovery of 9 tritium contamination in the ground outside the IP2 SFP. This release was listed as an 10 abnormal release in the 2006 radioactive effluent release report. The applicant included a 11 detailed radiological assessment of all the liquid effluent releases and the projected doses in its 12 2006 annual radioactive effluent release report (Entergy 2007c). The following information is 13 from that report. 14 The applicant estimated that approximately 0.19 Ci (7.03x10 3 MBq) of tritium migrated directly to 15 the Hudson River by the ground water flow path in 2006, resulting in an approximate total body 16 dose of 2.1 Ox1 0-6 mrem (2.1 Ox1 0-8 mSv). The amount of tritium released through this pathway 17 is approximately 0.015 percent of the tritium released to the river from routine releases. Tritium 18 releases in total (ground water as well as routine liquid effluent) represent less than 19 0.001 percent of the Federal dose limits for radioactive effluents from the site. Strontium-90, 20 nickel-63, and cesium-137 collectively contributed approximately 5.70x10-4 Ci (21.1 MBq) from 21 the ground water pathway, which resulted in a calculated annual dose of approximately 22 1.78x10-3 mrem (1.78x10-5 mSv) to the total body, and 7.21x10-3 mrem (7.21x10-5 mSv) to the 23 critical organ, which was the adult bone (primarily because of strontium-90). Storm drain 24 releases to the discharge canal were conservatively calculated to be approximately 9.40x1 0-2 Ci 25 (3.48x103 MBq) of tritium, resulting in an approximate total body dose of 2.00x10-8 mrem 26 (2.00x10- 10 mSv). Entergy asserts that the annual dose to a member of the public from the 27 combined ground water and storm water pathways at IP2 and IP3 remains well below NRC and 28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) radiation protection standards (Entergy 2007c). 29 The NRC staff further discusses releases to groundwater, including recent inspection results, in 30 Section 2.2.7 of this SEIS. 31 2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls 32 IP2 33 The gaseous radioactive waste processing system and the plant ventilation system control, 34 collect, process, store, and dispose of gaseous radioactive wastes generated as a result of 35 normal operations. During plant operations, gaseous waste is generated by degassing the 36 reactor coolant and purging the volume control tank, displacing cover gases as liquid 37 accumulates in various tanks, equipment purging, and sampling operations and automatic gas 38 analysis for hydrogen and oxygen in cover gases. The majority of the gas received by the 39 waste disposal system during normal plant operations is cover gas displaced from the chemical 40 and volume control system holdup tanks as they fill with liquid. 41 Vented gases flow to a waste gas compressor suction header. One of two compressors is in 42 continuous operation with the second unit designed to operate as a backup for peak load 43 conditions. From the compressors, gas flows to one of four large gas decay tanks. The control 44 arrangement on the gas decay tank inlet header allows plant personnel to place one large tank December 2008 2-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00052

Plant and the Environment 1 in service and to select a second large tank for backup. When the tank in service becomes 2 pressurized to a preset level, a pressure transmitter automatically opens the inlet valve to the 3 backup tank, closes the inlet valve to the filled tank, and triggers an alarm to alert personnel to 4 select a new backup tank. Gas held in the decay tanks can either be returned to the chemical 5 and volume control system holdup tanks or be discharged to the environment, provided that the 6 gas meets radiation limits. 7 Six additional small gas decay tanks are available for use during degassing of the reactor 8 coolant system before the reactor is brought to a cold shutdown. The reactor coolant fission 9 gas activity is distributed among the six tanks through a common inlet header. A radiation 10 monitor in the sample line to the gas analyzer checks the gas decay tank radioactivity inventory 11 each time a sample is taken for hydrogen-oxygen analysis. An alarm notifies plant personnel 12 when the inventory limit is approached so that another tank can be placed into service. 13 Before a tank's contents can be discharged into the environment, they must be sampled and 14 analyzed to verify that sufficient decay of the radioactive material has occurred and to document 15 the amount of radioactivity that will be released. If appropriate radioactivity criteria are met, the 16 gas is discharged to a plant vent at a controlled rate and checked by a radiation monitor in the 17 vent. In addition to the radiation monitor, gas samples are manually taken and analyzed to 18 ensure that radiation protection limits are maintained. During a release, a trip valve in the 19 discharge line closes automatically when there is an indication of a high-radioactivity level in the 20 plant vent (Entergy 2007a). 21 IP3 22 The gaseous radioactive waste processing system and the plant ventilation system control, 23 collect, process, store, and dispose of gaseous radioactive wastes generated as a result of 24 normal operations. During plant operations, gaseous waste is generated by degassing the 25 reactor coolant and purging the volume control tank, displacement of cover gases as liquid 26 accumulates in various tanks, equipment purging, sampling operations and automatic gas 27 analysis for hydrogen and oxygen in cover gases, and venting of actuating nitrogen for pressure 28 control valves. 29 The majority of the gas received by the waste disposal system during normal operations is 30 cover gas displaced from the chemical and volume control system holdup tanks as they fill with 31 liquid. Since this gas must be replaced when the tanks are emptied during processing, facilities 32 are provided to return gas from the decay tanks to the holdup tanks. A backup supply from the 33 nitrogen header is provided for makeup if the return flow from the gas decay tanks is not 34 available. 35 Gases vented to the vent header flow to the waste gas compressor header. One of the two 36 compressors is in continuous operation with the second unit as a backup for peak load 37 conditions. From the compressors, gas flows to one of four large gas decay tanks. The control 38 arrangement on the gas decay tanks inlet header allows for the operation of one tank with a 39 second tank as backup. When the tank in service is filled, a pressure transmitter automatically 40 opens the inlet valve to the backup tank and closes the valve of the filled tank and sounds an 41 alarm. Plant personnel then select a new tank to be the backup and repeat the process. 42 Gases are held in the decay tanks to reduce the amount of radioactivity released into the 43 environment. These gases can either be returned to the chemical and volume control system 44 holdup tanks or discharged to the environment if the radioactivity meets radiation standards. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-18 December 2008 OAG10001366_00053

Plant and the Environment 1 There are six additional small gas decay tanks for use during degassing of the reactor coolant 2 before the reactor is brought to a cold shutdown. The reactor coolant fission gas activity 3 inventory is distributed equally among the six tanks through the use of a common header. The 4 total radioactivity in anyone gas decay tank is controlled in order to limit the potential 5 radiological consequences if any tank ruptures. 6 Before a tank's contents can be released into the environment, they must be sampled and 7 analyzed to verify that there was sufficient decay and to provide a record of the type and 8 quantity of radioactivity to be released. Once these steps are completed, the gas may be 9 released to the plant vent at a controlled rate and monitored by a radiation monitor. The 10 radiation monitor, upon detecting high radioactivity levels, can automatically close the discharge 11 line to the plant vent. Samples are also taken manually to document releases (Entergy 2007a). 12 Gaseous Releases 13 Entergy maintains radioactive gaseous effluents in accordance with the procedures and 14 methodology described in the ODCM. The gaseous radioactive waste processing system is 15 effectively used to reduce radioactive materials in gaseous effluents before discharge to meet 16 the ALARA dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 17 The NRC staff reviewed the IP2 and IP3 annual radioactive effluent release reports from 2002 18 through 2006 for gaseous effluents (Entergy 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2005a, 2006b, 2007c) to 19 determine whether the releases were reasonable. There were no abnormal gaseous releases 20 from IP2 and IP3 in 2006. The amount of radioactivity discharged in the form of fission and 21 activation gases from the operating reactors at the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006 totaled 2.20x102 Ci 22 (8.14x106 MBq). A total of20.8 Ci (7.69x105 MBq) of tritium was released from the IP2 and IP3 23 site in 2006. A total of7.87x10-4 Ci (29.1 MBq) of radioiodines and 4.76x10-5 Ci (1.76 MBq) of 24 particulates was released from the IP2 and IP3 site in 2006 (Entergy 2007c). The gaseous 25 discharges for 2006 are consistent with the radioactive gaseous effluents discharged from 2002 26 through 2005. The NRC staff expects variations in the amount of radioactive effluents released 27 from year to year based on the overall performance of the plant and the number and scope of 28 maintenance and refueling outages. The gaseous radioactive wastes reported by Entergy are 29 reasonable, and the NRC staff noted no unusual trends. 30 Though Entergy has indicated that it may replace IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel heads and control 31 rod drive mechanisms during the period of extended operation, such replacement actions are 32 not likely to result in a significant increase in discharges of gaseous radioactive effluents above 33 the amount discharged during normal plant operations. This is based on consideration that any 34 gaseous effluents released during the outage will be offset by the amount of gaseous effluents 35 that would not be generated, processed, and released during normal plant operations. Based on 36 the NRC staff's evaluation of recent historical releases in the previous paragraph and based on 37 the NRC staff's expectation that no significant increase in gaseous effluents from the potential 38 replacement of the reactor heads and control rod drive mechanisms will occur, the NRC staff 39 expects that similar quantities of radioactive gaseous effluents will be generated during normal 40 operations and outages at IP2 and IP3 during the period of extended operation. 41 2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing 42 IP2 and IP3 solid radioactive wastes include solidified waste derived from processed liquid and 43 sludge products; spent resins, filters, and paper; and glassware used in the radiation-controlled 44 areas of the plant. Waste resin is stored in the spent resin storage tank to allow radioactive December 2008 2-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00054

Plant and the Environment 1 decay. When a sufficient volume of resin is accumulated, it is moved from storage and placed 2 into a high-integrity container. The wet waste is then dewatered and prepared for transportation 3 in accordance with the plant's process control program. The process control program contains 4 the criteria and requirements that the waste must meet to comply with NRC and U.S. 5 Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for transportation of radioactive waste on the 6 public roads. The other solid radioactive wastes, such as paper, rags, and glassware, are also 7 processed for shipping in accordance with the process control program. Entergy, when 8 possible, sends the solid radioactive waste to a material recovery center or to a facility licensed 9 to incinerate and perform other techniques to reduce the waste volume before disposal. 10 Additional interim radioactive waste storage space is located in the IP1 containment. 11 IP2 12 At IP2, the original four steam generators are stored in the Original Steam Generator Storage 13 Facility. The facility is made of reinforced concrete and is designed to contain contaminated 14 materials and allow for decontamination of materials if necessary. The structure is built to 15 prevent both the intrusion of water into the facility and the leakage of contaminated water from 16 the facility. The floor of the facility is sloped to direct any liquids to a sump. The floor slab and 17 lower portion of the walls have a protective coating to facilitate decontamination, if required. A 18 passive high-efficiency filter is used to prevent airborne contamination from being vented 19 outside the facility. This facility is located within the owner-controlled area outside of the 20 protected area. 21 IP3 22 At IP3, solid radioactive waste (dry activated waste or solidified resins) may be stored in the IP3 23 Interim Radioactive Waste Storage Facility before being shipped off site. The facility is a 24 concrete structure designed to minimize the impact of stored materials on the public and the 25 environment. It is shielded to limit the offsite annual radiation dose to less than 5 mrem 26 (0.05 mSv). As at IP2, a reinforced concrete structure is used to store the original four steam 27 generators, which were removed in 1989. This structure, called the Replaced Steam Generator 28 Storage Facility, is shielded to reduce radiation exposure, and all openings are sealed with no 29 provision for ventilation. There is a locked and locally alarmed labyrinth entrance that allows for 30 periodic surveillance of the steam generators. There are no gaseous or liquid releases from this 31 facility. 32 Solid Waste Shipment 33 IP2 and IP3 radioactive waste shipments are packaged in accordance with NRC and DOT 34 requirements. The type and quantities of solid radioactive waste generated at and shipped from 35 the site vary from year to year, depending on plant activities (i.e., refueling outage, maintenance 36 work, and fuel integrity). Entergy ships radioactive waste to the Studsvic facility in Irwin, 37 Tennessee, the Race facility in Memphis, Tennessee, or the Duratek facility in Oak Ridge, 38 Tennessee, where the wastes undergo additional processing before being sent to a facility for 39 disposal. In the recent past, Entergy had shipped waste to the Barnwell facility in Barnwell 40 County, South Carolina, or the Envirocare facility in Clive, Utah, for disposal (Entergy 2007a). 41 In July 2008, however, the State of South Carolina closed access to radioactive waste 42 generators in States that are not part of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. (Envirocare, 43 however, remains open for Class A wastes.) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-20 December 2008 OAG10001366_00055

Plant and the Environment 1 In the near term, Entergy is working to address the loss of the low-level solid radioactive waste 2 disposal repository in Barnwell, South Carolina. During the NRC environmental site audit, IP2 3 and IP3 staff indicated that they would be able to safely store their low-level waste on site in 4 existing onsite buildings. Entergy indicates that it is currently developing a comprehensive plan 5 to address the potential need for long-term storage. The radiation dose from the storage of 6 low-level radioactive waste would be required to continue to result in doses to members of the 7 public that are below the limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190, "Environmental 8 Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal Operations of Activities in the Uranium Fuel 9 Cycle," which apply to all operations and facilities at the site. 10 In 2006, Entergy made a total of 49 shipments of Class A, B, and C solid radioactive waste to 11 offsite processing vendors. The solid waste volumes were 5.31x1 04 cubic feet (1.50x1 03 m3 ) of 12 resins, filters, evaporator bottoms, and dry active waste, with an activity of 9.49x1 02 Ci 13 (3.51x10 7 MBq). Entergy shipped no irradiated components or control rods in 2006 (Entergy 14 2007c). The solid waste volumes and radioactivity amounts generated in 2006 are typical of 15 annual waste shipments made by Entergy. The NRC staff expects variations in the amount of 16 solid radioactive waste generated and shipped from year to year based on the overall 17 performance of the plant and the number and scope of maintenance work and refueling 18 outages. The NRC staff finds the volume and activity of solid radioactive waste reported by 19 Entergy are reasonable, and no unusual trends were noted. 20 Entergy has indicated that it may replace IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel heads and control rod drive 21 mechanisms during the period of extended operation (Entergy 2008b), and such replacement 22 actions are likely to result in a small increase in the amount of solid radioactive waste 23 generated. This is partly because the number of personnel working at the plant will increase, 24 leading to increased use of protective clothing and safety equipment and an increased use of 25 filters. Also, work activities will create a general increase in debris that will have to be disposed 26 of as radioactive waste. However, the increased volume is expected to be within the range of 27 solid waste that can be safely handled by IP2 and IP3 during the period of extended operation. 28 In the GElS (NRC 1996), NRC indicated that doses from onsite storage of assemblies removed 29 during refurbishment would be "very small and insignificant." Retired vessel heads will likely be 30 stored on site in a concrete building (Entergy 2008b), subject to regular monitoring and dose 31 limits under 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190. 32 2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems 33 IP2 and IP3 generate solid, hazardous, universal, and mixed waste from routine facility 34 operations and maintenance activities. 35 2.1.5.1 Nonradioactive Waste Streams 36 Nonradioactive waste is produced during plant maintenance, cleaning, and operational 37 processes. Most of the wastes consist of nonhazardous waste oil and oily debris and result 38 from operation and maintenance of oil-filled equipment. 39 The facility generates solid waste, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 40 (RCRA), as part of routine plant maintenance, cleaning activities, and plant operations. These 41 solid waste streams include nonradioactive resins and sludges, putrescible wastes, and 42 recyclable wastes. December 2008 2-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00056

Plant and the Environment 1 Universal wastes constitute a majority of the remaining waste volumes generated at the facility. 2 Universal waste is hazardous waste that has been specified as universal waste by EPA. 3 Universal wastes, including mercury-containing equipment, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, and 4 pesticides, have specific regulations (40 CFR Part 273, "Standards for Universal Waste 5 Management") to ensure proper collection and recycling or treatment. 6 Hazardous wastes routinely make up a small percentage of the total wastes generated at the 7 IP2 and IP3 facility and include spent and expired chemicals, laboratory chemical wastes, and 8 other chemical wastes (Entergy 2007a). Hazardous waste is nonradioactive waste that is listed 9 by EPA as hazardous waste or that exhibits characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, 10 or toxicity (40 CFR Part 261, "Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste"). RCRA, as well 11 as the NYSDEC regulatory requirements set forth in Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules, and 12 Regulations (NYCRR) Parts 371-376, that regulate storage and handling of hazardous waste 13 and requires a hazardous waste permit for facilities that store large quantities of hazardous 14 waste for more than 90 days. 15 The IP2 and IP3 facility has hazardous and mixed waste storage facilities covered by permits 16 issued by NYSDEC under NYCRR Part 373. The permits, NYD991304411 and 17 NYD085503746, are for the accumulation and temporary onsite storage of hazardous and 18 mixed waste for more than 90 days at IP2 and IP3 respectively. The permits have been 19 administratively continued based on a conditional mixed waste exemption (Entergy 2007a). 20 Some amounts of chemical and biocide wastes are produced at the facility from processes used 21 to control the pH in the coolant, to control scale, to control corrosion, to regenerate resins, and 22 to clean and defoul the condensers. These waste liquids are typically discharged in accordance 23 with the site's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit, NY-0004472, 24 along with cooling water discharges (Entergy 2007a). 25 Hazardous and universal wastes are collected in central collection areas. The materials are 26 received in various forms and are packaged to meet all regulatory requirements before final 27 disposition at an appropriate offsite facility. Entergy tracks wastes like waste oil, oily debris, 28 glycol, lighting ballasts containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fluorescent lamps, 29 batteries, and hazardous wastes (i.e., paints, lead abatement waste, broken lamps, off-30 specification and expired chemicals)-by volume at the facility. The total amount of tracked 31 hazardous and universal wastes for 2006 was 17,987 pounds (lb) (8158 kilograms (kg)) with 32 waste oil making up 70 percent of the total weight (Entergy 2007a). 33 Most sanitary wastewater from the IP2 and IP3 facility operations is transferred to the Village of 34 Buchanan publicly owned treatment works system. A few isolated areas at the facility have their 35 own septic tanks. Although the sanitary wastewaters are nonradioactive, a radiation monitoring 36 system continuously monitors the effluent from the protected area (Entergy 2007a). 37 The testing of the emergency generators and boiler operations generates nonradioactive 38 gaseous effluents. Emissions are managed in accordance with IP2 and IP3 air quality permits, 39 3-5522-00011/00026 and 3-5522-00105/00009, respectively (Entergy 2007a). 40 Low-level mixed waste (LLMW) is waste that exhibits hazardous characteristics and contains 41 low levels of radioactivity. LLMWat IP2 and IP3 is regulated under RCRA and NYSDEC 42 regulatory requirements as set forth in 6 NYCRR Parts 373 and 374. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-22 December 2008 OAG10001366_00057

Plant and the Environment 1 2.1.5.2 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 2 Entergy's Waste Minimization Plan describes programs that have been implemented at the 3 facility. This plan is used in conjunction with other waste minimization procedures, waste 4 management procedures, chemical control procedures, and other site-specific procedures to 5 reduce waste generation (Entergy 2007a). 6 2.1.6 Facility Operation and Maintenance 7 Maintenance activities conducted at IP2 and IP3 include inspection, testing, and surveillance to 8 maintain licensing requirements and to ensure compliance with environmental and safety 9 requirements. Various programs and activities currently exist at the facility to maintain, inspect, 10 test, and monitor the performance of facility equipment. These maintenance activities include 11 inspection requirements for reactor vessel materials, in-service inspection and testing of boilers 12 and pressure vessels, the maintenance structures monitoring program, and water chemistry 13 maintenance. 14 Additional programs include those implemented to meet technical specification surveillance 15 requirements, those implemented in response to the NRC generic communications, and various 16 periodic maintenance, testing, and inspection procedures. Certain program activities are 17 performed during the operation of the unit, while others are performed during scheduled 18 refueling outages. As mentioned in Section 2.1.2, Entergy typically refuels IP2 and IP3 on 19 24-month cycles. 20 2.1.7 Power Transmission System 21 The applicant has identified two 345-kV transmission lines that connect IP2 and IP3 to the Con 22 Edison electrical transmission grid. Feeder W95 and feeder W96 deliver power from IP2 and 23 IP3, respectively, to the Buchanan substation located across Broadway near the entrance to the 24 IP2 and IP3 site. Other than these two transmission lines, no other lines or facilities were 25 constructed specifically to connect the two generating units to the existing transmission grid. 26 Because the Buchanan substation and the regional transmission system to which it connects 27 were designed and constructed before IP2 and IP3 (Entergy 2007a; NRC 1975; USAEC 1972), 28 they are beyond the scope of this evaluation. 29 Each of the W95 and W96 lines is approximately 2000 ft (610 m) long. The lines are within the 30 site except for the terminal 100-ft (30.5-m) segments that cross Broadway and enter the 31 substation. In addition to transmitting the output power from IP2 and IP3 off site, the 32 transmission system also provides IP2 and IP3 with the auxiliary power necessary for startup 33 and normal shutdown. Offsite (standby) power is supplied to IP2 and IP3 by 138-kV input lines 34 that use the same transmission towers as the W95 and W96 output lines (Entergy 2005b; 35 NRC 1975). The W95 and W96 lines are each within a separate right-of-way (ROW), so the 36 ROWs total approximately 4000 ft (1220 m) in length. About 500 ft (150 m) of this ROW length 37 is vegetated; the remainder crosses roads, parking lots, buildings, and other facilities. In the 38 vegetated segments, the NRC staff observed that the ROW is approximately 150 ft (46 m) wide, 39 the growth of trees is prevented, and a cover of mainly grasses and forbs is maintained. December 2008 2-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00058

Plant and the Environment 1 2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment 2 2.2.1 Land Use 3 Within the 239-acre (97-ha) Indian Point site, IP2 and IP3 (see Figure 2-3) are located north and 4 south, respectively, of IP1, which is in SAFSTOR until it is eventually decommissioned. The 5 developed portion of the IP2 and IP3 site is approximately 124.3 acres (50.3 ha), or over half 6 the site (see Figure 2-3). The remaining portions of the site are unused, undeveloped, and 7 include fields and forest uplands (approximately 112.4 acres (45.5 ha) and wetlands, streams, 8 and a pond (2.4 acres (0.97 ha)). Much of the site (approximately 159 acres (64.3 ha)) has 9 been disturbed at some time during the construction and operation of the three units (ENN 10 2007b). 11 The immediate area around the station is completely enclosed by a fence with access to the 12 station controlled at a security gate. The plant site can be accessed by road or from the Hudson 13 River. Land access to the plant site is from Broadway (main entrance). The existing wharf is 14 used to receive heavy equipment as needed, although access to the site from the river is 15 controlled by site access procedures. The plant site is not served by railroad. The exclusion 16 area, as defined by 10 CFR 100.3, "Definitions," surrounds the site as shown in Figure 2-3 17 (Entergy 2007a). 18 2.2.2 Water Use 19 The Hudson River is an important regional resource of significant aesthetic value in addition to 20 providing transportation, recreation, and water supply. The Hudson River at IP2 and IP3 is 21 tidally influenced and becomes increasingly so as it proceeds south. IP2 and IP3 have a once-22 through condenser cooling system that withdraws water from the Hudson River. The same 23 amount of water that is withdrawn for condenser cooling is discharged. However, the 24 discharged water is at an elevated temperature and, therefore, can induce some additional 25 evaporation. The NRC staff conservatively estimates that this induced evaporation from 26 elevated discharge temperature is less than 60 cfs (1.7 m3 /s). The remaining consumptive 27 water uses are insignificant relative to induced evaporation. 28 2.2.3 Water Quality 29 Being tidally influenced, the salinity of the Hudson River varies as upstream flows and tides 30 fluctuate. The salinity decreases when stream flows increase and tides drop. The salinity 31 increases during periods of low flow and high tides. The periodic higher salinity levels limit 32 some of the uses that a lower salinity river might support (e.g., drinking water supply). 33 Discharges to the Hudson River are regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA is administered by EPA. 34 EPA has delegated responsibility for administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to 35 NYSDEC. The IP2 and IP3 ownership submitted timely and sufficient applications to renew its SPDES permits 36 before the expiration of those permits in 1992. Pursuant to the New York State Administrative Procedure Act, these 37 permits do not expire until NYSDEC makes its final determination. To date, this final determination has not been 38 made. In 1991, NYSDEC, the facility owners, and several stakeholder groups entered into a consent order (issued 39 pursuant to the Hudson River Settlement Agreement; see Section 2.2.5.3 for more information) to mitigate impacts of 40 the thermal plume entering the Hudson River from the plant's discharge. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-24 December 2008 OAG10001366_00059

2

                                                                                                                                                                                         .. .,

Ft

                                                                                                                        ""-"
                                                                                                                                    ~"
                                           ~                                                                       - -
                                                                                                                  .,.-<,    ,;..,  -',',
                               /                                                            (til;'

0'" :":.

                                                                                                                            <
                                                                                                                                       '-'-

c<<* .;:: -:;':--". I ./ %... & "':.:,M~ ,...... , //;0--

                                                                                                                                                                                                <:"*~i::.>
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ":-.~,i       "'..."'1' ..  ','.

I' .' __ :' .$:*<

                                                                             .                     :::f
                                                                                                              'V.L

'~~'.

                                                                                                                                                   *W.':'*
                                                                                                                                                                                                          .;~:-.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                \::i::';:'"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ¥:~:~.
                                                                        . .: ;
                                                                         <~/         .;0-.....   ~:                           .... ~ ._/,;:-:y
                                                                        ). c,..**,           t-**:       -;:.- .::/ ....-...'}                         \.:~>-    .
                                                                                .:// :**:. *:Y**                                                     " ;,:,..,
             /                                                          .:,'
                                                                                   "'::f:~:~';~;~~,: .?@l~~~*j~* '..>>
                                                                                                                                                                                                  ".'
                                                 ,;....

- ,.J" '-~:';:<. ff{}:~~J ~ :

                                '. 0{        :-/:.          .,>.:~::,                                              . ..*:. ":-.,~ ..v ..l                 .,"} ..1-           :/
                     ~-...        ~                                k'                                     ":"_'                           '0,.:              .:: **::, .: ** "

L>U ,Ii V." ':c: o,. .':' / ./ .:.:>..... -x";' \ r::::' .r' c,

                                        .1'J~;~~:~~:i,~i~>:*;:""

It" ,. '~.' 4\;!;;~1 ill ' " ""it'" ~" '~~+,~L ',;;r\'><

                           ~~.   -:-::::::;:_~.i:'* '. St J/

l))~tr:l~k.Bi*

                                                                                   .                                                     M" "
                       '~':~.~.,"'.::£::<{.::<:;:::::j;j: ': ,'. . 'it:'f:~;::~'::t::;6"q .J>~i'*t1jiiS'~' '~::~~~:~t!~~~~~;:~~;t; ~~~:;;~~~
                                                                                     -; . . .-t)o~. *:.::. _."                             lt"... jo    ...: ' . .

to' '.':
.. /,~..,.,~.'o(-":-_ 'It ~ . .': " .;
1
\
Source: Maptech, Inc. 2 Figure 2-9. Topographic features surrounding IP2 and IP3 December 2008 2-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00060
Plant and the Environment 1 IP2 and IP3 do not intentionally discharge contaminants in a manner that would contaminate the 2 ground water beneath the site. However, in 2005, tritium was located beneath the IP2 and IP3 3 site. During a subsequent subsurface monitoring program at the site, radioactive forms of 4 cesium, cobalt, nickel, and strontium also were found. The radiological impact of these leaks on 5 ground water is discussed in Section 2.2.7 of this draft SEIS (the leaks are also mentioned in 6 Section 2.1.4.1 of this draft SEIS). 7 2.2.4 Meteorology and Air Quality 8 2.2.4.1 Climate 9 IP2 and IP3 are located in the Village of Buchanan, New York, in Westchester County on the 10 eastern bank of the Hudson River at approximately RM 43 (RKM 69). The river bisects the area 11 within a 6-mi (9.7-km) radius of the site and geographically separates Westchester County from 12 Rockland County to the west. The Hudson River flows northeast to southwest at the site but 13 turns sharply northwest approximately 2 mi northeast of the plant. The western bank of the 14 Hudson River is flanked by the steep, heavily wooded slopes of the Dunderberg and West 15 Mountains to the northwest (elevations 1086 and 1257 ft (331 and 383 m) above mean sea level 16 (MSL), respectively) and Buckberg Mountain to the west-southwest (elevation 793 ft (242 m) 17 above MSL). These peaks extend to the west and gradually rise to slightly higher peaks 18 (Entergy 2007a). 19 The climate is continental, characterized by rapid changes in temperature, resulting in hot 20 summers and cold winters. The area, being adjacent to the St. Lawrence River Valley storm 21 track, is subject to cold air masses approaching from the west and north. It has a variable 22 climate, characterized by frequent and swift changes. The climate is also subject to some 23 modification by the Atlantic Ocean. The moderating effect on temperatures is more pronounced 24 during the warmer months than in winter when bursts of cold air sweep down from Canada. In 25 the warmer seasons, temperatures rise rapidly in the daytime. However, temperatures also fall 26 rapidly after sunset so that the nights are relatively cool. Occasionally, there are extended 27 periods of oppressive heat up to a week or more in duration. Winters are usually cold and 28 sometimes fairly severe. Furthermore, the area is also close to the path of most storm and 29 frontal systems that move across the North American continent. Weather conditions often 30 approach from a westerly direction, and the frequent passage of weather systems often helps 31 reduce the length of both warm and cold spells. This is also a major factor in keeping periods of 32 prolonged air stagnation to a minimum (NOAA 2004). 33 The State of New York has a climate that varies greatly. For example, the average January 34 temperature ranges from 14 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (-10 degrees Celsius (C)) in the central 35 Adirondacks to 30 degrees F (-1.1 degrees C) on Long Island. The average July temperature in 36 the central Adirondacks is 66 degrees F (19 degrees C), and 74 degrees F (23 degrees C) on 37 Long Island. The highest temperature ever recorded in the State was 108 degrees F 38 (42 degrees C) at Troy on July 22, 1926. The lowest recorded temperature, -52 degrees F 39 (-47 degrees C), occurred at Old Forge, in the Fulton Chain of Lakes area, on February 18, 40 1979 (World Book Encyclopedia 2006). In Westchester County, where IP2 and IP3 are located, 41 temperatures are mild in the summer and cold in the winter. Buchanan, New York, has a mean 42 daily maximum temperature range from 28 degrees F (-2.2 degrees C) in winter to 87 degrees F 43 (31 degrees C) in summer. The mean daily minimum temperatures range from about Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-26 December 2008 OAG10001366_00061
Plant and the Environment 1 20 degrees F (-6.7 degrees C) in winter to about 72 degrees F (22 degrees C) in summer 2 (Indian Point Energy Center 2004). 3 Precipitation varies considerably in New York. The areas of Tug Hill, the southwestern slopes 4 of the Adirondacks, the central Catskills, and the southeast areas usually receive 44 in. 5 (110 cm) of rain a year, while other portions of the State get only 36 in. (91 cm). The Great 6 Lakes, with their broad expanse of open water, supply moisture for abundant winter snowfall. 7 Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo routinely receive annual snowfalls that are the highest for any 8 major city in the United States (World Book Encyclopedia 2006). Most of the precipitation in this 9 area is derived from moisture-laden air transported from the Gulf of Mexico and cyclonic 10 systems moving northward along the Atlantic coast. The annual rainfall is rather evenly 11 distributed over the year. Also, being adjacent to the track of storms that move through the 12 Saint Lawrence River Valley, and under the influence of winds that sweep across Lakes Erie 13 and Ontario to the interior of the State, the area is subject to cloudiness and winter snow 14 flurries. Furthermore, the combination of a valley location and surrounding hills produces 15 numerous advection fogs which also reduce the amount of sunshine received (NOAA 2004). 16 In the IP2 and IP3 Buchanan area, precipitation averages 37 in. (94 cm) per year and is 17 distributed rather evenly throughout the 12-month period. The lowest amount is in February, 18 and the highest is in May (Indian Point Energy Center 2004). Although the Village of Buchanan 19 area is subject to a wide range of snowfall amounting to as little as 20 in. (51 cm) or as much as 20 70 in. (180 cm), Westchester County snowfall amounts typically average between approximately 21 25 to 55 in. (64 to 140 cm) per year (NRCC 2006). 22 Wind velocities are moderate. The north-south Hudson River Valley has a marked effect on the 23 lighter winds, and in the warm months, average wind direction is usually southerly. For the most 24 part, the winds at Buchanan have northerly and westerly components. Destructive winds rarely 25 occur. Tornadoes, although rare, have struck the area, causing major damage (NOAA 2004). 26 On average, seven tornadoes strike New York every year (USDOC 2008a). Westchester 27 County has had a total of eight tornadoes since 1950, seven of which have been F1 or less 28 ("weak" tornadoes). The eighth tornado, which struck portions of Westchester County on 29 July 12, 2006, was rated as an F2 at its maximum intensity (briefly a "strong" tornado) but was 30 an F1 for most of its existence. Based on climatic data compared to other regions of the United 31 States, the probability of a tornado striking the IP2 and IP3 site is small, and tornado intensities 32 in Westchester County are relatively low (USDOC 2008b). 33 2.2.4.2 Meteorological System 34 Entergy's meteorological system consists of three instrumented towers, redundant power and 35 ventilation systems, redundant communication systems, and a computer processor/recorder. 36 Entergy describes the primary system as a 122-m (400-ft) instrumented tower located on the 37 site that provides the following: 38
wind direction and speed measurement at a minimum of two levels, one of which is 39 representative of the 10-m (33-ft) level 40

standard deviations of wind direction fluctuations as calculated at all measured levels 41

vertical temperature difference for two layers (122-10 m (400-33 ft) and 60-10 m (197-42 33 fi))
December 2008 2-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00062
Plant and the Environment 1
ambient temperature measurements at the 10-m (33-ft) level 2

precipitation measurements near ground level 3

Pasquill stability classes as calculated from temperature difference (Indian Point Energy 4 Center 2005) 5 The meteorological measurement system is located in a controlled environmental housing and 6 connected to a power supply system with a redundant power source. A diesel generator 7 provides immediate power to the meteorological tower system within 15 seconds after an 8 outage trips the automatic transfer switch. Support systems include an uninterruptible power 9 supply, dedicated ventilation systems, halon fire protection, and dedicated communications 10 (Indian Point Energy Center 2005).
11 Entergy indicates that the meteorological system transmits 15-minute average data 12 simultaneously to two loggers at the primary tower site. One data logger transmits to a 13 computer that determines joint frequency distributions, and the second transmits to a computer 14 in the Buchanan Service Center that allows remote access to the data. Meteorological data can 15 be transmitted simultaneously to emergency responders and the NRC in a format designated by 16 NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1. Fifteen-minute averages of meteorological parameters for the 17 preceding 12 hours are available from the system (Indian Point Energy Center 2005). 18 The backup meteorological system is independent of the primary system and consists of a 19 backup tower located approximately 2700 ft (833 m) north of the primary tower and a data 20 acquisition system located in the Emergency Operations Facility. The backup system provides 21 measurements at the 10-m (33-ft) level of wind direction and speed and an estimate of 22 atmospheric stability (Pasquill category using sigma theta, which is a standard deviation of wind 23 fluctuation). The backup system provides information in real-time mode. Changeover from the 24 primary system to the backup system occurs automatically. In the event of a failure of the 25 backup meteorological measurement system, a standby backup system exists at the 10-m 26 (33-ft) level of the Buchanan Service Center building roof. It also provides measurements of the 27 10-m (33-ft) level of wind direction and speed and an estimate of atmospheric stability (Pasquill 28 category using sigma theta, which is a standard deviation of wind fluctuations). The changeover 29 from the backup system to the standby system also occurs automatically. As in the case of the 30 primary system, the backup meteorological measurement system and associated controlled 31 environmental housing system are connected to a power system which is supplied from 32 redundant power sources. In addition to the backup meteorological measurement system, a 33 backup communications line to the meteorological system is operational. During an interim 34 period, the backup communications are provided via telephone lines routed through a telephone 35 company central office separate from the primary circuits (Indian Point Energy Center 2005). 36 2.2.4.3 Air Quality 37 Under the Clean Air Act, EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 38 specific concentrations of certain pollutants, called criteria pollutants. Areas in the United States 39 having air quality as good as or better than these standards (i.e., pollutant levels lower than the 40 NAAQS) were designated as attainment areas for the various pollutants. Areas with monitored 41 pollutant levels greater than these standards are designated as nonattainment areas. Areas in 42 the United States whose pollutant levels were greater than the NAAQS and are now lower than 43 the NAAQS are designated as maintenance areas. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-28 December 2008 OAG10001366_00063
Plant and the Environment 1 Four States are located within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the site. These include Pennsylvania's 2 eastern tip, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey. The 50-mi (80-km) radius includes 3 nonattainment areas for the ozone (0 3) 8-hour standard, particulate matter less than 10 microns 4 in diameter (PM1Q), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2 .5). The portion 5 of Pennsylvania (Pike County) located within the 50-mi (80-km) radius is in attainment for all 6 criteria pollutants. 7 The currently designated nonattainment areas for Connecticut counties within a 50-mi (80-km) 8 radius of the site are as follows: 9
Fairfield and New Haven*-03 and PM 2 .5 10

Litchfield-03 11 The currently designated nonattainment areas for New Jersey counties within a 50-mi (80-km) 12 radius of the site are as follows:
13
Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, and Union*-03 and PM 2 .5 14

Sussex*-03 15 The currently designated nonattainment areas for New York counties within a 50-mi (80-km) 16 radius of the site are as follows:
17 Bronx, King, Nassau, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester*-03 18 and PM 2 .5 19
Dutchess-03 20

