ML13275A002
| ML13275A002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/2013 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 25134, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR | |
| Download: ML13275A002 (17) | |
Text
ATTACHMENT 1 TO NRC STAFFs ANSWER TO RIVERKEEPER, INC. CONSOLIDATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED CONTENTION RK-EC-8A AND AMENDED CONTENTION RK-EC-8A
((Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Appendix E to DSEIS (Exhibit NYS00132A-D)
(ADAMS Accession No. ML083570601))
Appendix E December 2008 E-87 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 Biological Assessment 1
2 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant Unit Nos. 2 and 3 3
5 December 2008 6
Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 7
8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Rockville, Maryland 10
Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 E-88 December 2008 Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Federally Listed 1
Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed Renewal of 2
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 3
1.1 Introduction and Purpose 4
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this biological assessment (BA) to 5
support the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the renewal of the 6
operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3), located 7
on the shore of the Hudson River in the Village of Buchanan, in upper Westchester County, NY.
8 The current 40-year licenses expire in 2013 (IP2) and 2015 (IP3). The proposed license 9
renewal for which this BA has been prepared would extend the operating licenses to 2033 and 10 2035 for IP2 and IP3, respectively.
11 The NRC is required to prepare the draft SEIS as part of its review of a license renewal 12 application. The draft SEIS supplements NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic 13 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), (NRC 1996, 14 1999)c for the license renewal of commercial nuclear power plants. The draft SEIS covers 15 specific issues, such as the potential impact on endangered and threatened species, that are of 16 concern at IP2 and IP3 and that could not be addressed on a generic basis in the GEIS.
17 Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, the NRC 18 staff requested, in a letter dated August 16, 2007 (NRC 2007), that the National Marine 19 Fisheries Service (NMFS) provide information on federally listed endangered or threatened 20 species, as well as on proposed or candidate species, and on any designated critical habitats 21 that may occur in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3. In its response, dated October 4, 2007 22 (NMFS 2007), NMFS expressed concern that the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 could have 23 an impact on the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), an endangered species that 24 occurs in the Hudson River. NMFS also noted that a related species that also occurs in the 25 Hudson River, the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), is a candidate species for which 26 NMFS has initiated a status review to determine if it should be listed as threatened or 27 endangered.
28 Under Section 7, the NRC is responsible for providing information on the potential impact that 29 the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 could have on the federally listed species, the shortnose 30 sturgeon. In addition, the NRC has prepared information regarding the potential impact on 31 important species, including the Atlantic sturgeon; this information can be found in Chapters 2 32 and 4 of the draft SEIS.
33 a
The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the GEIS include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.
Appendix E December 2008 E-89 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2.0 Proposed Action 1
The current proposed action considered in the SEIS is the renewal of the operating licenses for 2
IP2 and IP3 for an additional 20-year term beyond the period of the existing licenses. The 3
applicant has indicated that it may replace reactor vessel heads and control rod drive 4
mechanisms during the period of extended operation. (For a description of these activities and 5
potential environmental effects, see Chapter 3 of the draft SEIS.) If the NRC grants the 6
operating license renewals, the applicant can operate and maintain the nuclear units, the 7
cooling systems, and the transmission lines and corridors as they are now until 2033 and 2035.
8 3.0 Site Description 9
IP2 and IP3 are located on a 239-acre (97-hectare) site on the eastern bank of the Hudson 10 River in the Village of Buchanan, Westchester County, NY, about 24 miles (mi) (39 kilometers 11
[km]) north of New York City, NY (Figures 1 and 2). Privately owned land bounds the north, 12 south, and east sides of the property (Figure 3). The area is generally described as an eastern 13 deciduous forest, dominated by oak (Quercus), maple (Acer), and beech (Fagus) species. The 14 lower Hudson River is a tidal estuary, flowing 152 miles (244 km) from the Federal Dam at Troy, 15 NY, to the Battery in New York City. IP2 and IP3 are located at River Mile (RM) 43 (RKM 69),
16 where the average depth is 40 feet (ft) (12 meters [m]), and the average width of the river is 17 4500 ft (1370 m). The Hudson River is tidal all the way to the Federal Dam, and the salinity 18 zone in the vicinity of the facility is described as oligohaline (low salinity, ranging from 0.5 to 19 5 parts per thousand (ppt)), with the salinity changing with the level of freshwater flow. Water 20 temperature ranges from a winter minimum of 34 degrees F (1 degree Celsius (C)) to a summer 21 maximum of 77 degrees F (25 degrees C) (Entergy 2007a).
