ML13275A013
| ML13275A013 | |
| 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: ML13275A013 (96) | |
Text
ATTACHMENT 15 TO NRC STAFFs ANSWER TO RIVERKEEPER, INC. CONSOLIDATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED CONTENTION RK-EC-8A AND AMENDED CONTENTION RK-EC-8A (FSEIS Supplement (ADAMS Accession No. ML13162A616))
NUREG-1437 Supplement 38, Vol. 4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 2 and 3 Final Report Supplemental Report and Comment Responses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
NUREG-1437 Supplement 38, Vol. 4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 2 and 3 Final Report Supplemental Report and Comment Responses Manuscript Completed: May 2013 Date Published: June 2013 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
ABSTRACT This supplement to the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for the proposed license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 incorporates new information that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has obtained since the publication of the FSEIS in December 2010.
This supplement includes corrections to impingement and entrainment data presented in the FSEIS, revised conclusions regarding thermal impacts based on newly available thermal plume studies, and an update of the status of the NRCs consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus).
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
............................................................................................................. ix ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS .................................................................... xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT DATA CORRECTIONS ............................................ 3 2.1 Corrections to Section 4.1.2, Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Lifestages, and Its Related Appendices ........................................................................... 3 2.2 Corrections to Section 4.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Its Related Appendices ........................................................................ 7 3.0 ASSESSMENT OF THERMAL IMPACTS ........................................................................... 17 4.0 SECTION 7 CONSULATION ................................................................................................ 23 4.1 Corrections to Section 4.6.1, Aquatic Special Status Species ...................................... 23 4.2 History of Section 7 Consultation for Shortnose Sturgeon .............................................. 25 4.3 Summary of the National Marine Fisheries Services Biological Opinion for Shortnose Sturgeon ........................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Reinitiation of Consultation Due to NMFSs Listing of Atlantic Sturgeon ........................ 27 4.5 Conclusion for Aquatic Special Status Species .............................................................. 30
5.0 REFERENCES
..................................................................................................................... 31 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX A COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FSEIS FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 AND 2 ................... A-1 A.1 Public Comments and NRC Staff Responses........................................................ A-2 A.2 References........................................................................................................... A-35 v
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-3. Percentage of entrainment composed of RIS fish and total identified fish relative to the estimated total entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined (data from Entergy 2007b) .................................................................. 4 Figure H-5. Percentage of entrainment composed of RIS fish and total identified fish relative to the estimated total entrainment at IP2 and IP3 combined (data from Entergy 2007b) .................................................................. 5 LIST OF TABLES Table I-39. Percentage of Each Life Stage Entrained by Season and the Contribution of Major Taxa Represented in the Samples. ................................... 6 Table I-42 Annual Estimated Number of RIS Entrained at IP2 and IP3 (millions thousands of fish)................................................................................................. 7 Table 4-4. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY RIS .............................................................................................................. 9 Table H-16. Weight of Evidence for the Strength-of-Connection Line of Evidence for YOY RIS Based on the Monte Carlo Simulation ........................................... 10 Table H-17. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY RIS ............................................................................................................ 11 Table I-40. Method for Estimating Taxon-Specific Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR) Based on River Segment 4 Standing Crop for the Strength of Connection Analysis .......................................................................................... 12 Table I-41 Estimated Annual Standing Crop of Eggs, Larvae, and Juvenile RIS Within River Segment 4 (millions thousands of fish) .......................................... 12 Table I-43. Estimate of the River Segment 4 Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR) and the 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Riverwide Entrainment CMR (1974-1997) .............................................................................................. 13 Table I-46. Parameter Values Used in the Monte Carlo Simulation ...................................... 14 Table I-47. Quartiles of the Relative Difference in Cumulative Abundance and Conclusions for the Strength-of-Connection from the Monte Carlo Simulation .......................................................................................................... 15 Table 6-1. List of Preparers ................................................................................................... 37 vii
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND By letter dated April 23, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue renewed operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) for additional 20-year periods.
Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.20(b)(2) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the renewal of a power reactor operating license requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an existing EIS. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the NRC shall prepare an EIS, which is a supplement to the Commissions NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, issued May 1996.
The NRC published its final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for IP2 and IP3 in December 2010. After the NRC published the FSEIS, the staff identified new information that necessitated changes to its assessments in the FSEIS. This new information is derived from the following:
Entergy provided comments on the FSEIS that included new information on the entrainment and impingement field data units of measure.
Entergy provided comments on the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment that also included new information on the data units of measure.
Entergy completed and submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation a new study that characterizes the IP2 and IP3 thermal plume.
To address this new information, the NRC staff has prepared this supplement to the FSEIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(a)(2) and (c), which address preparation of a supplement to a final EIS for proposed actions that have not been taken, under the following conditions:
There are new and significant circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, or The NRC staff determines, in its opinion, that preparation of a supplement will further the purposes of NEPA.
In addition to supplementing the FSEIS for the reasons stated above, the NRC is also taking this opportunity to document the completion of the consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) population in the New York Bight.
PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action remains the same as that stated in the FSEIS (at pages 1-6 and 1-7):
The proposed Federal action is renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 (IP1 was shut down in 1974). IP2 and IP3 are located on approximately 239 acres of land on the east bank of the Hudson River at Indian Point, Village of Buchanan, in upper Westchester County, New York, approximately ix
Executive Summary 24 miles north of the New York City boundary line. The facility has two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors. IP2 is currently licensed to generate 3216 megawatts thermal (MW(t)) (core power) with a design net electrical capacity of 1078 megawatts electric (MW(e)). IP3 is currently licensed to generate 3216 MW(t) (core power) with a design net electrical capacity of about 1080 MW(e). IP2 and IP3 cooling is provided by water from the Hudson River to various heat loads in both the primary and secondary portions of the plants. The current operating license for IP2 expires on September 28, 2013, and the current operating license for IP3 expires on December 12, 2015. By letter dated April 23, 2007, Entergy submitted an application to the NRC (Entergy 2007a) to renew the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses for an additional 20 years.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose and need for action remains the same as stated in the FSEIS (at page 1-7):
Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the existing operating license, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once an operating license is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or matters within the States jurisdictionincluding acceptability of water withdrawal, consistency with State water quality standards, and consistency with State coastal zone management plansor the purview of the owners, such as whether continued operation makes economic sense.
Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and need (GEIS Section 1.3):
The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers.
This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commissions recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing the operating licenses is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the current term of the plants licenses.
x
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS
°C degree(s) Celsius
°F degree(s) Fahrenheit ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System BSS Beach Seine Survey CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHGEC Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation CMR conditional mortality rate DPS distinct population segment EIS environmental impact statement EMR entrainment mortality rate Entergy Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended FSEIS final supplemental environmental impact statement FSS Fall Shoals Survey ft feet GEIS NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants IMR impingement mortality rate IP2 and IP3 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 IPEC Indian Point Energy Center ITS incidental take statement LRS Long River Survey m meter(s)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYB New York Bight NYCRR New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation RIS representative important species SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement SOC strength of connection SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System xi
Abreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols WOE weight of evidence YOY young-of-year xii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff prepared this supplement to the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.92(a)(2) and (c), which address the preparation of a supplement to an FSEIS for proposed actions that have not been taken, if the following conditions apply:
There are new and significant circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, or The NRC staff determines, in its opinion, that preparation of a supplement will further the purposes of NEPA.
The NRC staff prepared this supplement to the FSEIS because it received new data, analyses, and comments from several sources that potentially changed, and in some cases did change, the staffs conclusions in the FSEIS. This supplement contains the text, tables, and figures that changed as the result of this new information.
Three sources provided information that changed the staffs conclusions in the FSEIS.
First, in comments to the NRC dated March 29, 2011, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Entergy) (Entergy 2011b, AKRF 2011b) provided new information regarding the entrainment and impingement field data that it had previously provided to the NRC for its aquatic resource impact assessment in Entergy (2007), a December 2007 supplement to its license renewal application. In its letter dated March 29, 2011, Entergy (2011b) said that these changes would:
not alter, but rather confirm, NRCs ultimate conclusion in the FSEIS that potential impacts to aquatic species as a result of theoretical entrainment and impingement at IPEC are no more than MODERATE.
Second, comments submitted on behalf of Entergy (Goodwin Proctor 2011, AKRF 2011a) on the FSEIS and the NRC staffs Essential Fish Habitat Assessment contained related new information. When the NRC staff considered this information, the staff found that the information necessitated some minor changes to the aquatic ecology findings in Sections 4.1.2 through 4.1.3 of the FSEIS and Appendices H and I. Chapter 2 of this supplement provides corrected tables and conclusions resulting from the NRC staffs analysis of the new information.
Where specific changes or corrections to FSEIS information occur, this supplement references the affected FSEIS section, page, and line numbers.
Third, since the publication of the FSEIS, Entergy submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) a triaxial plume study (Swanson et al. 2011a) as part of its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit renewal application.
Entergy undertook this study in response to the NYSDECs 2010 Notice of Denial (NYSDEC 2010). Based on this new information, as well as Entergys response to the NYSDEC staffs comments on the study (Mendelsohn et al. 2011, Swanson et al. 2011b) and the NYSDEC staffs conclusions regarding its review of the study and response to comments (NYSDEC 2011), the NRC staff has revised its conclusions regarding the impacts of heat shock to aquatic species. Chapter 3 of this supplement presents these revised conclusions.
In addition to supplementing the FSEIS for the reasons stated above, the staff is also taking this opportunity to update the status of consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Chapter 4 of this supplement updates the information contained in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS to 1
Introduction document the completion of consultation regarding the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in the New York Bight (NYB), and summarizes the biological opinion and associated incidental take statement (ITS)
(NMFS 2011e) that NMFS issued in January 2013 as a result of that consultation.
The NRC staff issued a draft supplement to the FSEIS on June 26, 2012, which was made available for public comment for 45 days. Based on comments received, the NRC staff amended the draft supplement to the FSEIS, as necessary, and published this final supplement to the FSEIS. The comments received, and the NRC staffs responses to those comments, are presented in Appendix A of this supplement.
Where appropriate, bold text indicates specific text corrections or additions to the FSEIS and bold strikeout indicates deletions from the text. Change bars (vertical lines in the page margin) indicate changes that were made to the text of the draft supplement to the FSEIS, prior to issuing this final supplement.
2
2.0 IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT DATA CORRECTIONS 2.1 Corrections to Section 4.1.2, Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Lifestages, and Its Related Appendices In a letter to the NRC dated March 29, 2011 (Entergy 2011b; AKRF 2011b), Entergy provided new information supplementing the entrainment and impingement field data that it had previously provided to the NRC for its aquatic resource impact assessment. This new information appears in Technical Review of FSEIS for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (AKRF 2011b). In its technical review, AKRF (2011b) stated that the units of the entrainment catch densities provided by Entergy are expressed as the number caught per 1,000 cubic meters (m3). Because Entergy did not originally provide the units used in the FSEIS to assess impacts, the NRC staff believed the units to be the number caught per m3 based on historical documents provided by Entergy, comments by Entergy and its consultants on the draft SEIS, and phone conversations among Entergy, Entergys consultants, and the NRC staff. Thus, the entrainment losses the FSEIS reported for each of the representative important species (RIS) used in the NRC staffs analysis are too large by a factor of 1,000.
In the FSEIS, the NRC staff estimated the number entrained for a given week as the product of the mean density entrained and the combined weekly flow for IP2 and IP3. The error in the entrainment catch density directly affects Figure 4-3 in Section 4.1.2, and the error is repeated in Figure H-5 in Appendix H. In these figures, the total number entrained on the right axis should be in units of numbers x 108 instead of numbers x 1011. The corrected Figures 4-3 and H-5 appear below. In addition, these changes affect two portions of text in the FSEIS.
Lines 2 and 3 of page 4-14 in the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
The total number of identified fish entrained has decreased at a rate of 187 billion million fish per year since 1984.
Lines 1-3 of page H-22 in the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
Linear regression (n=6; p<0.01) indicated that the number of identified fish entrained decreased at a rate of 187 billion million fish per year, a result consistent with the decrease observed in the number of fish impinged.