New York*-03, PM1Q, and PM 2 .5 21

Putnam-03 22 Note that the counties labeled with an "*,, are part of the EPA-designated "New York-New 23 Jersey-Long Island Nonattainment Area" (EPA 2006a).
24 New York State air permits for IP2 and IP3, 3-5522-00011/00026 and 3-5522-000105/00009, 25 respectively, regulate emissions from boilers, turbines, and generators. These permits restrict 26 nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions to 25 tons (t) (23 metric tons (MT)) per year per station by 27 restricting engine run time and fuel consumption. IP2 and IP3 are not subject to the Risk 28 Management Plan (RMP) requirements described in 40 CFR Part 68, as no RMP-regulated 29 chemicals stored on site exceed the threshold values listed in 40 CFR Part 68 (Entergy 2007a). 30 There are no Mandatory Class I Federal areas designated by the National Park Service, U.S. 31 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), or the U.S. Forest Service within 50 mi (80 km) of the site. 32 Class I areas are locations in which visibility is an important attribute. As defined in the Clean 33 Air Act, they include several types of areas that were in existence as of August 7, 1977-34 national parks over 6000 acres (2430 ha), national wilderness areas, and national memorial 35 parks over 5000 acres (2020 ha), and international parks (NPS 2006a). The closest Class I 36 Area is Lye Brook Wilderness Area, Vermont, approximately 150 mi (240 km) east-northeast of 37 IP2 and IP3 (NPS 2006b). December 2008 2-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00064
Plant and the Environment 1 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources 2 In this section, the NRC staff describes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of 3 the Hudson River estuary. In addition, the NRC staff describes the major anthropogenic events 4 that have influenced the estuary and the history of regulatory action over the past 50 years. 5 2.2.5.1 The Hudson River Estuary 6 Watershed Description 7 The Hudson River originates at Tear-of-the-Clouds in the Adirondack Mountains of northern 8 New York State. From its source, the river flows south 315 mi (507 km) to its mouth at the 9 Battery, at the south end of the island of Manhattan. The Hudson River basin extends 128 mi 10 (206 km) from east to west and 238 mi (383 km) from north to south and drains an area of 11 13,336 square miles (sq mi) (34,540 sq km), with most of this area located in the eastern-central 12 part of New York State and small portions in Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New 13 Jersey (Abood et al. 2006). The basin is bounded by the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain 14 drainage basins to the north; the Connecticut and Housatonic River basins to the east; the 15 Delaware, Susquehanna, Oswego, and Black River basins to the west; and the basins of small 16 tributaries and New York Harbor on the south. From the Troy Dam to the Battery, the lower 17 Hudson River basin is about 154 mi (248 km) long and drains an area of about 5277 sq mi 18 (13,670 sq km). The average slope of the lower Hudson River, defined in terms of the half-tide 19 level, is about 0.6 m (2 ft) over 150 mi (240 km) (Abood et al. 2006). During the development of 20 the multiutility studies in the 1970s, the lower portion of the Hudson River from the Troy Dam to 21 the Battery was divided into 13 study areas (river segments), depicted in Figure 2-10. The 22 study area and river segment designations identified in the figure will be used to discuss 23 monitoring results and data collection locations throughout this document. 24 Lower Hudson River Basin Habitats 25 The lower Hudson River estuary contains a variety of habitats, including tidal marshes, intertidal 26 mudflats, and subtidal aquatic beds. These habitats exist throughout the length of the river and 27 can be freshwater, brackish, or saline. The freshwater communities are generally located north 28 of Newburgh (CHGEC 1999), with brackish communities found farther south. There are four 29 locations within the estuary designated as National Estuarine Research Reserve System Sites 30 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NYSDEC, including, from 31 north to south, Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bay, lona Island, and Piermont Marsh (NOAA 2008), as 32 shown in Figure 2-11. The lower Hudson River basin also contains Haverstraw Bay, shown in 33 Figure 2-11, a significant nursery area for a variety of fish, including striped bass, white perch, 34 Atlantic tomcod, and Atlantic sturgeon, and a wintering area for the federally listed endangered 35 shortnose sturgeon (FWS 2008a). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-30 December 2008 OAG10001366_00065
Plant and the Environment
>~ 1\ ;
STUDY AREA KMP RIVER MILE ALBANY
-----------------
YJ 'Ji'i/ Troy Dam L._ Green Island I d ' I BEC '-------___ /
~ );
ALBANY (AL) (201-245)! (125-152) 'I f\,
!1 Ii I-------------------------~
I
//
CATSKILL (CS) (172-200) (107-124) ~/ l---------------------~:- ;
',_fv!~s_s_ __
SAUGERTIES (SG) (151-171) i (94-106) Jj KINGSTON (KG) (138-150) f- - - ;8~~3;--- ----- -,- --
~---------------------~---
i Yl HYDE PARK (HP) (124-137) i (77-85) i f-"l I ---!---
.t i DANSKAMM~:~,. , -. ..... ~ '+ POUGHKE:EPSIE
[ ! ROSETON ;--==-1; POUGHKEEPSIE (PK) (100-123)! (62-76) // CORNWALL (CW) (90-99) ! l-------------------~tf---- (56-61) . .U. t------------------------- WEST POINT (WP) (77-89)! (47-55)';)" , f--------~m~~-~-- I : , INDIAN POINT (IP) (63-76) l--@~~~l[ BOWLlNEl-..~t~ INDIAN P,OINT l 1 L--_=.:...:..:=..r- \ -, : CROTON-HAVERSTRAW (CH) (55-62) f--@+/-~~L---:_:_~--------.:'\).l ~v-<..\v\)" i I\i ~n-h \J / o~~ TAPPAN ZEE (TZ) (39-54) 1 (24-33) ~bz;;~~"('r N- '> c; "~ [----------- -------~'->.,>~t! 'T'0 1J YONKERS (YK) (19-38), (12-23) ( II YO~KtRS
;i.. ,J i 0 \v/
r-~ _ I
; \. J: i +;I!} (\' CD / (
t-------------*---~'r-~J.f Jl1f~~~:; ~~<t __ .) t
)1 if / / ~'V'c"'i " NEWYORK ~!
BATTERY (BT) (0-18) !j (0-11) ;7 &., Ii jr ,/DETAILAREA)
-------..:.~-:;,,s'_t). \ I LEGEND: r-~ POWER PLANT 1!]~4 i.,~'- "-~ ---'v 0'-
KPM = KILOMETER POINT ;ri!.( / --J~'==="~ or RM = RIVER MILE ",,,t_/- Atlantic Ocean
\
1 Source: Abood et al. 2006 2 Figure 2-10. Hudson study area and river segments December 2008 2-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00066
Plant and the Environment
*N::~¥;!~ejtg~-~ ,. "-;::r ........................................... , ~.-- ' '.:;:.:;.;:.;;..;-;:.;;.;;:]
i* ","',..:- .' --- :------.,,,,"',.,,,
. ....... ~ 10,m i~iiClml MHl M<lH;h >"'w,.,,< ...... ~ ........ ~ ......................................' /./ . *. ----.-~--------------- ~/ ..'. ". . <i*i;~;~*;*~i~;~;;;;*ii;:1*1 /,:"'<' ** ------------~------------------------ *.> -, <":.
rp~-~;:;n:;~~t-~1;-~;-hl-,
------.;.-----~------~~.:----------------", "' "" ....
o 10 20 40
~1"""""I~_iiiiiiiiiii~-~-iiiiiiiiiii~~~~~1 Miles 1 Figure 2-11. Hudson river area and national estuarine research sites Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-32 December 2008 OAG10001366_00067
Plant and the Environment 1 Community type and habitat characteristics are influenced by the extent of tidal excursions, 2 which are controlled by tidal stage and river flow. During drought periods, the 100 milligrams 3 per liter (mg/L) (0.1 parts per thousand (ppt)) salinity front can extend up to 130 km (81 mi) 4 above the ocean entrance (Abood et al. 2006). 5 In general, narrow, shallow river reaches with high current flow have extensive bottom scour 6 and low organic carbon levels. The coarse gravel substrate provides spawning habitat for some 7 species. Similar characteristics can also be found where tributaries to the main river stem join 8 the Hudson. High current speeds through deep basins can generate turbulent flow that keeps 9 weakly swimming zoo- and icthyoplankton suspended in the water column and away from silty 10 nearshore locations and potential predators. Shallow, shore-zone habitats often support 11 submerged aquatic vegetation that provides habitat and protection for juvenile fish and other 12 aquatic communities. Broad, shallow basins often create depositional environments where fine 13 sediments, high levels of organic carbon, and nutrients are present. These environments are 14 generally highly productive and may serve as nursery areas for juvenile fish species (CHGEC 15 1999). 16 Human activities, however, have significantly affected the lower Hudson River estuary. 17 Increasing human populations along the estuary throughout recent history have contributed to 18 increased habitat alteration. (Section 2.2.5.2 examines human influences in greater detail.) 19 The construction of railroad lines along the banks of the river disrupted the connection of the 20 river to marshland and wetland habitats. Construction of causeways interfered with or 21 completely blocked tributary inlets, disrupting sediment transport and other natural phenomena. 22 Anthropogenic activities also resulted in the dredging of some habitats and the filling of others. 23 The historical impacts to the lower Hudson River habitats are discussed later in this section. 24 To describe the predominant habitat features associated with the lower Hudson River estuary, 25 Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation (CHGEC 1999) divided the lower river from the 26 Troy Dam to the Battery into five subsections of roughly comparable volume consisting of one or 27 more of the regions and river segments identified in Figure 2-10. Beginning at the Troy Dam, 28 the first subsection extends from RM 152 to 94 (RKM 245 to 151) and includes the Albany, 29 Catskill, and Saugerties study areas. This subsection of the river is relatively narrow and has 30 extensive shoals and numerous tributaries. Within this subsection and approximately 6.2 mi 31 (10 km) south of the Troy Dam, the river is about 574ft (175 m) wide-the narrowest part of the 32 lower Hudson (Abood et al. 2006). The slope of the river is also greatest in this subsection and 33 generates current velocities greater than in other areas. 34 The second subsection of the river extends from RM 93 to 56 (RKM 150 to 90) and includes the 35 Kingston, Hyde Park, Poughkeepsie, and Cornwall study areas. This subsection contains a 36 series of progressively deeper basins, and the volume of this area is approximately 1.5 times 37 larger than that of the adjacent upriver areas. Shallow shoreline and shoal areas are common 38 only in the southernmost end of this subsection. 39 The third subsection defined by CHGEC (1999) extends from RM 55 to 39 (RKM 89 to 63), and 40 includes the West Point and IP2 and IP3 study areas. At this location, the Hudson Highlands 41 land mass forced glaciers through a narrow constriction, resulting in the deepest and most 42 turbulent flow observed in the lower Hudson. Within this subsection, the river channel narrows 43 abruptly, bends sharply to the east, and reaches a depth of over 150 ft (46 m). At the lower 44 portions of this subsection, the river bottom consists of a series of progressively shallower December 2008 2-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00068
Plant and the Environment 1 gouges that result in a corrugated bottom that ends in shallow water behind the Hudson 2 Highlands. The IP2 and IP3 and Bowline Point power stations (along with the no-Ionger-3 operating Lovett station) are located within this river subsection. 4 The fourth subsection of the river identified by CHGEC (1999) is located from RM 38 to 24 5 (RKM 62 to 39) and includes the Croton-Haverstraw and Tappan Zee study areas (Figure 2-6). 6 This is the widest and shallowest portion of the lower Hudson River and has the most extensive 7 shoal and shore zone areas. The presence of slow-moving currents and shoal areas results in 8 the deposition of suspended sediment, organic carbon, and nutrients. The major source of 9 suspended sediment to the Hudson is associated with watershed basin runoff and erosion, and 10 basin-wide loads have been estimated at 800,000 t/yr (726,000 MT/yr) (Abood et al. 2006). The 11 presence of slow-moving currents, shoal and shore-zone habitat, and high carbon and nutrient 12 inputs makes this a highly productive portion of the lower Hudson River and provides important 13 spawning and nursery areas for juvenile fish. 14 The fifth subsection of the river begins at RM 24 (RKM 38) and extends to the river's entrance 15 into New York Harbor, encompassing the Yonkers and Battery study areas. In this subsection, 16 the river again constricts and gradually deepens as it enters New York Harbor. In this location, 17 the river is generally straight and contains few shoal areas or shore-zone habitats. The final 18 12 mi (19 km) of the lower Hudson have extensive armoring and contain little remaining natural 19 shoreline (CHGEC 1999). 20 Sampling Strata Definitions 21 To effectively sample and study the lower Hudson, researchers have attempted to define 22 specific zones, habitats, or locations within the river. These specific locations, often called 23 strata, provide researchers with a quantitative way to sample the environment and integrate the 24 resulting information. A variety of attempts have been made to define the channel morphology 25 and thus the potential strata of the lower Hudson. Miller et al. (2006) describe three major 26 habitat areas in the lower Hudson: 27 (1) Intertidal: Areas exposed at low tide and submerged at high tide that include mud flats, 28 sand, broadleaf marsh, and emergent intertidal vegetation. 29 (2) Shallows: Areas of the river less than 6.6 ft (2.0 m) deep at mean low tide. This habitat 30 supports submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V) in the river and is considered one of the 31 most productive habitats in the estuary and of great ecological importance. 32 (3) Deepwater: Areas of the river greater than 6.6 ft (2.0 m) deep at mean low tide. This 33 area represents the limit of light penetration and generally does not support SAV. 34 During the development of the Hudson River Utilities studies of the lower Hudson River in the 35 1970s, the study areas and river segments were divided into four primary strata to support fish 36 and plankton investigations. These strata provide a geomorphological basis for partitioning the 37 river and are still used to define sampling locations (ASA 2007): 38 (4) Shore: The portion of the Hudson River estuary extending from the shore to a depth of 39 10 ft (3.0 m). This area was primarily sampled by beach seine. 40 (5) Shoal: The portion of the Hudson River extending from the shore to a depth of 20 ft 41 (6.1 m) at mean low tide. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-34 December 2008 OAG10001366_00069
Plant and the Environment 1 (6) Bottom: The portion of Hudson River extending from the bottom to 10ft (3.0 m) above 2 the bottom where the river depth is greater than 20 ft (6.1 m) mean low tide. 3 (7) Channel: The portion of the Hudson River not considered bottom where river depth is 4 greater than 20 ft (6.1 m) at mean low tide. 5 Hydrodynamics and Flow Characteristics 6 In the lower Hudson River, freshwater flow is one of the most important factors in determining 7 and influencing the physical, chemical, and biological processes in the estuary and the resulting 8 interactions within the food web. Hydrodynamics and flow characteristics are controlled by a 9 complex series of interactions that include short- and long-term fluctuations in meteorological 10 conditions, precipitation and runoff in the upstream portion of the watershed, the influence of 11 tides and currents in downstream portions of the river, and the presence of a "salt wedge" that 12 moves up- or downstream depending on river flow and tidal fluctuation (Blumberg and 13 Hellweger 2006). Freshwater flow varies throughout the year, with maximum flow occurring 14 during the months of March through May, with low-flow conditions beginning in June and 15 continuing until November (Abood et al. 2006). Under normal conditions, approximately 16 75 percent of the total freshwater flow enters the lower Hudson River at Troy, with the remaining 17 portion contributed by tributaries discharging into the upper reach of the estuary (CHGEC 1999; 18 Abood et al. 2006). Because of tidal oscillation in the estuary, it is not possible to accurately 19 measure freshwater flow in the lower estuary. Freshwater flow is, however, monitored by the 20 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at Green Island, the farthest downstream USGS gauge above 21 tidewater (CHGEC 1999; Abood et al. 2006). Data recorded from this gauge from 1948 to 2006 22 show that the mean annual flow was approximately 14,028 cfs (397.23 m 3/s). The lowest 23 recorded annual flow was 6400 cfs (180 m3/s ) in 1965; the highest was 22,100 cfs (626 m3 /s ) 24 in 1976. Measured flows from Green Island from 1996 to 2006 ranged from 11,400 cfs 25 (323 m 3/s) in 2002 to over 18,000 cfs (510 m3 /s) in 1996 (USGS 2008). 26 Salinity 27 CHGEC (1999) describes four salinity habitat zones in the Hudson River: 28 (1) polyhaline (high salinity): RM 1-19 (RKM 2-31) 29 (2) mesohaline (moderate salinity): RM 19-40 (RKM 31-64) 30 (3) oligohaline (low salinity): RM 40--68 (RKM 64-109) 31 (4) tidal freshwater: RM 68-152 (RKM 109-245) 32 The IP2 and IP3 and Bowline Point facilities are located in the oligohaline zone and generally 33 experience salinities of 0.5 to 5 ppt. The actual salinity present at a given time and place can 34 vary considerably in the lower regions of the river because of salinity intrusion, which occurs 35 throughout the year. The typical tidal excursion in the lower Hudson River is generally 3 to 6 mi 36 (5 to 10 km), but can extend up to 12 mi (19 km) upstream. During the spring, the salt front is 37 located between Yonkers and Tappan Zee and moves upstream to just south of Poughkeepsie 38 during the summer (Blumberg and Hellweger 2006). Abood et al. (2006) report that, during 39 drought periods, the salt front (defined as water with a salinity of 100 mg/L (0.1 ppt)) can extend 40 up to RM 81. Stratification also occurs within this salt-intruded reach. Studies by Abood et al. 41 (2006) suggest that from 1997-2003, salinity in the Hudson River has increased approximately 42 15 percent for a given flow rate. The authors suggest that this conclusion be viewed with December 2008 2-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00070
Plant and the Environment 1 caution and that further analysis is required to confirm this finding. Real-time monitoring of the 2 salt front position on the lower Hudson River is provided by USGS and can be accessed via its 3 Web site (USGS 2008). 4 Temperature 5 Water temperatures in the Hudson River vary seasonally, with a maximum temperature of 6 25 degrees C (77 degrees F) occurring in August and a minimum temperature of 1 degree C 7 (34 degrees F) occurring in January-February. The magnitude and distribution of water 8 temperatures in the estuary are influenced by a variety of factors and complex relationships. 9 Abood et al. (2006) identified four categories of parameters that playa significant role in water 10 temperature-(1) atmospheric conditions, including radiation, evaporation, and conduction, 11 (2) hydrodynamic conditions, including channel geometry, flow, and dispersion, (3) boundary 12 conditions associated with the temperature of the ocean and freshwater, and (4) anthropogenic 13 inputs, including those associated with activities that use river water for cooling purposes. The 14 four parameters are interrelated and collectively influence temperature ranges and distributions 15 in the estuary. Anthropogenic influences are of particular concern because they generally 16 represent a constant influence on the system that may be controlled or managed, unlike those 17 influences associated with climate, river morphology/geometry, and natural interactions between 18 the river and ocean. Abood et al. (2006) indicate that the greatest percentage of artificial 19 (anthropogenic) heat input into the lower Hudson River estuary is associated with the use of 20 river water for condenser cooling in support of electrical power generation. The authors indicate 21 that there are currently six power plants operating in the lower Hudson River estuary, with a 22 total electrical generation of approximately 6000 MW(e), that use the Hudson River as cooling 23 water. These plants collectively use 4.6 million gpm (290 m3/s) and reject approximately 8x10 11 24 British thermal units per day (Btu/day) (2.3x10 8 kilowatt-hours per day (kWh/day)), or 9800 MW 25 of thermal power output). Anthropogenic activities can also result in a net cooling effect on the 26 river. An example given by Abood et al. (2006) suggests that a 1-million-gallon-per-day (mgd) 27 (3800-m3/day) sewage effluent facility discharging water at 18 degrees C (64 degrees F) during 28 the summer would cool the river because river ambient temperatures are higher. 29 Attempts to determine long-term changes to the temperature of the lower Hudson River are 30 often confounded by changes in measurement locations and procedures, especially in long-term 31 studies. 32 An analysis of long-term temperature trends in the lower Hudson River was attempted by 33 Ashizawa and Cole (1997), using data obtained from the Poughkeepsie Water Works (PWW), 34 which processes drinking water. This facility is located in the Poughkeepsie study area 35 approximately 30 mi (48 km) upstream from IP2 and IP3 (Figure 2-6). A nearly continuous data 36 set is available from PWW, beginning in 1908 and continuing to the present day. The data set 37 represents water withdrawn from the Hudson River approximately 14 ft (4.3 m) below low tide. 38 The results of the study show that the overall mean annual water temperature at the intake 39 location was 12.2 degrees C (54 degrees F), and that water temperatures were highly 40 correlated with air temperature during the winter and spring months. Although the overall trends 41 in temperature suggested a gradual warming, the authors concluded that the relationship was 42 not monotonic (i.e., showing change in only one direction over time). Rather, there were 43 periods of both increasing and decreasing temperatures, with episodes of statistically significant 44 warming occurring approximately 22.7 percent of the time and episodes of significant cooling 45 occurring 11.5 percent of the time. During the period from 1918 to 1990, the authors observed Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-36 December 2008 OAG10001366_00071
Plant and the Environment 1 a significant increase in temperature, with a rate of warming of 0.12 degrees C (0.22 degrees F) 2 per decade. The sharpest increase during that time occurred from 1971 to 1990 at 0.46 3 degrees C (0.83 degrees F) per decade; the sharpest cooling occurred from 1908 to 1923 at 4 0.79 degrees C (1.42 degrees F) per decade. The authors noted that there has been only one 5 cooling event since 1923 (1968 to 1977), which occurred during a time of greater than average 6 rainfall and record-setting freshwater flows, illustrating the complex relationships between 7 weather, river flow, hydrodynamic connections, and anthropogenic effects discussed earlier. 8 Dissolved Oxygen 9 As discussed above, obtaining reliable data and trends associated with temperature and 10 dissolved oxygen (DO) can be problematic in dynamic, open-ended systems. Measurements 11 obtained during routine sampling within the river provide only a snapshot of actual conditions; 12 measurements taken continuously from fixed, known locations provide long-term records, but 13 only for the point or area of interest. Declines in DO can be caused by both natural and 14 anthropogenic activities and may be transient or persist episodically or continually through time. 15 In some cases, observed declines in DO at specific times and locations in the Hudson River 16 have been at least partially attributed to the appearance of invasive species, such as zebra 17 mussels (Caraco et al. 2000). Even episodic events can have serious implications for fish and 18 invertebrate communities and dramatically alter marine and estuarine food webs. To evaluate 19 long-term DO trends in the lower Hudson River, Abood et al. (2006) examined two long-term 20 data sets of DO observations collected by the New York City Department of Environmental 21 Protection (NYCDEP) and covering the lower reaches of the river. Measurements of DO taken 22 in August from 1975 to 2000 during the Long River Surveys indicate the lowest percent 23 saturation (less than 75 percent) at West Point and the highest (greater than 90 percent) at the 24 Kingston and Catskill reaches (Figure 2-6). Percent saturation at the river segment 25 encompassing IP2 and IP3 was approximately 76 percent. Based on the NYCDEP data set, the 26 authors concluded that there has been a substantial increase in DO since the early 1980s, 27 probably resulting from the significant upgrades to the Yonkers and North River Sewage 28 Treatment Plants in the lower reach of the Hudson. 29 Organic Matter 30 Organic matter can enter and influence a food web from two sources-autochthonous inputs, 31 which are produced within the aquatic system, and allochthonous inputs, which are imported to 32 the aquatic system from the surrounding terrestrial watershed (Caraco and Cole 2006). In the 33 lower Hudson River, autochthonous sources of carbon originating within the river are associated 34 with the primary production of phytoplankton and macrophyte communities. Studies by Caraco 35 and Cole (2006) of the Hudson River from Albany to Newburgh during May-August 1999 and 36 2000 concluded that runoff from the upper Hudson and Mohawk River watershed was 37 responsible for the majority of the allochthonous sources of carbon, represented as dissolved 38 organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon (POC). Inputs from sewage, adjoining 39 marshes, and tributaries accounted for less than 25 percent of the inputs. Total organic carbon 40 (TOC) inputs were on average highest at the uppermost stretch of the Hudson and decreased 41 down river by over twofold. Allochthonous loads were approximately fourfold lower in 1999 than 42 in 2000 for all three river sections studied. The authors noted that the importance of 43 allochthonous and autochothonous loads varied more than thirtyfold across space and time and 44 that the variation was related to hydrologic inputs. During the summer of 1999 (the driest in December 2008 2-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00072
Plant and the Environment 1 15 years), loadings of allochthonous inputs were low, but phytoplankton biomass and primary 2 productivity were high. The resulting ratio of autochthonous/allochthonous inputs was tenfold 3 greater than that measured during the summer of 2000 (the wettest in 15 years). These data 4 suggest to the NRC staff that variations in sources and the importance of carbon inputs can be 5 influenced by a variety of nonanthropogenic factors and result in changes to food web structure 6 and function that directly impact higher trophic levels. 7 Nitrogen loading to rivers and estuaries comes primarily from forest and agricultural drainage, 8 discharge from sewage treatment plants, and from nonpoint sources associated with 9 urbanization. The most common forms of nitrogen in these systems are amino compounds 10 originating from plant and animal proteins (CHGEC 1999). In the Hudson River, nitrate is the 11 major contributor to the total nitrogen load, and in the lower Hudson River, approximately half of 12 the total inorganic nitrogen loading is attributed to wastewater treatment systems and urban 13 runoff (CHGEC 1999). 14 Total nitrogen and ammonia concentrations in the Hudson from Troy to Yonkers (obtained from 15 EPA STORET) show differing trends from 1975 through 1992. Total nitrogen concentrations 16 appear to vary without trend, while ammonia concentrations appear to be highest in river 17 stretches near Yonkers and at locations upstream of Poughkeepsie (CHGEC 1999). 18 Phosphorus, in the form of phosphates, enters river systems as leachates from rock formations 19 and soil. Additional inputs are associated with wastewater treatment plant discharges. 20 Inorganic phosphates are used by plants and converted to organic forms that are used by 21 animals (CHGEC 1999). Total phosphorus concentrations in the Hudson River during 22 August 1974 suggest that the highest concentrations are associated with the lower 25 RM 23 (40 RKM). Ortho-phosphorus concentrations from the EPA STORET database from 1975 24 through 1992 suggest that the highest concentrations are associated with the Yonkers-Piermont 25 and Glenmont-Troy areas of the upper river. 26 The distribution and ratios of allochthonous and autochthonous nutrient inputs form the basis of 27 complex food webs that can have large influences on upper trophic levels. Macronutrients such 28 as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicon are used by plants as raw materials to produce 29 new biomass through photosynthesis. In some freshwater systems, the lack or excess of a 30 specific macronutrient can limit growth or contribute to eutrophication and result in basinwide 31 impacts to aquatic resources. 32 2.2.5.2 Significant Environmental Issues Associated with the Hudson River Estuary 33 Early Settlement 34 Anthropogenic impacts to the Hudson River ecosystem have existed for many centuries, with a 35 possible origin approximately 11,000 years ago, after the retreat of the Wisconsin-stage ice 36 sheet (CHGEC 1999). Swaney et al. (2006) categorized changes in watershed characteristics 37 and effects based on four broad time scales-pre-European settlement, precolonial and colonial 38 settlement, 19th century, and 20th century (Table 2-1). To put the scale of the anthropogenic 39 impacts to the Hudson River watershed in context, the human population within the watershed 40 has grown from approximately 230,000 at the time of the first census in 1790 to approximately 41 5 million today (not including parts of the boroughs of New York City outside the watershed, 42 such as Queens). In 1609, the Hudson River watershed was almost entirely forested; by 1880, 43 68 percent of the watershed was farmland. Available records show that from the early 18th 44 century to 1993, nearly 800 dams were constructed in the watershed, ranging in height from 2 to Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-38 December 2008 OAG10001366_00073
Plant and the Environment 1 700 ft (0.6 to 213 meters) (Swaney et al. 2006). A brief chronology of significant events that 2 occurred from pre-European settlement to modern times is presented below. 3 Before settlement by European explorers, impacts associated with aboriginal populations were 4 restricted to those from activities associated with hunting and gathering, and localized fires. 5 During precolonial and colonial settlement, immigrants cleared large portions of forest cover to 6 accommodate agriculture. These activities altered watershed dynamics and increased 7 settlement loads and temperature in streams and rivers. Dramatic anthropogenic impacts 8 occurred during the 19th century as populations along rivers, streams, and coastal areas 9 increased, land clearing continued, and construction of roads, bridges, railroads, canals, and 10 industrial centers occurred to support the emerging industrial revolution. The emergence of 11 tanning and logging activities resulted in large-scale clearing of forests, construction of roads 12 that were later expanded into highways and railroad lines, and the development of dams and 13 canals to control floods and divert water for human needs. All of these activities resulted in 14 profound changes to the dynamics of the Hudson River watershed. In some cases, the 15 presence of railroad lines or highways effectively isolated nearby wetland communities from the 16 main stem of the river; in other cases, wetland and marsh areas were filled and destroyed. 17 Dredging and dam development significantly altered the flow characteristics of the Hudson River 18 and influenced the migratory patterns of many species. (Swaney et al. 2006) 19 During the latter part of the 19th century, the growing human population created increased 20 pollution and nutrient loading, which remained unregulated until the mid-20th century. 21 Anthropogenic impacts occurring during the 20th century include the expansion of human 22 population centers, further development of infrastructure to support industrial development 23 (highways, roads, rail lines, factories), and a gradual shift in agricultural practices from 24 traditional methods to new technologies that used specialized fertilizers, pesticides, and other 25 agrochemicals. Industrialization during the 19th and 20th centuries also provided pathways for 26 invasive species and nuisance organisms to colonize new habitats via canals, ship ballast 27 water, and accidental or deliberate agricultural introductions. (Swaney et al. 2006) 28 During the latter part of the 20th century, environmental awareness of degraded conditions 29 resulted in the creation of important environmental laws and monitoring programs and 30 significant improvements to wastewater treatment facilities. The laws and activities resulted in 31 significant improvements to some water-quality parameters and a new awareness of emerging 32 threats (e.g., the presence of endocrine-disrupting pharmaceuticals, nanomaterials, and other 33 contaminants or constituents). A brief description of some of the significant environmental 34 issues and anthropogenic events is presented below. (Swaney et al. 2006) 35 Dredging, Channelization, and Dam Construction 36 As described above, dredging, channelization, and dam construction within the Hudson River 37 watershed has occurred for over 200 years. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has 38 maintained a shipping channel from the ocean to the Port of Albany since the late 18th century 39 and dredges the channel on an as-needed basis (CHGEC 1999). Dredging in some river 40 segments occurs every 5 years (Miller et al. 2006). In some cases, dredging has significantly 41 changed the hydrodynamic characteristics of the river and resulted in significant losses of 42 intertidal and shallow water nursery habitats for fish (Miller et al. 2006). As described above, 43 from the early 18th century to 1993, nearly 800 dams were constructed in the watershed, 44 ranging in height from 2 to 700 ft (0.6 to 213 m) (Swaney et al. 2006). A study of the inorganic December 2008 2-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00074
Plant and the Environment 1 and organic content of marshes within the watershed by Peteet et al. (2006) revealed a pattern 2 of decreasing inorganic content with the arrival of the Europeans to the present day that was 3 probably the result of the construction of tributary dams. The presence of dams, river 4 channelization, and shoreline armoring to protect road and rail lines disconnects or interferes 5 with normal river processes and often results in an overall decrease of sediment transport into 6 and through the estuary. Because these structures are now an existing part of the landscape, in 7 most cases, it is extremely difficult or impossible to restore historical river structure and function. 8 Industry and Water Use Impacts 9 As described above, anthropogenic impacts on the watershed from aboriginal cultures were 10 generally small and restricted to effects associated with hunter-gatherer community activities 11 and the presence of fires. Before the 1900s, the dominant industries were those of the primary 12 sector (agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining). During the 1900s, there was an increase in the 13 use of the Hudson River to provide transportation, drinking water, and water for industrial 14 activities. During the development of industrial activity, there was a progressive increase in 15 secondary sector industries, including the manufacture of food products, textiles, pulp and paper 16 products, chemical, machinery, and transportation-related goods (CHGEC 1999). 17 The Hudson River was and is used as a source of potable water, a location for permitted waste 18 disposal, a mode of transportation, and a source of cooling water by industry and municipalities. 19 As of 1999, at least five municipalities use the lower Hudson as a source of potable water, and 20 Rohmann et al. (1987) identified 183 separate industrial and municipal discharges to the 21 Hudson and Mohawk rivers. The chemical industry has the greatest number of industrial users, 22 followed by oil, paper, and textile manufacturers; sand, gravel, and rock processors; power 23 plants; and cement companies (CHGEC 1999). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-40 December 2008 OAG10001366_00075
Plant and the Environment 1 2 Table 2-1. Historical Impacts on the Hudson River Watershed 3 Pre-European Settlement Aboriginal agriculture Localized fires and associated changes in biomass, habitat, and nutrient dynamics Precolonial and Colonial Settlement Land clearing Removal of forest cover and changes in habitat and streamflow characteristics 4 th 19 Century Tanning Preferential clearing of forests leading to increased sediment and organic loads to water bodies Logging Extensive clearing of forests that affects water quality and habitat Agriculture Clearing of forests, use of fertilizers and nitrogen-fixing crops Canal and dam development Increase of waterborne invasive species, wetland drainage, flow alterations, habitat fragmentation Railroad development Increased access to forests leading to risk of fire; terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitat loss Road development Increases in impervious surfaces and runoff Urbanization and Increased pollution from unregulated sewage and industrialization factory waste discharges Dam development for water Changes in flow regime and sediment transport supply infrastructure needs Highway and road development Increase in impervious surfaces and runoff, impacts to terrestrial communities Agriculture decline Changes in land use practices (reforestation or increased land development) Changing agricultural practices Increased inorganic nutrients (fertilizers) and changes in organic (manure) loads Urban development and sprawl Impervious surface impacts, increased runoff, construction impacts, stream channelization Adapted from: Swaney et al. 2006 5 December 2008 2-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00076
Plant and the Environment 1 At present, there are 11 facilities along the lower Hudson River with water discharges of 50 mgd 2 (189,000 m3/day) or greater (Table 2-2). Of these, two are associated with wastewater 3 discharge, and nine are associated with power generation. Between Poughkeepsie and 4 Yonkers (RM 24-77 (RKM 39-124)), there are four steam power generating stations that use 5 water from the Hudson River for condenser cooling (Danskammer Point, Roseton, IP2 and IP3, 6 and Bowline Point). Of these, IP2 and IP3 have traditionally used the greatest quantity of water 7 for cooling (2800 mgd, or 10.6 million m3/day), and Danskammer Point the least. Presently, 8 Roseton operates intermittently, based on energy needs and the current prices of oil and natural 9 gas. Excluding the water use of this facility, the IP2 and IP3 facility accounts for 60 percent of 10 the water use from RM 24-77 (RKM 39-124). Impacts associated with industrial water use can 11 include impingement or entrainment of fish, larval forms, and invertebrates from water intake; 12 heat or cold shock associated with water discharges; and the cumulative effects of the 13 discharge of low levels of permitted chemicals (CHGEC 1999). 14 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants 15 Wastewater collection and sewage treatment construction began in New York City in the late 16 17th century, and many of the sewer systems were connected in lower and central Manhattan 17 Island between 1830 and 1870. The first wastewater treatment system was constructed in 1886 18 and included a screen system designed to protect bathers on Coney Island (Brosnan and 19 O'Shea 1996.) 20 In 2004, the NYSDEC identified 610 municipal wastewater treatment plants in New York State 21 (NYSDEC 2004a). These facilities produce a total discharge flow of approximately 3694 mgd 22 (13.98 million m3 /day). In the lower Hudson River basin, there are 78 secondary treatment 23 facilities with a total flow of 556 mgd (2.1 million m3 /day), 41 tertiary facilities with a total flow of 24 11 mgd (42,000 m3/day), and 10 other/unknown facilities with a total flow of approximately 25 1 mgd (3800 m3/day). The total flow associated with all 129 facilities is approximately 568 mgd 26 (2.15 million m3/day). There are 33 facilities that use what is described as less than primary, 27 primary, or intermediate treatment. A total of 404 facilities employ secondary treatment, and 28 173 employ tertiary treatment (NYSDEC 2004a). 29 As discussed above, the increasing populations along the river and within the watershed 30 resulted in an increased discharge of sewage into the Hudson and an overall degradation of 31 water quality. Beginning in 1906 with the creation of the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of 32 New York, a series of studies was conducted to formulate plans to improve water quality within 33 the region (Brosnan and O'Shea 1996). In the freshwater portion of the lower Hudson River, the 34 most dramatic improvements in wastewater treatment were made between 1974 and 1985, 35 resulting in a decrease in the discharge of suspended solids by 56 percent. 36 Improvements in the brackish portion of the river were even greater. In the New York City area, 37 the construction and upgrading of water treatment plants reduced the discharge of untreated 38 wastewater from 450 mgd (1.7 million m3 /day) in 1970 to less than 5 mgd (19,000 m3/day) in 39 1988 (CHGEC 1999). The discharge of raw sewage was further reduced between 1989 and 40 1993 by the implementation of additional treatment programs (Brosnan and O'Shea 1996). 41 During the 1990s, three municipal treatment plants located in the lower Hudson River converted 42 to full secondary treatment-North River (1991), North Bergen MUA-Woodcliff (1991), and 43 North Hudson Sewerage Authority West New York (1992). In addition, the North Hudson 44 Sewerage Authority-Hoboken plant, located on the western bank of the Hudson River opposite Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-42 December 2008 OAG10001366_00077
Plant and the Environment 1 Manhattan Island, went to full secondary treatment in 1994 (CHGEC 1999). Upgrades to the 2 Yonkers Joint Treatment plant in 1988 and the Rockland County Sewer District #1 in 1989 also 3 resulted in improvements in water quality in the brackish portion of the Hudson River. In the 4 mid-1990s, the Rockland County Sewer District #1 and Orangetown Sewer District plants were 5 also upgraded. (CHGEC 1999) 6 Table 2-2. Facilities Discharging at Least 50 mgd (190,000 m 3/day) 7 into the Lower Hudson River Location Discharge Facility Activity Region RM RKM (mgd) th 59 Street Station Power generation Battery (BT) 7 11 70 Wastewater North River Battery (BT) 10 16 170 discharge Wastewater Yonkers Yonkers (YK) 17 27 92 discharge Bowline Point Power generation Croton-Haverstraw (CH) 37 60 912 Lovett Power generation Indian Point 42 68 496 Indian Point Power generation Indian Point 43 69 2,800 Westchester Resource Power generation Indian Point 43 69 55 Recovery Danskammer Power generation Poughkeepsie (PK) 66 106 457 Point a Roseton Power generation Poughkeepsie (PK) 67 108 926 Bethlehem Power generation Albany (AL) 140 225 515 Empire State Power generation Albany (AL) 146 235 108 Plaza a Roseton currently operates intermittently based on availability and cost of oil and natural gas. Adapted from: Entergy 2007a 8 9 A review of long-term trends in DO and total coliform bacteria concentrations by Brosnan and 10 O'Shea (1996) has shown that improvements to water treatment facilities have improved water 11 quality. The authors noted that, between the 1970s and 1990s, DO concentrations in the 12 Hudson River generally increased. The increases coincided with the upgrading of the North 13 River plant to secondary treatment in spring 1991. DO, expressed as the average percent 14 saturation, exceeded 80 percent in surface waters and 60 percent in bottom waters during 15 summers in the early 1990s. DO minimums also increased from less than 1.5 mg/L in the early 16 1979s to greater than 3.0 mg/L in the 1990s, and the duration of low DO (hypoxia) events was 17 also reduced (Brosnan and O'Shea 1996). Similar trends showing improvements in DO were 18 noted by Abood et al. (2006) from an examination of two long-term data sets collected by 19 NYCDEP in the lower reaches of the river. Brosnan and O'Shea (1996) also noted a strong December 2008 2-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00078