22 The mid-Hudson River provides the cooling water for four other power plants: Roseton 23 Generating Station, Danskammer Point Generating Station, Bowline Point Generating Station, 24 and Lovett Generating Station; all four stations are fossil-fueled steam electric stations, located 25 on the western shore of the river, and all use once-through cooling. Roseton consists of two 26 units and is located at RM 66 (RKM 106), 23 mi (37 km) north of IP2 and IP3. Just 0.5 mi 27 (0.9 km) north of Roseton is Danskammer, with four units. Bowline lies about 5 mi (8 km) south 28 of IP2 and IP3 and consists of two units (Entergy 2007a; CHGEC 1999). Lovett, almost directly 29 across the river from IP2 and IP3, is no longer operating.
30
Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 E-90 December 2008 Source: Entergy 2007a 1
Figure 1. Location of IP2 and IP3, 50-mile (80-km) radius 2
Appendix E December 2008 E-91 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 1
Source: Entergy 2007a 2
Figure 2. Location of IP2 and IP3, 6-mile (10-km) radius 3
Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 E-92 December 2008 Source: Entergy 2007a 1
Figure 3. IP2 and IP3 property boundaries and environs 2
Appendix E December 2008 E-93 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 3.1.1 Description of Plants and Cooling Systems 1
IP2 and IP3 are pressurized-water reactors with turbine generators that produce a net output of 2
6432 megawatts-thermal and approximately 2158 megawatts-electrical. Both IP2 and IP3 use 3
water from the Hudson River for their once-through condensers and auxiliary cooling systems.
4 Each unit has seven intake bays (Figure 4), into which the river water flows, passing under the 5
floating debris skimmer wall and through Ristroph traveling screens (Figure 5). IP2 has six 6
dual-speed circulating water pumps that can each pump 140,000 gallons per minute (gpm) 7 (8.83 cubic meters per second [m3/s]) at full speed and 84,000 gpm (5.30 m3/s) at reduced 8
speed; at full speed, the approach velocity is approximately 1 foot per second (fps) (0.30 meters 9
per second [m/s]) and at reduced speed, the approach velocity is 0.6 fps (0.2 m/s). IP3 also has 10 six dual-speed circulating water pumps. The full speed flow rate of each of these pumps is 11 140,000 gpm (8.83 m3/s), with a 1 fps (0.30 m/s) approach velocity; the reduced speed is 12 64,000 gpm (4.04 m3/s), with a 0.6 fps (0.2 m/s) approach velocity (Entergy 2007a).
13 14 Figure 4. IP2 intake structure (left) and IP3 intake structure (right) 15 The traveling screens employed by IP2 and IP3 are modified vertical Ristroph-type traveling 16 screens installed in 1990 and 1991 at IP3 and IP2, respectively. The screens were designed in 17 concert with the Hudson River Fishermens Association, with screen basket lip troughs to retain 18 water and minimize vortex stress (CHGEC 1999). Studies indicated that, assuming the screens 19 continued to operate as they had during laboratory and field testing, the screens were the 20 screening device most likely to impose the least mortalities in the rescue of entrapped fish by 21 Source: Entergy 2007a
Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 E-94 December 2008 mechanical means (Fletcher 1990). The same study concluded that refinements to the screens 1
would be unlikely to greatly reduce fish kills.
2 3
4 5
6 Figure 5. IP2 intake system (left) and IP3 intake system (right) 7 There are two spray-wash systemsthe high-pressure spray wash removes debris from the 8
front of the traveling screen mechanism; the low-pressure spray washes fish from the rear of the 9
mechanism into a fish sluice system to return them to the river. A 0.25 x 0.5-inch (in.)
10 (0.635 x 1.27-centimeter [cm]) clear opening slot mesh on the screen basket panels was 11 included to minimize abrasion as the fish were washed into the collection sluice. The sluice 12 system is a 12-in.-diameter (30.5-cm-diameter) pipe that discharges fish into the river at a 13 depth of 35 ft (10.7 m), 200 ft (61 m) from shore (CHGEC 1999).