The change in units of the entrainment catch densities also affects the 75th percentile of the number of each life stage entrained and the annual estimate of the number entrained presented in Tables I-39 and I-42 of Appendix I. In Table I-39, the units should be numbers x 103 instead of numbers x 106. In Table I-42, the units should be numbers in the thousands instead of numbers in the millions. The corrected tables appear below.
Figure 4-3 on page 4-15 in the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
3
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections Table I-39 on page I-54 in the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table I-39. Percentage of Each Life Stage Entrained by Season and the Contribution of Major Taxa Represented in the Samples.
Calculations are based on the 75th percentile over years (1981 and 1983-1987) of each seasons number of fish entrained. No entrainment sampling occurred in October-December.
Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 75th Percentile over Life Stage Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Years EGG 3% 20% 78% 210,801x 106 103 Rainbow Smelt 99% 2% 0%
Bay Anchovy 0% 92% 100%
White Perch 0% 4% <1%
Alosa species 1% 2% 0%
YOLK-SAC LARVA 8% 89% 3% 23,140x106 103 Atlantic Tomcod 100% 0% 0%
Herring Family 0% 91% <1%
Bay Anchovy 0% 2% 94%
Striped Bass 0% 5% 1%
Hogchoker 0% 0% 3%
POST YOLK-SAC LARVA <1% 52% 48% 618,393x106 103 Atlantic Tomcod 100% <1% 0%
Alosa species 0% 37% <1%
Bay Anchovy 0% 11% 58%
Anchovy Family 0% 2% 39%
White Perch 0% 12% 1%
Striped Bass 0% 17% 1%
Herring Family 0% 20% <1%
JUVENILE 2% 44% 54% 10,989x106 103 White Perch 96% 10% 10%
Atlantic Tomcod 0% 67% 2%
Weakfish 0% 1% 50%
Bay Anchovy 0% 1% 17%
Rainbow Smelt 0% 9% 3%
Striped Bass 0% 6% 5%
Anchovy Family 0% 1% 4%
Alosa species 0% 2% 2%
White Catfish 4% <1% 0%
Blueback Herring 0% <1% 3%
UNDETERMINED STAGE 10% 77% 13% 4,469x106 103 Atlantic Tomcod 100% <1% 0%
Morone species 0% 88% 2%
Bay Anchovy 0% 9% 83%
Anchovy Family 0% 0% 10%
Alosa species 0% 0% 4%
6
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections The title of Table I-42 on page I-58 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table I-42 Annual Estimated Number of RIS Entrained at IP2 and IP3 (millions thousands of fish)
The contents of the table remain accurate and, therefore, are not duplicated in this supplement.
2.2 Corrections to Section 4.1.3, Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and Its Related Appendices In a letter to the NRC dated March 29, 2011, Entergy (2011b) provided new information (in AKRF 2011b) regarding the units associated with the catch density data from the Long River Survey (LRS) and the Fall Shoals Survey (FSS) that Entergy (2007) had previously submitted to the NRC for its aquatic resource impact assessment. In AKRFs (2011b) technical review, the units of the catch densities are expressed as the number caught per 1,000 m3. Entergy did not provide the units for these densities when it originally submitted the data to the NRC. The NRC staff based the units it used in the FSEIS to assess impacts (i.e., number caught per m3) on information in the mathematical construction of these measures provided in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation (CHGEC) et al. (1999). Thus, the NRC staff overestimated the annual standing crop from the LRS and FSS in the FSEIS for each of the representative important species (RIS) by a factor of 1,000. The NRC staff then used the estimates of the annual standing crop and the estimated entrainment losses to estimate a conditional entrainment mortality rate (EMR), a parameter in the models used in the strength-of-connection (SOC) analysis.
The NRC staff described the calculation of the standing crop from the LRS and FSS in Appendix I,Section I.2.2, of the FSEIS. The NRC staff estimated the LRS and FSS weekly standing crop as the weekly density of fish caught multiplied by the IP2 and IP3 region river volume. The error in the density units for the LRS and FSS produced incorrect estimates of the combined standing crop used in the denominator of the estimated EMR in the FSEIS. The NRC staff also used entrainment losses as input to the numerator and the denominator of the EMR estimates. Because both the numerator and the denominator of the estimated EMR were too large by a factor of 1,000, only those estimates for two RIS (spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) and white catfish (Ameiurus catus)), in which the Beach Seine Survey (BSS) contributed more of the standing crop, were seriously affected. For the remaining RIS, to which the BSS contributed little, the errors in units largely cancelled because of the construction of the EMR as a ratio of the number entrained (which was 1,000 times too large) to the number at risk (number in the river plus the number entrained, both of which were 1,000 times too large). The amount and direction of change in the EMR depends on the relative contributions from the three sampling programsBSS, FSS, and LRS.
The NRC staff used the EMR in its assessment of the SOC and, ultimately, to determine the final weight-of-evidence (WOE) assessment of the combined effects of impingement and entrainment from IP2 and IP3. The unit of measure error affects the staffs conclusion of High SOC for spottail shiner, but not the conclusion of Low SOC for white catfish. The NRC staff reran the SOC Monte Carlo simulations using the corrected EMRs, and, based on the corrected data, now finds a Low SOC for the spottail shiner. Further, based on the WOE assessment of the combined effects of impingement and entrainment from IP2 and IP3, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of impingement and entrainment on the spottail shiner are SMALL rather than LARGE.
The changes to the SOC analysis affect FSEIS Table 4-4 (presented below) and several lines of text in Section 4.1.3.3. However, Section 4.1.3.5 is not affected by these changes.
7
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections Lines 41-43 on page 4-20 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
Based on the WOE assessment (Table 4-4), the NRC staff concludes that impacts to American shad, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, bluefish, gizzard shad, shortnose sturgeon, spottail shiner, striped bass, white catfish, and blue crab are SMALL.
Lines 1-3 on page 4-21 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
The NRC staff concludes that impacts to alewife, rainbow smelt, and weakfish are MODERATE. The staff concludes that impacts to blueback herring, hogchoker, spottail shiner, and white perch are LARGE.