Plant and the Environment 1 decline in total coliform bacteria concentrations that began in the 1970s and continued into the 2 1990s, coinciding with sewage treatment plant upgrades. 3 Chemical Contaminants 4 The lower Hudson River currently appears on the EPA 303-d list as an impaired waterway 5 because of the presence of PCBs and the need for fishing restrictions (EPA 2004). The 6 following is a description of the chemical contaminants in the river. 7 Chemical contaminants in the Hudson River and surrounding watershed generally fall into three 8 major categories-(1) pesticides and herbicides, including dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane 9 (DDT) and its metabolites, aldrin, lindane, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene, (2) 10 heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, inorganic and methylated 11 mercury, lead, and zinc, and (3) other organic contaminants, including PCBs, and polycyclic 12 aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (CHGEC 1999). In addition, there is a growing concern that the 13 discharge of pharmaceuticals and hormones via wastewater may pose a risk to aquatic biota 14 and human communities (NOAA 2008b). There is also a concern that waste products or 15 residuals associated with the emerging nanotechnology market could create a new source of 16 environmental risk (EPA 2007b). 17 Pesticides and herbicides generally enter the Hudson River via runoff from agricultural activities 18 in the upper watershed and have a high affinity to binding with organic carbon. In the Hudson 19 and Raritan River basins, the use of DDT, once a common pesticide, peaked in 1957 and 20 subsequently decreased until the compound was banned in the early 1970s (Phillips and 21 Hanchar 1996). Sediment contaminant trends suggest that the concentration of DDT in 22 sediment has generally decreased since the 1970s and is currently at or near the effects-range-23 median (ER-M), which is the median sediment concentration for a particular chemical or 24 contaminant at which adverse biological effects have been observed (Steinberg et al. 2004). In 25 the lower Hudson River, comparison of the EPA-sponsored regional environmental monitoring 26 and assessment program (R-EMAP) results from 1993 to 1994 and 1998 show that the 27 concentrations of the metals cadmium, nickel, lead, and silver have generally declined and are 28 at or below ER-M. The concentrations of mercury, however, continue to be above ER-M at 29 many locations in the lower river (Steinberg et al. 2004). 30 Contamination of the sediment, water, and biota of the Hudson River estuary resulted from the 31 manufacture of capacitors and other electronic equipment in the towns of Fort Edward and 32 Hudson Falls, New York, from the 1940s to the 1970s. Investigations conducted by EPA and 33 others over the past 25 years have delineated the extent and magnitude of contamination, and 34 numerous cleanup plans have been devised and implemented. Recently, EPA Region 2 35 released a "Fact Sheet" describing a remedial dredging program designed to remove over 36 1.5 million cubic yards (1.15 million m3 ) of contaminated sediment covering 400 acres (160 ha) 37 extending from the Fort Edwards Dam to the Federal Dam at Troy (EPA 2008a). 38 Concentrations of PCBs in river sediments below the Troy Dam are much lower. Work 39 summarized by Steinberg et al. (2004) suggests that the sediment-bound concentrations of 40 PCBs and dioxins have generally declined in the lower Hudson River since the 1970s and are 41 now at or below ER-M limits. 42 Chemical contaminants present in the tissues of fish in the Hudson River estuary have been 43 extensively studied for many years and resulted in the posting of consumption advisories by the 44 States of New York and New Jersey. Current information summarized in Steinberg et al. (2004) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-44 December 2008 OAG10001366_00079
Plant and the Environment 1 suggests that many recreationally and important fish and shellfish still contain levels of metals, 2 pesticides, PCB, and dioxins above U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA) guidance values for 3 commercial sales. Tissue concentrations of mercury were of concern only for striped bass; 4 other fish and shellfish, including flounder, perch, eels, blue crab, and lobster, contained 5 concentrations of mercury in their tissues well below the FDA limit for commercial sale of 2 parts 6 per million (ppm). Concentrations of chlordane in white perch, American eels, and the 7 hepatopancreas (green gland) of blue crab were also above FDA guidelines. Concentrations of 8 DDT in the tissues of most recreationally and commercially valuable fish and shellfish in the 9 estuary were below the 2 ppm FDA limit with the exception of American eel. The concentrations 10 of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (commonly referred to as dioxin) and total PCBs in fish and shellfish tissues 11 were often above FDA guidance limits, suggesting that fish and shellfish obtained from some 12 locations within the estuary should be eaten in moderation or not at all. A detailed list of fish 13 consumption advisories for both New York and New Jersey may be found in the Health of the 14 Harbor report published by the Hudson River Foundation in 2004 (Steinberg et al. 2004). 15 Steinberg et al (2004) found that although a wide variety of contaminants still exists in sediment, 16 water, and biota in the lower Hudson River, the overall levels appear to be decreasing because 17 of the imposition of strict discharge controls by Federal and State regulatory agencies and 18 improvements in wastewater treatment. These trends appear to be confirmed by the results of 19 a NOAA-sponsored toxicological evaluation of the estuary in 1991, as described in Wolfe et al. 20 (1996). Employing a combination of bioassay tests using amphipods, bivalve larvae, and 21 luminescent bacteria and measurements of contaminants in a variety of environmental media, 22 the NOAA study showed that spatial patterns of toxicity generally corresponded to the 23 distributions of toxic chemicals in the sediments. Areas that exhibited the greatest sediment 24 toxicity were the upper East River, Arthur Kill, Newark Bay, and Sandy Hook Bay. The lower 25 Hudson River adjacent to Manhattan Island, upper New York Harbor, lower New York Harbor off 26 Staten Island, and parts of western Raritan Bay generally showed lower toxicity. The supporting 27 sediment chemistry, including acid-volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals, 28 suggests that metals were generally not the cause of the observed toxicity, with the possible 29 exception of mercury. Among all contaminants analyzed, toxicity was most strongly associated 30 with PAHs, which were substantially more concentrated in toxic samples than in nontoxic 31 samples, and which frequently exceeded sediment quality criteria (Wolfe et al. 1996). 32 There is continuing concern, however, that legacy PCB waste may still pose a threat to 33 invertebrate, fish, and human populations. A study by Achman et al. (1996) suggests that PCB 34 concentrations in sediment measured at several locations in the lower Hudson River from the 35 mouth to Haverstraw Bay are above equilibrium with overlying water and may be available for 36 transfer within the food web. The authors concluded in some locations within the lower river, 37 the sediments could act as a source of PCBs and pose a long-term chronic threat, but that fate 38 and transport modeling would be required to fully understand the implications of this potential 39 contaminant source. 40 Nonpoint Pollution 41 Nonpoint pollution can include the intentional or unintentional discharges of chemicals and 42 constituents into rivers, streams, and estuaries. This section briefly summarizes three types of 43 nonpoint pollution that may affect fish and shellfish resources in the Hudson River estuary-44 coliform bacteria that affect shellfish resources or swimmers, floatable debris, and surface 45 slicks. All information is derived from Steinberg et al. (2004). December 2008 2-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00080
Plant and the Environment 1 Levels of coliform bacteria in the Hudson River estuary have generally decreased from 1974 to 2 1998, primarily in response to wastewater treatment improvements. At present, only stretches 3 of the river near the southern end of the island of Manhattan have geometric mean coliform 4 concentrations of 201-2000 coliform cells/100 mL. The incidence of shellfish-related illness in 5 New York State has also decreased from a high of over 100 reported cases per year in 1982 to 6 only a few in 1999. Steinberg et al. (2004) caution, however, that the incidence of shellfish-7 related illness is probably underreported and likely misdiagnosed when reported. 8 Common floatable debris found on New York beaches includes cigarette butts, food containers 9 and wrappings, plastic and glass, and medical waste. The amount of debris removed from New 10 York Harbor annually has generally exceeded 5000 t (4500 MT) since 1988, with no apparent 11 downward trend. The presence of surface slicks in the harbor has appeared to decline since 12 1994. 13 Invasive or Exotic Species 14 The presence of invasive or exotic species in the Hudson River estuary has been documented 15 for over 200 years and probably began occurring after the Wisconsin-stage ice sheet receded 16 over 10,000 years ago. In a compilation of information concerning the distribution of exotic 17 organisms in the freshwater portions of the Hudson River basin, Mills et al. (1996) determined 18 that at least 113 nonindigenous species of vertebrates, plants, and large invertebrates have 19 established populations in the basin. The list would undoubtedly be larger if better information 20 was available concerning the historical populations of small invertebrates and algae. Most 21 invasive species arrive through unintentional releases (e.g., from ship ballast water or 22 agricultural cultivation activities) or via vectors introduced by the construction of canals. 23 While the presence of new or exotic species can result in a benefit (e.g., the largemouth and 24 small mouth bass recreational fishery), many have had a negative impact on their new 25 environment. A classic example of the latter is the appearance of the zebra mussel in the 26 freshwater portion of the Hudson River in 1991. Beginning in early fall 1992, zebra mussels 27 have been dominant in the freshwater tidal Hudson, constituting more than half of heterotrophic 28 biomass and filtering a volume of water equal to all of the water in the estuary every 1-4 days 29 during the summer (Strayer 2007). The impacts of this species on the freshwater portions of the 30 Hudson River are presented in Section 2.2.5.6. 31 The impacts of other invasive aquatic species are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. The 32 issue is of magnitude significant enough to result in Federal actions to control future 33 introductions. In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed an amendment to Public Law 101-646, the 34 "Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Act," extending some of the Great Lakes-oriented 35 provisions of that Act and the regulations that followed from it to the Hudson River. In particular, 36 as of late 1994, vessels entering the Hudson River with foreign ballast water must have 37 exchanged that water in midocean and must arrive with a salinity of at least 30 ppt (Mills et al. 38 1996). 39 2.2.5.3 Regulatory Framework and Monitoring Programs 40 The regulatory framework, actions, and authorities governing environmental permitting and 41 monitoring on the Hudson River are complex and have evolved significantly over time. The 42 following is a chronological description of the major activities that have occurred over the past 43 four decades. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-46 December 2008 OAG10001366_00081
Plant and the Environment 1 Early Environmental Investigations 2 Early biological studies of the Hudson River began as a river survey program known as the 3 Hudson River Fisheries Investigation (HRFI) which occurred from 1965 to 1968 under the 4 direction of the Hudson River Policy Committee (HRPC) (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988). 5 The investigations were intended to address the potential entrainment impacts of the proposed 6 Cornwall pumped storage facility on striped bass. The objective of the HRFI program was to 7 define the spatial and temporal distribution of striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles in relation 8 to the intake to better understand the potential impacts of facility operation. The summary 9 report produced by HRPC concluded that entrainment impacts associated with the operation of 10 the Cornwall facility would be negligible, and this conclusion formed the basis of the decision by 11 the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to license the facility in 1971. These conclusions were 12 challenged on the grounds that an erroneous method had been used to estimate striped bass 13 entrainment. This challenge ultimately resulted in a halt to the construction of the Cornwall 14 facility in 1974 pending resolution of this issue (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988; Christensen 15 and Englert 1988). 16 During this period, IP1 was in operation, IP2 and IP3 were under construction, and a modest 17 fish sampling program was being conducted in the area of Indian Point by New York University 18 and Raytheon (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988). The enactment of the National 19 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) on January 1,1970, and the interpretation that it 20 required the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to explicitly consider nonradiological impacts in 21 its licensing decisions had immediate and dramatic impacts on IP2 and IP3. During the 22 permitting process for IP2, the major point of contention again centered on whether facility 23 operation would significantly affect striped bass eggs, larvae, and juveniles because of 24 entrainment. The Consolidated Edison Company of New York, the owner of IP2 at the time, 25 concluded in its ER that entrainment impacts would be insignificant. The environmental impact 26 statement (EIS) prepared by the AEC staff in 1972 expressed concern about the impacts of 27 thermal discharges, entrainment, and impingement associated with cooling system operation 28 and concluded that "The operation of IP1 and IP2 with the present once-through cooling system 29 has the potential for a long-term environmental impact on the aquatic biota inhabiting the 30 Hudson River which [sic] would result in permanent damage to and severe reduction in the fish 31 population, particularly striped bass, in the Hudson River, Long Island Sound, the adjacent New 32 Jersey coast, and the New York Bight" (USAEC 1972). The final conclusion reached by AEC 33 for IP2 was a recommendation that an operating license be issued with the following conditions 34 to protect the environment-( 1) once-through cooling was permitted only until January 1, 1978, 35 and thereafter a closed-cycle system would be required, (2) the applicant would evaluate the 36 economic and environmental impacts of an alternative closed-cycle system and submit this 37 evaluation to AEC by July 1, 1973, (3) after approval by AEC, the required closed-cycle system 38 would be designed, built, and placed in operation no later than January 1, 1978 (USAEC 1972). 39 The USAEC results published in 1972 were influenced to a great extent by the results of an 40 entrainment model developed by C.P. Goodyear of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 41 (described in Hall 1977), and during subsequent years, the use of numerical simulation models 42 to assess the impacts of entrainment from once-through facilities received a great deal of 43 attention. As the models were developed, there was much debate concerning the assumptions 44 used by the modelers, and the predictive ability of the models was the subject of numerous 45 scientific symposia, peer-reviewed journal articles, and hearings. This information formed the December 2008 2-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00082
Plant and the Environment 1 basis of the decisions handed down by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in 1973 and the 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board in 1974. These decisions stipulated that IP2 would 3 be allowed to operate using once-through cooling but only until May 1, 1979. Unless the 4 operator of the facility could demonstrate through new studies that the environmental impacts of 5 once-through cooling were negligible, cooling towers would have to be installed (Barnthouse 6 and Van Winkle 1988). 7 In late 1974, FPC held hearings to reconsider the Cornwall facility application. Recent data and 8 numerical models that had been developed for IP2 were also evaluated. Because the 9 information and assessment presented at the hearings provided conflicting conclusions 10 concerning impacts, FPC was unable to determine the magnitude of potential environmental 11 impacts, and the hearings were adjourned without resolution concerning plant licensing. In 12 1975, the NRC, the successor agency to AEC, published an EIS for IP3 that once again 13 expressed concern associated with the impacts of the once-through cooling system, including 14 impacts associated with entrainment, impingement, and thermal releases. Using a combination 15 of entrainment modeling and an improved striped bass life-cycle model, the NRC concluded that 16 impingement and entrainment impacts were "likely to result in a substantial decrease in the 17 Hudson River spawned striped bass population" (NRC 1975). The NRC indicated that the 18 applicant, who had used different parameters in its impingement and entrainment simulation 19 modeling, did not share this conclusion. The NRC agreed to allow IP3 to operate as a once-20 through facility but required the applicant to comply with a variety of technical specifications 21 including the collection of additional environmental data to evaluate the impact of entrainment, 22 impingement, and thermal discharges. The applicant was also required to comply with the 23 license conditions agreed to in 1974 that required a cessation of once-through cooling by 1979 24 unless new evidence demonstrated that environmental impacts were negligible (NRC 1975; 25 Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988). 26 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting 27 On October 28, 1975, EPA gave its approval to NYSDEC to issue SPDES permits in the State 28 of New York. Before that time, national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) (the 29 federally administered analog to SPDES for States in which EPA has not granted authority to 30 discharge to waters of the United States) permits were issued directly by EPA. Issues 31 considered by EPA before the issuance of the 1975 permits included the thermal impacts of 32 once-through cooling and fish mortalities associated with the cooling water intakes. During this 33 time, scientists representing both the applicants and the regulatory agencies had embarked on 34 ambitious programs to better understand the impacts of once-through cooling systems on 35 sensitive fish species. This included a large-scale field program and the use and refinement of 36 numerical simulation models to better understand entrainment impacts. 37 Depending on the model used and the assumptions employed, the impacts of once-through 38 cooling ranged from negligible to catastrophic (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988). Further, 39 although field collections were occurring, the amount of information available to be used as 40 input data or to calibrate model output was limited. As a result, the EPA deemphasized the use 41 of simulation modeling to estimate entrainment impacts and, in 1975, issued permits for IP2 and 42 IP3, Bowline Units 1 and 2, and Roseton Unit 1 that required the construction of cooling towers. 43 The utility companies contested the permits and requested adjudicatory hearings. In 1977, the 44 owners of IP2 and IP3, Bowline, and Roseton facilities sought an administrative adjudicatory 45 hearing against the EPA NPDES permits issued in 1975 to overturn the cooling water intake Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-48 December 2008 OAG10001366_00083
Plant and the Environment 1 conditions and other requirements. The EPA hearings began in 1977 and ended in 1980 with 2 the Hudson River Settlement Agreement (HRSA). 3 Hudson River Settlement Agreement 4 After a number of years of adjudicatory proceedings, the owners of IP2 and IP3, Roseton, and 5 Bowline facilities signed the HRSA. The 10-year agreement was intended to resolve the 6 disputes related to the issuance of the 1975 NPDES permits and provide the necessary funding 7 to support a long-term investigation of the lower Hudson River estuary. Parties to the 8 agreement, which was effective for the 10-year period from May 10, 1981, to May 10, 1991, 9 included EPA, the New York State Attorney General, NYSDEC, the Scenic Hudson 10 Preservation Conference (Scenic Hudson), the Hudson River Fishermen's Association (the 11 predecessor to Riverkeeper), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NYSDEC 2003a). 12 HRSA provided for mitigative measures to reduce fish mortalities at each generation station 13 from impingement and entrainment during once-through cooling operation, seasonal outages 14 during sensitive aquatic life stages, and the installation of variable speed pumps at IP2 and IP3 15 within 3% years of the effective date of the agreement to allow for more efficient use of cooling 16 water. In addition, HRSA established a biological monitoring program of fish species at various 17 life stages within the lower Hudson River to better understand spatial and temporal trends. 18 In 1982, NYSDEC, under authority from EPA, issued SPDES permits to each of the facilities 19 covered by HRSA. The permits included limitations on thermal releases and incorporated the 20 terms of HRSA in the permit language to ensure that the environmentally protective mitigative 21 measures stipulated in the agreement were included as conditions. These permits expired in 22 1987, and NYSDEC issued SPDES permit renewals to each of the three HRSA facilities. 23 Permits for IP2 and IP3, Bowline Point 1 and 2, and Roseton 1 and 2 became effective on 24 October 1,1987, and expired on October 1,1992 (NYSDEC 2003a). HRSA conditions were 25 incorporated into the permit language as before. Before the expiration of the permits in 1992, 26 NYSDEC received timely renewal applications, and the department and the applicants executed 27 an agreement on May 15,1991, to continue the mitigative measures described in HRSA until 28 the SPDES renewal permits were issued. The agreement also stipulated that the parties would 29 negotiate in good faith to resolve issues associated with impingement, entrainment, and thermal 30 discharges, and to resolve issues associated with mitigation and alternatives (NYSDEC 2003a). 31 In response to a lawsuit filed in 1991 by Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson, and the Natural 32 Resources Defense Council, a consent order was signed by all parties on March 23, 1992, 33 which stipulated that the operators of IP2 and IP3, Roseton, and Bowline would continue the 34 HRSA mitigative measures, such as timed outages to reduce impacts to fish, and continue to 35 fund the ongoing environmental studies of the lower Hudson River. The 1992 consent order 36 was extended by the parties on four separate occasions, with the fourth extension expiring on 37 February 1, 1998. At present, there has been no agreement on a fifth consent order because of 38 the ongoing SPDES renewal process, but the operators of IP2 and IP3, Roseton, and Bowline 39 have agreed to continue the mitigative measures included in their existing SPDES permit and to 40 follow the provisions of the fourth consent order until new SPDES permits are issued (NYSDEC 41 2003b). The major monitoring and assessment programs conducted under HRSA that form the 42 basis for the staff's assessment of impacts are discussed below. December 2008 2-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00084
Plant and the Environment 1 Environmental Studies in the Lower Hudson Estuary 2 Numerous environmental studies were conducted in the Hudson River in support of HRSA and 3 by other organizations to develop a baseline and to assess changes to key components of the 4 ecosystem over time. A general description of the studies evaluated during the development of 5 this draft SEIS is presented in Table 2-3. Other studies are cited throughout the description and 6 historical assessment of impacts; however, only the data obtained from these studies were 7 made available for further analysis. 8 Impingement losses associated with IP2 and IP3 were studied annually from 1975 to 1990. 9 Data from 1975 to 1980 provided for analysis were weekly estimates of the total number 10 impinged, organized by operating unit and taxon. From 1979 to 1980, estimates were further 11 delineated by life stage (young of the year, yearling, yearling or older). Data from 1981 to 1990 12 included seasonal estimates of the total number impinged by operating unit, taxon, and life 13 stage. 14 As a part of HRSA, IP2 and IP3 were required to replace the existing debris screens in 12 of the 15 intake bays with angled screens and fish bypass systems. A subsequent analysis, however, 16 showed that the angled screen system did not significantly reduce impingement mortality, and 17 so the HRSA settlement parties rejected this mitigation option (Fletcher 1990). Con Edison and 18 the New York Power Authority elected to install and test a Ristroph screen system at IP2 and 19 IP3. The trial machine, referred to as "screen version 1" by Fletcher (1990), was installed in a 20 single intake bay of IP2 and IP3 and evaluated from January 16 to April 19, 1985. At the 21 request of the Hudson River Fishermen's Association, Fletcher (1990) evaluated the design of 22 the trial machine, conducted flume tests, and suggested improvements to the design that were 23 incorporated into "screen version 2." This final design, also known as a modified Ristroph 24 screen, was installed in all intake bays of IP2 and IP3. No further studies were conducted after 25 the installation of the modified Ristroph system at IP2 and IP3 to determine actual mortality of 26 key species, and no additional impingement monitoring was conducted. 27 Ichthyoplankton entrainment losses associated with IP2 and IP3 were studied between May and 28 August in 1981,1983 through 1985, and in 1987, as well as between January and August 1986. 29 Data provided for this analysis were the combined IP2 and IP3 weekly mean densities 30 (number/1000 m3 ) of each life stage (egg, yolk-sac larvae, post-yolk-sac larvae, and juvenile) by 31 taxon. 32 Data from the three field surveys from the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program were also 33 provided for this analysis (Long River Survey (LRS), Fall Juvenile Survey (FJS), and the 8each 34 Seine Survey (8SS)). All three data sets include the annual total catch and volume sampled per 35 taxon from 1974 through 2005, the annual abundance index per taxon and life stage from 1974 36 through 2005, and the weekly regional density of each life stage by taxon from 1979 through 37 2005. 38 Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Hudson River Environmental Studies Table 39 (Information used in draft SEIS to assess impacts; data provided by Entergy) Study Study Dates Information Available Impingement 1975-1990 Number of fish impinged at IP2 and IP3. Abundance Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-50 December 2008 OAG10001366_00085
Plant and the Environment Entrainment 1981 Entrainment density by species and life stage Abundance Studies 1983-1987 for IP2 and IP3 combined. Standing crop, temporal and geographic distributions, and growth rates for Longitudinal River ichthyoplankton forms of fish species, with an Ichthyoplankton 1974-2004 emphasis on Atlantic tomcod, American shad, Surveys striped bass, white perch, and bay anchovy. Sampling generally occurred in spring, summer, and fall. Standing crop and temporal and geographic indices for young-of-the-year fish in shoal, bottom, and channel habitats in the estuary Fall Juvenile Surveys 1974-2005 with an emphasis on Atlantic tomcod, American shad, striped bass, and white perch. Surveys generally conducted in midsummer and fall. Abundance and distribution of young-of-the-year fish in the shore-zone habitat in the estuary, with an emphasis on American shad, Beach Seine Surveys 1974-2005 Atlantic tomcod, striped bass, and white perch. Surveys generally conducted in summer and fall. 1 2.2.5.4 Potentially Affected Fish and Shellfish Resources 2 The Hudson River estuary is home to a large and diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish. 3 Species richness and abundance vary according to season and location and can be influenced 4 by climatological changes that affect water temperature, salinity, and sediment load. Waldman 5 et al. (2006) report that 212 species of fish have been recorded north of the southern tip of 6 Manhattan Island, with the largest contributions associated with temperate marine strays (65), 7 introduced species (28), and freshwater species surviving the Pleistocene glaciations in the 8 Atlantic coast refugia (21). The authors also note that only 10 diadromous (traveling between 9 fresh- and salt-water) species are known to occur in the estuary. 10 The NRC staff identified 18 representative important species (RIS) to use in assessing the 11 impacts of IP2 and IP3 (Table 2-4). This list contains RIS identified in past analyses conducted 12 by NYSDEC, the NRC, and the current and past owners of IP2 and IP3. The RIS identified in 13 this section are meant to represent the overall aquatic resource and reflect the complexity of the 14 Hudson River ecosystem by encompassing a broad range of attributes, such as biological 15 importance, commercial or recreational value, trophic position, commonness or rarity, 16 interaction with other species, vulnerability to cooling system operation, and fidelity or 17 transience in the local community. The distribution of each RIS is presented in Table 2-5. 18 Table 2-4. Representative Important Aquatic Species Common Occurrence Scientific Name Predator/Prey Relationships Name and Status Alewife A/osa Anadromous Juveniles eat insect larvae and amphipods; pseudoharengus adults eat zooplankton, small fish, and fish eggs. Species is prey of bluefish, December 2008 2-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00086
Plant and the Environment weakfish, and striped bass. Atlantic Brevoortia Permanent or Juveniles and adults eat phytoplankton, menhaden tyrannus seasonal resident zooplankton, copepods, and detritus. Species is prey of bluefish and striped bass. American A/osa Anadromous Juveniles and adults primarily eat shad sapidissima zooplankton, small crustaceans, copepods, mysids, small fish, and fish eggs. Species is prey of oceanic species. Atlantic Acipenser Anadromous Juveniles and adults are bottom feeders, sturgeon oxyrinchus protected subsisting on mussels, worms, shrimp, and small fish. Atlantic Microgadus Anadromous Diet includes crustaceans, polychaete tomcod tomcod permanent or worms, mollusks, and small fish. Juveniles seasonal resident are prey of striped bass when anchovies are scarce. Bay Anchoa mitchilli Estuarine Species primarily eats zooplankton and is anchovy prey of YOY bluefish and striped bass. Blueback A/osa aestivalis Anadromous Species' diet includes insect larvae and herring copepods It is prey of bluefish, weakfish, and striped bass. Bluefish Pomatomus Permanent or Juveniles eat bay anchovy, Atlantic sa/tatrix seasonal resident silverside, striped bass, blueback herring, Atlantic tomcod, and American shad. Species is prey of a variety of birds. Gizzard Dorosoma Freshwater Juveniles eat daphnids, cladocerans, adult shad cepadianum copepods, rotifers, algae, phytoplankton, and detritus; adults eat phyto- and zooplankton. Species is prey of striped bass, other bass species, and catfish. Hogchoker Trinectes Estuarine Adults are generalists and eat annelids, macu/ates arthropods, and tellinid siphons. Species is prey of striped bass. Rainbow Osmerus mordax Anadromous Larval and juvenile smelt eat planktonic smelt crustaceans; larger juveniles and adults feed on crustaceans, polychaetes, and fish. Adults eat anchovies and alewives. Species is prey of striped bass and bluefish. Shortnose Acipenser Federally Juveniles feed on benthic insects and sturgeon brevirostrum endangered; crustaceans. permanent or seasonal resident Spottail Notropis Freshwater Species eats aquatic insect larvae, Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-52 December 2008 OAG10001366_00087
Plant and the Environment shiner hudsanius zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and the eggs and larvae of fish, including their own species. Species is prey of striped bass. Striped Marone saxatilis Anadromous Species eats menhaden. river herring, bass tomcod, and smelt. Larvae are prey of spottail shiner, white perch, striped bass, bluegill, and white catfish. Weakfish Cynascian regalis Permanent or Small weakfish feed primarily on seasonal resident crustaceans, while larger weakfish feed primarily on anchovies, herrings, spot. Species is prey of bluefish, striped bass, and other weakfish. White Ameiurus catus Freshwater Juveniles eat midge larvae. Adults are catfish omnivores, feeding on anything from fish to insects to crustaceans. White Marone Estuarine Species eat eggs of other fish and larvae perch americana of walleye and striped bass. Prey of larger piscivorous fish and terrestrial aquatic vertebrates. Blue Crab Callinectes Estuarine Zoea eat phytoplankton, and sapidus dinoflagellates; adults opportunistic. Larval crabs are the prey of fish, shellfish, jellyfish; juvenile and adult blue crabs are prey of a wide variety of fish, birds, and mammals. December 2008 2-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00088
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-5. Locations in the Hudson River Estuary (see Figure 2-6) Where the Presence of 2 RIS Life Stages Represented at Least 10 Percent of the Total Number Collected in 3 Referenced Surveys or Studies (adapted from ASA 2007; river segment abbreviations from 4 Figure 2-10)
~n"",.;""s Lifestage BT YK TZ CH IP WP CW PK HP KG SG CS AL Eggs Il.RiS\t)
YSL(d) leg$ Alewife PYSL(e) egiS yoy(f) a$$\~) la$$ lass Year +(g) Eggs YSL Atlantic menhaden(h) PYSL YOY @i3M~()~PP~~ Year + Eggs Il.RiS YSL legiS American shad PYSL egiS YOY I~~~ wii3 ll.g~/~~~ .*.*.~~~.*.* Year + Eggs YSL Atlantic PYSL sturgeon YOY Year + IFJI~JI~I~ciI5fiSh Eggs YSL Atlantic tomcod PYSL egiS YOY wii3/gJ~ ll.ii3/g,J~ IgJ~ Year + gJi3 IgJ~ Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-54 December 2008 OAG10001366_00089
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-5 (continued)
~ ~;~s Lifestage BT I YK I TZ CH IP WP CW PK HP KG SG CS AL Eggs Il.RS YSL IWfR$
Bay anchovy PYSL IWg$ YOY IWfR$IS$$ Year + IS$S Eggs URS YSL WfR$ Blueback herring PYSL IWg$ YOY Lg$JSS$ Year + Eggs YSL Bluefish PYSL YOY IS$$ Year + Eggs YSL Gizzard shad PYSL YOY S$$ S$$ la$$ Year + a$$ a$$ December 2008 2-55 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00090
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-5 (continued) s BT YK TZ CH IP WP CW PK HP KG SG CS AL YSL Hogchoker PYSL r-------r_~r_~====r_~===*===+==~====r_--r_~--_+----r_~ YOY Year + YSL Rainbow smelt PYSL YOY Year + YSL Shortnosed r-------r_~r_~----r_~--_+--_+--~----r_--r_~--_+----r_~ sturgeon PYSL r-------r_~r_~----r_~--_+--_+--~----r_--r_~--_+----r_~ YOY Spottail shiner PYSL YOY Year + YSL Striped bass PYSL YOY Year + Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-56 December 2008 OAG10001366_00091
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-5 (continued)
~ ~;~s I:"* BT YK TZ CH IP WP CW PK HP KG SG CS AL Eggs YSL Weakfish PYSL YOY W.1$
Year + WJ$ IWJ$ Eggs YSL White catfish PYSL YOY WJ$ F.J$ Year + W.J$ FJ$ Eggs IUAS YSL WfR$ White perch PYSL WfR$ YOY S$$ l.g$ S$$ Year + S$$ S$$ Eggs
************************
Zoea Blue crab(i) Megalops ************************ Juvenile ************************ Year + *************************************************** I 2 \0) BSS. Beach Seine Survey (1974 - 2005) 3 (b) FJS: Fall Juvenile Survey (also known as Fall Shoals Survey) (1979-2004) 4 (c) LRS: Long River Survey (1974-2004) 5 (d) YSL: yolk-sac larvae 6 (e) PYSL: post-yolk-sac larvae 7 (I) YOY: young of year 8 (g) Year +: yearling and older 9 (h) Obtained from ASMFC 2006a distribution 10 (i) Obtained from ASMFC 2006a distribution 11 Source: NYSDEC 2004b December 2008 2-57 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00092
Plant and the Environment 1 Alewife 2 The alewife (A/osa pseudoharengus, family Clupeidae) is a pelagic, anadromous species found 3 in riverine and estuarine habitats along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to South Carolina; 4 landlocked populations have also been introduced in the Great Lakes and Finger Lakes. The 5 species is historically one of the most commercially important fish species in Massachusetts and 6 continues to be harvested as a source of fish meal, fish oil, and protein for animal food 7 industries (Fay et al. 1983). The commercial fishing industry does not differentiate between the 8 alewife and the blueback herring (A/osa aestiva/is) and refers to the two species collectively as 9 river herring. Commercial landings of river herrings peaked in the 1950s at approximately 10 34,000 MT (37,500 t) and then declined to less than 4000 MT (4400 t) in the 1970s (Haas-11 Castro 2006a). Between 1996 and 2005, landings of river herring ranged from 300 to 900 MT 12 (330 to 990 t) annually, with 90 percent of landings in Maine, North Carolina, and Virginia 13 (Haas-Castro 2006a). The river herring fishery is one of the oldest fisheries in the United 14 States; however, no commercial fisheries for river herring exist in the Hudson River today. 15 River herring are often taken as bycatch in the offshore mackerel fishery; within New York and 16 New Jersey, river herring accounted for 0.3 percent of annual landings on the Atlantic coast 17 (CHGEC 1999). 18 Spawning adults enter the Hudson River from the Atlantic Ocean in early spring and spawn 19 once per year between late May and mid-July in shallow, freshwater tributaries with low current 20 at temperatures between 11 degrees C (52 degrees F) and 27 degrees C (81 degrees F) 21 (Everly and Boreman 1999; Fay et al. 1983). Females first spawn at 3 to 4 years of age and 22 produce 60,000 to 100,000 eggs. Alewives spawn 3 to 4 weeks before blueback herring in 23 areas where the two species occur sympatrically, and the peak spawning of each species 24 occurs 2 to 3 weeks apart from one another (Fay et al. 1983). Within the Hudson River estuary, 25 peak abundance of river herring eggs generally occurs within the Catskill region of the upper 26 estuary during mid-May (CHGEC 1999). Incubation time varies inversely with water 27 temperature and ranges from 2 to 15 days, and eggs are semidemersal and are easily carried 28 by currents (Fay et al. 1983; CHGEC 1999). The yolk sac larvae (YSL) stage lasts 29 approximately 2 to 5 days, and the post-yolk-sac larvae (PYSL) stage lasts until transformation 30 to the juvenile stage at approximately 20 millimeters (mm) (0.78 in.). Full development occurs 31 at approximately 45 mm (1.8 in.) at the age of about 1 month (Fay et al. 1983; CHGEC 1999). 32 Young-of-the-year (YOY) have been found in both lower and upper regions of the river 33 (Table 2-5). Juveniles migrate to the ocean between July and November of their first year. At 34 sexual maturity, alewives weigh 153 to 164 grams (g) (0.34 to 0.36 pounds (lb)) and can weigh 35 325 to 356 g (0.72 to 0.78 Ib) by their seventh year; the average length for males is 29 cm and 36 for females is 31 cm (Fay et al. 1983). Alewives in the Hudson River estuary have a life span of 37 up to 9 years (Haas-Castro 2006a). Juveniles in the lower Hudson River have been reported to 38 feed on chironomid larvae and amphipods, and the diet of adult alewives consists primarily of 39 zooplankton, amphipods, mysids, copepods, small fish, and fish eggs. After spawning, alewives 40 feed heavily on shrimp (Fay et al. 1983; CHGEC 1999). The species fulfills an important link in 41 the estuarine food web between zooplankton and top piscivores. Juvenile and adult alewife is 42 prey for gulls, terns, and other coastal birds, as well as bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix), weakfish 43 (Cynoscion rega/is), and striped bass (Morone saxati/is) (CHGEC 1999). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-58 December 2008 OAG10001366_00093
Plant and the Environment 1 The annual abundance of YOY alewifes has been estimated to range from 110,000 to 690,000 2 individuals (CHGEC 1999). For each annual cohort, entrainment mortality for the combined 3 abundance of alewife and blueback herring for all water withdrawal locations within the Hudson 4 River varies widely, ranging from 8 to 41 percent for data taken between 1974 and 1997, while 5 impingement mortality of the alewife is low, ranging from 1.1 to 1.9 percent for the same time 6 period (CHGEC 1999). The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 7 implemented a Fisheries Management Plan for the American shad and river herring in 1985. 8 Restoration efforts under the plan include habitat improvement, fish passage, stocking, and 9 transfer programs; however, the abundance of river herring remains well below historic 10 estimates (Haas-Castro 2006a). 11 Atlantic Menhaden 12 The Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus, family Clupeidae) is a euryhaline species found in 13 inland tidal waters along the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to Florida (MRC 2006). Menhaden 14 is commercially harvested as a high-grade source of omega-3 fatty acid, which is used in 15 pharmaceuticals and processed food production (ASMFC 2006a). Atlantic menhaden make up 16 between 25 and 40 percent of the combined annual landings of menhaden species along the 17 Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). The Atlantic menhaden 18 was first commercially fished in the late 1600s and early 1700s for use in agricultural fertilizer, 19 and the species was later harvested for oil beginning in the early 1800s (Rogers and Van Den 20 Avyle 1989). Fish meal from menhaden also became a staple component in swine and 21 ruminant feed beginning in the mid-1900s and began to be used in aquaculture feed in the 22 1990s (ASM FC 2006a). 23 Atlantic menhaden migrate seasonally and exhibit north-south and inshore-offshore movement 24 in large schools composed of individuals of a similar size and age (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 25 1989). Migration patterns are linked to spawning habits, and the species spawns year-round 26 throughout the majority of its range, with spawning peaks in the spring and fall in mid-Atlantic 27 and northern Atlantic regions (MRC 2006). Menhaden reach sexual maturity at lengths of 18 to 28 23 cm (7.1 to 9.1 in.), and female fecundity ranges from 38,000 eggs for a small female to 29 362,000 eggs for a large female (ASMFC 2006a; MRC 2006). Eggs are pelagic and hatch 30 offshore in 2.5 to 2.9 days at an average temperature of 15.5 degrees C (59.9 degrees F) 31 (ASMFC 2006a; Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). Larvae absorb the yolk sac within 32 approximately 4 days of hatching and begin to feed on zooplankters (Rogers and Van Den 33 Avyle 1989). 34 The survival of larvae is a function of temperature and salinity, with the highest survival rates 35 occurring in laboratory experiments at temperatures greater than 4 degrees C (39 degrees F) 36 and salinities of 10 to 20 ppt (ASMFC 2006a). Larvae migrate shoreward into estuaries at 1 to 37 3 months of age at a size of 14 to 34 mm (0.55 to 1.3 in.) (ASMFC 2006a). Metamorphosis to 38 the juvenile stage occurs at approximately 38 mm (1.5 in.), and menhaden begin to filter feed on 39 phytoplankton, zooplankton, copepods, and detritus (MRC 2006). Juveniles move into shallow 40 portions of estuaries and are generally more abundant in areas of lower salinity (less than 5 ppt) 41 and waters above the brackish-freshwater boundary in rivers. Juveniles leave estuaries in 42 dense schools between August and November at lengths of 55 to 140 mm (2.2 to 5.5 in.) and 43 migrate southward along the North Carolina coast as far south as Florida in late fall and early 44 winter (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). During the following spring and summer, menhaden 45 move northward, redistributing in schools consisting of similarly sized individuals (ASMFC December 2008 2-59 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00094