14 4.0 Status Review of Shortnose Sturgeon 15 4.1 Life History 16 The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum, family Acipenseridae) is amphidromous, with 17 a range extending from the St. Johns River, FL, to the St. John River, Canada. Unlike 18 anadromous species, shortnose sturgeons spend the majority of their lives in freshwater and 19 move into salt water periodically without relation to spawning (Collette and Klein-20 MacPhee, 2002). From colonial times, shortnose sturgeons have rarely been the target of 21 commercial fisheries but have frequently been taken as incidental bycatch in Atlantic sturgeon 22 and shad gillnet fisheries (NEFSC 2006; Dadswell et al. 1984). The shortnose sturgeon was 23 listed on March 11, 1967, as endangered under the ESA. In 1998, NMFS completed a recovery 24 plan for the shortnose sturgeon (NMFS 1998).
25 Source: Entergy 2007a
Appendix E December 2008 E-95 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 Shortnose sturgeons can grow up to 143 cm (56 in.) in total length and can weigh up to 1
23 kilograms (kg) (51 pounds [lb]). Females are known to live up to 67 years, while males 2
typically do not live beyond 30 years. As young adults, the sex ratio is 1:1; however, among fish 3
larger than 90 cm (35 in.), measured from nose to the fork of the tail, the ratio of females to 4
males increases to 4:1. Throughout the range of the shortnose sturgeon, males and females 5
mature at 45 to 55 cm (18 to 22 in.) fork length, but the age at which this length is achieved 6
varies by geography. At the southern extent of the sturgeons range, in Florida, males reach 7
maturity at age 2, and females reach maturity at 6 years or younger; in Canada, males can 8
reach maturity as late as 11 years, and females, 13 years. In 1 to 2 years after reaching 9
maturity, males begin to spawn at 2-year intervals, while females may not spawn for the first 10 time until 5 years after maturing and, thereafter, spawn at 3-to 5-year intervals 11 (Dadswell et al. 1984).
12 Shortnose sturgeons migrate into freshwater to spawn during late winter or early summer. Eggs 13 sink and adhere to the hard surfaces on the river bottom, hatching after 4 to 6 days. Larvae 14 consume their yolk sac and begin feeding in 8 to 12 days, as they migrate downstream away 15 from the spawning site, remaining close to the river bottom (Kynard 1997; Collette and Klein-16 MacPhee 2002). The juveniles, which feed on benthic insects and crustaceans, do not migrate 17 to the estuaries until the following winter, where they remain for 3 to 5 years. As adults, they 18 migrate to the near-shore marine environment, where their diet consists of mollusks and large 19 crustaceans (Dadswell 1984).
20 4.2 Status of Shortnose Sturgeon in Hudson River 21 Shortnose sturgeons inhabit the lower Hudson; the Federal Dam creates a physical barrier 22 preventing the species from swimming farther north. They are found dispersed throughout the 23 river-estuary from late spring to early fall and then congregate to winter near Sturgeon Point 24 (RM 86). Spawning occurs in the spring, just downstream of the Federal Dam at Troy, between 25 RM 118 and 148 (between Coxsackie and Troy) (Bain et al. 2007; NMFS 2000). According to 26 the NMFS environmental assessment (2000) for a permit for the incidental take of shortnose 27 sturgeons at the nearby power plants, Roseton and Danskammer, larvae are typically found 28 upstream of the intakes of all five power plants along the mid-Hudson.
29 The Hudson River population of the shortnose sturgeon was estimated to be approximately 30 13,000 adults in 1979-1980. Based on population studies done in the mid-1990s, the 31 population has apparently increased 400 percent since then, up to almost 57,000 adult fish.
32 Additional data suggest that the total population of the shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River 33 is approximately 61,000, including juveniles and nonspawning adults (Bain et al. 2007). The 34 population growth has been ascribed to several strong year-classes, as well as 2 decades of 35 sustained annual recruitment (Woodland and Secor 2007). Bain et al. (2007) maintains that the 36 annual trawl surveys conducted by the electric utilities (CHGEC 1999) show an increase in 37 abundance between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, supporting the finding that the Hudson 38 River population has increased. Staff assessed the population trend for yearling and older 39 shortnose sturgeons in the fall juvenile survey data provided by the applicant and found an 40 overall increase in the catch-per-unit-effort from 1975 to 2005.