Lines 30-41 on page 4-21 of the FSEIS are removed as follows:
Spottail Shiner The NRC staff concludes that a Large impact is present for YOY spottail shiner because a detectible population decline occurred in the river wide (1 of 3) and river segment (1 of 1) data sets, and the strength of connection with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system is high. The habitat for the spottail shiner includes small streams, lakes, and large rivers, including the Hudson. This species feeds primarily on aquatic insect larvae, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish eggs and larvae, and is the prey of striped bass. Spottail shiners spawn from May to June or July (typically later for the northern populations) over sandy bottoms and stream mouths (Smith 1985; Marcy et al. 2005); water chestnut (Trapa natans) beds provide important spawning habitat (CHGEC 1999).
Individuals older than 3 years are rare, although some individuals may live 4 or 5 years (Marcy et al. 2005). Spottail shiner is not a marine or anadromous species, so coastal population trend data are not available.
8
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections Table 4-4 on page 4-23 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table 4-4. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY RIS Impacts of IP2 and IP3 Population Trend Strength of Connection Species Cooling Systems on Line of Evidence Line of Evidence YOY RIS Alewife Variable High Moderate American Shad Detected Decline Low Small Atlantic Menhaden Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Tomcod Detected Decline Low Small Bay Anchovy Undetected Decline High Small Blueback Herring Detected Decline High Large Bluefish Detected Decline Low Small Gizzard Shad Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Hogchoker Detected Decline High Large Rainbow Smelt Variable High Moderate-Large(c)
Shortnose Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Spottail Shiner Detected Decline High Low Large Small Striped Bass Undetected Decline High Small Weakfish Variable High Moderate White Catfish Variable Low Small White Perch Detected Decline High Large Blue Crab Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small (a) Population trend could not be established because of a lack of river survey data.
(b) Monte Carlo simulation could not be conducted because of the low rate of entrainment and impingement; a Low Strength of connection was concluded.
(c) Section 4.1.3.3 provides supplemental information.
Because of the new information regarding the units of the data for entrainment density and the density of fish caught during the LRS and FSS, the NRC staff corrected the estimates of EMR for American shad (Alosa sapidissima), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), hogchoker (Trinectes maculates), white catfish, and white perch (Morone americana) reported in Appendices H and I.
The staffs conclusions of the SOC for these RIS, however, remain unchanged. These changes affect several lines of text in Sections H.1.3.2 and H.1.3.3 and Tables H-16 and H-17, as described below.
Lines 11-12 on page H-47 in Section H.1.3.2 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
The results of this analysis indicated a High strength of connection for nine eight species (Table H-16).
Lines 15-16 on page H-47 in Section H.1.3.2 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
For four five RIS, the strength of connection was Low (minimal evidence of connection).
Lines 5-10 on page H-49 in Section H.1.3.3 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
Based on the WOE assessment (Table H-17), the NRC staff concludes that the impact levels are Small for eleven 12 species: American shad, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, bluefish, gizzard shad, shortnose sturgeon, spottail shiner, striped bass, white catfish, and blue crab. Further, the staff concludes that the impacts are Moderate for three species: alewife, rainbow smelt, and weakfish. Finally, the staff concludes that 9
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections the impacts are Large for four three species: blueback herring, hogchoker, spottail shiner; and white perch.
Lines 26-38 on page H-50 in Section H.1.3.3 of the FSEIS are removed as follows:
Spottail Shiner The NRC staff concludes that a Large impact is present for YOY spottail shiner because a detectible population decline occurred in the river wide (1 of 3) and river segment (1 of 1) data sets, and there was a high strength of connection with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system. The habitat for the spottail shiner includes small streams, lakes, and large rivers, including the Hudson. This species feeds primarily on aquatic insect larvae, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish eggs and larvae, and is the prey of striped bass. Spottail shiners spawn from May to June or July (typically later for the northern populations) over sandy bottoms and stream mouths (Smith 1985; Marcy et al. 2005); water chestnut (Trapa natans) beds provide important spawning habitat (CHGEC 1999).
Individuals older than 3 years are rare, but there is evidence of individuals living four or five years (Marcy et al. 2005). Coastal population trend data were not available for this species.
Table H-16 on page H-48 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table H-16. Weight of Evidence for the Strength-of-Connection Line of Evidence for YOY RIS Based on the Monte Carlo Simulation Strength of Strength of RIS RIS Connection Connection Alewife High Hogchoker High American Shad Low Rainbow Smelt High Atlantic Menhaden Cannot be Modeled(a) Shortnose Sturgeon Cannot be Modeled(a)
Atlantic Sturgeon Cannot be Modeled(a) Spottail Shiner High Low Atlantic Tomcod Low Striped Bass High Bay Anchovy High Weakfish High Blueback Herring High White Catfish Low Bluefish Low White Perch High Gizzard Shad Cannot be Modeled(a) Blue Crab Cannot be Modeled(a)
(a)
Estimates for model parameters were unavailable or information was lacking. Strength of connection assumed to be Low based on review of impingement and entrainment data.
10
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections Table H-17 on page H-49 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table H-17. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River YOY RIS Strength of Impacts of IP2 and IP3 Population Trend Species Connection Cooling Systems on YOY Line of Evidence Line of Evidence RIS Alewife Variable High Moderate American Shad Detected Decline Low Small Atlantic Menhaden Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Atlantic Tomcod Detected Decline Low Small Bay Anchovy Undetected Decline High Small Blueback Herring Detected Decline High Large Bluefish Detected Decline Low Small Gizzard Shad Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Hogchoker Detected Decline High Large Rainbow Smelt Variable High Moderate-Large(c)
Shortnose Sturgeon Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small Spottail Shiner Detected Decline High Low Large Small Striped Bass Undetected Decline High Small Weakfish Variable High Moderate White Catfish Variable Low Small White Perch Detected Decline High Large Blue Crab Unresolved(a) Low(b) Small (a)
Population Line of Evidence could not be established using WOE; therefore, population Line of Evidence could range from small to large.
(b)
Strength of connection could not be established using Monte Carlo simulation; therefore, strength of connection was based on the rate of entrainment and impingement.
(c)
Section 4.1.3.3 provides supplemental information.
In addition to Tables I-39 and I-42, presented earlier, the new information about the units of measure affects tables in Appendix I. The corrected Table I-40, Table I-41, Table I-43, Table I-46, and Table I-47 in Appendix I of the FSEIS appear on the following pages.