Plant and the Environment 1 2006a). Most menhaden reach maturity at 2 years of age, at which point approximately 2 90 percent of individuals are capable of spawning (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). 3 Menhaden lose their teeth as juveniles, and adults are strictly filter feeders, feeding on 4 planktonic organisms (ASMFC 2006a). Atlantic menhaden can live 8 to 10 years; however, fish 5 over 4 years of age are uncommon in commercial catches. Maximum adult length is 500 mm 6 (19.7 in.) and maximum weight is 1500 g (3.3Ib) (Rogers and Van Den Avyle 1989). Menhaden 7 are prey for a number of piscivorous fish, including bluefish (P. sa/tatrix), striped bass (M. 8 saxatilis), bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), as well as birds and marine mammals because of 9 their abundance in nearshore and estuarine waters (ASMFC 2006a; Rogers and Van Den Avyle 10 1989). 11 Atlantic menhaden were not a focus of the Hudson River monitoring programs; therefore, 12 historical records for the Hudson River population trends are unavailable. However, based on 13 tagging studies, the Atlantic menhaden population appears to be composed of a single 14 population that undergoes extensive seasonal migration (ASMFC 2006a). Menhaden are 15 primarily harvested via reduction purse-seine fishing, and Virginia and North Carolina are the 16 only States that currently permit this type of fishing for this species (ASMFC 2006a). Menhaden 17 landings peaked during the late 1950s at an annual average of over 600,000 t (544,000 MT) 18 and then declined during the 1960s from 576,000 t (523,000 MT) in 1961 to 162,000 t 19 (147,000 MT) in 1969. Landings rose in the 1970s as the stock rebuilt, maintained moderate 20 levels during the 1980s, and declined again in the 1990s. Landings have varied in the 2000s 21 with average annual landings of 184,900 t (168,000 MT) from 2000 to 2004, and 146,900 t 22 (133,000 MT) landed in 2005. Landings from the reduction purse-seine fishery accounted for 23 79 percent of total landings along the Atlantic coast in 2005 (ASMFC 2006a). Atlantic 24 menhaden are also harvested for bait in many Atlantic coast States; however, no data are 25 available for these landings as they are taken via cast net, pound net, gill net, and as bycatch. 26 American Shad 27 The American shad (A/osa sapidissima, family Clupeidae) is the largest of the anadromous 28 herring species found in the Hudson River estuary and ranges from Newfoundland to northern 29 Florida. The species is most abundant between Connecticut and North Carolina. The stock 30 was introduced along the Pacific coast in the Sacramento and Columbia Rivers in 1871, and the 31 population is now established from Cook Inlet, Alaska, to southern California (Facey and Van 32 Den Avyle 1986). American shad has been commercially harvested via gillnets for meat and 33 roe since the late 17th century (Haas-Castro 2006b). Before World War II, American shad was 34 the most valuable fish along the east coast (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). 35 American shad spend most of their life at sea and only return to their natal rivers at sexual 36 maturity (at the age of about 5 years) to spawn. Adult American shad have an average length 37 of 30 in. (76.2 cm), weigh up to 12 Ib (5.4 kg), and have a life span in the Hudson River of about 38 11 years (CHGEC 1999). Shad eggs have a high mortality rate, and fecundity of females 39 changes with latitude, decreasing from south to north. Females in southern rivers produce 40 300,000 to 400,000 eggs, and females in northern rivers produce an average of 125,000 eggs 41 (Haas-Castro 2006b). Spawning occurs at night in shallow waters of moderate current in sand, 42 gravel, or mud substrates (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). The species can repeat annual 43 spawning up to five times within their lifetime in northeastern rivers; however, most shad from 44 southeastern rivers die after spawning (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986; CHGEC 1999). Egg 45 abundance in the Hudson River peaks in May, and once hatched, YSL transform into PYSL Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-60 December 2008 OAG10001366_00095
Plant and the Environment 1 within 4 days to 1 week in waters at a temperature of 17 degrees C (63 degrees F) (Everly and 2 Boreman 1999; CHGEC 1999). Larvae inhabit riffle pools of moderate depth near spawning 3 grounds and develop into juveniles 4 to 5 weeks after hatching when they are approximately 4 25 mm (1 in.) in length (Everly and Boreman 1999; Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). American 5 shad eggs, YSL, PYSL, and YOY are generally found between Kingston and Albany 6 (Table 2-5), probably in response to food availability (Limburg 1996). Juveniles travel downriver 7 in schools between June and July (Everly and Boreman 1999), utilize the middle estuary by 8 September, and move to the lower estuary by late October (Limburg 1996). Adults spend the 9 summer months in the northwestern Atlantic waters off the Gulf of Maine, the Bay of Fundy, and 10 the coast of Nova Scotia. In the fall months, individuals migrate southward as far as North 11 Carolina (CHGEC 1999). 12 Shad stop eating before running and spawning and resume feeding after spawning during their 13 downriver migration back to the Atlantic Ocean (Everly and Boreman 1999). Larvae feed on 14 Bosmina spp., cyclopoid copepodites, and chironomid larvae. Juveniles are opportunistic 15 feeders and consume free-swimming organisms at the surface as well as insects (CHGEC 16 1999). The principal food source of the adult American shad is zooplankton, though the species 17 also consumes small crustaceans, copepods, mysids, small fish, and fish eggs (Facey and Van 18 Den Avyle 1986). The American eel (Anguilla rostrata) and catfish (Icta/urus spp.) prey upon 19 American shad eggs, and bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix) prey upon larvae (CHGEC 1999). 20 Once juveniles migrate to the Atlantic Ocean, likely predators include sharks, tuna, and 21 porpoises; adult shad are not thought to have many predators (Facey and Van Den Avyle 22 1986). 23 The estimated population of American shad in the Hudson River has declined from 2.3 million in 24 1980 to 404,000 in 1996 (ASMFC 1998). The decline of the species in the Hudson and 25 Connecticut Rivers in the past century is attributed to overfishing, degradation of riverine 26 habitat, and dam construction (Haas-Castro 2006b). Entrainment mortality has caused a 27 23.8 percent annual decrease in abundance of juvenile American shad, and impingement may 28 reduce the population by an additional 1 percent annually. The majority of entrainment mortality 29 is believed to occur in the Albany region as a result of the Albany Steam Station and Empire 30 State Plaza (CHGEC 1999). ASMFC implemented a Fisheries Management Plan for the 31 American shad and river herring in 1985. Restoration efforts under the plan include habitat 32 improvement, fish passage, stocking, and transfer programs; however, abundance of the 33 American shad remains well below historic estimates (Haas-Castro 2006b). Low DO conditions 34 can affect the migration patterns of American shad and limit spawning. Improvements in 35 sewage treatment facilities along the Hudson River in the late 1960s have eliminated the low 36 DO conditions that were problematic in waters south of Albany and have allowed adult shad to 37 spawn farther upriver (CHGEC 1999). 38 Atlantic Tomcod 39 The demersal, anadromous Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod, family Gadidae) is found in 40 northwest Atlantic estuarine habitats, with a range extending from southern Labrador and 41 northern Newfoundland to Virginia (Stewart and Auster 1987). The species is nonmigratory and 42 inhabits brackish waters, including estuarine habitats, salt marshes, mud flats, eel grass beds, 43 and bays. The species is short-lived, with an estimated mortality rate ranging from 81 to 44 98 percent by the age of 2 years (McLaren et al. 1988). Mean lifespan within the Hudson River 45 is 3 years, though populations north of the Hudson River tend to be longer lived (Stewart and December 2008 2-61 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00096
Plant and the Environment 1 Auster 1987). Most tomcod within the Hudson River are thought to remain within the estuary for 2 life; however, a small number of individuals have been marked and recaptured in the lower New 3 York Bay, the East River, and western Long Island Sound (Klauda et al. 1988). The tomcod has 4 not been a commercially important species in the northeast within the past century, and no 5 catch statistics have been recorded since the 1950s, as the species is generally a target for 6 winter sport fishing only along the New England coast (Stewart and Auster 1987). Tomcod are 7 particularly vulnerable to impingement and entrainment because of their high concentration near 8 the lower portion of the Hudson River estuary (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988; Boreman and 9 Goodyear 1988) (Table 2-5). 10 Spawning occurs under ice between December and January in shallow stream mouths (Stewart 11 and Auster 1987). In the Hudson River, tom cod aged 11 to 13 months contribute approximately 12 85 to 97 percent of annual egg production, and the majority of tom cod in the Hudson River 13 spawn only once in their lifetime (McLaren et al. 1988). Females produce an average of 14 20,000 eggs, and incubation time correlates inversely with salinity and ranges from 24 to 15 63 days (Dew and Hecht 1994; Stewart and Auster 1987). Once hatched, larvae float to the 16 surface and are swept by currents into estuaries, where they develop into juveniles. YSL are 17 found throughout the lower half of the estuary, and PYSL are concentrated in the Yonkers and 18 Tappan Zee regions of the estuary (CHGEC 1999) (Table 2-5). Adults are found at all levels of 19 salinity, but larvae and juvenile densities are highest within the 4.5 to 6.7 ppt salinity range 20 (Stewart and Auster 1987). The Hudson River represents the southernmost major spawning 21 area of the species, and the tomcod is the only major species within the freshwater region of the 22 Hudson River to hatch between February and March (Dew and Hecht 1994). Because the 23 species hatches earlier than herring species within the Hudson and larvae and juveniles are 24 able to tolerate low temperatures, tomcod experience little interspecific competition for food until 25 the fall of their first year (McLaren et al. 1988). Tomcod are found at temperatures as low as - 26 1.2 degrees C (30 degrees F) and have not been observed to inhabit waters at temperatures 27 higher than 26 degrees C (79 degrees F) (Stewart and Auster 1987). The species has also 28 been observed at a wide range of depths varying from the surface to 69 m (226 ft) (Froese and 29 Pauly 2007a). Tomcod have three visible stages of first year growth within the Hudson River 30 population. Juveniles show rapid growth during the spring, little to no growth during the 31 summer, and rapid growth again in the fall, which is highly correlated with prevailing water 32 temperatures (McLaren et al. 1988). Growth has been found to slow at temperatures above 19 33 degrees C (66 degrees F), and growth essentially ceases at temperatures above 22 degrees C 34 (72 degrees F) (CHGEC 1999). 35 The diet of tomcod consists primarily of small crustaceans but also may include polychaete 36 worms, mollusks, and small fish. Because tomcod have a lipid-rich liver and prey on many 37 benthic organisms, they are especially sensitive to contaminants in highly polluted waterways, 38 including PCBs and other chlorinated hydrocarbons (Levinton and Waldman 2006). Recent 39 work by Wirgin and Chambers (2006) has reported evidence of induction of hepatic expression 40 of cytochrome P4501A 1 and messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) in Hudson River tomcod, 41 suggesting a potential for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage, somatic mutations, and 42 initiation of carcinogenesis consistent with chemical exposure. Within the Hudson River 43 estuary, juvenile tom cod serve as alternate prey in the summer months for yearling striped bass 44 (M. saxatilis) during years when juvenile striped bass's main prey, the bay anchovy (A. mitchilll), 45 is scarce (Dew and Hecht 1976 cited in Stewart and Auster 1987). Juvenile tomcod are also the 46 prey of large juvenile bluefish (P. sa/tatrix) (Juanes et al. 1993). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-62 December 2008 OAG10001366_00097
Plant and the Environment 1 The Hudson River tom cod population exhibits wide fluctuations in annual abundance because 2 the species is relatively short lived, and a yearly population is generally composed of only one 3 age class (Levinton and Waldman 2006). The population of tomcod aged 11 to 13 months has 4 been estimated to vary year-to-year between 2 to 5 million individuals, and numbers of tomcod 5 aged 23 to 25 months may vary from 100,000 to 900,000 individuals. A combined abundance 6 index suggests that a population decline has occurred since 1989 (CHGEC 1999). Recent 7 information provided by Entergy (2006c) estimated the population of Atlantic tomcod spawning 8 in the Hudson River during the winter of 2003-2004 to be 1.7 million fish, with 95 percent 9 confidence limits of 1.0 and 2.9 million fish. This estimate, derived by a Petersen mark-10 recapture technique, is based on the number of tomcod caught and marked between RM 25 11 and 76 (RKM 40 to 122) in box traps between December 15, 2003, and February 1,2004, and 12 recaptured in trawls in the Battery region from January 5 through April 11, 2004. The estimated 13 2003-2004 Atlantic tomcod spawning population in the Hudson River is the ninth lowest 14 observed among 20 recent years of Petersen estimates (Entergy 2006c). 15 Bay Anchovy 16 The bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli, family Engraulidae) occurs along the Atlantic coastline from 17 Maine to the Gulf of Mexico and the Yucatan Peninsula (Morton 1989) and is a common 18 shallow-water fish in the Hudson River estuary. No commercial fishery for the bay anchovy 19 exists on the Hudson River, but it is preyed upon by other fish, such as the striped bass (M. 20 saxatilis), which is recreationally important on the Hudson River. Unless otherwise noted, the 21 information below is from Morton (1989). 22 Considered a warm water migrant, the bay anchovy uses the Hudson River estuary for 23 spawning and as a nursery ground. Adults are found in a variety of habitats, including shallow 24 to moderately deep offshore waters, nearshore waters off sandy beaches, open bays, and river 25 mouths. Studies conducted in the Hudson River from 1974-2005 suggest that eggs, YSL, 26 PYSL, YOY, and older individuals occur in greatest abundance from the Battery to IP2 and IP3 27 (Table 2-5, Figure 2-6). There is also evidence from recent work by Dunning et al. (2006a) that 28 the peak standing crops of bay anchovy eggs and larvae in New York Harbor, the East River, 29 and Long Island Sound are approximately eight times larger than the population estimates for 30 the lower Hudson River, probably because of the larger water volumes in those areas and the 31 salinity preference of the species. Spawning generally occurs at water temperatures between 32 9 and 31 degrees C (48 and 88 degrees F). The spawning period for the species is long, 33 typically ranging from May through October. Spawning generally occurs in the late evening or 34 at night, and the eggs are pelagic. Schultz et al. (2006) has reported that anchovies that spawn 35 in the Hudson River are mostly 2 years old, whereas yearlings predominate in other locations, 36 such as Chesapeake Bay. Eggs are usually concentrated in salinities of 8 to 15 ppt and, at 37 temperatures around 27 degrees C (81 degrees F), hatch in 24 hours. At hatching, the YSL are 38 about 1.8 to 2.0 mm (0.07 to 0.08 in.) long. Within 24 hours of hatching, YSL consume the yolk 39 sac and become PYSL. Fins begin to develop during the PYSL stage. Larvae are transparent 40 and become darker as they develop into juveniles. PYSL eat copepod larvae and other small 41 zooplankton. 42 Larvae metamorphose to juveniles at about a length of 16 mm (0.63 in.). Juveniles and adults 43 travel and hunt in large schools. Juveniles acquire adult characteristics at about 60 mm (2.4 in.) 44 in length and gain a silvery lateral band. Adults have a relatively high tolerance to fluctuations in 45 both river temperature and salinity, and there is evidence in the Hudson River that early-stage December 2008 2-63 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00098
Plant and the Environment 1 anchovies migrate up-estuary at a rate or 0.6 km/day (0.4 milday) and are capable of periodic 2 vertical migration (Schultz et al. 2006). Adult and juvenile bay anchovy feed primarily on mysid 3 shrimp, copepods, other small crustaceans, small mollusks, other plankton, and larval fish 4 (Hartman et al. 2004). Important predators include birds, bluefish (P. sa/tatrix), weakfish (C. 5 rega/is), summer flounder (Para/ichthys dentatus), and striped bass (M. saxiti/is) (CHGEC 6 1999). The population trend in the Hudson River appears to show a population decline, 7 although exact population counts are not available (Tipton 2003). Tipton (2003) also speculates 8 that the reduction in bay anchovy may be linked to increased predation and overall populations 9 of striped bass, bluefish, or other important commercial fish. Fishery statistics are not available 10 for this species from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) because of the lack of 11 commercial and recreational fishing. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has not 12 identified bay anchovy as a managed species. 13 Blueback Herring 14 The blueback herring (A/osa aestiva/is, family Clupeidae) is an anadromous species found in 15 riverine and estuarine waters along the Atlantic coast ranging from Nova Scotia to St. Johns 16 River, Florida. As noted in the life history of the alewife (A. pseudoharengus), commercial 17 fisheries do not differentiate between the blueback herring (A. aestiva/is) and alewife, and the 18 two species are collectively referred to as river herring. River herring are harvested for fish 19 meal, fish oil, and protein for animal food industries (Fay et al. 1983). Commercial landings of 20 river herrings peaked in the 1950s at approximately 34,000 MT (37,000 t) and then declined to 21 less than 4000 MT (4400 t) in the 1970s. Between 1996 and 2005, landings of river herring 22 ranged from 300 to 900 MT (330 to 990 t) annually, with the majority of the landings in Maine, 23 North Carolina, and Virginia (Haas-Castro 2006a). The river herring fishery is one of the oldest 24 fisheries in the United States; however, no commercial fisheries for river herring exist in the 25 Hudson River today. River herring are often taken as by catch in the offshore mackerel fishery. 26 Within New York and New Jersey, river herring accounted for 0.3 percent of annual landings on 27 the Atlantic coast (CHGEC 1999). 28 Blueback herring spawn once per year between late May and mid-July in the main channels of 29 estuaries or relatively deep freshwater with swift currents on sand or gravel substrate at 30 temperatures between 14 degrees C (57 degrees F) and 27 degrees C (81 degrees F) (Everly 31 and Boreman 1999; Fay et al. 1983). Female egg production varies greatly, ranging from 32 46,000 to 350,000 eggs per female (Fay et al. 1983), and incubation time is approximately 33 6 days (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Blueback herring spawn 3 to 4 weeks after alewives in 34 areas where the two species occur sympatrically, and the peak spawning of each species 35 occurs 2 to 3 weeks apart from one another (Fay et al. 1983). In the Hudson, blueback herring 36 spawn most commonly within the Mohawk River and upper Hudson River (CHGEC 1999). The 37 YSL stage exists 2 to 3 days before yolk-sac absorption, and the PYSL stage lasts until larvae 38 reach approximately 20 mm (0.79 in.), with full development occurring at 45 mm (1.8 in.) (Fay 39 et al. 1983). Eggs, YSL, PYSL, and YOY are generally found between Poughkeepsie and 40 Albany (Table 2-5). Juvenile blueback herring assume adult characteristics within a month of 41 hatching, at which point growth slows. Peak abundance of juveniles occurs during late June 42 within the upper estuary (CHGEC 1999) (Table 2-5). Migration downriver to the Atlantic Ocean 43 occurs in October, which is generally later than peak migration for both the American shad and 44 the alewife within the Hudson River estuary (Fay et al. 1983). Some blueback herring do not 45 migrate and tend to stay within the lower reaches of the estuary during their first 1 to 2 years Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-64 December 2008 OAG10001366_00099
Plant and the Environment 1 (CHGEC 1999). Average length for males is 23 cm (9.1 in.) and for females is 26 cm (10 in.) 2 (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). 3 Adult blueback herring feed mainly on copepods but also eat amphipods, shrimp, fish eggs, 4 crustacean eggs, insects, and insect eggs. The diet of blueback herring in the lower Hudson 5 River consists primarily of chironomid larvae and copepods. As described for the alewife, 6 blueback herring is an important link in the estuarine food web between zooplankton and top 7 piscivores. The blueback herring is prey for gulls, terns, and other coastal birds, as well as for 8 bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and striped bass (Morone 9 saxatilis) (CHGEC 1999). 10 Annual abundance of blueback herring YOY in the Hudson River estuary has been estimated to 11 range from 1.2 million to 50.1 million individuals from sampling conducted with a Tucker trawl 12 since 1979 (CHGEC 1999). Entrainment mortality for the combined abundance of blueback 13 herring and alewife for all water withdrawal locations within the Hudson River varies widely, 14 ranging from 8 to 41 percent in data taken between 1974 and 1997, while impingement mortality 15 of the two species is low, ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 percent for the same time period (CHGEC 16 1999). 17 Bluefish 18 The bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix, family Pomatomidae) is a migratory, pelagic species that 19 occurs in temperate and tropical waters worldwide on the continental shelf and in estuaries. 20 Along the Atlantic coast, the bluefish ranges from Nova Scotia to the Gulf of Mexico (Pottern et 21 al. 1989). Bluefish are a highly sought-after sport fish along the North Atlantic Coast, and State 22 and Federal regulations on the commercial catch of the species began in the early 1970s 23 (CHGEC 1999; Pottern et al. 1989). The majority of the Atlantic coast bluefish catch occurs 24 between New York and Virginia, and recreational fishing has accounted for 80 to 90 percent of 25 the total bluefish catch in the past, with a peak in 1981 and 1985 of over 43,000 MT (47,000 t). 26 Landings have since decreased, reaching a low of 3300 MT (3600 t) in 1999; landings in 2005 27 totaled 3500 MT (3300 t) (Shepherd 2006a). The bluefish is also harvested commercially for 28 human consumption, and during peak years in 1981 to 1983, average annual landings were 29 7.4 million kg (16.3 million Ib), accounting for 0.5 percent of the total Atlantic coast commercial 30 finfish and shellfish landings (Pottern et al. 1989). 31 North American bluefish populations range from New England to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 32 in the summer, and migrate to Florida and the Gulf Stream during the winter. Fisheries data 33 also indicate the existence of small nonmigratory populations in southern Florida waters and the 34 Gulf of Mexico (Pottern et al. 1989). Bluefish are generally not found in waters colder than 14 to 35 16 degrees C (57.2 to 60.8 degrees F) and exhibit signs of stress at temperatures below 36 11.8 degrees C (53.2 degrees F) and above 30.4 degrees C (86.7 degrees F) (Collette and 37 Klein-MacPhee 2002). 38 Generally, bluefish have two major spawnings per year. The first spawning occurs during the 39 spring migration as bluefish move northward to the South Atlantic Bight between April and May; 40 the second spawning occurs in the summer in offshore waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight 41 between June and August. Two distinct cohorts of juvenile bluefish in the fall result from the two 42 spawning events, which mix during the year creating a single genetic pool (Shepherd 2006a). 43 Females can produce 600,000 to 1.4 million eggs (CHGEC 1999). Larvae hatch in 46 to 44 48 hours at temperatures of 18 to 22 degrees C (64.4 to 71.6 degrees F) (Collette and Klein-December 2008 2-65 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00100
Plant and the Environment 1 MacPhee 2002). Newly hatched larvae are pelagic and stay in offshore waters for the first 1 to 2 2 months of life before migrating shoreward to shallower waters (CHGEC 1999). Beach seine 3 survey results indicate YOY bluefish are generally found between Yonkers and Croton-4 Haverstraw (Table 2-5). YSL typically consume the yolk sac by the time they reach 3 to 4 mm 5 (0.12 to 0.16 in.) in length (Pottern et al. 1989). Bluefish larvae grow rapidly; spring-spawned 6 juveniles reach lengths of 25 to 50 mm (0.99 to 2 in.) once they move to mid-Atlantic bays in the 7 summer, grow to lengths of 175 to 200 mm (6.9 to 7.9 in.) by late September when migration 8 begins, and reach lengths of about 260 mm (10.2 in.) by the following spring. Summer-9 spawned juveniles exhibit slower growth because they are unable to inhabit bays and estuaries 10 until after their first migration, though summer-spawned juvenile growth rates exceed those of 11 spring-spawned juveniles during the second year, at which point differences between the two 12 stocks are less pronounced (Pottern et al. 1989). Adult bluefish can live up to 12 years and 13 reach weights of 14 kg (31 Ib) and lengths of 100 cm (39 in.) (Shepherd 2006a). 14 Bluefish are avid predators, and the Atlantic coast population is estimated to consume eight 15 times its biomass in prey annually. Larvae feed on zooplankton and larvae of other pelagic-16 spawning fish (Pottern et al. 1989). In the Hudson River estuary, YOY feed on bay anchovy 17 (A. mitchilll), Atlantic silverside (M. menidia), striped bass (M. saxatilis), blueback herring 18 (A. aestivalis), Atlantic tomcod (M. tomcod), and American shad (A. sapidissima) (CHGEC 19 1999; Juanes et al. 1993). Adult bluefish diets are dominated by squids, clupeids, and 20 butterfish. YOY bluefish are prey for birds including Atlantic puffin (Fratercu/a arctica arctica), 21 Arctic tern (Sterna paradioaea), and roseate tern (Sterna dougal/i dougal/I) (Collette and Klein-22 MacPhee 2002). Sharks also prey on bluefish; species include the bigeye thresher (A/opias 23 superciliosus), white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), longfin 24 mako (I. paucus), tiger shark (Ga/eocerdo cuvier), blue shark (Prionace g/auca), sandbar shark 25 (Carcharhinus p/umbeus), smooth dogfish (Muste/us canis), spiny dogfish (Squa/us acanthias), 26 and angel shark (Squatina spp.) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). 27 The bluefish population data from the Hudson River estuary show a declining trend since the 28 population peaked in 1981 and 1982 (CHGEC 1999). Bluefish populations along the east coast 29 have historically fluctuated widely, though analysis by the NMFS of data between 1974 and 30 1986 did not find evidence of a systematic decline of the species (CHGEC 1999). Bluefish have 31 not been found in entrainment samples from power plants along the Hudson River, which 32 include Roseton Units 1 and 2, IP2 and IP3, or Bowline Point Units 1 and 2 (CHGEC 1999). 33 Juvenile bluefish may be impinged, but the numbers are estimated to be relatively small 34 (CHGEC 1999). 35 Gizzard Shad 36 The gizzard shad (Oorosoma cepedianum, family Clupeidae) is a pelagic herring species that is 37 found in the waters of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains streams as well as in freshwater lakes 38 and reservoirs ranging from New York to Mexico (MDNR 2007a). Gizzard shad are found 39 mainly in freshwater rivers, reservoirs, lakes, and swamps, and in slightly brackish waters of 40 estuaries and bays (Froese and Pauly 2007b). The gizzard shad is a relatively recent immigrant 41 to the Hudson River estuary, though it is now considered a permanent resident, and the species 42 is continuing to expand its range throughout the northeastern United States (CHGEC 1999; 43 Levinton and Waldman 2006). No commercial or sport fishery for gizzard shad exists on the 44 Hudson River (CHGEC 1999). Larvae have been observed in the tidal waters of the Hudson Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-66 December 2008 OAG10001366_00101
Plant and the Environment 1 River since 1989 (Levinton and Waldman 2006). A spawning population is believed to exist in 2 the Mohawk River, but no spawning has been observed in the Hudson River (CHGEC 1999). 3 Adult gizzard shad grow to 23 to 36 cm (9 to 14 in.) in length with an average weight of 907 g 4 (2 Ib) and an average life span of 7 years in northern populations (CHGEC 1999; Morris 2001). 5 Both males and females mature between 2 and 3 years of age, and females spawn between 6 April and June in shallow waters between 10 and 21 degrees C (50 and 70 degrees F) (CHGEC 7 1999; MDNR 2007a). Fecundity is thought to be highly variable but does appear to increase 8 with size of the female (CHGEC 1999). Females can produce between 50,000 and 379,000 9 eggs (MDNR 2007a). Eggs hatch in 1.5 to 7 days, depending on water temperature (CHGEC 10 1999). YSL transform into PYSL within 5 days of hatching and begin to feed on 11 microzooplankton until they reach 2.5 cm (1 in.) in length. At this point, development of the 12 digestive system supports a diet including plant material; juveniles eat a variety of daphnids, 13 cladocerans, adult copepod, rotifers, algae, phytoplankton, and detritus (CHGEC 1999). 14 Gizzard shad grow rapidly during the first 5 to 6 weeks of life, at which point growth slows; 15 individuals reach a length of 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 in.) by their first summer (CHGEC 1999). 16 Adults are filter feeders, eating a variety of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Larvae are not an 17 important prey species because of their size, but age 0 gizzard shad are consumed by a 18 number of species including striped bass, largemouth bass (Micropterus sa/moides), white 19 crappie (Pomoxis annu/aris), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromacu/ates), white bass (Morone 20 chrysops), and spotted bass (Micropterus punctu/atus) (CHGEC 1999). Predators of adult 21 gizzard shad include catfish (order Siluriformes) and striped bass (M. saxatilis) (Morris 2001). 22 Abundance data are not available for the gizzard shad from the Hudson River sampling 23 programs because of the low capture rate of the species in these programs (CHGEC 1999). 24 Beach seine surveys from 1974 to 2005 suggest YOY and older gizzard shad occur primarily 25 from Cornwall north to Albany (Table 2-5). Impingement data are available at three power 26 stations along the Hudson River (Danskammer, Roseton Units 1 and 2, and the now-shuttered 27 Lovett Generating Station) and indicate year-to-year fluctuations with a general trend of 28 increasing impingement and peak adult impingement during the winter months. Entrainment of 29 early life stages is thought to be low, and small gizzard shad are rare in utility ichthyoplankton 30 surveys (CHGEC 1999). 31 Hogchoker 32 The hogchoker (Trinectes macu/atus, family Soleidae) is a right-eyed flatfish species found 33 along the Atlantic coast in bays and estuaries from Maine to Panama (Dovel et al. 1969). The 34 hogchoker is common in the Hudson River estuary and surrounding bays and coastal waters, 35 and abundance indices from the annual Fall Juvenile Survey (also known as the Fall Shoals 36 Survey) channel sampling in the Hudson River from 1974 to 1997 indicate that the hogchoker 37 population has remained relatively stable with a nonsignificant 1 percent increase per year 38 (CHGEC 1999). Because of its small size (adults range from 6 to 15 cm (2.4 to 5.9 in.) with a 39 maximum size of 20 cm (7.9 in.)), the hogchoker is not commercially harvested in any area 40 within its geographic range (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). CHGEC (1999) indicates that 41 hogchoker larvae are found mainly within deeper channel waters and are not often captured 42 during the Longitudinal River Survey; low numbers of juveniles are captured during the Beach 43 Seine and Fall Juvenile Surveys, and yearlings and adults are generally not exposed to Hudson 44 River generating stations because they remain in the waters below RM 34 (CHGEC 1999). 45 However, the Fall Juvenile Survey information reviewed by the NRC staff suggests that YOY December 2008 2-67 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00102
Plant and the Environment 1 and older hogchokers have been collected from Tappan Zee to Poughkeepsie-an area that 2 includes IP2 and IP3 (Table 2-5). 3 The majority of hogchokers in the Hudson River reach sexual maturity at the age of 2 years, 4 though some faster growing males have been observed to spawn at age 1 year (Koski 1978). 5 Spawning occurs in estuaries between May and October in the Hudson River estuary, which is 6 a 5-week longer spawning period than that of the Chesapeake Bay population (Collette and 7 Klein-MacPhee 2002; Koski 1978). Spawning occurs in waters 20 to 25 degrees C (68 to 8 77 degrees F) and a salinity of 10 to 16 ppt (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Eggs are 9 observed in greatest numbers from the last week in May through July in lower estuary waters. 10 Egg production is positively correlated with size, and females can produce between 11,000 and 11 54,000 eggs. Within the Hudson River, eggs are most common between RM 12 and 24 12 (RKM 19 and 39). Eggs hatch in 24 to 36 hours at temperatures between 23.3 and 13 24.5 degrees C (73.9 and 76.1 degrees F). YSL absorb the yolk sac within 48 hours of 14 hatching, and eye migration occurs within 34 days of hatching or at lengths of 0.2 to 0.4 in. 15 (0.51 to 0.02 cm) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002; CHGEC 1999). Larvae have been 16 observed to congregate upstream in waters with lower salinity than their hatching ground (Dovel 17 et al. 1969). Within the Hudson River, YSL are most abundant between RM 24 and 33 (RKM 39 18 and 53), and PYSL are most abundant from RM 24 through RM 55 (RKM 39 and 89). Juveniles 19 are found above RM 39 (RKM 63), while yearling and older individuals are found below RM 34 20 (RKM 55) (CHGEC 1999). Adult individuals inhabit nonvegetated waters with sandy or silty 21 bottoms (Whiteside and Bonner 2007). 22 Adult hogchokers feed mainly on annelids, arthropods, and tellinid siphons (Derrick and 23 Kennedy 1997). The species is a generalist and may also prey on midges, ostracods, aquatic 24 insects, annelids, crustaceans, and foraminiferans (Whiteside and Bonner 2007). Larger striped 25 bass (M. saxatilis) prey on yearling and older hogchokers within the Hudson River estuary, 26 which may affect the abundance of those age groups (CHGEC 1999). The Northeast Fisheries 27 Science Center also found the smooth dogfish (Muste/us canis) to be a predator of hogchoker 28 (Roundtree 1999 as cited in Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). 29 Rainbow Smelt 30 Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax, family Osmeridae) is an anadromous species once found 31 along the Atlantic coast from Labrador to the Delaware River, although the southern end of the 32 range is now north of the Hudson River. NOAA (2007) lists rainbow smelt as a Species of 33 Concern. Unless otherwise noted, information below comes from Buckley (1989). 34 Adult rainbow smelt along the east coast move into saltwater in summer, where they are found 35 in waters less than 1 mi (1.6 km) from shore and usually no deeper than 6 m (20 ft). In spring, 36 spawning adults typically move up the estuaries before ice breaks up to spawn above the head 37 of tide in water temperatures of 4.0 to 9.0 degrees C (39 to 48 degrees F). They have been 38 found to run up into coastal streams to spawn at night and then return to the estuary during the 39 day. Females, depending on size, produce about 7,000 to 75,000 eggs (summarized in NOAA 40 2007a), which are from 1.0 to 1.2 mm (about 0.04 in.) in diameter. Eggs are typically deposited 41 over gravel, and egg survival appears to be influenced by water flow, substrate type, and egg 42 density. Exposure to salt or brackish water can cause egg mortality, as can sudden increases 43 in temperature, diseases, parasites, contaminant exposure, and predation by other fish species. 44 Incubation times can be 8 to 29 days and decrease with increasing water temperature. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-68 December 2008 OAG10001366_00103
Plant and the Environment 1 Common mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) and fourspine stickleback (Apeltes quadracus) 2 are reported to be major predators on smelt eggs. 3 YSL are 5 to 6 mm (0.20 to 0.24 in.) long at hatching. The yolk sac is absorbed by the time the 4 larvae reach 7 mm (0.28 in.) and enter the PYSL stage. Larvae now concentrate near the 5 surface and drift downstream. As they grow, they seek deeper water and congregate near the 6 bottom. Vertical migration begins, and they move to the surface to feed during the day and 7 deeper at night. The vertical migration patterns may maintain their position in two-layered 8 estuarine systems. Larval and small juvenile smelt eat copepods and other small planktonic 9 crustaceans as well as fish. In turn, larval and juvenile smelt are probably eaten by most 10 estuarine piscivores. 11 Smelt grow fairly rapidly and begin to school when they reach a length of 19 mm (0.75 in.). As 12 the smelt grow, they move down estuaries into higher salinity and, as adults, migrate to sea. 13 They are mature and participate in spawning runs at age 1. Adults grow to average 14 approximately 25.4 cm (10 in.) in length. Larger juveniles and adults feed on euphausiids, 15 amphipods, polychaetes, and fish such as anchovies (family Engraulidae) and alewives (A. 16 pseudoharengus). Adults also eat other fish species, including common mummichog, cunner 17 (Tautogo/abrus adspersus), and Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia). Bluefish (P. saltatrix), 18 striped bass (M. saxatilis), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and other large piscivores eat adult 19 smelt. 20 Once a prevalent fish in the Hudson River, an abrupt population decline in the Hudson River 21 was observed from 1994, and the species may now have no viable population within the 22 Hudson River. The last tributary run of rainbow smelt was recorded in 1988, and the Hudson 23 River Utilities' Long River Ichthyoplankton Survey show that PYSL essentially disappeared from 24 the river after 1995 (Daniels et al. 2005). When present, the largest abundances of eggs and 25 YSL occurred from Poughkeepsie to the Catskills, and the largest abundances of PYSL, YOY, 26 and older individuals were distributed from approximately Yonkers to Hyde Park (Table 2-5, 27 Figure 2-6). Rainbow smelt runs in the coastal streams of western Connecticut declined at 28 about the same time as in the Hudson River (Daniels et al. 2005). Smelt landings in waters 29 south of New England have dramatically decreased, although the reasons for this are unknown. 30 Daniels et al. (2005) note slowly increasing water temperatures in the Hudson River and 31 suggest that the disappearance of rainbow smelt from the Hudson River may be a result of 32 global warming. 33 Spottail Shiner 34 The spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius, family Cyprinidae) is a freshwater species which occurs 35 across much of Canada, south to the Missouri River drainage, and in Atlantic States from New 36 Hampshire to Georgia, with habitat ranging from small streams to large rivers and lakes, 37 including Lake Erie (Smith 1985a). One of the most abundant fishes in the Hudson River, 38 spottail shiners are commonly 3.9 in. (100 mm) in length, which is large for shiner species 39 (Smith 1985a). The maximum length is approximately 5.8 in. (147 mm) (Schmidt and Lake 40 2006; Smith 1985a; Marcy et al. 2005a). 41 Spottail shiners spawn from May to June or July (typically later for the northern populations) 42 over sandy bottoms and stream mouths (Smith 1985a; Marcy et al. 2005a); water chestnut 43 (Trapa natans) beds provide important spawning habitat (CHGEC 1999). Individuals older than 44 3 years are seldom found, but there is evidence of individuals living up to 4 or 5 years (Marcy et December 2008 2-69 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00104
Plant and the Environment 1 al. 2005a). Fecundity is a factor of age: the ovaries of younger females contain 1400 eggs, and 2 ovaries of older females contain from 1300 to 2600 eggs; a correlation between fecundity and 3 size does not appear to exist (Marcy et al. 2005a). In the Hudson River Estuary, beach seine 4 survey data from 1974 to 2005 showed the largest abundances of YOY and Year 1+ individuals 5 occurred from Poughkeepsie north to Albany (Table 2-5). 6 Spottail shiners are opportunistic feeders, typically eating insects, bivalve mollusks, and 7 microcrustaceans throughout the water column (Marcy et al. 2005a). Aggregations of spottail 8 shiners have been observed preying on eggs of alewives (Alosa psedoharengus) and mayflies 9 (Marcy et al. 2005a). Striped bass (M. saxatilis) larvae are also prey for spottail shiners 10 (McGovern and Olney 1988), as are spottail eggs and larvae (Smith 1985a). Spottail shiners 11 are frequently used as bait (Smith 1985a), and they are an important prey species for some fish, 12 including walleye (Sander vitreus), channel catfish (I. punctatus), northern pike (Esox lucius), 13 and small mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) (lDFG 1985). The Hudson River population of 14 spottail shiners is known to be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at water intakes, 15 and this could be affecting the survivorship of most life stages (CHGEC 1999). 16 Striped Bass 17 The striped bass (Morone saxatilis, family Moronidae) is an anadromous species, with a range 18 extending from St. Johns River, Florida, to St. Lawrence River, Canada (ASMFC 2006b). 19 Individual stocks of striped bass spawn in rivers and estuaries from Maine to North Carolina. 20 When adults leave the estuaries to go to the Atlantic, the stocks mix; striped bass return to their 21 natal rivers and estuaries to spawn. The Atlantic coast striped bass fishery has been one of the 22 most important commercial fisheries on the east coast for centuries and has been regulated 23 since European settlement in North America (ASMFC 2006b). In 1982, overfishing depleted the 24 striped bass population to fewer than 5 million fish. Since that time, the Atlantic coast 25 population has been restored to 65 million in 2005 (ASMFC 2006b). Striped bass have been 26 important in both commercial and recreational fisheries, and while the majority of the stock 27 spawns in the Chesapeake Bay, the Hudson River contributes to the stock as well. Fabrizio 28 (1987) reported that of the age 2-5 individuals sampled from the Rhode Island commercial trap-29 net fishery in November 1982,54 percent were from the Chesapeake Bay stock and 46 percent 30 were from the Hudson River stock. Wirgin et al. (1993) estimated that the Chesapeake Bay and 31 Hudson River stocks combined contributed up to 87 percent of the mixed fishery stock on the 32 Atlantic coast. 33 The striped bass is a long-lived species, reaching 30 years of age, and spends the majority of 34 its life in coastal estuaries and the ocean. Females reach maturity between 6 and 9 years, and 35 then produce between .5 million and 3 million eggs per year, which are released into riverine 36 spawning areas (ASMFC 2006b). The males, reaching maturity between 2 and 3 years, fertilize 37 the eggs as they drift downstream (ASMFC 2006b). The eggs hatch into larvae, which absorb 38 their yolk and then feed on microscopic organisms. PYSL mature into juveniles in the nursery 39 areas, such as river deltas and inland portions of coastal sounds and estuaries, where they 40 remain for 2 to 4 years, before joining the coastal migratory population in the Atlantic (ASMFC 41 2006b). Recent field investigations by Dunning et al. (2006b) have suggested that dispersal of 42 age 2+ striped bass out of the Hudson River may be influenced by cohort abundance. In the 43 spring or summer, adults migrate northward from the mouth of their spawning rivers up the 44 Atlantic coast, and in the fall or winter they return south, in time to spawn in their natal rivers 45 (Berggren and Lieberman 1978; ASMFC 2006b). Work by Wingate and Secor (2007), using Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-70 December 2008 OAG10001366_00105
Plant and the Environment 1 remote biotelemetry on a total of 12 fish, suggested that specific homing patterns are possible 2 for this species, and these patterns may influence their susceptibility to localized natural and 3 anthropogenic stressors. Based on long-term monitoring data, various life-stages associated 4 with this species are found in the Hudson River from Tappan Zee to Albany (Table 2-5). 5 Several factors playa role in spawning, including water temperature, salinity, total dissolved 6 solids concentration, and water velocity and flow. Peak spawning occurs in water temperatures 7 of 15 to 20 degrees C (59 to 68 degrees F) but can occur between 10 and 23 degrees C 8 (50 and 73 degrees F) (Shepherd 2006b). Striped bass reach 150 cm (59 in.) in length and 25 9 to 35 kg (55 to 77 Ib) in weight (Shepherd 2006b). Adult striped bass are omnivores and prey 10 on invertebrates and fish, especially clupeids, including menhaden (B. tyrannus) and river 11 herring (Alosa spp.) (Shepherd 2006b). Diets vary by season and location, typically including 12 whatever species are available (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). YOY striped bass diet is made 13 up of fish and mysid shrimp (Walter et al. 2003). 14 Compared to other anadromous species, striped bass appear to spend extended periods in the 15 Hudson River, contributing to their PCB body burdens. In 1976, the Hudson River commercial 16 fishery was closed because of PCB contamination, although shad fishermen continue to catch 17 striped bass in their nets (CHGEC 1999). Commercial restrictions on harvesting the Atlantic 18 coastal fishery, in part supported by the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984 19 (16 U.S.C. 5151-5158), which allows coastal States to cooperatively regulate and manage the 20 stock, have led to the declaration of full recovery of the population in 1995 (ASMFC 2006b). 21 Abundance levels have continued to increase in the Atlantic population. Restrictions on both 22 commercial and recreational fisheries have been relaxed because of the recovery of the 23 population (ASMFC 2006b), but the fisheries continue to be limited to State waters (within 24 3 nautical miles of land), and New York State's commercial fishery remains completely closed. 25 While commercial landings have remained lower than the levels seen in the early 1970s, 26 recreational landings have increased, and in 2004 made up 72 percent of the total weight 27 harvested from the Atlantic stock (Shepherd 2006b). Recreational fishing in the Hudson River 28 during the spring generally occurs north of the Bear Mountain Bridge (RKM 75 (RM 46)) (Euston 29 et al. 2006). 30 Weakfish 31 The weakfish (Cynocsion rega/is, family Sciaenidae) is a demersal species found along the 32 Atlantic coast ranging from Massachusetts Bay to southern Florida and is occasionally found as 33 far north as Nova Scotia and as far south as the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Mercer 1989). The 34 weakfish is one of the most abundant fish species along the Atlantic coast and is fished 35 recreationally as well as commercially via gill-net, pound-net, haulseine, and trawl (Mercer 36 1989). ASMFC considers weakfish to be composed of one stock based on genetic analysis; 37 however, more recent tagging studies have indicated that weakfish may return to their natal 38 estuary to spawn (ASMFC 2006c). The stock as a whole is thought to be declining as 39 evidenced by decreased landings in recent years. Landings peaked in 1981 and 1982 at 40 12,500 MT (13,800 t), declined from 1989 through 1993, peaked again in 1998 at over 5000 MT 41 (5500 t), and then declined from 1999 through 2004, at which point a record low of less than 42 1000 MT (1100 t) was reported (ASM FC 2006c). Entrainment of eggs and larvae at power 43 plants within the Hudson River is not common because weakfish spawn in waters with higher 44 salinity, though movement of juveniles into the Hudson River estuary during late winter and December 2008 2-71 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00106