41
Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 E-96 December 2008 4.3 Impact Assessment of Indian Point on the Shortnose Sturgeon 1
Population 2
4.3.1 Entrainment 3
The southern extent of the shortnose sturgeon spawning area in the Hudson River is 4
approximately RM 118 (RKM 190), about 75 RM (121 RKM) upstream of the intake of IP2 and 5
IP3 (NMFS 2000). The eggs of shortnose sturgeons are demersal, sinking and adhering to the 6
bottom of the river, and, upon hatching, the larvae in both yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac stages 7
remain on the bottom of the river, primarily upstream of RM 110 (RKM 177) (NMFS 2000).
8 Shortnose sturgeon larvae grow rapidly, and, after a few weeks, they are too large to be 9
entrained by the cooling intake (Dadswell 1979). Because the egg and larval life stages of the 10 shortnose sturgeon (the life stages susceptible to entrainment) are not found near the intake for 11 IP2 and IP3, the probability of their entrainment at IP2 and IP3 is low.
12 IP2 and IP3 monitored entrainment from 1972 through 1987. Entrainment monitoring became 13 more intensive at Indian Point from 1981 through 1987, and sampling was conducted for nearly 14 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day, 4 to 7 days per week, during the spawning season in the spring 15 (NMFS 2000). Entrainment monitoring reports list no shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae at IP2 16 and IP3. NMFS (2000) lists only eight sturgeon larvae collected at any of the mid-Hudson 17 power plants (all eight were collected at Danskammer, and four of the eight may have been 18 Atlantic sturgeons). Entrainment sampling data supplied by the applicant (Entergy 2007b) 19 include large numbers of larvae for which the species could not be determined, and, therefore, 20 one cannot conclude that there was no entrainment of shortnose sturgeons at IP2 and IP3.
21 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) currently conducts no monitoring program to record 22 entrainment at IP2 and IP3, and any entrainable life stages of the shortnose sturgeon taken in 23 recent years would go unrecorded.
24 Based on the life history of the shortnose sturgeon, the location of spawning grounds within the 25 Hudson River, and the patterns of movement for eggs and larvae, the number of shortnose 26 sturgeons in early life stages entrained at IP2 and IP3 is probably low or zero. The available 27 data from past entrainment monitoring do not indicate that entrainment was occurring.
28 Therefore, the staff concludes that the continued operation of Indian Point for an additional 29 20 years is not likely to adversely affect the population of shortnose sturgeons in the Hudson 30 River through entrainment.
31 4.3.2 Impingement 32 IP2 and IP3 monitored impingement daily until 1981, reduced collections to a randomly selected 33 schedule of 110 days per year until 1991, and then ceased monitoring in 1991 with the 34 installation of the modified Ristroph traveling screens. As described in Section 2.1, these 35 screens were designed in a collaborative effort with the Hudson River Fishermens Association 36 to minimize the mortality of impinged fish.
37 In 2000, NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the incidental take of shortnose 38 sturgeons at Roseton and Danskammer (NMFS 2000). The EA included the estimated total 39 number (Table 1) of shortnose sturgeons impinged at Roseton, Danskammer, Bowline Point, 40
Appendix E December 2008 E-97 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 Lovett, and IP2 and IP3, with adjustments to include the periods when sampling was not 1
conducted.
2 Table 1. Estimated Total and Average Shortnose Sturgeon Impinged by Mid-Hudson 3
River Power Plants, Adjusted for Periods Without Sampling 4
1972-1998 1989-1998 Power Plant Total Average No.
Impinged/Year Total Average No.
Impinged/Year Bowline Point 23 0.9 0
0 Lovett 0
0 0
0 IP2 37 1.4 8
0.8 IP3 26 1.0 8
0.8 Roseton 49 1.8 15 1.5 Danskammer Point 140 5.2 44 4.4 Total 275 10.2 75
7.5 Source
Adapted from NMFS 2000.