11
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections Table I-40 on page I-56 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table I-40. Method for Estimating Taxon-Specific Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR)
Based on River Segment 4 Standing Crop for the Strength of Connection Analysis Property of Method Number Entrained River Segment 4 Standing Crop LRS density (by life stage)
Mean density organisms FSS density of YOY 3
entrained by IP2 and IP3 (# per 1000 m )
(# per 1000 m3) BSS density of YOY Variables (# per haul)
Input Data Volume of cooling water River Segment 4 volume (m3) withdrawn by IP2 and IP3 River Segment 4 shorezone 3 2 (1000 m /min) surface area (m )
Frequency Per week of sampling Per week of sampling Sum of weekly estimates of Seasonal (Year Sum of weekly standing crop number of organisms entrained specific) estimates by IP2 and IP3 Sum of Season 1, 1986, with Sum of seasonal standing crop Annual each years totals from Season 2 Summary estimates for River Segment 4 and Season 3 Statistics 75th Percentile Annual Number Entrained EMR 75th Percentile (Annual Number Entrained + Annual Standing Crop)
Units of numerator and
- of organisms denominator of EMR Years of Data 1981 and 1983-1987 1981 and 1983-1987 Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles Life Stages Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles (YOY)
Alewife, blueback herring, and unidentified alosids treated collectively as river herring Taxonomic Substitutions Unidentified anchovy spp. (species, plural) allocated to bay anchovy Unidentified Morone spp. allocated proportionally to striped bass and white perch The title of Table I-41 on page I-57 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table I-41. Estimated Annual Standing Crop of Eggs, Larvae, and Juvenile RIS Within River Segment 4 (millionsthousands of fish)
The contents of the table remain accurate and, therefore, are not duplicated in this supplement.
12
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections Table I-43 on page I-59 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table I-43. Estimate of the River Segment 4 Entrainment Mortality Rate (EMR) and the 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Riverwide Entrainment CMR (1974-1997)
Riverwide CMR 75th Percentile 75th Percentile for Entrainment Annual Number of Number at at IP2 and IP3 Taxa EMR Entrained Risk Lower 95% Upper 95%
(number x 109 106) (number x 109 106) Confidence Confidence Limit Limit Alewife and 94.9 1003 0.095 0.00747 0.0324 Blueback Herring 0.042 American Shad 0.357 8.43 9.26 0 0.016696 0.039 Atlantic Menhaden 0 NA NA Not Modeled Atlantic Sturgeon 0 NA NA Not Modeled Atlantic Tomcod 7.65 210 0.036 0.152 0.234 0.213 Bay Anchovy 439 2064 2065 0.0925 0.140 0.212 Bluefish 0.00291 1.13 0.003 Not Modeled Gizzard Shad 0 NA NA Not Modeled 0.386 Hogchoker 1.87 4.83 4.84 Not Modeled 0.385 Rainbow Smelt 7.07 27.4 0.258 Not Modeled Shortnose Sturgeon 0 NA NA Not Modeled 0.352 Spottail Shiner 0.00295 0.00838 0.0937 0.0802 0.104 0.031 Striped Bass 71.4 676 0.106 0.181 0.276 Weakfish 3.90 7.17 0.544 Not Modeled 0.114 White Catfish 0.00965 0.0848 0.0388 Not Modeled 0.249 0.076 White Perch 63.5 840 841 0.0568 0.108 0.075 13
Impingement and Entrainment Corrections Table I-46 on page I-61 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table I-46. Parameter Values Used in the Monte Carlo Simulation Upper 95%
Linear Error Mean CV of Survey Confidence RIS Slope Square from Density Data EMR IMR Used Limit (r) Regression (1979-1990) of the Slope Alewife BSS -0.030 -0.014 0.570 1.245 0.095 0.0020 0.042 American Shad BSS -0.069 -0.059 0.350 0.744 0.0005 0.39 Atlantic Tomcod FSS -0.040 -0.026 0.490 1.035 0.036 0.0300 0.213 Bay Anchovy FSS -0.075 -0.061 0.505 0.598 0.0040 0.212 Blueback Herring BSS -0.024 -0.009 0.530 1.488 0.095 0.0040 Bluefish BSS -0.038 -0.022 0.580 0.692 0.003 0.0005 0.386 Hogchoker FSS -0.034 -0.018 0.580 1.679 0.0005 0.385 Rainbow Smelt FSS 0.012 0.041 0.576 1.452 0.258 0.0005 0.352 Spottail Shiner BSS -0.017 -0.005 0.430 1.293 0.0070 0.031 Striped Bass BSS 0.040 0.052 0.420 0.528 0.106 0.0080 Weakfish FSS -0.047 -0.031 0.560 1.085 0.544 0.0005 0.114 White Catfish FSS 0.007 0.010 0.100 3.520 0.0005 0.249 0.076 White Perch BSS -0.062 -0.045 0.610 0.848 0.0320 0.075 14
Impingement and Entrainment Data Corrections Table I-47 on page I-63 of the FSEIS is corrected as follows:
Table I-47. Quartiles of the Relative Difference in Cumulative Abundance and Conclusions for the Strength-of-Connection from the Monte Carlo Simulation Number N0 = 1000 N0 = 1 x 108 Strength of Taxa of Median Q1 Q3 Median Q1 Q3 Connection Years Conclusion 20 0.33 0.11 0.59 0.32 0.06 0.55 Alewife High 27 0.36 0.15 0.56 0.33 0.14 0.53 0.07 0.04 0.18 0.09 0.02 0.20 20 American 0.08 -0.03 0.20 0.08 -0.03 0.19 Low Shad 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.00 27 -0.01 0.16 0.07 0.15 0.07 -0.01 Atlantic 20 0.14 -0.04 0.32 0.17 -0.01 0.38 Low Tomcod 27 0.18 0.04 0.32 0.18 0.02 0.33 0.21 0.09 0.32 20 0.20 0.08 0.31 0.19 0.08 0.31 Bay Anchovy High 0.18 0.26 0.10 0.27 27 0.10 0.18 0.19 0.28 0.09 0.28 Blueback 20 0.30 0.02 0.60 0.28 0.02 0.60 High Herring 27 0.43 0.16 0.67 0.40 0.14 0.64 20 0.13 -0.04 0.29 0.14 -0.03 0.30 Bluefish Low 27 0.14 0.02 0.29 0.16 0.01 0.30 0.71 0.39 1.05 0.74 0.41 1.10 20 0.72 0.37 1.06 0.76 0.42 1.09 Hogchoker High 0.81 0.53 1.10 0.77 0.46 1.06 27 0.76 0.50 1.09 0.84 0.56 1.13 Rainbow 20 0.77 0.33 1.25 0.81 0.35 1.34 High Smelt 27 0.93 0.52 1.38 1.03 0.63 1.46 0.59 0.33 0.88 0.58 0.23 0.90 20 0.20 -0.07 0.43 0.18 -0.06 0.42 Spottail Shiner High Low 0.61 0.36 0.88 0.62 0.35 0.87 27 0.22 0.01 0.42 0.23 0.01 0.46 20 0.45 0.09 0.76 0.45 0.12 0.78 Striped Bass High 27 0.62 0.27 1.02 0.66 0.31 1.01 20 0.62 0.39 0.87 0.66 0.42 0.90 Weakfish High 27 0.63 0.43 0.84 0.64 0.43 0.83 0.19 0.36 0.76 0.05 0.46 0.66 20 0.40 -0.20 0.98 0.37 -0.18 1.00 White Catfish Low 0.09 0.41 0.58 0.09 0.43 0.58 27 0.39 -0.15 0.91 0.37 -0.19 0.99 0.16 0.01 0.32 0.20 0.04 0.35 20 0.18 0.03 0.35 0.19 0.03 0.34 White Perch High 0.18 0.06 0.31 0.20 0.07 0.31 27 0.19 0.07 0.30 0.17 0.06 0.30 15