Plant and the Environment 1 early spring results in some entrainment of young juveniles and impingement of larger juveniles 2 (CHGEC 1999). 3 Weakfish are found at a depth range of 10 to 26 m (33 to 85 ft) and temperatures between 4 17 and 27 degrees C (63 and 81 degrees F) (Froese and Pauly 2007c). Adults favor shallow 5 coastal waters with sandy substrate and a salinity of 10 ppt or higher, though they are found in a 6 variety of estuarine environments (CHGEC 1999). Adult weakfish vary greatly in size, ranging 7 from 6 to 31 in. (15 to 79 cm) in length, with a maximum weight of 20 Ib (9.1 kg), and can live up 8 to 11 years (CHGEC 1999). Most weakfish mature at the age of 2 during the late summer 9 months, and almost all weakfish are mature by the end of their third summer (CHGEC 1999). 10 Size at maturity varies with latitude: in northern populations, females have been observed to 11 mature at 256 mm (10.1 in.) and males at 251 mm (9.9 in.), while in North Carolina populations, 12 females have been observed to spawn at 230 mm (9.1 in.) and males at 180 mm (7.1 in.) 13 (Mercer 1989). Weakfish migrate southward in the fall to the coastal waters of North Carolina 14 and Virginia and then move northward in the spring to spawn (ASMFC 2006c). 15 Spawning takes place along the northeastern coast of the Atlantic between the Chesapeake 16 Bay and Montauk, Long Island, New York, in nearshore coastal and estuarine waters during the 17 spring and summer (CHGEC 1999). Within the New York Bight, two spawning peaks occur in 18 mid-May, consisting of larger individuals that migrate northward earlier, and in June, consisting 19 of smaller individuals (Mercer 1989). Fecundity estimates vary widely, though fecundity can be 20 generally correlated with size and geographic area (from 4593 eggs for a 203-mm (8-in.) female 21 to 4,969,940 eggs for a 569-mm (22.4-in.) female and from 306,159 eggs for a northern female 22 to 2,051,080 eggs for a similarly sized female in North Carolina) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 23 2002). Eggs can tolerate a temperature range of 12 to 31.5 degrees C (53.6 to 88.7 degrees F) 24 and a salinity range of 10 to 33 ppt (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Larvae hatch within 25 36 to 40 hours at temperatures of 20 to 21 degrees C (68 to 69.8 degrees F) (Mercer 1989). 26 Larvae move into bays and estuaries after hatching; in the Hudson River estuary, larvae are 27 rarely observed north of the George Washington Bridge because of the lower salinity of these 28 waters (CHGEC 1999). Larvae feed primarily on cyclopoid copepods, as well as calanoid 29 copepods, tintinnids, and polychaete larvae (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Weakfish 30 juveniles grow rapidly during their first year and reach lengths of 7.6 to 15.2 cm (3 to 6 in.) by 31 the end of the summer (CHGEC 1999). Juveniles are typically distributed from Long Island to 32 North Carolina in late summer and fall in waters of slightly higher salinity, sand or sand-grass 33 substrates, and depths of 9 to 26 m (30 to 85 ft) (Mercer 1989). Juveniles are considered adults 34 at approximately 30 mm (1.2 in.) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). 35 Adult weakfish feed on a variety of organisms, and their diet varies with locality and availability 36 of food sources. Smaller weakfish (less than 20 cm (7.9 in.)) feed primarily on crustaceans, 37 while larger weakfish feed primarily on anchovies, herrings, spot, and other fish (CHGEC 1999; 38 Mercer 1989). Adult weakfish of all sizes also prey on decapod shrimps, squids, mollusks, and 39 annelid worms (CHGEC 1999; Mercer 1989). Bluefish (P. sa/tatrix), striped bass (M. saxatilis), 40 and older weakfish prey on younger weakfish, while weakfish of larger size are preyed on by 41 dusky sharks (Carcharhinus obscurus), spiny dogfish (Squa/us acanthias), smooth dogfish 42 (Muste/us canis), clearnose skate (Raja eg/anteria), angel sharks (Squatina spp.), goosefish 43 (family Lophiidae), and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 44 2002). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-72 December 2008 OAG10001366_00107
Plant and the Environment 1 YOY and older weakfish are generally found from Yonkers to West Point (Table 2-5). Weakfish 2 abundance fluctuated from 1979 to 1990, and abundance was relatively low between 1990 and 3 1997; overall, abundance declined 6 percent between 1979 and 1997 (CHGEC 1999). The 4 weakfish stock as a whole declined suddenly in 1999 and approached even lower levels by 5 2003, which ASMFC determined to be the result of higher natural mortality rates rather than the 6 result of fishing mortality (ASMFC 2007b). A leading hypothesis suggests that insufficient prey 7 species and increased predation by striped bass may contribute significantly to rising natural 8 mortality rates in the weakfish population (ASMFC 2007b). 9 White Catfish 10 The white catfish (Icta/urus catus, family Ictaluridae) is a demersal species found in estuarine 11 and freshwater habitats along the Atlantic coast from the lower Hudson River to Florida, though 12 it has been introduced in other areas, including Ohio and California (Smith 1985b). The natural 13 distribution of the species is thought to be in coastal streams from the Chesapeake Bay to 14 Texas; limited recreational fishing for this species occurs in the Hudson River (CHGEC 1999). 15 White catfish are the least common species of catfish in New York waters (NYSDEC 2008a). 16 The New York State Department of Health has issued a fish advisory for the species because of 17 the potential for elevated levels of PCBs (NYSDOH 2007). Additionally, the New Jersey 18 Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has issued a health advisory for the white 19 catfish downstream of the New York-New Jersey border, which includes portions of the Hudson 20 River and Upper New York Bay (NJDEP and NJDHSS 2006). 21 The white catfish is of intermediate size compared with other species in the family; adults grow 22 to lengths of 8.3 to 24 in. (21 to 62 cm) and reach weights of 0.6 to 2.2 Ib (0.25 to 1.0 kg) (Marcy 23 et al. 2005b). The species has been reported to live 11 or more years as evidenced by 24 individuals observed in South Carolina (Marcy et al. 2005b). White catfish prefer fresh or 25 brackish water and, in the upper Hudson River, are most commonly found in channel borders, 26 shoals, and vegetated backwaters (Marcy et al. 2005b). Though the white catfish is more salt 27 tolerant than most catfish species, it is not typically found in waters with salinities above 8 ppt 28 (CHGEC 1999; NJDEP 2005). Fall Juvenile Survey data from 1979 to 2004 suggests that YOY 29 and older individuals were generally found from the Saugerties to Albany segments of the 30 Hudson River (Figure 2-10, Table 2-5). 31 White catfish are sexually mature between 3 to 4 years of age at the size of 7 to 8 in. (18 to 32 20 cm). Adults move upstream for spawning between late June and early July when Hudson 33 River water temperatures reach approximately 70 degrees F (21 degrees C) (CHGEC 1999). 34 Before spawning, both males and females construct nests on sand or gravel bars, and males 35 protect the nest once females lay eggs. Females that are 11 to 12 in. (28 to 30 cm) can lay 36 3200 to 3500 eggs. Eggs hatch in 6 to 7 days at temperatures between 75 to 85 degrees F 37 (24 to 29 degrees C) (CHGEC 1999; Smith 1985b). Males continue to protect young until the 38 juveniles form large schools and disperse from the nest (MDNR 2007b). YOY migrate 39 downstream to deeper waters in September and October, and generally, yearling and older 40 white catfish move out of the upper Hudson River estuary once the water temperatures drop 41 below 59 degrees F (15 degrees C) to overwinter in the lower estuary. (Smith 1985b, CHGEC 42 1999). 43 White catfish have an especially varied diet. Adults collected from the North Newport River in 44 Georgia were found to consume over 50 different species of prey (Marcy et al. 2005b). December 2008 2-73 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00108
Plant and the Environment 1 Juveniles and smaller adults feed primarily on midge larvae and macroinvertebrates, while 2 larger adults have a more diverse diet, which may consist of midge larvae, crustaceans, algae, 3 fish eggs, and a number of fish species, including herring (Clupea spp.), menhaden (Brevoortia 4 spp.), gizzard shad (Oorosoma cepedianum), and bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus) (CHGEC 5 1999; Smith 1985b). Amphipods are widely consumed by adult catfish and make up a large 6 percentage (up to 80 percent) of the volume of food eaten (CHGEC 1999). 7 The white catfish population is considered stable throughout the majority of its range, though the 8 Hudson River population appears to have been in decline since 1975 (CHGEC 1999). The 9 decline may partially be a result of food-limited growth and survival of larvae and YOY as a 10 result of resource depletion by PYSL and YOY striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (CHGEC 1999). 11 Generally, early life stages of the species are not at risk of entrainment because spawning and 12 early development occurs upstream near nests, which adult white catfish guard (CHGEC 1999). 13 Juvenile and adult white catfish are infrequently impinged; the species has been recorded to 14 consist of 0.42 percent of total fish impinged at IP2 and IP3 (CHGEC 1999). 15 White Perch 16 White perch (Morone americana) is endemic to the North American eastern coastal areas and 17 range from Nova Scotia to South Carolina. It is not actually a perch, but a member of the 18 temperate bass family Percichthyidae, along with striped bass (M. saxatilis). White perch are 19 year-round residents in the Hudson River between New York City and the Troy Dam near 20 Albany. They have never been a recreationally or commercially important resource for the 21 Hudson River, and commercial fishing was closed in 1976 because of PCB contamination, but 22 they are well represented in impingement collections of Hudson River power plants. In other 23 parts of its range, white perch is intensively fished (Klauda et al. 1988). 24 25 Spawning habitats vary and can be clear or turbid, fast or slow, in water less than 7 m (23 ft) 26 deep (Stanley and Danie 1983). In the Hudson River, most spawning occurs in the upper 27 reaches (RKM 138 to 198 (RM 86 to 123)) in shallow embayments and tidal creeks, and adults 28 move offshore and downriver after spawning (Klauda et al. 1988). Spawning in the Hudson 29 begins in late April when water temperatures reach 10 to 12 degrees C (50 to 54 degrees F) 30 and can continue until late Mayor early June when temperatures reach 16 to 20 degrees C 31 (61 to 68 degrees F) (Klauda et al. 1988). Fecundity depends on age and size of the females 32 and ranges from about 5,000 to over 300,000 eggs (Stanley and Danie 1983). The eggs are 33 adhesive and sink and may stick to the substrate or each other. 34 Hatching takes place between 1 and 6 days following fertilization, and the incubation period is 35 inversely related to water temperature but relatively unaffected by salinity and silt levels 36 (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002; Stanley and Danie 1983). Newly hatched YSL are about 37 2 mm (0.08 in.) long, and after 5 to 6 days, the yolk sac is absorbed (Collette and Klein-38 MacPhee 2002). The YSL generally remain in the same area where they hatched for 4 to 39 13 days (Stanley and Danie 1983). PYSL eat zooplankton and grow rapidly. 40 Juveniles tend to stay in inshore areas of the estuary and in creeks until they are about a year 41 old and 20 to 30 cm (8 to 12 in.) in length and then tend to move downstream to brackish areas 42 (Stanley and Danie 1983). Although they may move offshore during the day, they tend to return 43 to shoal areas at night. Most males and females mature at 2 years. Juveniles eat larger 44 zooplankton. In the spring as water temperature rises, adults, which can reach maximum Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-74 December 2008 OAG10001366_00109
Plant and the Environment 1 lengths of 495 mm (19.5 in.), begin their spawning migration and start to move upstream into 2 shallower, fresher waters and into tidal streams. After spawning, they return to deeper waters. 3 In summer, large schools of white perch tend to move slowly without direction, and they tend not 4 to travel very far. (Stanley and Danie 1983) 5 White perch are opportunistic feeders and have a broad range of prey. Young adults in 6 freshwater environments feed on aquatic insects, crustaceans, and other smaller fishes (Stanley 7 and Danie 1983). In brackish and estuarine environments, the white perch feed on fish eggs, 8 the larvae of walleye (Sander vitreus) and striped bass, and other smaller adult fish 9 (Chesapeake Bay Program 2006). Young adult white perch also consume amphipods, snails, 10 crayfish, crabs, shrimp, and squid where available. White perch larger than 22 cm (9 in.) feed 11 almost exclusively on other fish. White perch are consumed by many larger predatory fish 12 species. 13 Blue Crab 14 Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus, family Portunidae) is an important commercial and recreational 15 resource throughout much of its range, which in the western Atlantic is from Nova Scotia 16 through the Gulf of Mexico to northern Argentina. The life history of blue crab in the Hudson 17 River estuary is largely based on the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays where the most relevant 18 information in the United States has been gathered. Unless otherwise noted, information below 19 is from Perry and Mcilwain (1986). 20 Spawning and mating in blue crabs occur at different times. Mating takes place when female 21 crabs are in the soft condition after their terminal, or last, molt. Males then carry the soft-shelled 22 females until their shell hardens. Females store the sperm, which is used to fertilize the eggs 23 for repeated spawnings. After the shell hardens, the females move downstream to the mouths 24 of estuaries to spawn. Females extrude fertilized eggs and attach them on the underside of 25 their bodies as a bright orange "sponge" consisting of up to 2 million eggs. The eggs become 26 darker as they mature, and the sponge is almost black at the time of hatching. The eggs hatch 27 and release the first zoea stage after about 2 weeks. 28 Larval crabs go through seven zoeal stages (and sometimes eight) in 31 to 49 days, depending 29 on temperature and salinity. The zoeae are planktonic and live in the ocean near shore. Zoeae 30 eat small zooplankton, such as rotifers. The last zoeal stage metamorphoses with its molt to a 31 mega lops larva, which persists from 6 to 20 days. Megalops larvae have more crab-like 32 features than zoeae and are initially planktonic but gradually become more benthic. Megalops 33 larvae inhabit the lower estuary and nearshore areas (ASMFC 2004) and have been found as 34 far as 40 mi (64 km) offshore. Winds, tides, and storms transport the larvae back in towards 35 shore (Kenny 2002). Among others, jellyfish are predators on crab larvae. 36 The megalops larvae molt and metamorphose into the first crab stage, which has all the 37 features of a blue crab, and, like all crustaceans, grows by molting. The early crab stages, 38 which are 10 to 20 mm (0.4 to 0.8 in.) carapace width in size, migrate to fresher water. 39 Although benthic, blue crabs are good swimmers. They feed less and cease molting as winter 40 nears and bury themselves in the mud in winter. Because the Hudson River is at the northern 41 end of the blue crab's range, severe winters may affect over-winter survival (Kenney 2002). 42 In the Chesapeake Bay, blue crabs mature in 18 to 20 molts, at which time females undergo a 43 final, or terminal, molt, and males continue to grow and molt (Kenney 2002). In the Hudson 44 River, most females make the terminal molt before they reach a carapace width of about December 2008 2-75 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00110
Plant and the Environment 1 125 mm (4.92 in.) (Kenney 2002). Adult males prefer the low salinity areas of upper estuaries, 2 while females, after mating, move to and remain in the higher salinity areas of the lower estuary. 3 Blue crabs can live about 3 or 4 years, although most probably do not live past the age of 2. 4 Adult blue crabs are benthic predators that will lie in wait to catch small fish. They also eat other 5 crabs and crustaceans, mollusks, dead organisms, zebra mussels, aquatic plants, and organic 6 debris. They will also eat other blue crabs. Young and adult blue crabs are prey for many 7 predators, including a variety of birds, including herons and diving ducks; humans; raccoons; 8 and fish, including various members of the sciaenid (drum) family, American eel, and striped 9 bass. Cannibalism is thought to be a major source of mortality. Environmental factors thought 10 to affect juvenile and adult blue crab populations include drought, winter mortality, hypoxia, 11 hurricanes, and the effects of human development (ASMFC 2004). 12 New York has a relatively small blue crab fishery, which reported a large decrease in landings in 13 1997; since then, the harvest has been about a million pounds a year (ASMFC 2004). Blue 14 crab fishing in the Hudson River Estuary occurs mostly in the summer and fall (Kenney 2002). 15 Egg-bearing females are returned to the river to help protect spawning stock (Kenney 2002). 16 2.2.5.5 Protected Aquatic Resources 17 Atlantic Sturgeon 18 The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenseroxyrhynchus, family Acipenseridae) is an anadromous 19 species, with a range extending from St. Johns River, Florida, to Labrador, Canada. 20 Considered the "cash crop" of Jamestown before tobacco, the Atlantic sturgeon has been 21 harvested for its flesh and caviar, as well as its skin and swim bladder. A long-lived, slowly 22 maturing species, the Atlantic sturgeon can reach 60 years of age (ASMFC 2007c; Gilbert 23 1989). Maturity is reached at 7 to 30 years for females, and 5 to 24 for males, with fish in the 24 southern range maturing earlier than those inhabiting the northern range (ASMFC 2007c). 25 Fecundity is correlated with age and size, ranging from 400,000 to 8 million eggs per female 26 (NMFS 2007). Individuals reach lengths of about 79 in. (200 cm), while the largest recorded 27 sturgeon was 15 ft (4.5 m) and 811 Ib (368 kg) (ASMFC 2007c). 28 In the spring, adult Atlantic sturgeons migrate to freshwater to spawn, with males arriving a few 29 weeks before the females. In the Hudson, the males' migration occurs when water 30 temperatures reach 5.6 to 6.1 degrees C (42 to 43 degrees F); the females appear when water 31 temperatures warm to 12.2 to 12.8 degrees C (54 to 55 degrees F). Spawning occurs a few 32 weeks later (Gilbert 1989). Eggs are deposited on hard surfaces on the river bottom, and hatch 33 after 4 to 6 days (Shepherd 2006c). Individuals do not spawn annually-spawning intervals 34 range from 1 to 5 years for males and 2 to 5 years for females (NMFS 2007). Females typically 35 leave the estuary 4 to 6 weeks after spawning, but the males can remain in the estuary until the 36 fall. Larvae feed from their yolk sac for 9 to 10 days, and then the PYSL begin feeding on the 37 river bottom (Gilbert 1989). In the fall, the juveniles move downstream from freshwater to the 38 estuaries, where they remain for 3 to 5 years, and then migrate to the ocean as adults 39 (Shepherd 2006c). Individuals return to their natal river for spawning, and so the species is 40 divided into five distinct population segments (ASSRT 2007). Juveniles and adults are bottom 41 feeders, subsisting on mussels, worms, shrimp, and small fish (Gilbert 1989; ASMFC 2007c). 42 Before 1900, landings of Atlantic sturgeon reached 3500 MT (3860 t) per year. This number 43 dropped in the 20th century, and from 1950 to 1990, landings ranged from 45 to 115 MT (50 to 44 127 t)) per year (Shepherd 2006c). ASMFC placed a moratorium on harvesting wild Atlantic Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-76 December 2008 OAG10001366_00111
Plant and the Environment 1 sturgeon for the entire coast in 1997, in an attempt to allow the population to recover. In 1999, 2 the Federal Government banned the possession and harvest of sturgeon in the Exclusive 3 Economic Zone (Shepherd 2006c; ASMFC 2007c). Using a Petersen mark-recapture 4 population estimator, Peterson et al. (2000) estimated that the Hudson River population of age 1 5 Atlantic sturgeon had declined about 80 percent between 1977 and 1985. The authors 6 suggested that the then-current recruitment could be too low to sustain the population. As of 7 October 2006, NMFS has listed Atlantic sturgeon as a candidate species for listing under the 8 Endangered Species Act (71 Federal Register (FR) 61022). Threats such as bycatch, water 9 quality, and dredging continue to affect Atlantic sturgeon (ASMFC 2007c). In the Hudson River, 10 the Federal Dam (the southernmost obstruction in the river) is upstream of the northern extent 11 of the Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat and therefore is not a limiting factor (ASSRT 2007). 12 Average levels of PCBs in Hudson River sturgeon tissue exceeded FDA guidelines for human 13 consumption in the 1970s and 1980s; since then, levels of PCBs have dropped below FDA 14 guidelines (ASSRT 2007). Although the State placed a moratorium on harvesting Atlantic 15 sturgeon in 1996 when it became apparent that the Hudson River stock was overfished, the 16 American shad gill net fishery continues to take subadult sturgeon as bycatch. The Status 17 Review Team for Atlantic Sturgeon concluded in 2007 (ASSRT 2007) that the Hudson River 18 subpopulation has a moderate risk (less than 50 percent) of becoming endangered in the next 19 20 years as a result of the threat of commercial bycatch. Despite this, the Hudson River 20 supports the largest subpopulation of spawning adults and juveniles, and some long-term 21 surveys indicate that the abundance has been stable since 1995 or is even increasing (ASSRT 22 2007). Recent work by Sweka et al. (2007) has suggested that a substantial population of 23 juvenile Atlantic sturgeon are present in Haverstraw Bay and that future population monitoring 24 should focus on this area to obtain the greatest statistical power for assessing population 25 trends. 26 Shortnose Sturgeon 27 The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum, family Acipenseridae) is amphidromous, with 28 a range extending from St. Johns River, Florida, to St. John River, Canada. Unlike anadromous 29 species, shortnose sturgeons spend the majority of their lives in freshwater, moving to saltwater 30 periodically, without relation to spawning (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). From colonial 31 times, shortnose sturgeons have rarely been the target of commercial fisheries but have 32 frequently been taken as incidental by catch in Atlantic sturgeon and shad gillnet fisheries 33 (Shepherd 2006c; Dadswell et al. 1984). The shortnose sturgeon was listed on March 11, 1967, 34 as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. In 1998, a recovery 35 plan for the shortnose sturgeon was finalized by NMFS (NMFS 1998) not in list. The threats to 36 the species include dams, water pollution, and destruction or degradation of habitat (Shepherd 37 2006c). 38 Shortnose sturgeon can grow up to 143 cm (56 in.) in total length, and can weigh up to 23 kg 39 (51 Ib). Females are known to live up to 67 years, while males typically do not live beyond 40 30 years (Dadswell et al. 1984). As young adults, the sex ratio is 1:1; however, among fish 41 larger than 90 cm (35 in.), measured from nose to the fork of the tail, the ratio of females to 42 males increases to 4: 1. Throughout the range of the shortnose sturgeon, males and females 43 mature at 45 to 55 cm (18 to 22 in.) fork length, but the age at which this length is achieved 44 varies by geography. At the southern extent of the sturgeon's range, males reach maturity at 45 age 2, and females reach maturity at 6 years or younger; in Canada, males can reach maturity December 2008 2-77 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00112
Plant and the Environment 1 as late as age 11, and females at age 13 (Dadswell et al. 1984; OPR undated). One to two 2 years after reaching maturity, males begin to spawn at 2-year intervals, while females may not 3 spawn for the first time until 5 years after maturing, and thereafter spawn at 3- to 5-year 4 intervals (Dadswell et al. 1984; OPR undated). Shortnose sturgeon migrate into freshwater to 5 spawn during late winter or early summer. Eggs adhere to the hard surfaces on the river bottom 6 before hatching after 4 to 6 days. Larvae consume their yolk sac and begin feeding in 8 to 12 7 days, as they migrate downstream away from the spawning site (Kynard 1997; Collette and 8 Klein-MacPhee 2002). The juveniles, which feed on benthic insects and crustaceans, do not 9 migrate to the estuaries until the following winter, where they remain for 3 to 5 years. As adults, 10 they migrate to the nearshore marine environment, where their diet consists of mollusks and 11 large crustaceans (Shepherd 2006c; OPR undated). 12 In the Hudson River, shortnose sturgeon use the lower Hudson and are dispersed throughout 13 the river estuary from late spring to early fall and then congregate to winter near Sturgeon Point 14 (RKM 139 (RM 86)). They then spawn in the spring, just downstream of the Federal Dam at 15 Troy. The population of shortnose sturgeons in the Hudson River has increased 400 percent 16 since the 1970s, according to Cornell University researchers (Bain et al. 2007). Recent work by 17 Woodland and Secor (2007) estimates a fourfold increase in sturgeon abundance over the past 18 three decades, but reports that the population growth slowed in the late 1990s, as evidenced by 19 the nearly constant recruitment pattern at depressed levels relative to the 1986-1992 year 20 classes. Although the Hudson River appears to support the largest population of shortnose 21 sturgeons, Bain et al. (2007) report that other populations along the Atlantic coast are also 22 increasing, and some appear to be nearing safe levels, suggesting that the overall population 23 could recover if full protection and management continues. 24 2.2.5.6 Other Potentially Affected Aquatic Resources 25 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton 26 Phytoplankton and zooplankton communities often form the basis of the food web in rivers and 27 estuaries. The phytoplankton in the Hudson River generally fall into three major categories-28 diatoms, green algae, and blue-green algae. Diatoms are abundant through most of the year, 29 but reach peak densities when water temperatures are low and watershed runoff and river flows 30 are high. Green algae are present in highest abundances during the summer, when river flows 31 are low and water temperatures are relatively high. Blue-green algae are generally present in 32 late summer and early fall (CHGEC 1999). 33 Zooplankton populations in the Hudson River are divided into two major categories-34 holoplankton, which spend their entire live cycle as plankton, and meroplankton, which include 35 the eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish that spend only a part of their life cycle in the planktonic 36 community. Holoplankton in the brackish areas of the Hudson River from approximately IP2 37 and IP3 downstream (RM 40 (RKM 64)) are generally dominated by marine species; 38 holoplankton from Poughkeepsie north (RM 68 (RKM 109)) are generally dominated by 39 freshwater forms (Figure 2-6). Zooplankton sampling from Haverstraw Bay to Albany from April 40 to December 1987-1989 identified five numerically dominant taxa-the cyclopoid copepod, 41 Oiacyc/ops bicuspidatus thomasi; the cladoceran, Bosmina /ongirostris; and the rotifers 42 Keratella spp., Po/yarthra spp., and Trichocera spp. (CHGEC 1999). Work by Lonsdale et al. 43 (1996) suggests that larger (greater than 64 microns (0.0025 in.)) zooplankton species that 44 include both mesozooplankton and micrometazoa have a minimal role in controlling total Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-78 December 2008 OAG10001366_00113
Plant and the Environment 1 phytoplankton biomass in the lower Hudson River estuary. Grazing pressure sufficient to 2 contribute to the decline of the phytoplankton standing crop occurred only during the month of 3 October. 4 Phytoplankton communities in the freshwater portion of the Hudson River are susceptible to 5 predation by the zebra mussel, Oreissena polymorpha. Work by Roditi et al. (1996) suggests 6 that the mussels are able to remove Hudson River phytoplankton effectively in the presence of 7 sediment and can do so at rapid rates. The authors indicate that, based on their measurements 8 and unpublished estimates of the size of the zebra mussel population, the mussels present in 9 the upper stretches of the river can filter a volume equivalent to the entire freshwater portion of 10 the Hudson River every 2 days. Strayer suggests that they filter a volume of water equal to all 11 of the water in the estuarine Hudson every 1-4 days during the summer (2007). Significant 12 declines in zooplankton biomass were also reported after the introduction of the mussel (Pace 13 et al. 1998). Work by Strayer et al. (2004) suggests that the long-term impacts of zebra mussel 14 removal of phytoplankton and zooplankton have profoundly affected the food web in the Hudson 15 River, resulting in a shift of open-water species to downriver locations away from the mussels 16 and a shift of littoral species upriver. The resulting changes affected a variety of commercially 17 and recreationally important species, including American shad and black bass, illustrating the 18 importance of zooplankton and phytoplankton in food webs associated with the freshwater 19 portion of the Hudson River (Strayer et al. 2004). 20 Aquatic Macrophyte Communities 21 Aquatic macrophyte communities provide food and shelter to a variety of fish and invertebrate 22 communities and are an important component of the Hudson River ecososystem. Macrophyte 23 communities are generally divided into three broad groups that include emergent macrophytes, 24 floating-leaved macrophytes, and submerged macrophytes (also known as SAV). Emergent 25 macrophytes in the Hudson River generally occur near the shoreline to a water depth of about 265ft (1.5 m) and have leaves that rise out of the water. Floating leaved macrophytes are 27 attached to the bottom and have floating leaves and long, flexible stems. Submerged 28 macrophytes are found beneath the water surface at a depth related to the clarity of the water 29 (CHGEC 1999). The composition and distribution of aquatic macrophyte communities vary 30 along the river and is controlled by physical characteristics and season. Work by Findlay et al. 31 (2006) shows that the densities of macroinvertebrates in SA V beds were more than three times 32 as high as densities on unvegetated sediments, suggesting that SA V beds may be the richest 33 feeding grounds in the Hudson River estuary for fish. Further, the authors also noted that many 34 species of macroinvertebrates that are common in aquatic macrophyte beds are rare or absent 35 from unvegetated sites. 36 SAV beds in the Hudson are represented by two predominant species-the native submerged 37 eel grass Vallisneria americana and the introduced water chestnut, Trapa natans (Findlay et al. 38 2006). CHGEC (1999) identified 18 species of submergent aquatic vegetation between 39 Kingston and Nyack, including nine species of Potamogeton (pondweed), and Elodea sp. 40 (common pondweeds used in aquaria), and a variety of other species. Historical and recent 41 work has shown that SAV occupies major portions of some reaches of the Hudson River, when 42 present, and can cover as much as 25 percent of the river bottom (Findlay et al. 2006). New 43 York State has been studying the SAV in the Hudson River estuary from the Troy Dam south to 44 Yonkers since 1995. Using true color aerial photography, researchers from Cornell University 45 and the New York Sea Grant Extension inventoried the spatial extent of the SAV and water December 2008 2-79 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00114
Plant and the Environment 1 chestnut (T. natans) beds from 1995 to 1997 and in 2002. They determined that vegetated area 2 constitutes roughly 8 percent of total river surface area with V. americana three times as 3 abundant as T. natans. Plant coverage over the entire study area from the Troy Dam to 4 Yonkers was about 6 percent of the river bottom area for V. americana and 2 percent for 5 T. natans, although the distribution of both plants varies greatly among reaches of the tidal 6 freshwater Hudson River (Nieder et al. 2004). According to NYSDEC (2007a), there has been a 7 9-percent decline in all SAV and a 7-percent gain in water chestnut. 8 Coastal Marshes, Wetlands, and Riparian Zones 9 Coastal marshes, tidal wetlands, and associated riparian zones are found along the lower 10 Hudson River. Vegetation in these areas includes emergent grasses, sedges, and other plants 11 adapted to nearshore conditions that often experience changes in runoff, salinity, and 12 temperature. FWS has identified the area extending from the Battery north to Stony Point at the 13 northern end of Haverstraw Bay as Lower Hudson River Estuary Complex #21 (FWS 2008a). 14 Within this complex there are many significant wetland habitats, including a regionally significant 15 nursery and wintering habitat for a variety of anadromous, estuarine, and marine fish, as well as 16 a migratory area for birds and fish that feed on abundant prey items. 17 Recognizing the importance of coastal wetlands, tidal marshes, and riparian zones, NOAA, 18 partnering with NYSDEC, identified four locations along the lower Hudson River estuary for 19 inclusion in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System in 1982 (NOAA 2008a). The 20 areas, from north to south, are Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bay, lona Island, and Piermont Marsh; 21 they collectively represent over 4800 acres (1900 ha) of protected habitat. 22 Stockport Flats is the northernmost site in the Hudson River Reserve and is located on the east 23 shore of the river in Columbia County near the city of Hudson. This site is a narrow, 5-mi-long 24 landform that includes Nutten Hook, Gay's Point, Stockport Middle Ground Island, the Hudson 25 River Islands State Park, a portion of the upland bluff south of Stockport Creek, and dredge 26 spoils and tidal wetlands between Stockport Creek and Priming Hook. The dominant features of 27 Stockport Flats include freshwater tidal wetlands that contain subtidal shallows, intertidal 28 mudflats, intertidal shores, tidal marshes, and floodplain swamps (NOAA 2008a). 29 Tivoli Bay extends for 2 mi along the east shore of the Hudson River between the villages of 30 Tivoli and Barrytown, in the Dutchess County town of Red Hook. The site includes two large 31 coves on the east shore-Tivoli North Bay, a large intertidal marsh, and Tivoli South Bay, a 32 large, shallow cove with mudflats. The site also includes an extensive upland buffer area 33 bordering North Tivoli Bay. Habitats at this site include freshwater intertidal marshes, open 34 waters, riparian areas, shallow subtidal areas, mudflats, tidal swamps, and mixed forest uplands 35 (NOAA 2008a). 36 lona Island is located near the Town of Stony Point in Rockland County, 6 mi south of West 37 Point. This bedrock island is located in the vicinity of the Hudson Highlands and is bordered to 38 the west and the southwest by Salisbury and Ring Meadows. In the early 20th century, filling 39 activities connected Round Island to the south end of lona Island. There is approximately 1 mi 40 of marsh and shallow water habitat between lona Island and the west shore of the Hudson 41 River, and the area includes brackish intertidal mudflats, brackish tidal marsh, freshwater tidal 42 marsh, and deciduous forested uplands. 43 Piermont Marsh lies at the southern edge of the village of Piermont, 4 mi south of Nyack. The 44 marsh is located on the west shore of the Tappan Zee region near the town of Orangetown in Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-80 December 2008 OAG10001366_00115
Plant and the Environment 1 Rockland County. The site includes 2 mi of shoreline south of the mile-long Erie Pier and the 2 mouth of Sparkill Creek. Habitats at this location include brackish tidal marshes, shallows, and 3 intertidal mud flats. 4 2.2.5.7 Nuisance Species 5 Zebra Mussel 6 In the early 1990s, the nonnative zebra mussel, Oieissena polymorpha, made its first 7 appearance in the freshwater portions of the Hudson River estuary. Beginning in early fall 8 1992, zebra mussels have been dominant in the freshwater tidal Hudson, constituting more than 9 half of heterotrophic biomass, and filtering a volume of water equal to all of the water in the 10 estuary every 1-4 days during the summer (Strayer 2007). The mussel's range extends from 11 Poughkeepsie to the Troy Dam, with the highest densities occurring between Saugerites and 12 Albany (CHGEC 1999; Strayer et al. 2004; Caraco et al. 1997). The presence of the mussels 13 resulted in a decrease in phytoplankton biomass of 80 percent (Caraco et al. 1997) and a 14 decrease of zooplankton abundance of 70 percent (Pace et al. 1998). Water chemistry was 15 also altered, as phosphate and nitrate concentrations increased and DO concentrations 16 decreased after the mussels were established (CHGEC 1999; Caraco et al. 2000). Caraco et 17 al. (2000) indicated that these effects fundamentally changed food web relationships in the river 18 and may have had a significant impact on many fish species. 19 Work by Strayer et al. (2004) found that open-water species such as Alosa spp. (shad and 20 herring) exhibited a decreased abundance in response to Zebra mussel introduction, while the 21 abundance of littoral species such as centrarchids (sunfish) increased. The median decrease in 22 abundance of open-water species was 28 percent, and the median increase in abundance of 23 littoral species was 97 percent. The authors also noted that populations of open-water species 24 shifted downriver, away from the zebra mussel population, while littoral species shifted upriver. 25 Growth rates of open-water and littoral species were also affected by the mussels. Strayer and 26 Smith (1996) found impacts to unionid bivalve mussels (Elliptio complanata, Anodonta implicata, 27 Leptodea ochracea) such as decreasing densities and incidences of infestations. After the 28 arrival of the zebra mussel, the authors reported that densities of these three unionid clam 29 species fell by 56 percent, recruitment of YOY union ids fell by 90 percent, and the biological 30 condition of unionids fell by 20-50 percent, with E. complanata less severely affected than the 31 other two. Strayer and Smith (1996) suggest that the impacts to these species may be 32 associated with both competition for food and biofouling by zebra mussels. 33 The work of Strayer, Caraco, Pace, and others has raised important questions and issues 34 concerning the nature of impacts to fish communities from exotic or introduced species, the 35 management of fish populations affected by these species, and the need to carefully consider 36 all potential environmental stressors present when assessing the reasons for fish or invertebrate 37 population declines. Changes in abundance and distribution in the freshwater portion of the 38 Hudson River estuary involved many recreationally and commercially important species, 39 including striped bass (M. saxatilis), American shad (A. sapidissima), redbreast sunfish, and 40 black bass (Micropterus spp.). The changes Strayer et al. (2004) documented since 1992 41 include overall decreases in abundance, redistribution of species up- or downriver in relation to 42 the mussels and fundamental changes to food webs because of the filtration activity of the 43 mussels. December 2008 2-81 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00116
Plant and the Environment 1 Recent work by Strayer and Malcom (2006) suggests that there are still significant gaps in 2 understanding about the biology and life cycle of the zebra mussel in the Hudson River. The 3 researchers used a combination of long-term data and simulation modeling. The authors 4 evaluated mussel population size, adult growth, and body condition and found considerable 5 interannual variation in these factors that was not strongly correlated with phytoplankton 6 population. The data suggested a 2- to 4-year population cycle that was driven by large 7 interannual variations in recruitment. Strayer and Malcolm's (2006) work indicates that a 8 complete understanding of the potential effects of this species on aquatic food webs, and thus 9 recreationally, commercially, or ecologically important fish and invertebrate species and 10 communities requires a better understanding of the factors affecting the zebra mussel life cycle 11 in the Hudson River than currently exists. 12 Water Chestnut 13 The water chestnut, Trapa natans, was first observed in North America in 1859 near Concord, 14 Massachusetts (FWS 2004). Currently, the plant is found in Maryland, Massachusetts, New 15 York, and Pennsylvania. The most problematic populations are found in the Connecticut River 16 Valley, Lake Champlain region, and the Hudson, Potomac and Delaware Rivers (FWS 2004). 17 Water chestnut impacts to water bodies can include increasing sedimentation and reducing DO, 18 as well as developing dense mats that cause competition for nutrients and space with other 19 species (lPCNYS 2008). 20 According to CHGEC (1999), the water chestnut was introduced into the upper Hudson River in 21 the late 1880s and was established by the 1930s. An eradication program was begun by the 22 NYSDEC using the herbicide 2,4-0, but the program was discontinued in 1976. Since 1976, the 23 water chestnut beds have expanded into dense stands in available habitat in the fresh and low-24 salinity brackish areas of the estuary, and as of 1999, the exotic water chestnut was the 25 dominant form of rooted vegetation in shallow areas of the estuary upstream of Constitution 26 Island (RM 53 (RKM 85)). CHGEC (1999) indicates that water chestnut beds in some parts of 27 the Hudson River are now so dense that they have adversely affected water circulation, lowered 28 DO concentrations, and altered fish communities. 29 Ctenophores 30 Members of the phylum Ctenophora, variously known as comb jellies, sea gooseberries, sea 31 walnuts, or Venus's girdles, are genatinous marine carnivores that are present in marine and 32 estuarine waters from the sea surface to depths of several thousand meters. Ctenophores are 33 characterized by eight rows of cilia that are used for locomotion. Cilia rows are organized into 34 stacks of "combs" or "ctenes"; hence the name comb jellies. Ctenophore morphology can range 35 from simple sac-like shapes without tentacles, to large, multilobed individuals equipped with 36 adhesive cells called colloblasts. Worldwide, there are probably 100 to 150 species, but most 37 are poorly known and are challenging to collect and study because of their fragility. (Haddock 38 2007) 39 As members of the zooplankton community, ctenophores influence marine and estuarine food 40 webs by preying on a variety of eggs and larvae. Predator-prey relationships between the 41 ctenophore Mnemiopsis /eidyi and eggs of the bay anchovy (A. mitchel/i) have been described 42 by Purcell et al. (1994) in the Chesapeake Bay, and Deason (1982) described a similar 43 relationship between M. /eidyi and Acartia tonsa, a copepod prey species. Similarly, the NRC 44 staff finds it possible that during certain times of the year, ctenophore predation may influence Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-82 December 2008 OAG10001366_00117