Impingement data provided by Entergy (2007b), which are available through the NRCs online 5
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), include the raw number of 6
shortnose sturgeons collected at IP2 and IP3 during impingement monitoring (Table 2). Some 7
blank entries in historical results do not differentiate between no samples analyzed and 8
samples analyzed but no individuals found. Since it is unknown if there were any impinged 9
shortnose sturgeons for those time periods, counts must be considered minimal. The NRC staff 10 notes, however, that data submitted by Entergy indicate that a larger number of shortnose 11 sturgeons were impinged at IP2 and IP3 in the 7 years with reported data (1974-1979, 1984, 12 and 1987 for IP2; 1977-1980, 1984, 1987, and 1988 for IP3) than NMFS data indicate were 13 impinged by all mid-Hudson power plants from 1972 through 1998. The NRC staff finds that the 14 numbers provided by NMFS (2000) in its EA for IP2 and IP3 cannot be accurate. In this case, 15 the applicant-supplied data indicate a greater effect than the NMFS-supplied data.
16 An increase in the population of shortnose sturgeons in the Hudson River would most likely 17 result in an increase in impinged shortnose sturgeons at IP2 and IP3. If the population data 18 presented by Bain et al. (2007) and Woodland and Secor (2007) are accurate, then a four-fold 19 increase in population between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s could result in a similar increase 20 in impingement rates. However, this population increase would also mean that the impact of 21 taking an individual shortnose sturgeon would decrease. Without current impingement data, the 22 NRC staff cannot determine how changes in the shortnose sturgeon population have affected 23 impingement rates.
24 When considering the effects of impingement, it is important to consider the affected species 25 impingement mortality rate. For IP2 and IP3, however, there are few data regarding the survival 26 of the shortnose sturgeon after impingement. In 1979, NMFS issued a biological opinion (BO) 27 relating to the take of shortnose sturgeons at Indian Point (Dadswell 1979). At the time, there 28 was only 1 year in which records describing the status of impinged shortnose sturgeons were 29 kept. In that year, 60 percent of collected impinged shortnose sturgeons were dead when 30
Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 E-98 December 2008 collected. The BO assumes both that all dead sturgeons died as a result of the impingement 1
and that no impingement-related mortality occurred after the impinged sturgeons were released.
2 Table 2. Numbers of Shortnose Sturgeons Collected During Impingement Monitoring at 3
Indian Point Units 2 and 3 4
Year Unit 2 Unit 3 1975 3
1976 2
1977 11 2
1978 5
5 1979 4
3 1980 2
1981 1982 1983 1984 176 154 1985 1986 1987 116 55 1988 186 1989 1990 Total 317 407 Source: Enclosure 3 to NL-07-156 The BO estimated that, in a worst-case scenario, 35 shortnose sturgeons would be impinged at 5
IP2 and IP3 per year, and that 60 percent (21 individuals) would die on the impingement 6
screens. At the time, the population of adult shortnose sturgeons in the Hudson River was 7
estimated to be 6,000, and this level of mortality would result in a 0.3 to 0.4 percent death rate 8
caused by impingement at IP2 and IP3 (Dadswell 1979).
9 Because all monitoring of impingement ceased after the Ristroph screens were installed in 10 1991, no updated mortality rate estimates for impinged shortnose sturgeons exist at IP2 and 11 IP3. The NRC staff does not know the current level of impingement or the level of mortality.
12 Although the laboratory and field tests (Fletcher 1990) performed on the modified Ristroph 13 screens were not conducted using the shortnose sturgeon, the tests did show that injury and 14 death were reduced for most species when compared to the first version of screens that were 15 proposed (and rejected, based on their unexceptional performance) (Fletcher 1990). If the 16 NRC staff assumes that the modified Ristroph screens performed as well as the Fletchers 1990 17 results indicated, then mortality and injury from impingement would be lower than reported by 18 the NMFS in its BO (Dadswell 1979), and the impact to the species would be less. Without 19 current monitoring, however, the NRC staff cannot confirm this.
20 Based on the limited amount of data from the years before the installation of modified Ristroph 21 screens at IP2 and IP3, and the lack of data from the years following screen installation, 22 including any potential changes in rates of mortality caused by impingement, the NRC staff 23
Appendix E December 2008 E-99 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 concludes that the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 for an additional 20 years could adversely 1
affect the population of shortnose sturgeons in the Hudson River through impingement but 2
cannot assess the extent to which the installation of modified Ristroph screens might reduce the 3
impact.