3.0 ASSESSMENT OF THERMAL IMPACTS In the FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the potential impacts of the cooling water discharge from IP2 and IP3 on aquatic species could range from SMALL to LARGE because the staff did not have enough information to quantify the extent and magnitude of the IP2 and IP3 thermal plume. Since publication of the FSEIS, the NRC has obtained additional information from Entergy regarding the thermal plume that enables the staff to make a more informed conclusion regarding thermal impacts.
In January 2011, Entergy submitted to the NYSDEC a preliminary report on a triaxial plume study (Swanson et al 2011a) as part of its SPDES permit renewal application. Entergy undertook this study in response to the NYSDECs 2010 Notice of Denial (NYSDEC 2010),
which noted that Entergys previous thermal study (Swanson et al. 2010) did not directly address the period of highest river temperatures, and as such, would require additional confirmatory monitoring to determine whether any modeled results accurately show compliance with thermal standards. The NYSDEC provided Entergy with comments on the new Swanson et al. (2011a) study in March 2011. Within the same month, Mendelsohn et al. (2011) and Swanson et al. (2011b) prepared responses to the NYSDEC staffs review of the study. In a letter dated May 16, 2011, NYSDEC (2011) notified NYSDEC Judges M.E. Villa and D.P.
OConnell that it had finished reviewing the data and information contained in both the study and the response to NYSDECs comments and that, based on this information and applicable regulations, the NYSDEC staff had determined the following:
a thermal mixing zone in the Hudson River near Indian Point not to exceed a maximum of seventy-five (75) acres in total size during any time of a given year (6 NYCRR §704.3) will provide reasonable assurance of compliance with water quality standards and criteria for thermal discharges set forth in 6 NYCRR §§704.1 and 704.2, respectively.
Based on Swanson et al.s (2011a) triaxial thermal plume study, Mendelsohn et al.s (2011) and Swanson et al.s (2011b) responses to NYSDEC staff comments on the study, and NYSDEC staffs (2011) conclusions regarding the study, the NRC staff has revised its discussion of and conclusions regarding thermal impacts to aquatic species, which appear in Section 4.1.4 of the FSEIS.
Lines 16-26 on page 4-30 in Section 4.1.4.3 of the FSEIS are changed as follows:
Entergy has been engaged in discussions with the NYSDEC concerning the thermal impacts of IP2 and IP3 cooling water system operation. As a result of those discussions, the NRC staff notes that Entergy recently performed a triaxial thermal study of the Hudson River from September 9 to November 1 of 2009 (Entergy 2010). Given the months involved in this study, the study period did not include days with the highest average annual water temperature. Entergy has indicated that it will perform modeling of the river based on its field data in order to determine whether the power plant is in compliance with conditions of its permit; it also indicated that it may conduct additional monitoring in 2010. The NYSDEC, in its recent Notice of Denial of Water Quality Certification, indicated that additional verification of any modeled results would be necessary (NYSDEC 2010). Entergy did conduct additional studies in 2010. This issue continues to be subject to NYSDEC authority and review.
17
Assessment of Thermal Impacts In February 2010, Entergy submitted to NYSDEC a preliminary report (Swanson et al. 2010) on a triaxial thermal study of the Hudson River performed during the period of September 9 to November 1, 2009.
Because the study did not directly address the period of highest river temperatures, the NYSDEC directed Entergy to perform additional confirmatory monitoring to determine whether any modeled results accurately show compliance with thermal standards (NYSDEC 2010). In January 2011, Entergy submitted to the NYSDEC a new triaxial plume study (Swanson et al. 2011a).
In the new study, Swanson et al. (2011a) reported that the extent and shape of the thermal plume varied greatly, primarily in response to tidal currents. For example, the plume (illustrated as a 4°F (2.2°C) temperature increase or T isotherm in Figure 5-6 of Swanson et al. 2011a) generally followed the eastern shore of the Hudson River and extended northward from IP2 and IP3 during flood tide and southward from IP2 and IP3 during ebb tide. Depending on tides, the plume can be reasonably easily identified and can reach a portion of the near-shore bottom or be largely confined to the surface of the river.
Temperature measurements reported by Swanson et al. (2011a) generally show that the warmest water in the thermal plume is close to the surface, and plume temperatures tend to decrease with depth. A cross-river survey conducted in front of IP2 and IP3 captured one such incident during spring tide on July 13, 2010 (Figure 3-28 in Swanson et al. 2011a). Across most of the river, water temperatures were close to 82°F (28°C), often with warmer temperatures near the surface and cooler temperatures near the bottom. The IP2 and IP3 thermal plume at that point was clearly defined and extended about 1,000 feet (ft)
(300 meters (m)) from shore on a cross-river transect of about 3800 ft (1150 m) (interpreted from the figure). Surface water temperatures in the plume reached about 85°F (29°C). Maximum river depth along the measured transect is approximately 50 ft (15 m).