Plant and the Environment 1 zooplankton abundance in the higher salinity portions of the Hudson River. Laboratory studies 2 evaluating the feeding and functional morphology of M. mccradyi by Larson (1988) provided 3 new information concerning how prey are captured by ctenophores, but there is little field 4 information available on predator-prey dynamics in natural systems, primarily because of the 5 difficulties associated with field collections. At present, the impact of ctenophores on 6 zooplankton, eggs, and larvae in the lower portions of the Hudson River is unknown. 7 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 8 This section describes the terrestrial resources of the IP2 and IP3 site and its immediate vicinity, 9 including plants and animals of the upland areas, an onsite freshwater pond, and riparian areas 10 along the river shoreline. 11 2.2.6.1 Description of Site Terrestrial Environment 12 As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the IP2 and IP3 site includes 239 acres (96.7 ha) 13 on the east bank of the Hudson River. The property is bordered by the river on the west and the 14 north (Lents Cove), a public road (Broadway) on the east, and privately owned industrial 15 property on the south. The site is hilly, with elevations rising to about 150 ft (46 m) above the 16 level of the river at the highest point. The site is enclosed by a security fence that follows the 17 property line. Developed areas covered by facilities and pavement occupy over half of the site 18 (134 acres (54.2 ha)), predominantly in the central and southern portions. Outside the central 19 portion of the site where the reactors and associated generator buildings are located, small 20 tracts of forest totaling approximately 25 acres (10 ha) are interspersed among the paved areas 21 and facilities. Maintained areas of grass cover about 7 acres (2.8 ha) of the site. The northern 22 portion of the site is covered by approximately 70 acres (28 ha) of forest (Entergy 2007a). 23 Within this forested area is a 2.4-acre (0.97-ha) freshwater pond (Entergy 2007a; NRC 1975). 24 The New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Westchester County indicates that there are 25 no streams or wetlands on the site (NYSDEC 2004c). 26 The site is within the northeastern coastal zone of the eastern temperate forest ecoregion (EPA 27 2007). The forest vegetation of the site and adjacent areas was characterized by a survey 28 performed in the early 1970s, before the completion of construction of IP3 (NRC 1975). At that 29 time, the canopy of this forest included a mixture of hardwoods such as red oak (Quercus 30 rubra), white oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), chestnut oak (Q. prinus), shagbark hickory 31 (Carya ovata), black cherry (Prunus serotina), tulip tree (Liriodendron tu/ipifera), river birch 32 (Betula nigra), and maple (Acer spp.), as well as conifers such as eastern hemlock (Tsuga 33 canadensis) and white pine (Pinus strobus). The subcanopy included sassafras (Sassafras 34 albidum) and sumac (Rhus spp.). The shrub layer included swamp juneberry (Ame/anchier 35 intermedia), summer grape (Vitis aestiva/is), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Virginia 36 creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefo/ia); and the herbaceous layer included forbs such as 37 wildflowers and ferns (NRC 1975). This forest community covers the riverfront north of the 38 reactor facilities, surrounds the pond in the northeast corner of the site, and exists in fragmented 39 stands in the eastern and southern areas of the site. The vegetation in the developed areas of 40 the site consists mainly of turf grasses and planted shrubs and trees around buildings, parking 41 areas, and roads. 42 The animal community of the site has not been surveyed but likely consists of fauna typical of 43 mixed hardwood forest habitats in the region. Birds that have been observed breeding in the December 2008 2-83 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00118
Plant and the Environment 1 area of northwestern Westchester County and that utilize habitats such as the forest, pond, and 2 riverfront habitats present on and adjacent to the site include the great blue heron (Ardea 3 herodias), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas p/atyrhynchos), wood duck (Aix 4 sponsa), wild turkey (Me/eagris gal/opavo), Cooper's hawk (Accipitercooperil), pileated 5 woodpecker (Dryocopus pi/eatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American robin (Turdus 6 migratorius), and scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) (NYSDEC 2005, Dunn and Alderfer 2006). 7 Numerous waterfowl utilize the lower Hudson River in winter. In the region of southeastern New 8 York that includes Westchester County, waterfowl counts in January 2007 identified at least 22 9 species of ducks and geese, as well as loons, grebes, and cormorants (NYSOA 2007). In 10 addition to the waterfowl that use the Hudson River, raptors also forage and nest along the river. 11 For example, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us), which preys on fish and waterfowl, 12 congregates along the lower Hudson River in winter (NYSDEC 2008b, 2008c), and the 13 peregrine falcon (Fa/co peregrinus), which preys on waterfowl and other birds, nests on bridges 14 over the lower Hudson (NYSDEC 2008d, 2008e). 15 Mammals likely to occur in the forest habitats on and adjacent to the site include the gray fox 16 (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), mink (Muste/a vison), raccoon (Procyon /otof), Virginia opossum 17 (Dide/phis viginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoi/eus virginianus), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus 18 hudsonicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus /eucopus), and northern short-tailed shrew 19 (Blarina brevicauda). Aquatic mammals that may occur along and within the river include the 20 river otter (Lutra canadensis) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) (NYSDEC 2007b; Whitaker 21 1980). 22 Reptiles and amphibians likely to occur on and in the vicinity of the site include species that 23 typically inhabit upland forest habitats of the region, including the black rat snake (E/aphe 24 obso/eta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and American toad (Bufo americanus). 25 Species likely to inhabit aquatic habitats such as the 2.4-acre (0.97-ha) pond and river shoreline 26 include the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (NYSDEC 27 2007b, Conant and Collins 1998). The pond historically was used for fishing and is likely to 28 contain minnows (family Cyprinidae) and sunfishes (family Centrarchidae). 29 There are no State or Federal parks, wildlife refuges, wildlife management areas, or other State 30 or Federal lands adjacent to the site. The closest such lands to the site are two State parks, 31 Bear Mountain State Park and Harriman State Park, which are located across the Hudson River 32 approximately 1 mi and 2 mi, respectively, northwest of the site at their closest points (Entergy 33 2007a). In addition, a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, referred to as "Hudson RM 34 44-56," begins approximately 1 mi north of the site and extends upriver. Significant Coastal 35 Fish and Wildlife Habitats are designated by the New York Department of State, Division of 36 Coastal Resources. Hudson RM 44-56 provides important habitat for wintering bald eagles as 37 well as waterfowl (NYSDOS 2004). 38 Of the total 4000 ft (1220 m) of transmission line, approximately 3500 ft (1070 m) traverses 39 buildings, roads, parking lots, and other developed areas. As a result, the total length of the 40 ROWs that is vegetated is only about 500 ft (150 m). The ROWs are approximately 150 ft 41 (46 m) wide, and the vegetation within the ROWs is mainly grasses and forbs. The 42 transmission lines included in this draft SEIS are those that were originally constructed for the 43 purpose of connecting IP2 and IP3 to the existing transmission system. These two lines are 44 described in more detail in Section 2.1.7. Each line is approximately 2000 ft (610 m) in length, 45 all of which is within the site except for a terminal, 100-ft (30-m) segment of each that crosses Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-84 December 2008 OAG10001366_00119
Plant and the Environment 1 the facility boundary and Broadway to connect to the Buchanan substation (Entergy 2005b; 2 NRC 1975). 3 2.2.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species 4 Two species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered and one candidate species 5 have been identified by FWS as known or likely to occur in Westchester County. These are the 6 endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodaJis), the threatened bog turtle (C/emmys muhlenbergil), 7 and the candidate New England cottontail (Sylvi/agus transitionaJis) (FWS 2008b). In addition, 8 194 species that are listed by the State of New York as endangered, threatened, species of 9 special concern (animals), or rare (plants) have a potential to occur in Westchester County 10 based on recorded observations or their geographic ranges. The identities, listing status, and 11 preferred habitats of these federally and State-listed species are provided in Table 2-6. 12 Federally Listed Species 13 The three federally listed species are discussed below. In addition to these species that 14 currently have a Federal listing status, a recently delisted species, the bald eagle, also occurs in 15 Westchester County. On July 9,2007, FWS issued a rule in the Federal Register 16 (72 FR 37346) removing the bald eagle from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 17 Wildlife, effective August 8,2007. As discussed above, bald eagles winter in substantial 18 numbers in the vicinity of the site, particularly in a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat 19 area upstream of the site from RM 44 to 56 (RKM 70 to 90) (NYSDOS 2004). Bald eagles also 20 have nested in recent years at locations along the Hudson River in the vicinity of the site. In 21 New York, the breeding season generally extends from March to July, and in the southeastern 22 part of the state, wintering eagles begin to arrive in November and congregate in greatest 23 numbers in February. Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and tail and a yellow 24 bill. Juveniles are completely brown with a gray bill until they are mature at about 5 years of 25 age. The bald eagle feeds primarily on fish but also preys on waterfowl, shorebirds, small 26 mammals, and carrion (NYSDEC 2008b). 27 Indiana Bat 28 The Indiana bat (Myotis sodaJis) currently is listed as endangered under the Endangered 29 Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Critical habitat for the Indiana bat 30 was designated in 1976 (41 FR 41914) at eleven caves and two mines in six States (Missouri, 31 Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia). There is no designated critical 32 habitat in New York. 33 The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat with a head and body length slightly under 2 in. (5.1 cm), 34 a wing span of 9 to 11 in. (23 to 28 cm), a weight of approximately 0.3 ounces (8.5 g), and a life 35 span of about 10 years (FWS 2002, FWS 2007a). It feeds on flying insects captured in flight at 36 night as it forages in forested areas, forest edges, fields, riparian areas, and over water. Indiana 37 bats are migratory and hibernate in large colonies in caves or mines (hibernacula). Hibernacula 38 may support from fewer than 50 to more than 10,000 Indiana bats (FWS 2007a). In New York, 39 hibernation may last from September to May. After emerging in spring, the bats may migrate 40 hundreds of miles to summer habitats, where they typically roost during the day under bark 41 separating from the trunks of dead trees or in other tree crevices (FWS 2007a). Reproductive 42 females congregate in maternity colonies of up to 100 or more bats, where they give birth and 43 care for their single young until it can fly, usually at 1 to 2 months of age (FWS 2007a). Males December 2008 2-85 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00120
Plant and the Environment 1 and nonreproductive females generally roost individually or in small colonies and may remain 2 near their hibernaculum rather than migrating (FWS 2007a). 3 The Indiana bat occurs in 20 States in the eastern United States from New England to the 4 Midwest, mainly within the central areas of this region from Vermont to southern Wisconsin, 5 eastern Oklahoma, and Alabama. In summer, Indiana bat maternity colonies and individuals 6 may occur throughout this range. In winter, populations are distributed among approximately 7 280 hibernacula in 19 States (FWS 2007a). New York has a total of 10 known hibernacula in 8 caves and mines in Albany, Essex, Jefferson, Onondaga, Ulster, and Warren Counties (NYNHP 9 2008a). The nearest of these counties to the site is Ulster County, which is about 20 mi (32 km) 10 to the north of the site at its closest point. The two largest hibernating colonies in New England 11 (estimated populations in 2005 of over 11,300 and 15,400) are in two abandoned mines located 12 in Ulster County approximately 45 mi (72 km) north of the site near the Town of Rosendale 13 (FWS 2007a; Sanders and Chenger 2001). The larger of these is among the 10 largest Indiana 14 bat hibernacula in the country (NYNHP 2008a). There are 13 general areas in the State where 15 maternity and bachelor colonies are known to occur in summer. Hibernacula, maternity 16 colonies, and bachelor colonies are not known to be present in Westchester County or the 17 vicinity of the site, although Westchester County is within the potential range of the Indiana bat 18 in New York (NYNHP 2008a). Given the presence of large hibernacula within migration 19 distance of the site and the presence of suitable foraging habitat and possible roosting trees in 20 the forest at the north end of the site, the NRC staff finds it possible that Indiana bats may use 21 this area as summer habitat. 22 Bog Turtle 23 The northern population of the bog turtle (C/emmys muhlenbergil), which occurs in Connecticut, 24 Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, was federally 25 listed as threatened in 1997 under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 ef seq.). The southern population 26 was listed as threatened because of its similarity of appearance to the northern population. The 27 two populations are discontinuous. The southern population occurs mainly in the Appalachian 28 Mountains from southern Virginia through the Carolinas to northern Georgia and eastern 29 Tennessee (FWS 2001). In New York, the bog turtle occurs in the central and southeastern 30 parts of the State, primarily in the Hudson Valley region (NYSDEC 2008f, 2008g). 31 The bog turtle is one of the smallest turtles in North America. Its upper shell is 3 to 4 in. (7.6 to 32 10 cm) long and light brown to black in color, and each side of its black head has a distinctive 33 patch of color that is bright orange to yellow. Its life span may be 40 years or longer. The bog 34 turtle is diurnal and semiaquatic; it forages on land and in water for its varied diet of insects and 35 other invertebrates, frogs, plants, and carrion (FWS 2001; NYNHP 2008b). In southeastern 36 New York, the bog turtle usually is active from the first half of April to the middle of September 37 and hibernates the remainder of the year underwater in soft mud and crevices (FWS 2001). 38 Northern bog turtles primarily inhabit wetlands fed by ground water or associated with the 39 headwaters of streams and dominated by emergent vegetation. These habitats typically have 40 shallow, cool water that flows slowly and vegetation that is early successional, with open 41 canopies and wet meadows of sedges (Carex spp.). Other herbs commonly present include 42 spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.) and bulrushes (Juncus spp. and Scirpus spp.) (FWS 2001). Bog 43 turtle habitats in the Hudson River Valley also frequently include sphagnum moss (Sphagnum 44 spp.) and horsetail (Equisefum spp.) (NYNHP 2008b). Commonly associated woody plants 45 include alders (Alnus spp.) and willows (Salix spp.) (FWS 2001; NYNHP 2008b). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-86 December 2008 OAG10001366_00121
Plant and the Environment 1 Of the 74 historic bog turtle locations recorded in New York, over half still may provide suitable 2 habitat. However, populations are known to exist currently at only one-fourth of these locations, 3 principally in southeastern New York (NYSDEC 200Sf). The New York Natural Heritage 4 Program (NYNHP) database contains locations in northwestern Westchester County where the 5 bog turtle has been recorded as occurring historically. Although there were a few records 6 during the 1990s of bog turtles in Westchester County, the NYNHP states that "it is not known if 7 any extant populations remain in this county" (NYNHP 200Sb). According to the data collected S for the New York State Reptile and Amphibian Atlas for the period 1990 to 2007, the only 9 reported occurrence of the bog turtle in Westchester County was near the eastern border of the 10 State (NYSDEC 200Sg). The New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map for Westchester 11 County (NYSDEC 2004c) indicates that there are no wetlands on the IP2 and IP3 site. The 12 nearest offsite wetland, which is adjacent to the north end of the site, is located on the east side 13 of Broadway and drains under the roadway to Lent's Cove. Its potential to provide bog turtle 14 habitat was not evaluated. The 2.4-acre (0.97-ha) pond in the northern portion of the site is 15 surrounded by mature forest with a closed canopy and does not provide the highly specialized 16 wetland habitat (early successional wet meadows) required by the bog turtle. While 17 acknowledging that the wetland nearest to the site has not been evaluated for the presence of 1S the bog turtle, the NRC staff notes that there is no suitable habitat on the site and there are no 19 recently recorded occurrences of the bog turtle in portions of Westchester County near the plant 20 site. Thus, the NRC staff finds that the bog turtle is unlikely to occur on the site or in the 21 immediate vicinity of the site. 22 New England Cottontail 23 The New England cottontail (Sy/vi/agus transitionalis) is a Federal candidate for listing as an 24 endangered or threatened species (72 FR 69034) and is State-listed as a species of special 25 concern in New York (NYSDEC 200Sh). It is similar in appearance to the more common and 26 widespread eastern cottontail (S. floridanus). The New England cottontail can often be 27 distinguished from the eastern cottontail by its slightly smaller size, shorter ears, darker fur, 2S black spot between the ears, and black line at the front edge of the ears (NYNHP 200Sc). 29 Cottontails have short life spans and reproduce at an early age. Breeding season for the New 30 England cottontail typically is from March to September (NYNHP 200Sc). There may be two to 31 three litters per year, with a usual litter size of five young and a range from three to eight (FWS 32 2007b). The diet of the species consists mainly of grasses and other herbaceous plants in 33 spring and summer and the bark, twigs, and seedlings of shrubs and other woody plants in 34 autumn and winter (NYNHP 200Sc). 35 The New England cottontail is native only to the northeastern United States. Populations 36 historically were found throughout New England. The range of this species has become 37 fragmented and currently is approximately 14 percent of its historical extent (72 FR 69034). In 3S New York, the New England cottontail currently is thought to occur only in separate populations 39 east of the Hudson River within Columbia, Dutchess, Putnam, and Westchester Counties 40 (NYNHP 200Sc). The dramatic decreases in population and range are primarily the result of 41 loss of suitable habitat. The New England cottontail requires a specialized habitat of early 42 successional vegetative growth such as thickets, open wooded areas with a dense understory, 43 and margins of agricultural fields (NYNHP 200Sc). Land development associated with the 44 growth of urban and suburban areas and the maturation of early successional forests have been 45 the primary causes of the loss of these types of habitat (69 FR 39395). December 200S 2-S7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 3S OAG10001366_00122
Plant and the Environment 1 The known locations of the New England cottontail in Westchester County are in the central and 2 northeastern areas of the county (NYNHP 2008c), not in the northwestern area where the IP2 3 and IP3 site is located. The forests on the site consist mainly of mature hardwoods and do not 4 contain early successional habitats, such as thickets, that are required by the New England 5 cottontail. Therefore, the New England cottontail is considered unlikely to occur on or in the 6 immediate vicinity of the site. 7 State-Protected Species 8 The only State-listed terrestrial species identified by NYNHP as currently occurring in the vicinity 9 of the IP2 and IP3 site is the bald eagle (NYSDEC 2007c). The only other documented 10 occurrences in the NYNHP database for the site vicinity were historical records for four plant 11 species that have not been documented in the site vicinity since 1979 or earlier (NYSDEC 12 2007c). None of the State-listed species potentially occurring in Westchester County 13 (Table 2-6) are known to occur on the site currently or to have occurred there historically. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-88 December 2008 OAG10001366_00123
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Potentially 2 Occurring in Westchester County Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Amphibians Ambystoma Jefferson sse Deciduous woodlands with a closed jeffersonianum salamander canopy and riparian habitats (1) Ambystoma blue- sse Marshes, swamps, and adjacent laterale spotted upland areas with loose soils (1) salamander Ambystoma marbled sse Near swamps and shallow pools, opacum salamander rocky hillsides and summits, and wooded sandy areas (1) Rana southern sse Wet, open areas such as sphenocephala leopard frog grasslands, marshes, and swales utricularus with slow-flowing water (2) Reptiles Carphophis eastern sse Mesic, wooded or partially wooded amoenus worm snake areas, often near wetlands or farm fields (1) Clemmys guttata spotted sse Small ponds surrounded by turtle undisturbed vegetation, marshes, swamps, and other small bodies of water (1) Clemmys wood turtle sse Hardwood forests, fields, wet insculpta pastures, woodland marshes, and other areas adjacent to streams (1) Clemmys bog turtle FT SE Wet meadows with an open canopy muhlenbergii or open boggy areas (2) Crotalus horridus timber ST Mountainous or hilly areas with rocky rattlesnake outcrops and steep ledges in deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forests (2) Heterodon eastern sse Open woods and margins, platyrhinos hog nose grasslands, agricultural fields, and snake other habitats with loose soils (1) Sceloporus northern ST Open, rocky areas on steep slopes undulatus fence lizard surrounded by oak-dominated forests (2) December 2008 2-89 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00124
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Terrapene eastern box sse Forests, grasslands, and wet carolina turtle meadows (1) Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper's sse Mixed hardwood-coniferous forests, hawk commonly near water (1) Accipiter gentilis northern sse Mature mixed hardwood-coniferous goshawk forests (1) Accipiter striatus sharp- sse Forests, open woods, and old fields (1) shinned hawk Ammodramus seaside sse Coastal tidal marshes with emergent maritimus sparrow vegetation (2) Ammodramus grasshoppe sse Grasslands and abandoned fields (1) savannarum r sparrow Buteo lineatus red- sse Open, moist forests and swamp shouldered margins (3) hawk Caprimulgus whip-poor- sse Dry to moist open forests (1) vociferous will Chordeiles minor common sse Open coniferous woods, grasslands, nighthawk and near populated areas (1) Circus cyaneus northern ST Salt and freshwater marshes, harrier shrubland, and open grassy areas (2) Cistothorus sedge wren ST Moist meadows with small bushes, platensis boggy areas, and coastal brackish marshes (2) Dendroica cerulean sse Wet, mature hardwood forests with a cerulea warbler dense canopy (1) Falco peregrinus peregrine SE Holes or ledges in the rock on cliff falcon faces, and on top of brid9:es or tall buildings in urban areas 2) Haliaeetus bald eagle ST Shorelines of large water bodies, leucocee.halus such as lakes, rivers, and bays (2) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-90 December 2008 OAG10001366_00125
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6. (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c)
/cteria virens yellow- sse Thickets, overgrown pastures, breasted woodland understory, margins of chat ponds and swamRs, and near populated areas 1) /xobrychus exilis least bittern ST Large marshes with stands of emergent vegetation (2)
Me/anerpes red-headed sse Open forests and developed areas erythrocepha/us woodpecker with trees, such as parks and gardens (1) Pandion Osprey sse Large bodies of water such as lakes, haliaetus rivers, and seacoasts (1) Podi/ymbus pied-billed ST Marshes and shorelines of ponds, podiceps grebe shallow lakes or slow-moving streams in areas with emergent vegetation and open water ) Rallus e/egans king rail ST Shallow fresh to salt marshes with substantial emergent vegetation (2) Vermivora golden- sse Recently abandoned agricultural chrysoptera winged fields surrounded by trees, open warbler areas of dense herbaceous vegetation (1) Mammals Myotis sodalis Indiana bat FE SE Wooded areas with living, dying, and dead trees during the summer; caves and mines in the winter (2) Sy/vi/agus New Fe sse Disturbed areas, open woods, areas transitionalis England with shrubs and thickets, marshes (2) cottontail rabbit Insects Callophrys Henry's elfin sse Borders and clearings of pine-oak henrici woods (4) Erynnis persius Persius SE Stream banks, marshes, bogs, duskywing mountain prairies, and sand plains (4) December 2008 2-91 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00126
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Pontia proto dice checkered sse Dry, open habitats such as fields, white roads, railroad tracks, weedy vacant lots, and sandy areas (4) Speyeriaida/ia regal SE Wet fields and meadows, marshes (4) fritillary Tachopteryx gray sse Rocky gorges in forests with small thoreyi petaltail streams fed by seepage areas or fens (2) Plants Acalypha Virginia SE Dry upland forests, thickets, and virginica three- prairies (5) seeded mercury Agastache yellow giant ST Open wooded areas, roadsides, nepetoides hyssop railroads, thickets, and fencerows (2) Ageratina small white SE Upland forests, roadsides, aromatica var. snakeroot fencerows, and old fields (6) aromatica Agrimonia woodland ST Slopes, streambanks, and thickets in rostel/ata agrimony rich, mesic forests and wooded pastures (2) Amaranthus sea beach SE Sparsely vegetated areas of barrier pumilus amaranth island beaches and inlets (1) Aplectrum Puttyroot SE Upland to swampy forests (2) hyemale Arethusa bulbosa dragon's ST Sphagnum swamps and wet mouth meadows (2) orchid Aristolochia Virginia SE Well-drained, rocky slopes of rich serpentaria snakeroot wooded areas (2) Asclepias white SE Open wooded areas and thickets (7) variegata milkweed Asclepias green ST Dry, rocky hillsides, grasslands, and viridiflora milkweed open areas (2) Bidens beckii water ST Slow-moving or still waters (6) marigold Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-92 December 2008 OAG10001366_00127
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Bidens Delmarva SR Borders of freshwater tidal marshes bidentoides beggar-ticks and mudflats (2) Bidens /aevis smooth bur- ST Freshwater to brackish tidal marshes marigold and mudflats (2) B/ephilia ciliata downy SE Shallow soils of disturbed areas wood mint such as fields and powerline ROWs (2) Bo/boschoenus seaside SE Alkaline or saline marshes, pond maritimus bulrush edges, and transient wet areas (8) pa/udosus Bo/boschoenus saltmarsh SE Brackish tidal marshes (2) novae-angliae bulrush Botrychium blunt-lobe SE Rich, moist soils of deciduous oneidense grape fern forests (2) Boute/oua side-oats SE Dry, open areas and disturbed lands curtipendu/a var. grama such as powerline ROWs, pastures, curtipendu/a and bluffs along rivers (2) Callitriche terrestrial ST Exposed, muddy ground in pastures, terrestris starwort forests, and on the banks of ponds (2) Cardamine /ongii Long's ST Shady tidal creeks, swamps, and bittercress mudflats (2) Carex abscondita thicket ST Swamps, wooded streambanks, sedge mesic forests, and shrublands (2) Carex arcta northern SE Edges of reservoirs and rivers, clustered wooded swamps, swales, and wet sedge meadows (2) Carex bicknellii Bicknell's ST Open woods, dry to mesic prairies, sedge rocky areas with sparse vegetation (6) Carex conjuncta soft fox SE Edges of streams, thickets, swales, sedge and wet meadows (2) Carex cumu/ata clustered ST Open rocky areas with shallow soils, sedge such as powerline ROWs, recently burned areas, or other successional habitats (2) December 2008 2-93 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00128
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Carex davisii Davis' ST Near rivers, on open gravel bars of sedge large rivers, in wet meadows, and disturbed areas (2) Carex marsh straw ST Coastal salt and brackish tidal hormathodes sedge marshes, swales on beaches, edges of swamps, and wet forests near the coast (2) Carex false hop SR Swamps, marshes, and floodplain
/upuliformis sedge forests (2)
Carex midland SE Dry prairies, oak forests, and mesochorea sedge roadsides (2) Carex Mitchell's ST Edges of streams and ponds, mitchelliana sedge swamps, and wet meadows (2) Carex mo/esta troublesome ST Open wooded areas and fields (2) sedge Carex black edge SE Dry to mesic rocky areas in nigromarginata sedge deciduous forests (2) Carex retrof/exa reflexed SE Rocky ledges, openings and edges sedge of dry to mesic deciduous forests, and along paths and railroads (2) Carex seorsa weak ST Hardwood or conifer swamps and stellate thickets (6) sedge Carex straminea straw sedge SE Edges of swamps and marshes (2) Carex sty/of/exa bent sedge SE Wet areas of streambanks, thickets, and pine barrens; swampy woods (2) Carex typhina cattail ST Wetlands, floodplain forests, sed~e sedge meadows, and flats along rivers ( ) Carya /aciniosa big ST Rich soils in floodplains and along shellbark the banks of rivers and marshes ) hickory Castilleja scarlet SE Open areas, including on limestone coccinea Indian bedrock in prairies, and fields with paintbrush moist, sandy soils (2) Ceratophyllum prickly ST Quiet lakes, ponds, streams, and echinatum hornwort swamps (1) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-94 December 2008 OAG10001366_00129
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Chamaelirium fairy wand ST Moist woodlands, thickets, meadows,
/uteum and swamps (2)
Cheilanthes woolly lip SE Dry areas on rock outcrops and
/anosa fern ledges (2)
Chenopodium large calyx SE Coastal sands and beaches (6) ber/andieri var. goosefoot macroca/ycium Chenopodium red pigweed ST Brackish marshes and developed rubrum lands (5) Crassu/a water SE Rocky shores of rivers, marshes, and aquatica pigmyweed tidal mudflats (2) Crota/aria Rattlebox SE Sandy soils in pastures and pine sagittalis plantations (2) Cyperus globose SE Inland disturbed areas such as echinatus flatsedge roadsides and pastures (6) Cyperus yellow SE Wet, sandy soils of roadsides, flavescens flatsedge coastal pond margins, and salt marshes (2) Cyperus retrorse SE Moist to dry sandy soils in open retrorsus var. flatsedge woods and thickets (6) retrorsus Cypripedium small yellow SE Rich humus and decaying leaves on parviflorum var. ladyslipper wooded slopes and river bluffs, parviflorum moist swales, and creek margins (1) Desmodium little ST Dry upland forests and ciliare leaf glades (5) tick-trefoil Desmodium spreadi SE Dry, sandy soils in open pine humifusum ng tick- and oak forests (9) trefoil Desmodium smooth tick- SE Dry, upland forests (5)
/aevigatum trefoil Desmodium Nuttall's SE Dry, upland forests; acidic nuttallii tick-trefoil gravel seeps; and dry to mesic grasslands (5)
December 2008 2-95 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00130
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Desmodium stiff tick- SE Open woods, old fields, and obtusum trefoil grasslands (2) Desmodium small- SE Upland forests (5) pauciflorum flowered tick-trefoil Dichanthe/ium few- SE Upland forests, prairies, lake o/igosanthes var. flowered margins, and glades (5) o/igosanthes panic grass Digitaria filiformis slender ST Sandy soils in dry forests and crabgrass prairies, sandstone glades, and agricultural fields (5) Diospyros Persimmon ST Rocky slopes, dry woodlands, virginiana open pastures, and swamp margins (8) Draba reptans Carolina ST Open areas with limestone whitlow outcrops, dry sandy soils, and grass cedar glades (2) Ec/ipta prostrata false daisy SE Lake margins, mesic to wet prairies, and fields and other developed lands (5) Eleocharis knotted ST Shallow ponds in coastal areas (2) equisetoides spikerush Eleocharis ovata blunt SE Marshy areas near rivers, shallow spikerush ponds (2) Eleocharis angled SE Lake margins and shallow ponds (2) quadrangulata spikerush Eleocharis three-ribbed SE Wet depressions, edges of ponds, tricostata spikerush pine barrens, and grasslands (6) Eleocharis long- ST Lake margins, ponds, streams, tuberculosa tubercled marshes, grasslands, and disturbed spikerush lands (6) Equisetum marsh ST Wet areas such as marshes, stream palustre horsetail margins, meadows, and wooded areas (2) Equisetum meadow ST Rocky soils, riverbanks, roadsides, pratense horsetail and railroad ditches (2) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-96 December 2008 OAG10001366_00131
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Euonymus American SE Wooded areas, stream banks, and american us strawberry thickets in sandy soils (8) bush Fimbristylis marsh ST Brackish and salt marshes (6) castanea fimbry Fuirena pumila dwarf SR Pond margins, seeps, and wet umbrella grasslands and swales (6) sedge Gamochaeta purple SE Open, disturbed areas such as purpurea everlasting fields, roadsides, and edges of forests (6) Geranium Carolina ST Dry upland forests and prairies, carolinianum var. cranesbill limestone glades, agricultural fields, sphaerospermum and pastures (5) Geum vernum spring SE Organic soils of forested hillsides, avens thickets, and floodplains (1) Geum rough avens SE Hardwood forests, roadsides, virginianum wooded swamps, and riverbanks (2) Hottonia inflata Featherfoil ST Ponds and swales in coastal areas (2) Houstonia purple SE Well-drained hillsides in mesic purpurea var. bluets forests (10) purpurea Hylotelephium live forever SE Rocky cliffs and outcrops (7) telephioides Hypericum shrubby St. ST Disturbed areas such as roadsides prolificum John's wort and powerline ROWs, fields, thickets, and margins of swamps (2) Iris prismatica slender blue ST Rich, mucky soils (6) flag Jeffersonia twin leaf ST Calcareous soils in mesic forests, diphyl/a semishaded rocky hillsides, and exposed limestone (2) Lechea pulchel/a bead SE Dry to mesic upland forests (5) var. moniliformis pinweed Lechea Illinois SR Infertile or sandy soils (11) racemulosa pinweed December 2008 2-97 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00132
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Lechea tenuifolia slender ST Dry, open, grassy areas, wooded pinweed areas with pines or oaks, roCkr: hillsides, and disturbed areas 2) Lemna perpusil/a minute SE Still waters in ponds and lakes (6) duckweed Lespedeza narrow- SR Dry sandy soil (12) angustifolia leaved bush clover Lespedeza trailing bush SR Dry upland forests and dry to mesic repens clover grasslands (5) Lespedeza velvety ST Dry, rocky areas in woodlands and stuevei bush clover clearings, old fields, and roadsides (1) Lespedeza violet bush SR Dry to mesic grasslands, thickets, vio/acea clover and upland forests (5) Liatris scariosa northern ST Dry, sandy grasslands, rocky var. novae- blazing star hilltops, and sandy roadsides (2) angliae Li/aeopsis eastern ST Margins of peaty or rocky intertidal chinensis grasswort and brackish marshes (2) Limosel/a Mudwort SR Edges of freshwater pools and australis intertidal fresh to brackish water bodies (1) Linum striatum stiff yellow SR Sandy soils in mesic to wet forests, flax swamps, seeps, and lake margins (5) Liparis liliifolia large SE Peaty soils in hardwood swamps, twayblade dry wooded slopes, and railroad ditches (2) Lipocarpha dwarf SE Sandy soils along pond margins and micrantha bulrush riverbanks (2) Listera broad- SE Wet sandx soils in white cedar conval/arioides lipped swamps () twayblade Ludwigia globe- ST Margins of shallow ponds and sphaerocarpa fruited wetland channels in pine barrens, ludwigia clearings in shrub swamps (2) Lycopus rubel/us gypsy wort SE Marshes and inundated swamps (2) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-98 December 2008 OAG10001366_00133
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Lysimachia lance- SE Wet upland and floodplain forests, hybrida leaved wet prairies, lake margins, swamps, loosestrife and seeps (5) Magnolia sweetbay SE Along bays; in swamps; in wet, virginiana magnolia forested lowlands; and in grasslands (6) Melanthium Virginia SE Railroad ditches, grasslands, virginicum bunchflower marshes, and wet wooded areas (6) Mimulus alatus winged SR Muddy shores of lakes, swamps, monkey- and wet forests (5) flower Monarda basil balm SE Ravines in mesic forests, thickets, clinopodia and lakeshores (5) Oldenlandia clustered SE Sandy soils in swamps, bogs, and uniflora bluets margins of streams and reservoirs (13) Oligoneuron stiff leaf ST Dry open areas such as rocky rigidum var. goldenrod slopes, thickets, edges of forests, rigidum and grasslands (2) Onosmodium Virginia SE Open coastal uplands, inland rocky virginianum false wooded areas in dry soils (2) gromwell Orontium golden club ST Freshwater swamps and tidal aquaticum marshes, and sphagnum swamps, fens, and coastal ponds (2) Oxalis violacea violet wood ST Rich, rocky soils on steep hillsides sorrel and open summits (2) Panicum tall flat SE Mesic flatwoods and forested rigidulum var. panic grass lowlands, prairies, and edges of elongatum lakes (5) Paspalum laeve field SE Sandy soils in open woodlands and beadgrass prairies (1) Pinus virginiana Virginia pine SE Areas of poor soils such as maritime oak forests, pine/oak barrens, and rocky summits (2) December 2008 2-99 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00134
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) P/atanthera orange SE Wide range of habitats from wet, rich ciliaris fringed soils to dry, rocky mountainous orchid areas (1) P/atanthera Hooker's SE Pine or poplar forests with open hookeri orchid understories in dry to moist soils (2) Podostemum Riverweed ST In fast-flowing streams and rivers ceratophyllum with rocky bottoms (2) Po/yga/a /utea orange SE Wet, sandy soils and marshes in milkwort pine barrens (14) Po/ygonum Douglas' ST Disturbed, dry areas such as rocky doug/asii knotweed outcrops with sandy soils (6) doug/asii Po/ygonum erect SE Developed areas such as roadsides, erectum knotweed sidewalks, and lawns and floodplain forests (5) Po/ygonum sea beach SR Coastal beaches (6) g/aucum knotweed Po/ygonum tenue slender SR Dry, acidic soils in open areas such knotweed as rocky summits, scrubby wooded sites, and abandoned agricultural fields (5) Potamogeton water SE Marshes and pond margins (2) diversifolius thread pondweed Potamogeton spotted ST Ponds, marshes, and slow-moving pulcher pondweed streams and rivers (2) Pferospora giant pine SE Thick humus of coniferous forests (14) andromedea drops Pycnanthemum basil SE Rocky soils in dry forests and clinopodioides mountain grasslands (2) mint Pycnanthemum blunt ST Wet sandy soils in coastal swales, muticum mountain pond margins, swamps, and mint roadside thickets (2) Pycnanthemum Torrey's SE Dry, open areas of rocky hilltops, torrei mountain roadside ditches, and red cedar mint barrens (2) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-100 December 2008 OAG10001366_00135
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Ranunculus small- ST Partially shaded summits in micranthus flowered forests (2) crowfoot Rhynchospora long-beaked SR Wet, sandy soils of pond margins in scirpoides beakrush coastal pine barrens (2) Sabatia angularis rose pink SE Rocky soils in open woods, sandy soils, and pond margins (5) Sagittaria spongy ST Mudflats in freshwater to brackish montevidensis arrowhead tidal marshes (2) var. spongiosa Salvia Iyrata lyre leaf SE Rich, rocky soils in open forests; sage pastures with sandy soils (14) Scirpus Georgia SE Moist grasslands and borders of wet georgianus bulrush forests and marshes (2) Scleria pauciflora few- SE Mesic to wet woods, grasslands, and var. carolinian a flowered bogs (6) nutrush Scutellaria hyssop SE Fields and clearings in upland integrifolia skullcap forests, roadside ditches, swamps, and pond margins (2) Sericocarpus flax leaf ST Open woods, roadside ditches, and linifolius whitetop fields (6) Sisyrinchium Michaux's SE Fields, roadside ditches, edges of mucronatum blue-eyed forests, and coastal grasslands (2) grass Smilax Jacob's SE Rich, limestone soils in woods and pulverulenta ladder thickets (6) Solidago coastal SE Coastal freshwater to brackish latissimifolia goldenrod swamps and thickets (6) Solidago seaside SE Sand dunes and brackish marsh sempervirens goldenrod margins (6) var. mexican a Sporobolus rough rush SE Sandy soils in open forests, prairies, clan destin us grass and limestone bluffs (5) Suaeda linearis narrow leaf SE Beaches and salt marshes (6) sea blite December 2008 2-101 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00136
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Symphyotrichum northern ST Fens, clearings within coniferous boreale bog aster swamps, meadows, shores of ponds and lakes (2) Symphyotrichum saltmarsh ST Saltwater marshes, margins of tidal subulatum var. aster creeks and salt ponds, and brackish subulatum swales among sand dunes (2) Trichomanes Appalachian SE Protected cracks and crevices in intricatum bristle fern rock (1) Trichostema tiny blue SE Dry forests, old fields, rocky setaceum curls outcrops, and coastal sandy soils (13) Tripsacum northern ST Mesic grasslands and mar~ins of dactyloides gamma streams and salt marshes ) grass Trollius laxus spreading SR Limestone soils in meadows and globeflower open swamps (6) utricularia minor lesser ST Wet meadows and still waters of bladderwort shallow ponds (5) utricularia radiata small ST Ponds and slow-moving waters (2) floating bladderwort Veronica strum Culver's ST Moist prairies and woods, meadows, virginicum root and banks of streams (1) Viburnum southern ST Moist soils in open woods and edges den tatum var. arrowwood of streams (8) venosum Viburnum nudum possum SE Hardwood swamps (13) var. nudum haw Viola brittoniana coast violet SE Wet soils in borders of woodlands, meadows, and near coastal streams and rivers (1) Viola hirsutula southern SE Shallow, rocky soils in rich woods (15) wood violet Viola primulifolia primrose ST Sandy soils in marsh edges, leaf violet meadows (5) Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-102 December 2008 OAG10001366_00137
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-6 (continued) Common Federal New York Scientific Name Name Status (a) State Status (b) Habitat (c) Vilis vulpine winter grape SE Mesic to wet forests, lakeshores, agricultural fields (5) 2 (a)Federal listing status definitions: FC = Federal Candidate Species, FE = Federally Endangered, FT = Federally 3 Threatened (FWS 2008b) 4 (b) State listing status definitions: SE = State Endangered, SC = Species of Special Concern in New York, SR = State 5 Rare, ST = State Threatened (NYSDEC 2008h; NYNHP 2007) 6 (c) Habitat information sources: 7 1 NatureServe 2007 8 2 NYNHP 2008d 9 3 NYSDEC 2008i 10 4 Opler et al. 2006 11 5 Iverson et al. 1999 6 12 FNA Editorial Committee 1993+ 7 13 Niering and Olmstead 1979 8 14 NRCS 2008 9 15 CPC 2008 16 10 NCSU 2008 11 17 Nearctica 2008 18 12 Britton and Brown 1913 19 13 KSNPC 2008 20 14 Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Native Plant Information Network (NPIN) 2008 21 15 Pullen Herbarium 2008 22 2.2.7 Radiological Impacts 23 The following discussion focuses on the radiological environmental impacts and the dose 24 impacts to the public from normal plant operations at the IP2 and IP3 site. Radiological 25 releases, doses to members of the public, and the resultant environmental impacts, are 26 summarized in two IP2 and IP3 reports-the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report and 27 the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Limits for all radiological releases are 28 specified in the IP2 and IP3 ODCM and are used by Entergy to meet Federal radiation 29 protection limits and standards. 30 Radiological Environmental Impacts 31 Entergy conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) in which radiological 32 impacts to the environment and the public around the IP2 and IP3 site are monitored, 33 documented, and compared to NRC standards. Entergy summarizes the results of its REMP in 34 an Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (Entergy 2007d; all items in this section 35 also from Entergy 2007d). The objectives of the IP2 and IP3 REMPs are the following: 36
to enable the identification and quantification of changes in the radioactivity of the area 37