4 4.3.3 Thermal Impacts 5
The discharge of heated water into the Hudson River can cause lethal or sublethal effects on 6
resident fish, influence food web characteristics and structure, and create barriers to migratory 7
fish moving from marine to freshwater environments.
8 State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit NY-0004472 regulates thermal 9
discharges associated with the operation of IP2 and IP3. This permit imposes effluent 10 limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions to ensure that all discharges are in 11 compliance with Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law of New York State, Part 704 12 of the Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, and the Clean 13 Water Act. Specific conditions of the SPDES permit related to thermal discharges from IP2 and 14 IP3 are specified in NYSDEC (2003) and include the following:
15 The maximum discharge temperature is not to exceed 110 degrees F (43 degrees C).
16 The daily average discharge temperature between April 15 and June 30 is not to exceed 17 93.2 degrees F (34 degrees C) for an average of more than 10 days per year during the 18 term of the permit, beginning in 1981, provided that it not exceed 93.2 degrees F 19 (34 degrees C) on more than 15 days during that period in any year.
20 The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) associated with the SPDES permit for IP2 and 21 IP3 (NYSDEC 2003) concludes that Thermal modeling indicates that the thermal discharge 22 from Indian Point causes water temperatures to rise more than allowed. The thermal modeling 23 referred to in the FEIS appears to represent a worst-case scenario. Available modeling 24 indicates the potential for the discharges from IP2 and IP3 to violate the conditions of the IP2 25 and IP3 SPDES permit, which could result in a negative impact on the shortnose sturgeon. IP2 26 and IP3 have not performed any triaxial thermal studies to completely assess the size and 27 nature of the thermal plume created by the discharge from IP2 and IP3 and the possible impact 28 on the sturgeon.
29 According to the NMFS Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (NMFS 1998), During 30 summer months, especially in southern rivers, shortnose sturgeons must cope with the 31 physiological stress of water temperatures that often exceed 82 degrees F (28 degrees C).
32 Although the area closest to the discharge from IP2 and IP3 can exceed these temperatures, 33 the summer maximum temperature of the Hudson River in the area of IP2 and IP3 is 34 77 degrees F (25 degrees C) (Entergy 2007a). The combined discharge from both Indian Point 35 units is about 1.75 million gpm (110 m3/s), including the service water (Entergy 2007a). Table 3 36 presents the net downstream flows caused by freshwater inflow. From these data, it can be 37 seen that 20 percent of the time, the discharge from IP2 and IP3 would be, at most, 15 percent 38 of the net flow; however, 98 percent of the time, the discharge would be, at most, 97 percent of 39 the net flow. This means that, at given times, the discharge from IP2 and IP3 would not 40 necessarily be well mixed into the Hudson River.
41
Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 E-100 December 2008 Table 3. Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Net Downstream Flows of Hudson River 1
2 Million gallons per minute (gpm)
Cumulative percentile 11.7 20 6.8 40 4.71 60 3.1 80 1.8 98 Adapted from Entergy 2007a The NRC staff cannot determinebased on available informationwhether a shortnose 3
sturgeon in the Hudson River would experience any prolonged physiological stress from the 4
thermal plume caused by the discharge from IP2 and IP3. Shortnose sturgeons could be forced 5
to seek refuge from elevated water temperatures as they are forced to do in southern rivers, and 6
this could limit their available habitat. If studies reveal that the plume is buoyant, shortnose 7
sturgeons could pass underneath the plume on their passage past the facility, but there are no 8
data to indicate that this is the case.
9 As noted earlier, the NYSDEC thermal modeling of the Hudson River suggests that the 10 discharge from IP2 and IP3 could exceed the limits specified in the SPDES permit, but without a 11 triaxial thermal study, the exact size and nature of the thermal plume is unknown. Information 12 about the species, based on the NMFS recovery plan, suggests to the NRC staff that increased 13 temperatures can have a significant effect on the shortnose sturgeon. Therefore, the NRC staff 14 concludes that the continued operation of IP2 and IP3 for an additional 20 years could adversely 15 affect the population of shortnose sturgeons in the Hudson River through thermal discharge, but 16 the staff is unable to determine the extent to which the population would be affected.
17 5.0 Conclusion 18 Renewal of the operating licenses of IP2 and IP3 to include another 20 years of operation could 19 adversely affect the population of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River through impingement 20 and thermal impacts. At this time, the NRC staff cannot quantify the extent to which the 21 population could be affected.