A temperature contour plot at a cross-river transect at IP2 and IP3 illustrates a similar condition on July 11, 2010, during slack before flood tide (Figure 1-10 in Swanson et al. 2011b). Here, the thermal plume is evident to about 2,000 ft (600 m) from the eastern shore (the location of the IP2 and IP3 discharge) and extends to a depth of about 35 ft (11 m) along the eastern shore. The river here is more than 4,500 ft (1,400 m) wide. Bottom temperatures above 82°F (28°C) were confined to about the first 250 ft (76 m) from shore. In that small area, bottom water temperatures might also exceed 86°F (30°C); elsewhere, bottom water temperatures were about 80°F (27°C). The NRC staff notes, however, that these limited-area conditions would not last long, as they would change with the tidal cycle.
In response to NYSDEC's review of the IP2 and IP3 thermal studies (Swanson et al. 2011a), Mendelsohn et al. (2011) modeled the maximum area and width of the thermal plume (defined by the 4°F (2.2°C) T isotherms) in the Hudson River. Mendelsohn et al. (2011) reported that for four cross-river transects near IP2 and IP3, the maximum cross-river area of the plume would not exceed 12.3 percent of the river cross-18
Assessment of Thermal Impacts section, and the maximum cross-river width of the plume would not exceed 28.6 percent of the river width (Table 3-1 in Mendelsohn et al.
2011).
Swanson et al. (2011a) concluded that IP2 and IP3 are in compliance with NYSDEC water quality standards set forth at 6 NYCRR Part 704.
After line 43 on page 4-31 of Section 4.1.4.4 of the FSEIS, the following text is to be added:
In response to the NYSDECs 2010 Notice of Denial (NYSDEC 2010),
Entergy submitted a new triaxial plume study (Swanson et al. 2011a) to the NYSDEC in January 2011. NYSDEC provided Entergy with comments on the new study (Swanson et al. 2011a) in March 2011.
Within the same month, Mendelsohn et al. (2011) and Swanson et al.
(2011b) prepared responses to the NYSDEC staffs review of the study.
In a May 2011 letter (NYSDEC 2011), NYSDEC staff notified NYSDEC Judges M.E. Villa and D.P. OConnell that NYSDEC staff had finished reviewing the data and information contained in both the study and the response to NYSDECs comments and that, based on this information and applicable regulations, NYSDEC staff had determined the following:
a thermal mixing zone in the Hudson River near Indian Point not to exceed a maximum of seventy-five (75) acres in total size during any time of a given year (6 NYCRR §704.3) will provide reasonable assurance of compliance with water quality standards and criteria for thermal discharges set forth in 6 NYCRR §704.1 and 704.2, respectively.
Lines 2-26 on page 4-32 in Section 4.1.4.5 of the FSEIS are corrected as follows:
In the absence of a completed thermal study proposed by NYSDEC (or an alternative proposed by Entergy and accepted by NYSDEC), existing information must be used to determine the appropriate thermal impact level to sensitive life stages of important aquatic species. Since NYSDEC modeling in the FEIS (NYSDEC 2003a) indicates that discharges from IP2 and IP3 could raise water temperatures to a level greater than that permitted by water quality criteria that are a component of existing NYSDEC permits, the staff must conclude that adverse impacts are possible. Cold water fish species such as Atlantic tomcod and rainbow smelt may be particularly vulnerable to temperature changes caused by thermal discharges. The population of both species has declined, and rainbow smelt may have been extirpated from the Hudson River. The NYSDECs issuance of a SPDES permit provides a basis to conclude that the thermal impacts of IP2 and IP3 discharges could meet applicable regulatory temperature criteria. The NYSDECs recent pronouncements and its ongoing re examination of this issue create uncertainty, and this issue is currently being addressed in NYSDEC administrative proceedings. Accordingly, in the absence of specific studies, and in the absence of results sufficient to make a determination of a specific level of impact, the NRC staff concludes that thermal impacts from IP2 and IP3 potentially could range from SMALL to LARGE depending on the extent and magnitude of the 19
Assessment of Thermal Impacts thermal plume, the sensitivity of various aquatic species and life stages likely to encounter the thermal plume, and the probability of an encounter occurring that could result in lethal or sublethal effects. This range of impact levels expresses the uncertainty accruing from the current lack of studies and data. Either additional thermal studies or modeling and verification of Entergys 2009 thermal study might generate data to further refine or modify this impact level. For the purposes of this Final SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that the impact level could range from SMALL to LARGE. This conclusion is meant to satisfy NRCs NEPA obligations and is not intended to prejudice any determination the NYSDEC may reach in response to new studies and information submitted to it by Entergy.
NRC regulations for license renewal environmental reviews establish the primary role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (or States, when applicable) in water quality regulations as they relate to impacts on aquatic species. As such, the assessment of impacts from heat shock is within the purview of the responsible government agency.
In the case of IP2 and IP3, NYSDEC is the responsible agency.
NYSDEC regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 704 establish specific standards that apply to thermal discharges within the State of New York. The standards are set to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water to which heated water is discharged (6 NYCRR 704.1(a)). Section 4.1.4.4 of this FSEIS supplement describes the thermal plume studies (Swanson et al. 2010, 2011a) that Entergy submitted to NYSDEC and NYSDECs (2011) conclusions regarding these studies. NYSDEC concluded that the results of the thermal plume studies provide reasonable assurance that the IP2 and IP3 discharge is in compliance with NYSDECs water quality standards and criteria for thermal discharges.
Based on Entergys thermal plume studies and NYSDECs conclusions, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from heat shock to aquatic resources of the lower Hudson River would be SMALL.
This change in the NRC staffs conclusion regarding thermal impacts (heat shock) also affects the Abstract, Executive Summary, Alternatives, and Summary sections of the FSEIS. The NRC staff has revised parts of these sections, as described below.