to measure radionuclide concentrations in the environment attributable to operations of 38 the IP2 and IP3 site 39 Environmental monitoring and surveillance have been conducted at IP2 and IP3 since 1958, 40 4 years before the startup of IP1. The preoperational program was designed and implemented 41 to determine the background radioactivity and to measure the variations in activity levels from December 2008 2-103 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00138
Plant and the Environment 1 natural and other sources in the vicinity, as well as fallout from nuclear weapons tests. The 2 preoperational radiological data include both natural and manmade sources of environmental 3 radioactivity. These background environmental data permit the detection and assessment of 4 current levels of environmental activity attributable to plant operations. 5 The REMP at IP2 and IP3 directs Entergy to sample environmental media in the environs 6 around the site to analyze and measure the radioactivity levels that may be present. The REMP 7 designates sampling locations for the collection of environmental media for analysis. These 8 sampling locations are divided into indicator and control locations. Indicator locations are 9 established near the site, where the presence of radioactivity of plant origin is most likely to be 10 detected. Control locations are established farther away (and upwind/upstream, where 11 applicable) from the site, where the level would not generally be affected by plant discharges or 12 effluents. The use of indicator and control locations enables the identification of potential 13 sources of detected radioactivity as either background or from plant operations. The media 14 samples are representative of the radiation exposure pathways to the public from all plant 15 radioactive effluents. A total of 1342 analyses was performed in 2006. This amount is higher 16 than required because of the inclusion of additional sample locations and media. 17 The REMP is used to measure the direct radiation and the airborne and waterborne pathway 18 activity in the vicinity of the IP2 and IP3 site. Direct radiation pathways include radiation from 19 buildings and plant structures, airborne material that may be released from the plant, or from 20 cosmic radiation, fallout, and the naturally occurring radioactive materials in soil, air, and water. 21 Analysis of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), which measure direct radiation, indicated 22 that there were no increased radiation levels attributable to plant operations. 23 The airborne pathway includes measurements of air, precipitation, drinking water, and broad leaf 24 vegetation samples. The airborne pathway measurements indicated that there was no 25 increased radioactivity attributable to 2006 IP2 and IP3 station operation. 26 The waterborne pathway consists of Hudson River water, fish and invertebrates, aquatic 27 vegetation, bottom sediment, and shoreline soil. Measurements of the media constituting the 28 waterborne pathway indicated that, while some very low levels of plant discharged radioactivity 29 were detected, there was no adverse radiological impact to the surrounding environment 30 attributed to IP2 and IP3 operations (Entergy 2007d). 31 2006 REMP Results 32 The following is a detailed discussion of the radionuclides detected by the 2006 REMP that may 33 be attributable to current plant operations (all information summarized from Entergy 2007d). 34 During 2006, cesium-137, strontium-90, and tritium were the only potentially plant-related 35 radionuclides detected in some environmental samples. Tritium may be present in the local 36 environment because of either natural occurrence, other manmade sources, or plant operations. 37 Small amounts of tritium were detected in one of four quarterly composite samples from the 38 discharge mixing zone (386 picocuries per liter (pCilL) (14.28 becquerel per liter (8q/L)). This 39 composite sample was detected at a value much lower than the required lower limit of detection 40 of 3000 pCilL (111 8q/L). 41 In 2006, the detected radionuclide(s) attributable to past atmospheric weapons testing consisted 42 of cesium-137 and strontium-90 in some media. The levels detected for cesium-137 were 43 consistent with the historical levels of radionuclides resulting from weapons tests as measured Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-104 December 2008 OAG10001366_00139
Plant and the Environment 1 in previous years. Before 2006, strontium-90 analysis had not been conducted since 1984, so 2 comparison to recent historical levels is not possible. However, the low levels detected in the 3 environment are consistent with decayed quantities of activity from historic atmospheric 4 weapons testing. Strontium-90 was detected in four fish and invertebrate samples, three in the 5 control samples and one in the indicator samples. Since the levels detected were comparable 6 in the indicator and control location samples, atmospheric weapons testing is the likely cause. 7 Of 18 special water samples, 5 indicated strontium-90 at levels close to the level of detection, at 8 an average of 0.78 pCilL (0.028 Bq/L). All of these detections are considered to be residual 9 levels from atmospheric weapons tests. 10 lodine-131 is also produced in fission reactors but can result from nonplant-related manmade 11 sources (e.g., medical administrations). lodine-131 was not detected in 2006. Cobalt-58 and 12 cobalt-60 are activation/corrosion products also related to plant operations. They are produced 13 by neutron activation in the reactor core. As cobalt-58 has a much shorter half-life, its absence 14 "dates" the presence of cobalt-60 as residual. When significant concentrations of cobalt-60 are 15 detected but no cobalt-58, there is an increased likelihood that the cobalt-60 results from 16 residual cobalt-60 from past operations. There was no cobalt-58 or cobalt-60 detected in the 17 2006 REMP, though cobalt-58 and cobalt-60 have been observed in previous years. 18 Data resulting from analysis of the special water samples for gamma emitters, tritium analysis, 19 and strontium-90 show that 18 samples were analyzed for strontium-90, and 5 of them showed 20 detectable amounts of strontium-90. All of the results were very low (with a range of 0.49-21 1.26 pCilL (0.018-0.046 Bq/L)) and within the range considered to be residual levels from 22 atmospheric weapons tests. Other than the above, only naturally occurring radionuclides were 23 detected in the special water samples. 24 The results of the gamma spectroscopy analyses of the monthly drinking water samples and 25 results of tritium analysis of quarterly composites showed that, other than naturally occurring 26 radionuclides, no radionuclides from plant operation were detected in drinking water samples. 27 The data indicate that operation of IP2 and IP3 had no detectable radiological effect on drinking 28 water. 29 The results of the analysis of bottom sediment samples for cesium-137 showed that it was 30 detected at 7 of 10 indicator station samples, and at 1 of 3 control station samples. Cesium-134 31 was not detected in any bottom sediment samples. The lack of cesium-134 suggests that the 32 primary source of the cesium-137 in bottom sediment is from historical plant releases at least 33 several years old and from residual weapons test fallout. 34 While not required by the ODCM, strontium-90 analysis was conducted at three indicator 35 locations and one control location in August 2006. Strontium-90 was not identified in any of the 36 samples. The detection of cesium-137 in bottom sediment has been generally decreasing over 37 the last 10 years, and cesium-134 has not been detected in bottom sediment since 2002. The 38 data for 2006 are consistent with but slightly lower than historical levels. 39 In summary, IP2- and IP3-related radionuclides were detected in 2006; however, residual 40 radioactivity from atmospheric weapons tests and naturally occurring radioactivity were the 41 predominant sources of radioactivity in the samples collected. The 2006 levels of radionuclides 42 in the environment surrounding IP2 and IP3 are well below the NRC's reporting levels as a 43 result of IP2 and IP3 operations. The radioactivity levels in the environment were within the 44 historical ranges (i.e., previous levels resulting from natural and manmade sources for the December 2008 2-105 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00140
Plant and the Environment 1 detected radionuclides). Further, IP2 and IP3 operations did not result in an adverse impact to 2 the public greater than environmental background levels. (Entergy 2007d) 3 New York State Department of Health Monitoring 4 The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) also performs sampling and analysis of 5 selected independent environmental media around IP2 and IP3. The NYSDOH environmental 6 radiation monitoring program collects various types of samples to measure the concentrations of 7 selected radionuclides in the environment. Samples of air, water, milk, sediment, vegetation, 8 animals, and fish are typically obtained. In addition, TLDs are used to measure environmental 9 gamma radiation levels in the immediate proximity of IP2 and IP3. The NRC staff reviewed the 10 published data for the years 1993 and 1994, the most current publicly available reports. The 11 data indicated that the radiation levels observed in the environment around IP2 and IP3 were 12 low, or consistent with background radiation, and some samples were below the detection 13 sensitivity for the analysis. No samples exceeded any of the New York State guidelines. 14 The following information was reported in the 1993 report (NYSDOH 1994): 15
Radioactivity in air samples showed low levels of gross beta activity and levels of 16 iodine-131 were usually below detection levels.
17
No milk sample was collected, as the remaining nearby dairy farm had closed.
18
Radioactivity in water samples showed low levels of gross beta activity.
19
Tritium levels were at typical background levels.
20
The levels for other radioisotopes were low with most samples below minimum 21 detectable levels.
22
Direct environmental radiation shows that the TLD data are typical of the normal 23 background level in this area.
24 The following information was reported in the 1994 report (NYSDOH 1995): 25
Radioactivity in air samples showed low levels of gross beta activity, and levels of 26 iodine-131 were below detection levels.
27
No milk samples were collected in 1994, as the last dairy farm closed in 1992.
28
Radioactivity in water samples showed low levels of gross beta activity.
29
Tritium levels were at typical background levels.
30
The levels for other radioisotopes were low with most samples below minimum 31 detectable levels.
32
Radioactivity in fish samples showed that naturally occurring potassium-40 is 33 responsible for most of the activity. All other isotopes are below detectable levels.
34
Direct environmental radiation values for the TLD data are typical of the normal 35 background level in this area.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-106 December 2008 OAG10001366_00141
Plant and the Environment 1 Ground Water Contamination and Monitoring 2 In August of 2005, Entergy discovered tritium contamination in ground water outside the IP2 3 spent fuel pool (SFP). As a result, Entergy began an on-site and off-site ground water 4 monitoring program (in September of 2005) in addition to the routine REMP. Entergy used this 5 monitoring program to characterize the on-site contamination, to quantify and determine its on-6 site and off-site radiological impact to the workers, public and surrounding environment, and to 7 aid in identification and repair of any leaking systems, structures or components (Entergy 8 2006d). 9 In Section 5.1 of its ER, Entergy identified release of radionuclides to ground water as a 10 potentially new issue based on NRC staff analysis in a previous license renewal proceeding. In 11 its discussion of the issue, Entergy concluded that the radionuclide release does not affect the 12 onsite workforce, and that Entergy anticipated the leakage would not affect other environmental 13 resources, such as water use, land use, terrestrial or aquatic ecology, air quality, or 14 socioeconomics. In addition, Entergy asserted that no NRC dose limits have been exceeded, 15 and EPA drinking water limits are not applicable since no drinking water exposure pathway 16 exists (Entergy 2007a). 17 Entergy has taken measures to control releases from the IP1 and IP2 SFPs using waste 18 management equipment and processes. Additional monitoring actions have also been 19 developed as part of the site's ground water monitoring program, which supplements the 20 existing REMP to monitor potential impacts of site operations throughout the license renewal 21 term and to monitor potential impacts of site operations and waste and effluent management 22 programs (Entergy 2007a). 23 In addition to Entergy's assertions in the IP2 and IP3 ER, Entergy provided the NRC additional 24 information, by report dated January 11, 2008, that included the conclusions of a 2-year 25 investigation of onsite leaks to ground water that it had initiated following the 2005 discovery of 26 SFP leakage. Entergy stated that it had characterized and modeled the affected ground water 27 regime, and that it had identified sources of leakage and determined the radiological impacts 28 resulting from this leakage. In the same letter, Entergy reported that it had begun a long-term 29 ground water monitoring program and initiated a remediation program to address the site 30 ground water conditions. Entergy also stated that it had performed radiological dose impact 31 assessments and that it will continue to perform them, and report results to the NRC in each 32 annual Radiological Effluent Release Report. (Radiological Effluent Release Reports are 33 publically available through the NRC.) Entergy's investigation indicates that the only noteworthy 34 dose pathway resulting from contaminated ground water migration to the river is through the 35 consumption of fish and invertebrates from the Hudson River. According to Entergy, the 36 resultant calculated dose to a member if the public is below 1/100 of the federal limits (Entergy 37 2008c). 38 As part of the NRC's ongoing regulatory oversight program, the NRC staff performed an 39 extensive inspection of Entergy's actions to respond to the abnormal leak as well Entergy's 40 ground water monitoring program. This inspection focused on assessing Entergy's ground 41 water investigation to evaluate the extent of contamination, as well as the effectiveness of 42 actions taken or planned to effect mitigation and remediation of the condition. The NRC staff 43 adopts the findings and content of the inspection report, released by letter dated May 13, 2008, 44 in this SEIS (NRC 2008). The inspection findings include the following key points (NRC 2008): December 2008 2-107 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00142
Plant and the Environment 1 (1) Currently, there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the 2 contaminated ground water conditions at the IP2 and IP3 site. Potable water sources in 3 the area of concern are not presently derived from ground water sources or the Hudson 4 River, a fact confirmed by the New York State Department of Health. The principal 5 exposure pathway to humans is from the assumed consumption of aquatic foods (i.e., 6 fish or invertebrates) taken from the Hudson River in the vicinity of Indian Point that has 7 the potential to be affected by radiological effluent releases. However, no radioactivity 8 distinguishable from background was detected during the most recent sampling and 9 analysis of fish and crabs taken from the affected portion of the Hudson River and 10 designated control locations. 11 (2) The annual calculated exposure to the maximum exposed hypothetical individual, based 12 on application of Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 13 Routine Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluation Compliance with 10 14 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," relative to the liquid effluent aquatic food exposure pathway is 15 currently, and expected to remain, less than 0.1 % of the NRC's "As Low As is 16 Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)" guidelines of Appendix I of Part 50 (3 mrem/yr (0.03 17 mSv/yr) total body and 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) maximum organ), which is considered to 18 be negligible with respect to public health and safety, and the environment. 19 Finally, by letter dated May 15, 2008, Entergy reaffirmed its January 11th letter and provided the 20 NRC a list of commitments for further actions to address ground water contamination (Entergy 21 2008d). Entergy indicated they would remove spent fuel from the IP1 SFP, process remaining 22 water and "bottoms" from the IP1 SFP, and incorporate aspects of the long-term ground water 23 monitoring program in the site's ODCM and associated procedures. To date, NRC staff has 24 observed that Entergy has removed all spent fuel from the IP1 SFP and drained the pool, as 25 well as incorporated aspects of the monitoring program into the ODCM and associated 26 procedures. Entergy has indicated that it would process remaining water and bottoms from the 27 IP1 SFP by April 30, 2009, and inform the NRC if they deviate from the commitment timeline. 28 New York State Ground Water Investigations 29 New York State performed its own ground water investigation of the tritium leakage from IP2 30 and IP3 and reported its findings in a Community Fact Sheet (NYSDEC 2007d) as follows: 31 The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the 32 New York State Department of Health (DOH) have been participating in the 33 ongoing groundwater investigation of radionuclide contamination in groundwater 34 under the plant, and the release of that water to the Hudson River. The purpose 35 of our involvement is to protect the interests of the citizens and the environment 36 of the State of New York by helping to ensure that Entergy performs a timely, 37 comprehensive characterization of site groundwater contamination, takes 38 appropriate actions to identify and stop the sources of the leak, and undertakes 39 any necessary remedial actions. 40 The key findings reported by New York State are listed below: 41
There are no residential or municipal drinking water wells or surface reservoirs near the 42 plant.
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-108 December 2008 OAG10001366_00143
Plant and the Environment 1
There are no known impacts to any drinking water source.
2
No contaminated ground water is moving toward surrounding properties.
3
Contaminated ground water is moving into the Hudson River.
4
Public exposure can occur from the ground water entering the Hudson River through 5 consumption of fish.
6
NYSDOH has confirmed Entergy's calculated dose to humans from fish.
7
Strontium-90 levels in fish near the site (18.8 pCilkg (0.69 8q/kg)) are no higher than in 8 those fish collected from background locations across the State.
9
Recent strontium-90 data in fish are limited. (The State plans to conduct additional 10 sampling.)
11 Dose Impacts to the Public 12 The results of the IP2 and IP3 radiological releases into the environment are summarized in the 13 IP2 and IP3 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports. Limits for all radiological releases 14 are specified in the IP2 and IP3 ODCMs and used to meet Federal radiation protection 15 standards. A review of historical radiological release data during the period 2002 through 2006 16 and the resultant dose calculations revealed that the calculated doses to maximally exposed 17 individuals in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 were a small fraction of the limits specified in the IP2 18 and IP3 ODCM to meet the dose design objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, as well as 19 the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and EPA's 40 CFR Part 190, as indicated in the following 20 summary list. The current results are described in "Indian Point Units 1,2, and 3-2006 Annual 21 Radioactive Effluent Release Report" (Entergy 2007c). A breakdown of the calculated 22 maximum dose to an individual located at the IP2 and IP3 site boundary from liquid and 23 gaseous effluents and direct radiation shine from IP1 and the two operating reactor units during 24 2006 is summarized below: 25
The calculated maximum whole-body dose to an offsite member of the general public 26 from liquid effluents was 8.80x10-4 mrem (8.80x10-6 mSv) for IP1 and IP2 and 27 1.27x10-4 mrem (1.27x1 0-6 mSv) for IP3, well below the 3-mrem (0.03-mSv) dose design 28 objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
29
The calculated maximum organ (adult bone) dose to an off-site member of the general 30 public from liquid effluents was 1.26x10-3 mrem (1.26x10-5 mSv) for IP1 and IP2 and 31 1.60x10-4 mrem (1.60x1 0-6 mSv) for IP3, well below the 10 mrem (0.10 mSv) dose 32 design objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
33
The calculated maximum gamma air dose at the site boundary from noble gas 34 discharges was 5.01x10-3 millirad (mrad) (5.01x10-5 milligray (mGy)) for IP1 and IP2 and 35 5.36x10-5 mrad (5.36x10- 7 mGy) for IP3, well below the 10 mrad (0.10 mGy) dose design 36 objective in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
37
The calculated maximum beta air dose at the site boundary from noble gas discharges 38 was 1.78x10-2 mrad (1.78x10- 4 mGy) for IP1 and IP2 and 1.57x10-4 mrad December 2008 2-109 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00144
Plant and the Environment 1 (1.57x10-6 mGy), well below the 20 mrad (0.20 mGy) dose design objective in Appendix I 2 to 10 CFR Part 50. 3
The calculated maximum organ dose to an offsite member of the general public from 4 gaseous iodine, tritium, and particulate effluents was 1.19x1 0-2 mrem (1.19x1 0-4 mSv) to 5 the child thyroid for IP1 and IP2 and 1.07x1 0-3 mrem (1.07x1 0-5 mSv) to the child liver for 6 IP3, well below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) dose design objective in Appendix I to 7 10 CFR Part 50.
8
The calculated maximum total whole-body dose to an offsite member of the general 9 public from the site's combined ground water and storm drain pathways is 10 1.78x10-3 mrem (1.78x10-5 mSv).
11
The calculated maximum organ (adult bone) dose to an offsite member of the general 12 public from the site's combined ground water and storm drain pathways is 13 7.21x10-3 mrem (7.21x10-5 mSv).
14
The calculated maximum total body dose to an off-site member of the public from all 15 radioactive emissions (radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents, direct radiation shine, 16 and new liquid effluent release pathway) from the IP2 and IP3 site was 7.07 mrem 17 (7.07 x10- 2 mSv), well below the 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) limit in EPA's 40 CFR Part 190.
18 The NRC staff reviewed the 2006 Radioactive Effluent Release Report and found that the 2006 19 radiological data are consistent, with reasonable variation as the result of operating conditions 20 and outages, with the 5-year historical radiological effluent releases and resultant doses. These 21 results, including those from the new issue concerning a new liquid effluent release pathway, 22 confirm that IP2 and IP3 is operating in compliance with Federal radiation protection standards 23 contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 20, and 40 CFR Part 190. As noted in 24 Section 2.1.4 of this SEIS, the applicant does not anticipate any significant changes to the 25 radioactive effluent releases or exposure pathways from IP2 and IP3 operations during the 26 license renewal term, and, therefore, the NRC staff expects that impacts to the environment are 27 not likely to change. 28 Entergy has indicated that it may replace IP2 and IP3 reactor vessel heads and control rod drive 29 mechanisms during the period of extended operation. Such an action is not expected to change 30 the applicant's ability to maintain radiological doses to members of the public well within 31 regulatory limits. This is based on the absence of any projected significant increases in the 32 amount of radioactive liquid, gaseous, or solid waste as a result of the replacements, as 33 discussed in Section 2.1.4 of this SEIS. Thus, the staff concludes that similar small doses to 34 members of the public and small impacts to the environment are expected during the period of 35 extended operations. 36 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 37 This section describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or 38 indirectly affected by changes in IP2 and IP3 operations. IP2 and IP3 and the communities that 39 support them can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide 40 the people, goods, and services required by IP2 and IP3 operations. IP2 and IP3 operations, in Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-110 December 2008 OAG10001366_00145
Plant and the Environment 1 turn, create the demand and pay for the people, goods, and services in the form of wages, 2 salaries, and benefits for jobs and dollar expenditures for goods and services. The measure of 3 the communities' ability to support the demands of IP2 and IP3 depends on their ability to 4 respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions. 5 The socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined by the areas where IP2 and IP3 6 employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby 7 affecting the economic conditions of the region. The IP2 and IP3 ROI consists of a four-county 8 area (Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties) where approximately 84 percent 9 of IP2 and IP3 employees reside. The following sections describe the housing, public services, 10 offsite land use, visual aesthetics and noise, population demography, and the economy in the 11 ROI surrounding IP2 and IP3. 12 Entergy employs a permanent workforce of approximately 1255 employees (Entergy 2007a). 13 Approximately 90 percent live in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, and Westchester 14 Counties, New York, and Bergen County, New Jersey (Table 2-7). The remaining 10 percent of 15 the workforce is divided among 36 counties in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New 16 York, and elsewhere with numbers ranging from 1 to 15 employees per county. Given the 17 residential locations of IP2 and IP3 employees, the most significant impacts of plant operations 18 are likely to occur in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties. The focus of the 19 socioeconomic impact analysis in this draft SEIS is therefore on the impacts of IP2 and IP3 on 20 these four counties. 21 Refueling outages at IP2 and IP3 occur at 24-month intervals for each unit, which results in an 22 outage each year for one or the other units. During refueling outages, site employment 23 increases by 950 workers for approximately 30 days (Entergy 2007a). During outages, most of 24 these workers are likely to reside in the four-county ROI. 25 Table 2-7. IP2 and IP3 Employee Residence by County in 2006 Number of IP Energy Percentage County Center Personnel of Total Bergen, NJ 17 1.4 Dutchess, NY 528 42.1 Orange, NY 243 19.4 Putnam, NY 78 6.2 Rockland, NY 28 2.2 Ulster, NY 31 2.5 Westchester, NY 206 16.4 Other 124 9.9 Total 1255 100 Source: Entergy 2007a 26 2.2.8.1 Housing 27 Table 2-8 lists the total number of occupied housing units, vacancy rates, and median value in 28 the ROI. According to the 2000 Census, there were over 613,000 housing units in the ROI, of December 2008 2-111 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00146
Plant and the Environment 1 which approximately 584,000 were occupied. The median value of owner-occupied units 2 ranged from $141,500 in Orange County to $285,800 in Westchester County. The vacancy rate 3 was the lowest in Westchester County (3.5 percent) and highest in Putnam County 4 (6.6 percent). 5 In 2006, the estimated total number of housing units in Westchester County grew by more than 6 6000 units to 355,581, and the total number of occupied units declined by 4000 units to 7 333,114. As a result, the number of available vacant housing units increased by more than 8 10,200 units to 22,467, or 6.3 percent of the available units. In addition, the estimated number 9 of available housing units also increased in Dutchess, Orange, and Putnam Counties (USCB 10 2008a). 11 Table 2-8. Housing in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam and Westchester Counties, New York Dutchess Orange Putnam Westchester ROI 2000 Total 106,103 122,754 35,030 349,445 613,332 Occupied housing units 99,536 114,788 32,703 337,142 584,169 Vacant units 6,567 7,966 2,327 12,303 29,163 Vacancy rate (percent) 6.2 6.5 6.6 3.5 4.8 Median value (dollars) 150,800 141,500 205,500 285,800 195,900 2006* Total 111,507 132,983 36,471 355,581 636,542 Occupied housing units 104,289 121,887 33,544 333,114 592,834 Vacant units 7,218 11,096 2,927 22,467 43,708 Vacancy rate (percent) 6.5 8.3 8.0 6.3 6.9 Median value (dollars) 334,200 319,300 407,800 581,600 410,725
Estimated Source: USCB 2008a; 2006 American Community Survey 12 2.2.8.2 Public Services 13 This section presents a discussion of public services including water supply, education, and 14 transportation.
15 Water Supply 16 IP2 and IP3 do not utilize a public water system for plant circulating and service water purposes, 17 but instead rely on surface water from the Hudson River. Potable water and process water are 18 supplied to the site by the Village of Buchanan water supply system. Based on water bills, IP2 19 and IP3 utilize approximately 2.3 million fe or 17.4 million gal per month (65,000 m3 or 20 8.7 million L per month) of potable water (VB NY 2006). There are no restrictions on the supply 21 of potable water from the Village of Buchanan. The Village of Buchanan obtains its water from 22 two sources, the City of Peekskill Public Water System and the Montrose Improvement District. 23 While the demand on the City of Peekskill Public Water System currently appears to be near the 24 system design capacity, the contract with the Montrose Improvement District (now consolidated 25 with the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works) appears to NRC staff to be capable of 26 providing an adequate supply of potable water based on treatment capacity upgrades. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-112 December 2008 OAG10001366_00147
Plant and the Environment 1 Public water supply systems in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 include community and noncommunity 2 (including nontransient noncommunity and transient noncommunity) systems. Community 3 water systems within a 10-mi (16-km) radius of IP2 and IP3 include Westchester, Putnam, 4 Orange, and Rockland County systems. Each of these county systems uses both ground water 5 and surface water sources (EPA 2006b). Although outside the 10-mi (16-km) radius, public 6 water supply systems in Dutchess County were included because Dutchess County provides 7 residence to the largest percentage of the site's permanent full-time employees (42 percent). 8 Approximately 57 percent of the Dutchess County community water systems, including the 9 Poughkeepsie water supply system, obtain water from surface water sources that include the 10 Hudson River (EPA 2006b). 11 The Village of Buchanan purchases water from the City of Peekskill Public Water System and 12 the Montrose Improvement District. The City of Peekskill has two sources of water, both of 13 which are surface waters. The City of Peekskill's year-round major water source originates in 14 the Town of Putnam Valley (Putnam County). The City of Peekskill's second source of water is 15 an emergency source from a neighboring community, via the Catskill Aqueduct. Water is 16 pumped to the Camp Field Reservoir in the City of Peekskill, where it is then filtered and treated 17 (PWD 2005). 18 The Town of Cortlandt purchases 80 percent of its water supply from the Montrose 19 Improvement District, which treats raw water purchased from the New York City Catskill 20 Aqueduct. The town purchases 10 percent from the City of Peekskill, which filters and treats 21 raw water pumped from the Peekskill Hollow Brook to the city's Camp Field Reservoir, and 22 10 percent from the Town of Yorktown, which purchases water filtered and treated by the 23 Westchester County-owned Amawalk treatment plant (CCWD no date). 24 The Cortlandt Consolidated Water District (CCWD) has joined with the Yorktown and Montrose 25 Improvement District in a new corporation known as the Northern Westchester Joint Water 26 Works (NWJWW). The NWJWW has assumed ownership of the Amawalk treatment plant, 27 which has been upgraded to 7-mgd (26,000-m3/day) capacity. A new NWJWW 7-mgd 28 (26,000-m3/day) plant (Catskill water treatment plant) has been in operation since 2000 (CCWD 29 no date). 30 Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW) serves the municipalities of the Village/Town of 31 Mamaroneck, TownNiliage of Harrison, portions of the City of New Rochelle, and the City of 32 Rye. WJWW, which has a capacity of 14.2 mgd (53,800 m3/day) and an average daily demand 33 of 13.1 mgd (49,600 m3/d), obtains its water from the Catskill and Delaware watersheds of the 34 New York City water system, which includes the Delaware Aqueduct, Rye Lake (Delaware 35 watershed), and the Kensico reservoir (WJWW 2006). 36 A majority of Rockland County uses ground water to supply numerous small public water 37 systems, most of which are supplied by a single well (RWS 2006). The large public water 38 systems of Rockland County include United Water New York (UWNY), Nyack Village Public 39 Water System, and Suffern Village Public Water System (RWS 2006). UWNY provides water to 40 approximately 267,000 residents from 53 ground water wells drilled throughout the county, Lake 41 DeForest, and the Letchworth reservoirs (UWNY 2006). The UWNY peak demand in 2006 was 42 estimated at 47.5 mgd (180,000 m3/day) and its peak supply at approximately 48.5 mgd 43 (184,000 m3/day) (RCDH 2006). December 2008 2-113 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00148
Plant and the Environment 1 The Poughkeepsie Water Treatment Facility, which is owned and operated by the City and 2 Town of Poughkeepsie, provides drinking water in Dutchess County to the City of 3 Poughkeepsie, Town of Poughkeepsie, and Village of Wappingers Falls. The plant is located 4 along and draws water from the Hudson River. The plant was built in 1962 and is currently 5 rated at a maximum capacity of 16 mgd (61,000 m3 /day). Average demand is reported to be 6 approximately 8 mgd (31,000 m3/day) (PTWD 2005). 7 The Village of Ossining Water System in Westchester County is supplied from two surface 8 water sources, the Indian Brook Reservoir, located near Fowler Avenue and Reservoir Road, 9 and the Croton Reservoir, which is part of the New York City Water System. The average blend 10 of water is approximately 63 percent from the Croton Reservoir and 37 percent from the Indian 11 Brook Reservoir. The system obtains its water from the Croton watershed in Putnam and 12 Westchester Counties and serves approximately 30,000 people. The Village of Ossining Water 13 System services an average daily demand of approximately 3.7 mgd (14,000 m3/day) (VOWS 14 2005). 15 Many public water supply systems supply only small segments of the population. For example, 16 Orange County has approximately 150 public water systems, but no major public water systems 17 in the county were identified within 10 mi of IP2 and IP3. Ground water is the primary source of 18 both community and noncommunity water supply systems and serves 60 to 85 percent of the 19 population in the area (Entergy 2007a; RCDH 2006). Large areas of Westchester, Putnam, 20 Orange, Rockland, and Dutchess Counties are not served by community water supplies. 21 Private water supplies in these areas draw primarily from ground water sources. The ground 22 water quality in New York is generally good, but contamination can and does occur locally. 23 The Village of Croton-on-Hudson public water system is supplied by a ground water well system 24 located downstream from the New Croton Dam and spillway. Ground water is pumped from the 25 well system directly into the distribution system. The system has a total storage capacity of 26 2.3 mgd (8700 m3 /day) and supplies approximately 7600 people an average of 1.1 mgd 27 (4200 m3/day) (VCOH 2005). 28 Table 2-9 lists the major public water supply systems within the vicinity of IP2 and IP3. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-114 December 2008 OAG10001366_00149
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-9. Major Public Water Supply Systems in 2005 (mgd) Water Average Daily Design Population Water Supplier a Source a Production I:i Capacity b Served a Northern Westchester Joint Water Works C SW 6.9 14.0 0 Peekskill, NY SW 3.9 4.0 22,400 Croton-on-Hudson, NY GW 1.1 2.3 7,100 Westchester Joint Water Works SW 13.1 14.2 55,200 Ossining, NY SW 3.7 6.0 30,000 Poughkeepsie, NY SW 8.9 16.0 28,000 United Water New York GW&SW 47.5 48.5 270,000 Village of Suffern GW 2.0 4.0 12,000 Village of Nyack SW 1.8 3.0 14,700 GW = Ground water; SW = surface water; N/A = Not Applicable or No Information Available a EPA 2008b Average daily production and design capacity. Information from 2005 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for each public water system. C Includes the CCWD, Yorktown Improvement District, and the Montrose Improvement District (CCWD 2006). 2 An estimated 85,000 residents north of Kensico Dam in Westchester County use ground water 3 as their primary water source. Exceptions are residents using surface water or aqueduct 4 sources in Mt. Kisco, parts of the Town of Yorktown, much of the Town of Cortlandt, and most 5 municipalities directly adjoining the Hudson River (WCDP 2003). Approximately 15 percent of 6 the residents of the Town of Cortlandt are estimated to use ground water supplies (WCDP 2003, 7 Table 2). 8 Education 9 IP2 and IP3 are located in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, 10 which had an enrollment of approximately 2800 students in 2003. Including the Hendrick 11 Hudson Central School District, Westchester County has 40 school districts with a total 12 enrollment of approximately 147,000 students. In contrast, Dutchess, Orange, and Putnam 13 Counties have 16, 17, and 6 school districts with a total enrollment of approximately 46,000, 14 66,000, and 17,000 students, respectively (WCDP 2005). 15 Transportation 16 Several major highway routes serve as transportation corridors along either side of the Hudson 17 River Valley. Westchester County and Putnam County are located on the eastern side of the 18 Hudson River. The primary highways in Westchester County include Interstate 684, US 9, 19 US 6, and US 202, as well as the Taconic State and Saw Mill River Parkways (see Figures 2-1 20 and 2-2). US 9 runs north and south along the Hudson River Valley through both Westchester 21 and Putnam Counties. Further east, the Taconic State Parkway also runs north and south December 2008 2-115 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00150
Plant and the Environment 1 through both counties. The Taconic State Parkway and the Saw Mill River Parkway connect 2 near Hawthorne, New York, southeast of the site. Interstate 684 runs north and south along the 3 eastern side of Westchester County and connects to Interstate 84 in Putnam County. US 6 runs 4 east and west through the southern end of Putnam County and the northern portion of 5 Westchester County. US 202 runs east and west across northern Westchester County. The 6 Saw Mill River Parkway extends northeast and southwest between US 9 at Riverdale, New 7 York, and Interstate 684. Additional highways within the two counties include State Routes 117, 8 120, 129, 100, 139, and 301. 9 The nearest highway serving the site area is US 9. Using local roads from US 9, the site can be 10 accessed from Broadway. A summary of current New York State Department of Transportation 11 estimates for average annual daily traffic counts on US 9 north and south of the site is 12 presented in Table 2-10. 13 The Palisades Interstate Parkway is the largest highway system in Rockland County, running 14 north and south through the county, and connecting with US 6 and US 9W in southeastern 15 Orange County (see Figure 2-2). US 9W runs north and south along the Hudson River and 16 connects with Interstate 87 to the south at the Village of Nyack, New York. Interstate 87 allows 17 travel north and south through Orange County but then loops toward the east across Rockland 18 County, crosses the Hudson, and intersects US 9, the Saw Mill River Parkway, and the Taconic 19 State Parkway in Westchester County. US 202 runs northeast and southwest through Rockland 20 County till it meets US 9W and then crosses the Hudson River and runs easterly and intersects 21 the Taconic State Parkway. Route 17 (future Interstate 86) runs northwest and southeast 22 across Orange County to where it intersects Interstate 87, and turns south until it intersects 23 Route 3 near New York City. Interstate 84 runs east and west through Orange County, crosses 24 the Hudson River, and travels down Dutchess County and into Putnam County were it meets 25 Interstate 684. 26 Dutchess County is located approximately 13 mi (21 km) north of the site, on the east side of 27 the Hudson River. The major roads in this county are Interstate 84, US 44, US 9, Route 199 28 (Taconic State Parkway), and Route 22. Interstate 84 and US 44 run east and west in the 29 southern and central portions of the county, respectively. Route 199 (Taconic State Parkway), 30 Route 22, and US 9 run north and south in the central, eastern, and western portions of the 31 county, respectively. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-116 December 2008 OAG10001366_00151
Plant and the Environment 1 2 Table 2-10. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts on US 9 Near IP2 and IP3, 2004a Annual Average Daily Roadway and Location Traffic US 9-from Montrose crossing to Route 9A overlap b 50,500 US 9-from Peekskill city line to Montrose crossing 11,aooc US 9-from Montrose crossing to Old Post Road crossing Source: NYSDOT 2005 a Traffic volume during the average 24-hour day during 2004. b Readings taken at a continuous count station (accounts for seasonal and daily variation. C NYSDOT projection from the latest year for which data were available. 3 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use 4 This section describes land use conditions in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester 5 Counties in New York, because the majority of the IP2 and IP3 workforce lives in these 6 counties. In addition to payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) and property tax payments to 7 Westchester County, the surrounding counties receive property tax payments from the 1255 8 people employed by the site. 9 Dutchess County 10 Dutchess County is distinctly different from its neighboring counties in that it contains a 11 combination of urban and rural settings rather than metropolitan areas. Currently, Dutchess 12 County is conserving open spaces such as farms while increasing the number of housing units 13 available in order to create a mix of urban areas and farmland (Dutchess County Department of 14 Planning and Development 2006). 15 Dutchess County occupies roughly 802 sq mi (2080 sq km) or approximately 513,000 acres 16 (208,000 ha) (USCB 2008b). The largest category of land use in Dutchess County is 17 agriculture. Evenly distributed throughout the county, land used for agriculture makes up 18 21.3 percent (112,339 acres (45,462 ha)) of the county's area (USDA 2002a). Major agricultural 19 land uses consist of cropland (52.75 percent), woodland (23.32 percent), pasture 20 (11.12 percent), and other uses (12.81 percent) (USDA 2002a). Residential land areas cover 21 approximately 7.1 percent of Dutchess County, with approximately 1.4 percent being devoted to 22 commercial, industrial, and transportation uses (Entergy 2007a). 23 Dutchess County is planning to create developments in central locations by developing mass 24 transit systems and waterways. Retail areas are planned to be centralized and within 25 convenient walking distance from these transient terminals. Developments outside the primary 26 growth areas are designed to blend into the natural landscape. In this way, Dutchess County 27 hopes to maintain its open spaces and farming culture (PDCTC 2006; Dutchess County 28 Department of Planning and Development 2006). December 2008 2-117 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00152
Plant and the Environment 1 Orange County 2 Three interstates intersect within Orange County. A byproduct of the county's interstate road 3 access is a clustering of industry and commercial development along these highway corridors. 4 Recently, most new development has occurred in the southeastern corner of the county as a 5 result of the access to major transportation corridors. The largest land development in the 6 southeastern part of the county is the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (see Figure 2-2) 7 (Orange County Department of Planning 2003). 8 Orange County occupies roughly 816 sq mi (2110 sq km) or approximately 522,000 acres 9 (211,000 ha) (USCB 2008b). Approximately 107,977 acres (43,697 ha) are used for agricultural 10 purposes, with major agricultural land uses consisting of cropland (65.53 percent), woodland 11 (16.50 percent), pasture (8.99 percent), and other uses (8.98 percent) (USDA 2002b). 12 Residential land areas cover approximately 7.5 percent of Orange County, with approximately 13 1.7 percent devoted to commercial, industrial, and transportation uses (Entergy 2007a). 14 Orange County's Comprehensive Development Plan continues to reflect the importance of 15 transportation interchanges, crossroads, and corridors (Orange County Department of Planning 16 2003). The dynamic real estate market and the loss of open spaces has been a challenge for 17 Orange County. The county, along with civic organizations, has been inventorying current open 18 spaces as part of defining and recommending future open space needs. Orange County also 19 plans to initiate a redevelopment program to assist with historical improvements to the cities and 20 villages within Orange County. With the increasing growth of Orange County, nontraditional 21 zoning strategies are expected to help maintain historical and open spaces throughout the 22 county (Orange County Department of Planning 2003). 23 Putnam County 24 Putnam County occupies roughly 231 sq mi (598 sq km) or approximately 148,000 acres 25 (59,900 ha) (USCB 2008b) and is one of the fastest growing counties in New York (Putnam 26 County Division of Planning and Development 2003). Approximately 6720 acres (2720 ha) 27 (4.3 percent) are in agricultural use, with major agricultural land uses consisting of woodland 28 (59.87 percent), cropland (26.49 percent), and other uses (13.65 percent) (USDA 2002c). Hilly 29 topography has prevented or slowed development in the more rugged parts of the county. 30 Additionally, there are many wetlands throughout the county. The most significant wetland in 31 the county is the Great Swamp, which is a 4200-acre (1700-ha) wetland. Agricultural land use, 32 undeveloped land, and forest land within the county have been decreasing. Residential land 33 use occurs on large lot subdivisions or in rural areas. Industrial and commercial development 34 can be found around the villages and along the major transportation corridors (Putnam County 35 Division of Planning and Development 2003). Residential land use accounts for approximately 36 6.9 percent of the county's land, while only 1.1 percent is used for commercial, industrial, or 37 transportation purposes (Entergy 2007a). 38 Putnam County attempts to integrate development into the natural environment, which includes 39 enhancing, when possible, views of the Hudson River (Putnam County Division of Planning and 40 Development 2003). The county and municipalities are working together by changing the 41 zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to preserve strategic historic structures and 42 protect open spaces, while providing affordable housing and development throughout the 43 county (Putnam County Division of Planning and Development 2003). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-118 December 2008 OAG10001366_00153
Plant and the Environment 1 Westchester County 2 Westchester County occupies roughly 433 sq mi (1121 sq km) or approximately 277,000 acres 3 (112,000 ha) (USCB 2008b). According to the 2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 4 Census of Agriculture, 129 farms were located in Westchester County, which is a 10 percent 5 increase since 1997 (USDA 2002d). Land acreage associated with farms increased 14 percent 6 during this period with total acreage increasing from 8681 acres (3513 ha) to over 9917 acres 7 (4013 ha). The average size of farms also increased 4 percent, from 74 to 77 acres (30 to 8 31 ha) from 1997 to 2002. Of the approximately 9917 acres (4013 ha) in agricultural land use in 9 2002, the major agricultural land uses consisted of woodland (48.84 percent), cropland 10 (24.83 percent), pasture (12.81 percent), and other uses (13.53 percent) (USDA 2002d). 11 Residential land areas cover approximately 30.1 percent of Westchester County, with 12 approximately 3.1 percent devoted to commercial, industrial, and transportation uses (Entergy 13 2007a). The long-range plan for the physical development of Westchester County concentrates 14 on three distinct physical characteristics-centers, corridors, and open space (Westchester 15 County Department of Planning 2000). 16 IP2 and IP3 are located in Westchester County in the Village of Buchanan, within the Town of 17 Cortlandt. IP2 and IP3 provide tax revenues and other payments to both the Town of Cortlandt 18 and the Village of Buchanan. The Town of Cortlandt encompasses 34.5 sq mi (89.4 sq km) or 19 22,080 acres (8935 ha) (TOCNY 2006). Land use is predominately residential zoning with 20 %-acre to 2-acre plots further protecting environmentally sensitive areas and open spaces 21 (TOCNY 2004). The town's growth was intentionally slowed over the past several decades, 22 allowing the town's leaders to plan its development. Significant commercial development has 23 taken place along major transportation corridors, as well as at new community facilities within 24 the area. From 1992 to 2004, the Town of Cortlandt has increased open space by 65 percent 25 from 2729 acres (1104 ha) to 4502 acres (1822 ha) (TOCNY 2004). The town also has made 26 an effort to increase public access to the Hudson River waterfront and encourage historic 27 preservation (TOCNY 2004) 28 The Village of Buchanan, located within the Town of Cortlandt, encompasses 1.4 sq mi (3.6 sq 29 km) or 896 acres (363 ha) (VBNY 1998). Land use in the village has changed very little over 30 the last 20 to 30 years. The Village of Buchanan recently began restoring older buildings to 31 beautify the village square. The Village of Buchanan has zoning ordinances, subdivision 32 ordinances, and a development review board (Entergy 2007a). 33 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 34 IP2 and IP3 can be seen from the Hudson River but are shielded from the land side by 35 surrounding high ground and vegetation. With the exception of Broadway, the site is also 36 shielded from view from the Village of Buchanan. The superheater stack for IP1 (334 ft (102 m) 37 tall), the IP2 and IP3 turbine buildings (each 134 ft (41.8 m) tall), and reactor containment 38 structures (each 250 ft (76 m) tall) dominate the local landscape and can be seen from the 39 Hudson River. 40 Noise from IP2 and IP3 is detectable off site, and the Village of Buchanan has a sound 41 ordinance (Chapter 211-23 of the Village Zoning Code) that limits allowable sound levels at the 42 property line of the sound generating facility. The combined frequencies of the sound standard 43 equate to an overall level of 48 decibels (dB(A)). An ambient noise level monitoring program 44 was conducted in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 between September 2001 and January 2002, which December 2008 2-119 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00154
Plant and the Environment 1 showed that IP2 and IP3 meet the Village of Buchanan's sound ordinance (Enercon Services 2 2003). 3 2.2.8.5 Demography 4 According to the 2000 census, approximately 1,113,089 people lived within 20 mi (32 km) of IP2 5 and IP3, which equates to a population density of 886 persons per sq mi (332 persons per 6 sq km) (Entergy 2007a). This density translates to the least sparse Category 4 (greater than or 7 equal to 120 persons per square mile within 20 mi). Approximately 16,791,654 people live 8 within 50 mi (80 km) of IP2 and IP3 (Entergy 2007a). This equates to a population density of 9 2138 persons per sq mi (825 persons per sq km). Applying the proximity measures from 10 NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 11 Power Plants" (GElS), IP2 and IP3 are classified as proximity Category 4 (greater than or equal 12 to 190 persons per square mile within 50 mi (80 km)). Therefore, according to the sparseness 13 and proximity matrix presented in the GElS, IP2 and IP3 ranks of sparseness Category 4 and 14 proximity Category 4 indicate that IP2 and IP3 are located in a high-population area. 15 Table 2-11 shows population projections and growth rates from 1970 to 2050 in Dutchess, 16 Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Counties. The population growth rate in Westchester 17 County for the period of 1990 to 2000 was the lowest of the four counties at 5.6 percent. 18 County populations are expected to continue to grow in all four counties in the next decades 19 although Westchester County's population is expected to increase at a lower rate. Dutchess, 20 Orange, and Putnam County populations are projected to continue to grow at a rapid rate 21 through 2050. 22 The 2000 and 2006 (estimate) demographic profiles of the four-county ROI population are 23 presented in Table 2-12 and Table 2-13. Minority individuals (both race and ethnicity) constitute 24 28.8 percent of the total four-county population. The minority population was composed largely 25 of Hispanic or Latino and Black or African-American residents. 26 According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey, minority populations 27 in the four-county region were estimated to have increased by nearly 90,000 persons and made 28 up 32.7 percent of the total four-county population in 2006 (see Table 2-13). The largest 29 increases in minority populations were estimated to occur in Hispanic or Latino and Asian 30 populations. The Black or African-American population increased by approximately 5 percent 31 from 2000 to 2006 but remained unchanged as a percentage of the total four-county population. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-120 December 2008 OAG10001366_00155
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-11. Population and Percent Growth in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and 2 Westchester Counties, New York, from 1970 to 2000 and Projected for 2010 and 2050 Dutchess Orange Putnam Westchester Percent Percent Percent Percent Year Po~ulation Growth(a) Po~ulation Growth(a) Po~ulation Growth(a) Po~ulation Growth(a) 1970 222,295 221,657 56,696 894,104 1980 245,055 10.2 259,603 17.1 77,193 36.2 866,599 -3.1 1990 259,462 5.9 307,647 18.5 83,941 8.7 874,866 1.0 2000 280,150 8.0 341,367 11.0 95,745 14.1 923,459 5.6 2006 295,146 5.4 376,392 10.3 100,603 5.1 949,355 2.8 2010 328,000 17.1 408,900 19.8 110,000 14.9 974,200 5.5 2020 362,900 10.6 467,000 14.2 120,300 9.4 985,800 1.2 2030 431,500 18.9 532,400 14.0 134,300 11.6 1,011,900 2.6 2040 460,450 6.7 584,005 9.7 146,439 9.0 1,054,968 4.3 2050 503,133 9.3 641,518 9.8 158,966 8.6 1,088,609 3.2
- = No data available.
(a) Percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade. Sources: Population data for 1970 through 2000 (USCB 2008c); population data for 2006 (estimated) 2006 American Community Survey; population projections for 2010-2030 by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, Seetember 2004; eoeulation erojections for 2040 and 2050 (calculated) December 2008 2-121 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00156
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-12. Demographic Profile of the Population in the IP2 and IP3 2 Four-Count~ ROI in 2000 Region of Dutchess Orange Putnam Westc heste r Influence Total Population 280,150 341,367 95,745 923,459 1,640,721 Race (percent of total population, not Hispanic or Latino) White 80.3 77.6 89.8 64.1 71.2 Black or African-American 8.9 7.5 1.5 13.6 10.8 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Asian 2.5 1.5 1.2 4.4 3.3 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Some other race 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Two or more races 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.6 Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 18,060 39,738 5,976 144,124 207,898 Percent of total population 6.4 11.6 6.2 15.6 12.7 Minority Population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) Total minority population 55,237 76,607 9,772 331,683 473,299 Percent minority 19.7 22.4 10.2 35.9 28.8 3 Source: useB 2008c Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-122 December 2008 OAG10001366_00157
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-13. Demographic Profile of the Population in the IP2 and IP3 2 Four-County ROI in 2006 (Estimate) Region of Dutchess Orange Putnam Westchester Influence Total Population 295,146 376,392 100,603 949,355 1,721,496 Race (percent of total population, not Hispanic or Latino) White 77.2 71.1 85.0 60.8 67.3 Black or African-American 7.8 8.7 2.0 13.5 10.8 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 Asian 3.4 2.5 2.2 5.5 4.3 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Some other race 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 Two or more races 2.6 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.5 Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 24,879 57,980 9,692 175,990 268,541 Percent of total population 8.4 15.4 9.6 18.5 15.6 Minority Population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) Total minority population 67,160 108,604 15,068 372,414 563,246 Percent minority 22.8 28.9 15.0 39.2 32.7 Source: useB 2008c 3 Transient PO[2ulation 4 Within 50 mi (SO km) of IP2 and IP3, colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily and 5 seasonal visitors who create demand for temporary housing and services. In 2007, there were 6 approximately 655,000 students attending colleges and universities within 50 mi (SO km) of IP2 7 and IP3 (lES 200S). S In 2000 in Westchester County, O.S percent of all housing units were considered temporary 9 housing for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. By comparison, seasonal housing 10 accounted for 2.3 percent, 1.S percent, 4.0 percent, and 3.1 percent of total housing units in 11 Dutchess, Orange, and Putnam Counties, and New York as a whole, respectively (USCB 12 200Sc). Table 2-14 provides information on seasonal housing located within 50 mi (SO km) of 13 IP2 and IP3. December 200S 2-123 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 3S OAG10001366_0015S
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-14. Seasonal Housing within 50 mi (80 km) of the IP2 and IP3 Vacant housing units: For seasonal, County a Housing units recreational, or occasional use Percent New York 7,679,307 235,043 3.1 Bronx 490,659 962 0.2 Dutchess 106,103 2,410 2.3 Kings 930,866 2,616 0.3 Nassau 458,151 3,086 0.7 New York 798,144 19,481 2.4 Orange 122,754 2,215 1.8 Putnam 35,030 1,417 4.0 Queens 817,250 4,574 0.6 Richmond 163,993 524 0.3 Rockland 94,973 380 0.4 Suffolk 522,323 38,350 7.3 Sullivan 44,730 13,309 29.8 Ulster 77,656 5,238 6.7 Westchester 349,445 2,711 0.8 County Subtotal 5,012,077 97,273 4.1 (avg) Connecticut 1,385,975 23,379 1.7 Fairfield 339,466 3795 1.1 Litchfield 79,267 4579 5.8 New Haven 340,732 3,245 1.0 County Subtotal 759,465 11619 2.6 (avg) New Jersey 3,310,275 109,075 3.3 Bergen 339,820 1266 0.4 Essex 301,011 660 0.2 Hudson 240,618 674 0.3 Middlesex 273,637 905 0.3 Morris 174,379 1237 0.7 Passaic 170,048 849 0.5 Somerset 112,023 456 0.4 Sussex 56,528 3575 6.3 Union 192,945 475 0.2 Warren 41,157 361 0.9 County Subtotal 1,902,166 10,458 1.0 (avg) Pennsylvania 5,249,750 148,230 2.8 Pike 34,681 15350 44.3 County Subtotal 34,681 15,350 44.3 (avg) County Total 7,708,389 134,700 4.3 (avg) Source: USCB 2008c a Counties within 50 mi of IP2 and IP3 with at least one block group located within the 50-mi radius avg = ~ercent average for counties within the IP2 and IP3 50-mi radius and excludes state ~ercentage Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-124 December 2008 OAG10001366_00159