22 6.0 References 23 Bain, M.B., Haley, N., Peterson, D.L., Arend, K.K., Mills, K.E., and Sullivan, P.J. 2007.
24 Recovery of a US Endangered Fish, PLoS ONE 2(1): e168. Accessed at:
25 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000168#s3 on 26 December 11, 2007.
27 Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation (CHGEC), Consolidated Edison Company of New 28
Appendix E December 2008 E-101 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 York, Inc., New York Power Authority, and Southern Energy New York. 1999. Draft 1
Environmental Impact Statement for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for 2
Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 and 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations. ADAMS 3
Accession No. ML083400128.
4 Collette, B.B. and Klein-MacPhee, G., eds. 2002. Short-nosed sturgeon, Bigelow and 5
Schroeders Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, Third Edition, Smithsonian Institution Press:
6 Washington, DC.
7 Dadswell, M.J. 1979. Testimony on behalf of the National Marine Fisheries Service, presented 8
before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, May 14, 1979. ADAMS Accession 9
No. ML083430546.
10 Dadswell, M.J., Taubert, B.D., Squiers, T.S., Marchette, D., and Buckley, J. 1984. Synopsis of 11 Biological Data on Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818, NOAA 12 Technical Report NMFS-14, FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 140. Accessed at:
13 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/shortnosesturgeon biological data.pdf on 14 December 11, 2007.
15 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007a. Applicants Environmental Report, 16 Operating License Renewal Stage (Appendix E to Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License Renewal 17 Application), April 23, 2007, ADAMS Accession No. ML071210530. ADAMS Accession No. ML18071210530.
19 Entergy Nuclear Northeast (Entergy). 2007b. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President, Entergy 20 Nuclear Northeast, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk.
Subject:
21 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3, Docket Nos.
22 50-247 and 50-286, Supplement to License Renewal Application (LRA)Environmental Report 23 References. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML080080205, ML080080209, ML080080213, 24 ML080080214, ML080080216, ML080080291, ML080080298, ML080080306.
25 Fletcher, R.I. 1990. Flow dynamics and fish recovery experiments: water intake systems, 26 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:393-415.
27 Kynard, B. 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns, and status of the shortnose sturgeon 28 Acipenser brevirostrum, Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 319-334.
29 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). No date. :Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser 30 brevirostrum), Office of Protected Resources (OPR). Accessed at 31 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm on December 11, 2007.
32 ADAMS Accession No. ML083430566.
33 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon 34 (Acipenser brevirostrum), prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National 35 Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed at:
36 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon shortnose.pdf on December 11, 2007.
37 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Environmental Assessment of a Permit for 38 the Incidental Take of Shortnose Sturgeon at the Roseton and Danskammer Point Generating 39 Stations. ADAMS Accession No. ML083430553.
40 41
Appendix E Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 E-102 December 2008 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Letter from M. Colligan, Assistant Regional 1
Administrator for Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service to Chief, Rules and 2
Directives Branch, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
Response to request for 3
information regarding threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of Indian Point.
4 October 4, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML073340068.
5 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003. Final 6
Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State 7
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits for the Roseton 1and 2 Bowline 1 and 8
2 and IP2 and IP3 2 and 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland and 9
Westchester Counties, Hudson River Power Plants FEIS, June 25, 2003. ADAMS Accession 10 No. ML083360752..
11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 12 License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC.
13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 14 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3, Transportation, Table 9.1, 15 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-16 1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, DC.
17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Letter from R. Franovich to Mr. Peter Colosi, 18 National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts, Re: Request for List of 19 Protected Species and Essential Fish Habitat Within the Area under Evaluation for the Indian 20 Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 License Renewal Application Review, 21 August 16, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML072130388.
22 Shepherd, G. 2006 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), National Marine Fisheries 23 Service (NOAA), Office of Protected Resources (OPR).. Last updated in December, 2006.
24 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/sturgeon/archives/42_Atlantic_ShortnoseSturgeons_20 25 06.pdf. Accessed at: on December 11, 2007. ADAMS Accession No,ML083430573.
26 Woodland, R.J. and Secor, D.H. 2007. Year-class strength and recovery of endangered 27 shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River, New York, Transactions of the American Fisheries 28 Society 136:72-81.
29