Plant and the Environment 1 Migrant Farm Workers 2 Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 3 crops. These workers mayor may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers 4 may follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout the northeastern U.S. rural 5 areas. Others may be permanent residents near IP2 and IP3 who travel from farm to farm 6 harvesting crops. 7 Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel 8 and can spend significant time in an area without being actual residents, migrant workers may 9 be unavailable for counting by census takers. If uncounted, these workers would be 10 underrepresented in U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) minority and low-income population counts. 11 Information on migrant farm and temporary labor was collected in the 2002 Census of 12 Agriculture. Table 2-15 provides information on migrant farm workers and temporary farm labor 13 (fewer than 150 days) within 50 mi (80 km) of IP2 and IP3. According to the 2002 Census of 14 Agriculture, approximately 9100 farm workers were hired to work for fewer than 150 days and 15 were employed on 1800 farms within 50 mi (80 km) of the IP2 and IP3. The county with the 16 largest number of temporary farm workers (1951 workers on 193 farms) was Suffolk County in 17 New York. 18 In the 2002 Census of Agriculture, farm operators were asked for the first time whether any 19 hired migrant workers, defined as a farm worker whose employment required travel that 20 prevented the migrant worker from returning to his or her permanent place of residence the 21 same day. A total of 360 farms in the 50-mi (80-km) radius of IP2 and IP3 reported hiring 22 migrant workers. Suffolk County in New York reported the most farms (110) with hired migrant 23 workers, followed by Orange and Ulster Counties in New York with 69 and 55 farms, 24 respectively. Dutchess, Putnam, and Westchester Counties host relatively small numbers of 25 migrant workers compared to those counties. 26 According to 2002 Census of Agriculture estimates, 275 temporary farm laborers (those working 27 fewer than 150 days per year) were employed on 34 farms in Westchester County, and 435, 28 1583, and 127 temporary farm workers were employed on 132,244, and 22 farms, respectively, 29 in Dutchess, Orange, and Putnam Counties (USDA 2002e). December 2008 2-125 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00160
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-15. Migrant Farm Worker and Temporary Farm Labor within 50 mi (80 km) 2 of IP2 and IP3 Number of farm Number of farms Number of farms workers working hiring workers reporting Number of farms fewer than for fewer than migrant farm with hired farm County a 150 days 150 days labor labor New York Bronx 0 0 0 0 Dutchess 435 132 18 194 Kings 0 0 0 0 Nassau 91 24 4 31 New York 0 0 0 4 Orange 1583 244 69 349 Putnam 127 22 0 27 Queens 1 0 1 Richmond 1 0 3 Rockland 69 19 0 21 Suffolk 1951 193 110 313 Sullivan 595 100 1 124 Ulster 550 102 55 163 Westchester 275 34 3 68 Subtotal 5676 872 260 1298 Connecticut Fairfield 377 108 1 114 Litchfield 459 174 9 198 New Haven 713 88 25 102 Subtotal 1549 370 35 414 New Jersey Bergen 103 32 3 40 Essex 3 1 4 Hudson 0 0 0 0 Middlesex 334 71 15 92 Morris 432 69 12 83 Passaic 66 15 4 17 Somerset 160 100 8 114 Sussex 200 158 4 217 Union 7 1 8 Warren 549 131 17 178 Subtotal 1844 586 65 753 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-126 December 2008 OAG10001366_00161
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-15 (continued) Number of farm Number of farms Number of farms workers working hiring workers reporting Number of farms fewer than for fewer than migrant farm with hired farm County a 150 days 150 days labor labor Pennsylvania Pike 8 0 10 Subtotal 8 0 10 Total 9069 1836 360 2475 Source: USDA 2002e, "Census of Agriculture," County Data, Table 7. Hired Farm Labor-Workers and Payroll: 2002 a Counties within 50 mi of IP2 and IP3 with at least one block group located within the 50-mi radius 2 2.2.8.6 Economy 3 This section contains a discussion of the economy, including employment and income, 4 unemployment, and taxes. 5 Employment and Income 6 Between 2000 and 2006, the civilian labor force in Westchester County increased 3.8 percent 7 from 452,417 to 469,558. The civilian labor force in Dutchess, Orange, and Putnam Counties 8 also grew by 11.9, 16.4, and 9.4 percent, respectively (USCB 2008c). 9 In 2002, health care and social assistance represented the largest sector of employment in the 10 four-county region followed closely by retail, manufacturing, and the accommodation and food 11 service industry. The health care and social assistance sector employed the most people in 12 Westchester County followed by retail trade and professional, scientific, and technical services 13 sectors. A list of some of the major employers in Westchester County in 2006 is provided in 14 Table 2-16. As shown in the table, the largest employer in Westchester County in 2006 was 15 IBM Corporation with 7475 employees. 16 Income information for the IP2 and IP3 ROI is presented in Table 2-17. In 1999, the date of the 17 last economic census, the four counties each had median household incomes far above the 18 New York State average. Per capita income, with the exception of Orange County, was also 19 above the New York State average. In 1999, only 8.8 percent of the population in Westchester 20 County was living below the official poverty level, while in Dutchess, Orange, and Putnam 21 Counties, 7.5, 10.5, and 4.4 percent of the respective populations were living below the poverty 22 level. The percentage of families living below the poverty level was about the same for 23 Dutchess, Orange, and Westchester Counties. Putnam County had the smallest percentage of 24 families living below the poverty level (USCB 2008c). December 2008 2-127 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00162
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-16. Major Employers in Westchester County in 2006 Firm Number of Employees IBM Corporation 7475 County of Westchester 5881 Yonkers Public Schools 4049 Westchester Medical Center 3367 United States Postal Service District Office 3007 Verizon Communications 2733 Sound Shore Health System of Westchester 2515 City of Yonkers 2418 Riverside Health Care (S1. John's Riverside Hospital) 2418 PepsiCo Incorporated 2372 White Plains Hospital Center 1923 New York State Department of Correctional Services 1735 Pace University 1620 MTA Metro-North Railroad 1617 Entergy Nuclear Northeast 1500 Morgan Stanley 1475 The Bank of New York Company 1450 Mount Vernon City School District 1450 Con Edison 1400 City School District of New Rochelle 1352 Phelps Memorial Hospital Center 1347 White Plains Public Schools 1285 Source: The Journal News 2006 2 Table 2-17. Income Information for the IP2 and IP3 ROI Dutchess Orange Putnam Westchester New York Median household income 1999 (dollars) 53,086 52,058 72,279 63,582 43,393 Per capita income 1999 (dollars) 23,940 21,597 30,127 36,726 23,389 Percent of families living below the poverty level (2000) 5.0 7.6 2.7 6.4 11.5 Percent of individuals living below the poverty level (2000) 7.5 10.5 4.4 8.8 14.6 Source: useB 2008c Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-128 December 2008 OAG10001366_00163
Plant and the Environment 1 Unemployment 2 In 2006, the annual unemployment averages in Westchester and Dutchess, Orange, and 3 Putnam Counties were 5.3, 5.5, 6.2, and 4.8 percent, respectively, which were lower than the 4 annual unemployment average of 6.5 percent for the State of New York (USCB 2008c). 5 Taxes 6 IP2 and IP3 are assessed annual property taxes by the Town of Cortlandt, the Village of 7 Buchanan, and the Hendrick Hudson Central School District. PILOT payments, property taxes, 8 and other taxes from the site are paid directly to the Town of Cortlandt, the Village of Buchanan, 9 and the Hendrick Hudson Central School District (see Table 2-18). The payments to the Town 10 of Cortlandt are distributed to the Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County, the Verplanck Fire 11 District, the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, and Lakeland Central Schools. 12 PILOT payments, property taxes, and other taxes paid by Entergy account for a significant 13 portion of revenues for these government agencies. The remainder is divided between the 14 Village of Buchanan, Westchester County, the Town of Cortlandt, and the Verplanck Fire 15 District. 16 The Village of Buchanan is the principal local jurisdiction that receives direct revenue from the 17 site. In fiscal year 2006, PILOT payments, property taxes, and other taxes from the site 18 contributed about 40 percent of the Village of Buchanan's total revenue of $5.07 million, which 19 is used for police, fire, health, transportation, recreation, and other community services for over 20 2100 residents (NYSOSC 2007). Additionally in fiscal year 2006, PILOT payments, property 21 taxes, and other taxes from the site contributed over 27 percent of the total revenue collected 22 for the Hendrick Hudson Central School District. 23 Entergy also pays approximately $1 million dollars per year to New York State Energy Research 24 and Development Authority (NYSERDA) for lease of the discharge canal structure and 25 underlying land (NYSERDA 2007). 26 From 2003 through 2006, the Town of Cortlandt had between $31.6 and $34.5 million annually 27 in total revenues (NYSOSC 2008). Between 2003 and 2006, IP2 and IP3 PILOT and property 28 tax payments represented 11 to 16 percent of the Town's total revenues (see Table 2-18). 29 From 2003 through 2006, the Hendrick Hudson Central School District had between $51 and 30 $57 million annually in total revenues (NYSOSC 2008). Between 2003 and 2006, IP2 and IP3 31 PILOT payments represented 27 to 38 percent of the school district's total revenues (see 32 Table 2-18). 33 From 2003 to 2006, the Village of Buchanan had between $5 and $5.7 million annually in total 34 revenues (NYSOSC 2008). Between 2003 and 2006, IP2 and IP3 PILOT and property tax 35 payments represented between 39 and 43 percent of the Village's total revenues (see 36 Table 2-18). December 2008 2-129 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00164
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-18. IP2 and IP3 PILOT and Property Tax Paid and Percentage of the Total 2 Revenue of the Town of Cortlandt, Hendrick Hudson Central School District, and Village 3 of Buchanan, 2003 to 2006 PILOT and Property Tax Total Revenue Paid Percent of Entity Year (millions of dollars) (millions of dollars) Total Revenue Town of Cortlandt 2003 31.6 5.0 16 2004 31.9 4.7 15 2005 34.5 3.8 11 2006 33.8 3.7 11 Hendrick Hudson 2003 51.1 19.6 38 Central School 2004 52.8 18.9 36 District 2005 56.9 16.9 30 2006 55.9 15.3 27 Village of 2003 5.7 2.3 40 Buchanan 2004 5.0 2.2 43 2005 5.1 2.0 39 2006 5.1 2.0 40 Source: NYSOSC 2008; ENN 2007c 4 2.2.9 Historic and Archeological Resources 5 This section presents a brief summary of the region's cultural background and a description of 6 known historic and archaeological resources at the IP2 and IP3 site and its immediate vicinity. 7 The information presented was collected from the New York State Historic Preservation Office 8 (NYSHPO), and the applicant's environmental report (Entergy 2007a). 9 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background 10 Prehistory 11 The basic prehistoric cultural sequence and chronology for New York State is presented in 12 Table 2-19 below and the text that follows. This cultural sequence was generated primarily for 13 western and southern New York, and its applicability to the unusual estuarine environments of 14 the lower Hudson and southeastern New York is uncertain. Given the lack of excavated data 15 specific to the lower Hudson River Valley, the NRC staff used this generalized sequence 16 (Ritchie 1980). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-130 December 2008 OAG10001366_00165
Plant and the Environment 1 Table 2-19. Cultural Sequence and Chronology Cultural Period Time Period Paleo-Indian Period 9000-7000 B.C. Archaic Period 7000-1000 B.C. Woodland Period 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1524 European Contact A.D. 1524-1608 2 Paleo-Indian Period 3 Archeological evidence suggests that Paleo-Indian people were hunter-gatherers who primarily 4 hunted large mammals using projectiles tipped with distinctively flaked "fluted" stone points. 5 These small, widely dispersed bands ranged over large geographic areas supplementing food 6 taken from large mammal hunts by collecting edible wild plant foods, fishing, and hunting 7 smaller game (Ritchie 1980). 8 Humans entered upstate New York and the Hudson River Valley for the first time around 9 10,000-9,000 B.C. Ritchie (1980) reports isolated finds of fluted points characteristic of the 10 Clovis tradition in the Albany area. Data on Paleo-Indian fluted points indicate only one 11 example each in Westchester, Rockland, and Orange Counties. Levine's more extensive 12 publication (1989) regarding Paleo-Indian fluted points from surface collections in the Upper 13 Hudson River Valley is similarly vague regarding the nature of findspots and their environmental 14 settings. Most appear to have been collected from agricultural plow zones and indicate a 15 temporary occupation, such as a hunting camp. 16 Excavated sites are consistently small and indicative of extremely short-term utilization. Of 17 particular interest to the lower Hudson is the Port Mobil site, located above the Arthur Kill on 18 Staten Island. Though badly disturbed, the location of the site indicates a strong estuarine 19 orientation, and the lithic materials recovered at the site derive from both eastern New York and 20 eastern Pennsylvanian sources (Ritchie 1994). 21 Archaic Period 22 Generalized hunter-gatherers exploiting large game and a wide variety of fauna, including small 23 mammals and birds, and fish, characterize the Archaic period. The Early and Middle Archaic 24 Periods had long been interpreted as representing a low point in human occupation in the 25 Northeast, but as with the Paleo-Indian period, surface collections have begun to fill in the gap 26 (Levine 1989). Part of the explanation for the increasing density of human occupation of upper 27 New York State may involve the gradual transition from relatively resource-poor coniferous 28 forests to hardwood forests during the course of the period (Salwen 1975). Gradually rising sea 29 levels would have shortened the descent to the Hudson River banks and flooded any number of 30 Early Archaic sites. 31 Brennan noted that Archaic hunting and foraging was centered on two pools or bays, the 32 Tappan Zee, stretching from just north of Yonkers to the Croton River, and Haverstraw Bay, 33 from the Croton River to Bear Mountain. He disagreed, however, with the notion that any of the 34 sites represented long-term, much less permanent, settlements and specialized subsistence. 35 Instead, he suggested that Archaic exploitation of the lower Hudson was only seasonal, as part 36 of a generalized subsistence strategy (Brennan 1977). December 2008 2-131 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00166
Plant and the Environment 1 Woodland Period 2 The Woodland Period in New York State saw the establishment of horticulture and the 3 development of larger social units, including matriarchal and matrilocal clans, sedentary 4 villages, and tribes. Pottery is gradually introduced, and a much wider variety of material culture 5 comes into use. While minor climate fluctuations took place during this period, the overall 6 environment was very similar to that of today. 7 Early Woodland sites are similar to those of the Late Archaic Period. They are typically small 8 sites, with projectile points, scrapers, and bone tools providing evidence of hunting, fishing, and 9 limited cultivation (Funk 1976). Pottery is found on an increasing number of sites, typically 10 stamped and impressed cooking pots tempered with crushed shell. The wide variety of pottery 11 types found at individual sites, however, points to low levels of interaction between groups. 12 Other new features of the early Woodland Period are burials with elaborate grave goods, 13 including flints and bone tools, shell and copper beads, and stone pendants (Ritchie 1980). 14 By the Middle and Late Woodland Periods, the size and complexity of sites increased 15 tremendously. The key to later developments was the introduction of horticulture and the 16 cultivation of maize (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and squash (Cucurbita pepo). 17 Processing of these crops was facilitated by the use of cooking pots and storage pits. Villages 18 were occupied year-round by the end of the period and often comprised multiple long houses 19 positioned on defensible hills and fortified with walls or palisades. 20 European Contact, 1524-1608 21 The Contact Period in the lower Hudson Valley began in 1524, when the Spanish explorer 22 Giovanni de Verrazzano reached New York Harbor in his ship, the Oauphin. After anchoring 23 near Staten Island, he attempted to go ashore in a small boat but was forced to return to his 24 ship because of a sudden storm. Verrazzano then departed quickly and continued up the East 25 Coast. The Spanish continued to exploit the area between the Chesapeake and the Gulf of 26 Maine, primarily as slavers, while French fishermen appear to have frequented the Grand Banks 27 in the 16th century. 28 Historic Period 29 The Colonial Period, 1608-1776 30 The English explorer Henry Hudson undertook two unsuccessful Arctic explorations in search of 31 the Northwest Passage to the Orient in 1608. With the support of the Dutch East Indies 32 Company, Hudson's famous voyage in the Half Moon took place in 1609, whereupon he 33 discovered instead the river that now bears his name. Almost immediately thereafter, Dutch 34 traders in great numbers began flooding into the area, primarily in search of furs. In 1614, the 35 New Netherlands Company was formed and given a charter by the Dutch to exploit the areas 36 between the Connecticut, Mohawk, and Hudson Rivers. In 1614, the Dutch established Fort 37 Nassau on the west bank of the Hudson River at what is now Albany. 38 The island known as Manhattan was, famously, purchased from the Manhattes in 1626, and 39 other areas such as Staten Island, Hoboken, and Nyack were purchased in the succeeding 40 decades (Francis 1997; Kraft 1991). Dutch, Walloon, Huguenot, and even small numbers of 41 Jews began to arrive as refugees and settlers in New Amsterdam, but by 1630, the population 42 was still only around 300. In 1664 an English fleet sailed into the harbor at New Amsterdam, Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-132 December 2008 OAG10001366_00167
Plant and the Environment 1 and after some negotiation, the Dutch capitulated. The English seized the entire colony of New 2 Amsterdam and renamed the area New York and New Jersey. 3 The Revolutionary War, 1776-1783 4 New York and, more specifically, Westchester County were the site of many significant events 5 during the American Revolution. The social and economic structure of the State was still 6 dominated by large landowners, and discontent had already emerged among tenant farmers 7 during the 1750s and 1760s. British troops landed on Staten Island in July 1776 and advanced 8 northward, pressing colonial forces under the command of George Washington to make a 9 strategic retreat north into Westchester County (Griffin 1946). With a large British force 10 advancing, the bulk of American forces in Westchester retreated across the Hudson to New 11 Jersey (Griffin 1946; Countryman 2001). Westchester remained on the front lines until the end 12 of the war. The American defense line stretched from Mamaroneck to Peekskill, with British 13 forces arrayed across southern Westchester County, creating a "neutral ground" in between, 14 across which violence raged. The British gradually captured the bulk of Westchester County by 15 1779 but were unable to press their advantage further (Griffin 1946; Countryman 2001). 16 The Americans slowly pushed the British back from the Hudson Highlands and then 17 Westchester County. In July 1779, General Anthony Wayne and his Corps of Light Infantry 18 conducted a successful assault against a British encampment at Stony Point. The modern 19 Stony Point Battlefield in Rockland County is across the Hudson River from the IP2 and IP3 site. 20 19th Century Development 21 The economy of Westchester County remained overwhelmingly agricultural during the first half 22 of the 19th century, driving a number of infrastructure improvements. The Croton Turnpike, for 23 example, was organized in 1807 to carry the enormous cattle traffic en route to New York City 24 from Westchester County. Though shipbuilding was a major industry on both the Hudson and 25 Long Island Sound sides of Westchester, regular sloop traffic to Manhattan did not begin until 26 the later 18th century. After 1807, the steamboat revolution, engineered by Robert Livingston 27 and Robert Fulton, opened a new era on the Hudson River. 28 The landscape of New York State and Westchester County was profoundly transformed by land 29 speculation, which opened virtually the entirety of the State for farming, and more gradually by 30 the spread of industry. Copper was mined near Sing-Sing and iron near Port Chester and 31 Irvington, and iron working was established in Peekskill. During the latter part of the 32 19th century, the area just north of the IP2 and IP3 site was surface-mined, and a small lime kiln 33 and blast furnace were operated within or adjacent to the footprint of the current facility 34 (Enercon, 2006). By the end of the 19th century, industrialization was widespread in 35 Westchester County. 36 20th Century Development 37 Land remained the dominant theme for the 20th century in Westchester County, but in a far 38 different sense than during the 19th . The preceding century had seen the landscape 39 transformed through the end of the manorial system and the spread of freehold farming, then by 40 industrialization and transportation networks, and finally by deliberate preservation as New York 41 City's water source. Though the surrounding counties had always been secondary to New York 42 City in terms of population, productivity, and wealth, the 20th century gradually saw decisive 43 political and economic subordination. December 2008 2-133 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00168
Plant and the Environment 1 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archeological Resources at the IP2 & IP3 Site 2 Previously Recorded Resources 3 A Phase 1A Survey (literature review and sensitivity assessment) was conducted in 2006 by 4 Entergy (Enercon, 2006). This survey was primarily a literature review and included only an 5 informal walkover of a portion of the plant site. Areas of potential aboriginal and historical 6 interest were noted; however, no sites were recorded as part of this effort. No systematic 7 pedestrian or subsurface cultural resources surveys have been conducted at the IP2 and IP3 8 site. 9 NYSHPO houses the State's archeological site files and information on historic resources such 10 as buildings and houses, including available information concerning the National or State 11 Register eligibility status of these resources. The NRC cultural resources team visited NYSHPO 12 and conducted a records search for archeological sites located within or near the IP2 and IP3 13 property. The results of this search are detailed below. 14 There are no previously recorded archeological sites within the IP2 & IP3 property. A search for 15 sites within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius of the plant also revealed no previously recorded sites. The 16 nearest recorded site (A-119-02-0003) is located southwest of the plant, at Verplanck's Point. 17 Site A-119-02-003 is the site of the Revolutionary War era Fort Lafayette. The New York State 18 Historic Trust site inventory form indicates that there is no longer any visible, above ground 19 evidence of the fort; however, the inventory form documents artifacts from the fort site (including 20 cannonballs and uniform buttons) found in the collections of local residents in the mid-1970s. 21 The nearest previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site is the "Peekskill Shell Heap" 22 (NYSM 6910). This site is a shell and artifact midden deposit located northeast of the IP2 and 23 IP3 site in the City of Peekskill. 24 A review of the NYSH PO files was conducted to identify aboveground historic resources within 25 5 mi (8 km) of the plant. In Westchester County, 29 resources are listed on the National 26 Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the 5-mi (8-km) radius. Additionally, there are 27 16 NRHP-listed resources in Rockland County, 19 in Orange County, and 22 in Putnam County 28 within 5 mi (8 km). The nearest NRHP-listed historic resource to the IP2 and IP3 facilities is the 29 Standard House in the City of Peekskill, approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) to the northeast. The 30 Standard House is a three-story Italianate structure built in 1855 and originally used as a 31 boarding house and tavern. 32 IP1 began operation in August 1962 and was shut down in October 1974 and placed in 33 SAFSTOR with intent for decommissioning at a later date. The plant was one of three 34 "demonstration plants" that began operation in the early 1960s and is representative of the 35 earliest era of commercial reactors to operate in the United States. To date, no formal 36 significance or eligibility evaluation has been conducted for IP1. 37 Results of Walkover Survey 38 The NRC staff performed an informal walkover survey of the IP2 and IP3 property during the 39 environmental site audit, including portions of the power block area and portions of the former 40 Lent's Cove Park (wooded area north of the power block area). During this walkover, it was 41 observed that the power block area has been extensively disturbed and graded. The NRC staff 42 walked a meandering path through the wooded area north of the plant and along a portion of the 43 shoreline of Lent's Cove. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-134 December 2008 OAG10001366_00169
Plant and the Environment 1 The NRC cultural resources team observed evidence of prehistoric use of this area in two 2 locations along the walkover route. The NRC staff observed two pieces of chert debitage near a 3 stream in the western portion of the wooded area, and a Woodland Period, Meadowood Phase, 4 projectile point was observed near the shoreline along Lent's Cove. Historic Period use of this 5 area was also observed in the form of an apparent stone house foundation and scattered 6 historic era trash piles. 7 Evidence of mining (Enercon 2006) was confirmed in the western portion of the wooded area. 8 Manmade holes of varying size and piles of spoil material were observed by the NRC staff along 9 the route of the walkover in this portion of the property. 10 The NRC staff observed a concrete stairway and retaining wall (remnants of an early 11 20th century park) south of the main power block area. These appear to be the only remaining 12 features of the former Indian Point Park, a popular recreation area from 1923 to 1956 (Enercon 13 2006). 14 Potential Archeological Resources 15 As the result of disturbances associated with site preparation and construction, the main 16 generating station areas at IP2 and IP3 have little or no potential for archeological resources. 17 There is potential for archeological resources to be present in the wooded area north of the 18 main generating station areas, and the historic period mining features in this area represent a 19 potentially significant resource. The portion of the property south and east of the power block 20 area, which contains a variety of ancillary plant facilities, has been disturbed by construction 21 activities over the course of the plant's history. It is possible, however, that portions of that area 22 not disturbed by construction activities may contain intact subsurface archeological deposits. 23 Additionally, the concrete stairway and retaining wall from the former Indian Point Park would 24 require evaluation, should any construction activity be planned for that area of the facility. 25 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations 26 During the preparation of the IP2 and IP3 ER, Entergy did not identify any known or reasonably 27 foreseeable Federal projects or other activities that could contribute to the cumulative 28 environmental impacts of license renewal at the site (Entergy 2006a). 29 The NRC staff further reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might 30 affect the renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3. The presence of any such activity 31 could result in cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to 32 become a cooperating agency in the preparation of the draft SEIS. 33 The NRC staff identified several current Federal projects occurring near IP2 and IP3, which the 34 staff will discuss in the following paragraphs. The NRC staff has determined that none of these 35 Federal projects would result in impacts to the IP2 and IP3 license renewal review that would 36 make it desirable for another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency in the 37 preparation of this draft SEIS. 38 The NRC is required under Section 102(c) of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments of 39 any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any 40 environmental impact involved. Federal agency comment correspondence is included in 41 Appendix E. December 2008 2-135 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00170
Plant and the Environment 1 New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign 2 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing to redesign the airspace in the New 3 York/New Jersey/Philadelphia (NY/NJ/PHL) Metropolitan Area. This redesign was conceived as 4 a system for more efficiently directing Instrument Flight Rule aircraft to and from five major 5 airports in the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area, including John F. Kennedy International Airport 6 and LaGuardia Airport in New York, Newark Liberty International Airport and Teterboro Airport 7 in New Jersey, and Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania. All of these airports are 8 south of the IP2 and IP3 facility with the closest being the Teterboro Airport which is about 30 mi 9 away. The redesign project also included 16 satellite airports in the study area. Of these 10 satellite airports, the White Plains/Westchester County Airport, located about 24 mi south-11 southeast of the IP2 and IP3 facility, and Stewart International Airport, located about 25 mi 12 north, are the closest to the facility. 13 FAA, in cooperation with DOT, prepared an EIS to evaluate the environmental effects of the 14 NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign in accordance with NEPA (DOT/FAA 2007). 15 The proposed action for this EIS is to redesign the airspace in the NY/NJ/PHL metropolitan 16 area. This involves developing new routes and procedures to take advantage of improved 17 aircraft performance and emerging air traffic control technologies. The final EIS identified that 18 potential significant impacts exist in the categories Noise/Compatible Land Use and 19 Socioeconomic Impacts/Environmental Justice (DOT/FAA 2007). The greatest potential impact 20 of the proposed action and preferred alternative is changes in the noise levels in the airspace 21 redesign area. 22 The EIS provides detailed descriptions of the proposed noise mitigation procedures identified for 23 the preferred alternative mitigation package. The EIS studied regions of the Appalachian Trail 24 which lie north of the IP2 and IP3 facility. The trail crosses the Hudson River about 4 mi north of 25 the facility near Bear Mountain. In this area, the EIS mitigated preferred alternative for 2011 26 would result in an average of 512.4 daily air jet operations in the region (DOT/FAA 2007). The 27 no action alternative for 2011 air traffic would result in an average of 268.1 daily air jet 28 operations (DOT/FAA 2007). The mitigated preferred alternative would, therefore, result in a 29 more than 90-percent increase in air traffic in the region immediately north and northwest of the 30 facility. The formal Record of Decision (ROD) for the airspace redesign study which supports 31 the FAA's mitigated preferred alternative was issued in September 2007 (FAA 2007). 32 Hudson River PCBs Site 33 The EPA Hudson River PCBs Site encompasses a nearly 200-mi stretch of the Hudson River in 34 eastern New York State from Hudson Falls, New York, to the Battery in New York City and 35 includes communities in 14 New York counties and 2 counties in New Jersey (EPA 2008c). The 36 EPA ROD for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site addresses the risks to people and 37 ecological receptors associated with PCBs in the in-place sediments of the Upper Hudson 38 River. The February 2002 ROD calls for targeted environmental dredging and removal of 39 approximately 2.65 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment from a 40-mi stretch of 40 the Upper Hudson. In the ROD, EPA selected a plan that addresses the risks to people and the 41 environment associated with PCBs in the sediments of the Upper Hudson River. The actions in 42 the Upper Hudson will lower the risks to people, fish, and wildlife in the Lower Hudson (EPA 43 2008c). Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-136 December 2008 OAG10001366_00171
Plant and the Environment 1 On January 25, 2008, EPA completed the final step in the approval process for the design of 2 Phase 1 of the Hudson River PCBs Site dredging program (EPA 2008c). Phase 1 3 encompasses the construction of facilities necessary to process and transport sediments to be 4 dredged from the river, as well as the first year of the dredging program and the habitat 5 replacement and reconstruction program for those areas dredged during Phase 1. Phase 2 will 6 consist of dredging the first three sections of the Upper Hudson River (north of the Federal Dam 7 at Troy, New York) (EPA 2008d). 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hudson River Federal Navigation Project 9 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), New York District, prepared an EIS addressing 10 the effects of the Hudson River Federal Navigation Project in 1983. Environmental 11 assessments updating the EIS were prepared by the USACE New York District for various 12 maintenance dredging projects since the mid-1980s. USACE determined that the maintenance 13 dredging for the Hudson River Federal Navigation Project, with placement of dredged material 14 on the federally owned upland placement site on Houghtaling Island, has no significant adverse 15 environmental impacts on water quality, marine resources, fish, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, 16 and flood protection (USACE 2006). 17 Coastal Zone Management Act 18 In the United States, coastal areas are managed through the Coastal Zone Management Act of 19 1972 (CZMA). The Act, administered by the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 20 Management, provides for management of the nation's coastal resources, including the Great 21 Lakes, and balances economic development with environmental conservation. The Federal 22 Consistency Regulations implemented by NOAA are contained in 15 CFR Part 930. 23 This law authorizes individual states to develop plans that incorporate the strategies and 24 policies they will employ to manage development and use of coastal land and water areas. Each 25 plan must be approved by NOAA. One of the components of an approved plan is "enforceable 26 polices," by which a state exerts control over coastal uses and resources. 27 The New York Coastal Management Program was approved by NOAA in 1982. The lead 28 agency is the Division of Coastal Resources within the Department of State. The lead agency 29 implements and supervises all the various Coastal Zone Management programs in the state. 30 New York's coastal zone includes coastal counties on Long Island as well as Westchester 31 County, the boroughs of New York City, counties along the Hudson River up the Federal Dam at 32 Troy, and counties along the Great Lakes (NOAA 2007b). Federal Consistency requires 33 "federal actions, occurring inside a state's coastal zone, that have a reasonable potential to 34 affect the coastal resources or uses of that state's coastal zone, to be consistent with that 35 state's enforceable coastal policies, to the maximum extent practicable." 36 IP2 and IP3 are located in Westchester County, within the State's Coastal Zone, specifically in 37 the Peekskill South region of the Hudson River (NYSDOS undated). The IP2 and IP3 site is 38 adjacent to a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Haverstraw Bay), and south of the 39 Hudson Highlands Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (NYSDOS undated). Based on IP2 40 and IP3's location within the State's Coastal Zone, license renewal of IP2 and IP3 will require a 41 State coastal consistency certification. December 2008 2-137 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00172
Plant and the Environment 1 2.3 References 2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for 3 Protection Against Radiation." 4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 5 Production and Utilization Facilities." 6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." 8 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site 9 Criteria." 10 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 11 "Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal Operations of Activities in the 12 Uranium Fuel Cycle." 13 40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 261, 14 "Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste." 15 40 CFR Part 264. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 264, 16 "Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal 17 Facilities." 18 40 CFR Part 273. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 273, 19 "Standards for Universal Waste Management." 20 32 FR 4001. U.S. Department of the Interior. "Native Fish and Wildlife: Endangered Species." 21 March 11, 1967. 22 41 FR 41914. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 23 Determination of Critical Habitat for American Crocodile, California Condor, Indiana Bat, and 24 Florida Manatee." September 24, 1976. 25 69 FR 39395. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 26 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the New England Cottontail as Threatened or Endangered." 27 June 30, 2004. 28 71 FR 61022. National Marine Fisheries Services. "Endangered and Threatened Species; 29 Revision of Species of Concern List, Candidate Species Definition, and Candidate Species List." 30 October 17, 2006. 31 72 FR 37346. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 32 Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened 33 Wildlife." Final rule. July 9,2007. 34 72 FR 69033. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Review of Native Species That Are Candidates 35 or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on 36 Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions." Proposed Rule. 37 December 12,2007. 38 6 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) Subpart B. Title 6 of the Official 39 Compilation of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Subpart B, "Solid Waste." Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-138 December 2008 OAG10001366_00173
Plant and the Environment 1 16 U.S.C. Section 668aa(c). "Endangered Species Preservation Act." October 15. 2 16 U.S.C. Section 1531 to 1544. "Endangered Species Act of 1973" (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544,87 3 Stat. 884), as amended. Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973. 4 16 U.S.C. Section 5151 to 5158. "Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act" (16 U.S.C. 5151-5 1544,98 Stat. 3187). Public Law 98-613, approved 1984. 6 Abood, K.A., T.L. Englert, S.G. Metzger, C.V. Beckers, Jr., T.J. Groninger, and S. Mallavaram. 7 2006. "Current and Evolving Physical and Chemical Conditions in the Hudson River Estuary." 8 American Fisheries Society Symposium 51, pp. 39--61. 9 Achman, D.R., B.J. Brownawell, and L. Zhang. 1996. "Exchange of Polychlorinated Biphenyls 10 Between Sediment and Water in the Hudson River Estuary." Estuaries 19:4, pp. 950-965. 11 ASA (ASA Analysis and Communication). 2007. 2005 Year Class Report for the Hudson River 12 Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared on behalf of Dynergy Roseton LLC, Entergy Nuclear 13 Indian Point 2 LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 LLC, and Mirant Bowline LLC. January 14 2007. ADAMS No. ML073331067. 15 Ashizawa, D., and J.J. Cole. 1994. "Long-Term Temperature Trends of the Hudson River: A 16 Study of the Historical Data." Estuaries 17:18, pp. 166-171. 17 ASSRT (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team). 2007. "Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon 18 (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)." Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 19 Regional Office. February 23,2007. 174 pp. Accessed at 20 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf on December 7, 21 2007. 22 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1998. "American Shad Stock 23 Assessment: Peer Review Report." March 1998. Washington, DC. Accessed at 24 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/stockassmtreports/shadstockassmtreport.PDF 25 on January 21,2008. 26 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2004. "Status of the Blue Crab 27 (Callinectes sapid us) on the Atlantic Coast." Special Report No. 80. 28 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006a. "2006 Stock Assessment 29 Report for Atlantic Menhaden." Atlantic Menhaden Technical Committee. September 26, 2006. 30 Accessed at 31 http://www .asmfc. org/species Documents/menhaden/reports/stockAssessm ents/2006StockAsse 32 ssmentReport. pdf?bcsi_scan_ 513F405096A035F7=0&bcsi_ scan_filename=2006StockAssessm 33 entReport.pdf on February 5, 2008. 34 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006b. "Species profile: Atlantic 35 striped bass, the challenges of managing a restored stock." Accessed at 36 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/speciesprofile.pdf on December 10, 2007. 37 ADAMS No. ML083360698. 38 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). "2006 Weakfish Stock Assessment 39 Report." December 2006. Accessed at 40 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/weakfish/stockassessmentreports/2006WeakfishStock December 2008 2-139 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00174
Plant and the Environment 1 Assessment. pdf?bcsi_scan_B666A 1DE717DB577=0&bcsi_scan_filename=2006WeakfishStock 2 Assessment.pdf on February 13, 2008. 3 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007a. "American Shad Stock 4 Assessment Report for Peer Review." Stock Assessment Report No. 07-01 (Supplement) of the 5 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. August 16, 2007. Accessed at 6 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/stockassmtreports/2007ShadStockAssmtReport 7 Volumel.pdf on January 21,2008. 8 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007b. "Species Profile: Weakfish-9 The Challenge of Managing a Stock Decline When Fishing is Not the Cause." ASMFC 10 Fisheries Focus, Vol. 16, Issue 4: May/June 2007. Accessed at 11 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/weakfish/weakfishProfile.pdf on February 17, 2008. 12 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007c. "Species Profile: Atlantic 13 Sturgeon, Ancient Species' Slow Road to Recovery." Accessed at 14 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/sturgeonProfile.pdf on December 6, 2007. 15 Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D.L. Peterson, K.K. Arend, K.E. Mills, and P.J. Sullivan. 2007. "Recovery 16 of a U.S. Endangered Fish." PLoS ONE 2(1): e168. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell 17 University, Ithaca, New York. Accessed at 18 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2FjournaI.pone.0000168#s3 on 19 December 11, 2007. 20 Barnthouse, L.W., and W. Van Winkle. 1988. "Analysis of Impingement Impacts on Hudson 21 River Fish Populations." American Fisheries Society Monograph 4, pp. 182-190. 22 Berggren, T.J., and J.T. Lieberman. 1978. "Relative Contribution of Hudson, Chesapeake, and 23 Roanoke Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis, Stocks to the Atlantic Coast Fishery." U.S. National 24 Marine Fisheries Service Fishery Bulletin 76, pp. 335-345. 25 Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin 74, 26 Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Volume 53, Contribution No. 592, Woods Hole 27 Oceanographic Institution. U.S. Government Printing Office. Accessed at 28 http://www.gma.org/fogm on January 21, 2008. 29 Blumberg, A.F., and F.L. Hellweger. 2006. "Hydrodynamics of the Hudson River Estuary." 30 American Fisheries Society Symposium 51, pp. 9-28. 31 Boreman, J., and C.P. Goodyear. 1988. "Estimates of Entrainment Mortality for Striped Bass 32 and Other Fish Species Inhabiting the Hudson River Estuary." American Fisheries Society 33 Monograph 4, pp. 152-160. 34 Brennan, L.A. 1977. "The Lower Hudson: The Archaic." In Amerinds and their 35 Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America. pp. 411-430. Edited by Walter S. Newman 36 and Bert Salwen. New York Academy of Sciences, NY. 37 Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States, Canada 38 and the British Possessions. Volume II. Second edition, revised and enlarged. Charles 39 Scribner's Sons, New York. 40 Brosnan, T.M., and M.L. O'Shea. 1996. "Long-term Improvements in Water Quality Due to 41 Sewage Abatement in the Lower Hudson River." Estuaries 19:4, pp. 890-900. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-140 December 2008 OAG10001366_00175
Plant and the Environment 1 Buckley, J.L. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environment; Requirements of Coastal 2 Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic)-Rainbow Smelt." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3 Biological Report 82(11.106), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 11 pp. Accessed at 4 http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-106.pdf on March 13,2008. 5 Caraco, N.F., J.J. Cole, P.A. Raymond, D.L. Strayer, M.L. Pace, S.E.G. Findlay, and D.T. 6 Fisher. 1997. "Zebra Mussel Invasion in a Large, Turbid River: Phytoplankton Response to 7 Increased Grazing." Ecology 78, pp. 588-602. 8 Caraco, N.F., J.J. Cole. S.E.G. Findlay, D.T. Fischer, G.G. Lampman, M.L. Pace, and D.L. 9 Strayer. 2000. "Dissolved Oxygen Declines in the Hudson River Associated with the Invasion 10 of the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)." Environmental Science and Technology 34, pp. 11 1204-1210. 12 Caraco, N.F., and J.J. Cole. 2006. "Hydrologic Control of External Carbon Loads and Primary 13 Production in the Tidal Freshwater Hudson." American Fisheries Society Symposium 51, pp. 14 63-74. 15 Center for Plant Conservation (CPC). 2008. "National Collection of Endangered Plants-Plant 16 Profiles." Accessed at http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_NCList_Alpha.asp 17 on March 12,2008. ADAMS No. ML083390228. 18 Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006. "White Perch." Accessed at 19 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/white_perch.htm on January 11,2008. ADAMS No. 20 ML083390252. 21 CHGEC (Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation). 1999. "Draft Environmental Impact 22 Statement for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline Point, Indian 23 Point 2 and 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations." Consolidated Edison 24 Company New York, Inc. New York Power Authority and Southern Energy New York. 25 December 1999. ADAMS Accession No. ML083400128. 26 Christensen, S.W., and T.L. Englert. 1988. "Historical Development of Entrainment Models for 27 Hudson River Striped Bass." American Fisheries Society Monograph 4, 133-142. 28 Collette, B.B., and G. Klein-MacPhee (eds.). 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder's Fishes of the Gulf 29 of Maine (3rd Ed.). 748 pp. Smithsonian Institute Press, Herndon, VA. 30 Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians, Eastern and 31 Central North America. Third edition, expanded. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 32 Cortlandt Consolidated Water District (CCWD). 2006. "Annual Water Supply Statement," p. 1. 33 Accessed at www.townofcortlandt.com on July 15, 2006. ADAMS No. ML083390256. 34 Countryman, E. 2001. "From Revolution to Statehood (1776-1825)." In The Empire State: A 35 History of New York, p. 237. Edited by Milton M. Klein. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 36 Dadswell, M.J., B.D. Taubert, T.S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. "Synopsis of 37 Biological Data on Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevi rostrum LeSueur 1818". NOAA 38 Technical Report NMFS-14, FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 140,45 pp. Accessed at 39 http://www. nmfs. noaa. gov/pr/pdfs/species/shortnosesturgeon_biological_data. pdf on December 40 11,2007. December 2008 2-141 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00176
Plant and the Environment 1 Daniels, R.A, K.E. Limburg, R.E. Schmidt, D.L. Strayer, and R.C. Chambers. 2005. "Changes 2 in Fish Assemblages in the Tidal Hudson River, New York." American Fisheries Society 3 Symposium 45: pp.471-503. Accessed at 4 http://www.ecostudies.org/reprints/daniels_et_al_2005.pdf on March 13, 2008. 5 Deason, E.E. 1982. "Mnemiopsis leidyi (Ctenophora) in Narragansett Bay, 1975-1979: 6 Abundance, Size, Composition, and Estimation of Grazing." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 7 Science 15(2), pp. 121-134. 8 Department of Transportation (DOT)/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2007. Final 9 Environmental Impact Statement, New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area 10 Airspace Redesign. July 2007. 11 Derrick, P.A, and V.S. Kennedy. 1997. "Prey Selection by the Hogchoker, Trinectes maculates 12 (Pisces: Soleidae), Along Summer Salinity Gradients in Chesapeake Bay, USA" Marine 13 Biology 129(4), pp. 699-711. 14 Dew, C.B., and J.H. Hecht. 1994. "Hatching, Estuarine Transport, and Distribution of Larval 15 and Early Juvenile Atlantic Tomcod, Microgadus tomcod, in the Hudson River." Estuaries, Vol. 16 17, No.2, pp. 472-488. Accessed at 17 http://estuariesandcoasts.org/cdrom/ESTU1994_17_2_472_488. pdf on December 11, 2007. 18 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 19 ML073460164) 20 Dovel, W.L., J.A Mihursky, and AJ. McErlean. 1969. "Life History Aspects of the Hogchoker, 21 Trinectes maculatus, in the Patuxent River Estuary, Maryland." Cheasapeake Science 10(2), 22 pp. 104-119. Accessed at http://estuariesandcoasts.org/cdrom/CPSC1969_10_2_104_119.pdf 23 on February 18, 2008. 24 Dunn, J.L., and J. Alderfer (eds.). 2006. National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North 25 America. Fifth Edition. National Geographic, Washington, DC. 26 Dunning, D.J., Q.E. Ross, M.T. Mattson, and D.G. Heimbuch. 2006a. "Distribution and 27 Abundance of Bay Anchovy Eggs and Larvae in the Hudson River and Nearby Waterways." 28 American Fisheries Society Symposium 51, pp. 215-226. 29 Dunning, D.J., J.R. Waldman, Q.E. Ross, and M.T. Mattson. 2006b. "Dispersal of Age-2+ 30 Striped Bass Out of the Hudson River." American Fisheries Society Symposium 51, pp. 287-31 294. 32 Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development-Greenway Connections Report. 33 2006. Dutchess County New York. Accessed at 34 http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/EnvironmentLandPres/ELPgreenwayguide.htm on June 30,2006. 35 Enercon Services, Inc. (Enercon). 2003. "Economic and Environmental Impacts Associated 36 with Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water 37 Configuration." 38 Enercon Services, Inc. (Enercon). 2006. "Phase 1A Literature Review and Archaeological 39 Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site, Westchester County, New York." Tulsa, OK. 40 Entergy Nuclear Northeast (ENN). 2007a. "Indian Point 2, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 41 (ODCM), Part II-Calculation Methodology." Revision 11, Table 2-9. Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-142 December 2008 OAG10001366_00177
Plant and the Environment 1 Entergy Nuclear Northeast (ENN). 2007b. "Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs" (Letter 2 from Fred R. Dacimo, Indian Point Energy Center to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 3 Buchanan, NY. November 14, 2007. (ADAMS Accession No. ML073330590) 4 Entergy Nuclear Northeast (ENN). 2007c. "Supplement to License Renewal Application (LRA) 5 Environmental Report References." November 14,2007. (ADAMS Accession No. 6 M L073330590) 7 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2003a. "Indian Point Units 1 and 2-Annual 8 Effluent and Waste Disposal Report." Docket Numbers 50-3 and 50-247, Buchanan, NY. 9 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031220099) 10 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2003b. "Indian Point Unit 3-Annual Radioactive 11 Effluent Release Report." Docket Number 50-286, Buchanan, NY. (ADAMS Accession No. 12 ML031220024) 13 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2004. "Indian Point Units 1,2, and 3-2003 Annual 14 Effluent and Waste Disposal Report." Docket Numbers 50-3, 50-247, and 50-286, Buchanan, 15 NY. (ADAMS Accession No. ML041250522) 16 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2005a. "Indian Point Units 1,2, and 3-2004 17 Radioactive Effluent Release Report." Docket Numbers 50-3, 50-247, and 50-286, Buchanan, 18 NY. (ADAMS Accession No. ML051180211) 19 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2005b. "Indian Point Energy Center, Indian Point 20 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report," Revision 01. 21 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. "Indian Point 2 UFSAR," Revision 20. 22 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. "Indian Point Units 1,2, and 3-2005 23 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report." Docket Numbers 50-3,50-247, and 50-286, 24 Buchanan, NY. (ADAMS Accession No. ML061240373) 25 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2006c. "Abundance and Stock Characteristics of 26 the Atlantic Tomcod Spawning Population in the Hudson River, Winter 2003-2004." Prepared 27 by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Document R-19900.000. December 2006. ADAMS No. 28 ML073511572. 29 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2006d. "Indian Point, Units 1,2 and 3-Annual 30 Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2005." Docket Numbers 50-3,50-247, and 50 31 286, Buchanan, NY. (ADAMS Accession No. ML061290085) 32 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007a. "Applicant's Environmental Report, 33 Operating License Renewal Stage." (Appendix E of "Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License Renewal 34 Application.") April 23, 2007. (ADAMS Accession No. ML071210530) 35 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. "Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License 36 Renewal Application." April 23, 2007. (ADAMS Accession No. ML071210512) 37 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2007c. "Indian Point Units 1,2, and 3-2006 38 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report." Docket Numbers 50-3,50-247, and 50-286, 39 Buchanan, NY. (ADAMS Accession No. ML071230305) December 2008 2-143 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00178
Plant and the Environment 1 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2007d. "Indian Point, Units 1,2, and 3-Annual 2 Radiological Environmental Operating Report for 2006." Docket Numbers 50-3,50-247, and 50 3 286, Buchanan, NY. (ADAMS Accession No. ML071420088) 4 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2008. "Dry Cask Storage Information Sheet" 5 (http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/contentiResource_Library/dry_cask! Dry_Cask_Storage_info_ 6 sheet. pdf). Accessed at http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/resource_library/IPEC.aspx on June 7 26,2008. ADAMS No. ML083390262. 8 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. "Total Maximum Daily Loads, Listed Water 9 Information, Cycle: 2004. Hudson River, Lower Hudson River." Accessed at 10 http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/enviro.control?pJisUd=NY-1301-0002&p_cycle=2004 on February 11 23,2008. 12 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. "Green Book." Accessed at 13 http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk!ancl.htmlon August 10, 2007. ADAMS No.ML083390099 14 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. "Safe Drinking Water Information System 15 (SDWIS) Database." Accessed at http://oaspub.epa.gov on January 24,2006. ADAMS No. 16 ML083390264. 17 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007a. "Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous 18 United States." Western Ecology Division. Accessed at 19 http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/leveUii.htm on March 11,2008. ADAMS No. 20 M L083390482 21 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. "Nanotechnology White Paper." EPA 100/B-22 07/001, February 2007. Science Policy Council, Washington, D.C. Accessed at 23 http://www .epa. govlosa/pdfs/nanotech/epa- nanotechnology-whitepaper-24 0207. pdf?bcsi_ scan_A3171404B2C9D30E=0&bcsi_ scan_filename=epa-nanotechnology-25 whitepaper-0207.pdf on December 2,2008. 26 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008a. "Hudson River PCB Superfund Site, Dredge 27 Area 2 Delineation Fact Sheet, 2008." Accessed at 28 http://www.epa.gov/hudson/factsheet_2nd_phaselow.pdf on February 4,2008. ADAMS No. 29 M L083360712. 30 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008b. "Local Drinking Water Information, 31 Pennsylvania Drinking Water, Envirofacts Data on Pennsylvania, County Search-Allegheny 32 and Beaver Counties-January 18, 2008." Accessed at 33 http://oaspub.epa.gov/envirolsdw_form_v2.create_page?state_abbr=PA in April 2008. ADAMS 34 No. ML083390266. 35 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008c. "Hudson River PCBs" Web page. Accessed 36 at http://www.epa.gov/hudson on March 5, 2008. ADAMS No. ML083390040. 37 Euston, E.T., S.A Haney, K.A Hattala, and AW. Kahnle. 2006. "Overview of the Hudson 38 River Recreational Fisheries, with an Emphasis on Striped Bass." American Fisheries Society 39 Symposium 51, pp. 295-315. 40 Everly, AW., and J. Boreman. 1999. "Habitat Use and Requirements of Important Fish 41 Species Inhabiting the Hudson River Estuary." National Oceanic and Atmospheric 42 Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-121. Accessed at Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-144 December 2008 OAG10001366_00179
Plant and the Environment 1 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm121/ on November 29,2007. (ADAMS 2 Accession No. ML073460167) 3 Fabrizio, M.C. 1987. "Contribution of Chesapeake Bay and Hudson River Stocks of Striped 4 Bass to Rhode Island Coastal Waters as Estimated by Isoelectric Focusing of Eye Lens 5 Proteins." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116, pp. 588-593. 6 Facey, D.E., and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1986. "Species Profile: Life Histories and 7 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic)-American 8 Shad." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BioI. Rep. 82 (11.76). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR 9 EL-82-4. Accessed at 10 http://conserveon line. org/workspaces/atlantic. diad romous. m ig ratory. fish/alosa. sapid issi ma/Shad 11 %20profile.pdf on December 18, 2007. 12 Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983. "Species Profile: Life Histories and 13 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic)- 14 Alewife/Blueback Herring." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BioI. Rep. 82 (11.45). U.S. Army 15 Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Accessed at 16 http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-009.pdf on November 29,2007. 17 (ADAMS Accession No. ML073460154) 18 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2007. Press Release: "FAA Issues Final Decision on 19 Airspace Redesign." September 5,2007. Accessed at 20 http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/535311 on March 5,2008. ADAMS No. 21 ML083390269. 22 Findlay, S., D. Strayer, M. Bain, and W.C. Nieder. 2006. "Ecology of Hudson River Submerged 23 Aquatic Vegetation." Final Report to the New York State Department of Environmental 24 Conservation. Accessed at http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/scandoclinks/ocm82162378.htm on 25 February 21,2008. 26 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. "Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern 27 Population, Recovery Plan." Hadley, Massachusetts. 103 pp. Accessed at 28 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/010515.pdf on March 4,2008. 29 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. "Threatened and Endangered Species: Indiana Bat 30 (Myotis sodalis)." Accessed at http://www.fws.gov/midwestiEndangered/ on March 4,2008. 31 ADAMS No. ML083390273. 32 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. "Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas: Aquatic 33 Plants." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bayscapes Conservation Landscaping Program. 34 October 7,2004. Accessed at http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/trna.htm on 35 February 23,2008. ADAMS No. ML083390277. 36 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007a. "Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: 37 First Revision." Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 258 pp. Accessed at 38 http://www.fws.gov/midwestiEndangered/mammals/documents/inba_fnldrftrecpln_apr07.pdf on 39 March 4, 2008. 40 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007b. "Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment 41 Form, Scientific Name: Sylvilagus transitional is, Common Name: New England Cottontail." December 2008 2-145 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 OAG10001366_00180}}

ML12334A631

Text

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 DESCRIPTION

Navigation menu

Search