Line 37 on page iii through line 2 on page iv of the FSEIS Abstract are changed as follows:
Overall effects from entrainment and impingement are likely to be MODERATE, and impacts from heat shock are likely to be SMALL. Impacts from heat shock potentially range from SMALL to LARGE depending on the conclusions of thermal studies proposed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
Lines 33-39 on page xviii of the FSEIS Executive Summary are changed as follows:
The NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental effects for most of these issues are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS with three two exceptionsentrainment, and impingement, and heat shock from the facilitys heated discharge. The NRC staff jointly 20
Assessment of Thermal Impacts assessed the impacts of entrainment and impingement to be MODERATE based on NRCs analysis of representative important species. Impacts from heat shock potentially range from SMALL to LARGE depending on the conclusions of thermal studies conducted by Entergy and submitted to the NYSDEC.
Line 43 on page 8-8 through line 3 on page 8-9 of Section 8.1.1.2 are changed as follows:
Because the closed-cycle cooling system discharges a smaller volume of water, and because the water is cooler than in a once-through system, the extent of thermal impacts which could range from SMALL to LARGE for the current once through system, given uncertainty in the facilitys thermal impacts would remain SMALL be reduced. Thus, the effects of thermal shock also decline.
Lines 35-40 on page 9-4 of Section 9.1 are changed as follows:
The NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental effects for 9 10 of the 12 categorized issues are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS. The NRC staff concludes that the combined impacts from impingement and entrainment (each a separate issue) are MODERATE. Impacts from heat shock could range from SMALL to LARGE, based on the large uncertainties discussed in Chapter 4.
Lines 8-13 on page 9-5 of Section 9.1 are changed as follows:
For issues of MODERATE or LARGE significance (i.e., issues related to aquatic ecology),
mitigation measures are addressed both in Chapter 4 and in Chapter 8 as alternatives based on determinations in the draft New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit proceeding, Clean Water Act Section 401 proceeding, and in draft policy statements published by the State.
21
4.0 SECTION 7 CONSULTATION At the time the NRC staff published the FSEIS, the NRC and NMFS had not completed Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) for the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). During the course of the Section 7 consultation, the NRC staff obtained more studies and information on the thermal plume (previously discussed in Chapter 3 of this document). As a result, the NRC staff has revised its conclusions regarding thermal impacts to the shortnose sturgeon based on this new thermal modeling information. Section 2.2.5.5 of the FSEIS, which includes the shortnose sturgeons life history, remains unchanged. The staff identified one correction to Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS, shown below.
In addition to supplementing the FSEIS for the reasons stated in Chapter 1 of this supplement, the staff is also taking this opportunity to provide an update on the status of its consultation with NMFS related to Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). This chapter provides an update on the Section 7 consultation history provided in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS, as well as a summary of the biological opinion that NMFS issued in October 2011 as a result of consultation. This chapter also provides a summary of the reinitiation of consultation regarding the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Consultation with NMFS regarding the Atlantic sturgeon was reinitiated as a result of NMFSs February 2012 listing of Atlantic sturgeon as an endangered species under the ESA and concluded in January 2013 with NMFSs issuance of a final biological opinion for both the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, which included an Incidental Take Statement (ITS).
4.1 Corrections to Section 4.6.1, Aquatic Special Status Species In the FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the potential impacts of heated discharge from IP2 and IP3 on shortnose sturgeon could not be determined because the staff did not have enough information to quantify the extent and magnitude of the IP2 and IP3 thermal plume. Since publication of the FSEIS, the NRC staff has obtained additional information on the IP2 and IP3 thermal plume. Chapter 3 of this document describes the new thermal plume information.
Based on Swanson et al.s (2011a) triaxial thermal plume study, Mendelsohn et al.s (2011) and Swanson et al.s (2011b) responses to NYSDEC staff comments on the study, and NYSDEC staffs (2011) conclusions regarding the study, the NRC staff has revised its discussion regarding thermal impacts to shortnose sturgeon, which appears in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS.
Lines 40-43 on page 4-58 in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS are changed as follows:
The potential impacts of thermal discharges on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon cannot determined at this time because additional studies are required to quantify the extent and magnitude of the thermal plume, as discussed in Section 4.1.4 of this SEIS.
In July 2011, the NRC (2011c) supplemented its analysis of the thermal effects from IP2 and IP3 on the shortnose sturgeon that was presented in NRCs (2010)
December 2010 revised biological assessment. The NRC staffs (2011c) supplement to the revised biological assessment considered newly available thermal plume information (Swanson et al. 2011a, 2011b; Mendelsohn et al. 2011; NYSDEC 2011) as well as various studies on shortnose sturgeon biology and thermal preferences (Dadswell 1979; Dadswell et al. 1984; Heidt and Gilbert 1978; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a, 2008b). In its July 2011 supplement, the NRC (2011c) 23
Section 7 Consultation concluded that the proposed license renewal of IP2 and IP3 is not likely to adversely affect the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon.
NMFS issued its biological opinion in October 2011 (NMFS 2011e). In its biological opinion, NMFS concluded that shortnose sturgeon are likely to avoid the small area of water elevated above the species preferred temperature range and that it is extremely unlikely that these minor changes in behavior will preclude shortnose sturgeon from completing any essential behaviors such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any individuals will be affected.
Based on the NRCs (2011c) previous analysis and NMFSs (2011e) biological opinion, the NRC staff concludes that the heated discharge resulting from the proposed IP2 and IP3 license renewal would have SMALL impacts on the shortnose sturgeon.
Lines 13-20 on page 4-59 and Lines 1-16 on page 4-60 in Section 4.6.1 of the FSEIS are modified as follows:
The NRC staff reviewed information from the site audit, Entergys ER for the IP2 and IP3 site, other reports, and information from NMFS. Based on the WOE information presented in Table 4 4, The NRC staff concludes that the impacts associated with the IP2 and IP3 cooling system are Small for both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. The population trend LOE evaluation was unresolved because the Hudson River monitoring programs were not designed to catch either species. The NRC staff was also unable to determine the strength of connection for either species using the Monte Carlo simulation modeling. Because historical impingements of sturgeon have been relatively low, especially for shortnose sturgeon, the NRC staff concluded that the strength of connection was low. Based on the WOE analysis described above, a determination of Moderate or Large impact is not supported, and the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of an additional 20 years (beyond the current term) of operation and maintenance of the site on aquatic species that are Federally listed as threatened or endangered is SMALL. The NRC staff is sending a revised biological assessment (BA) of the impacts of license renewal on the shortnose sturgeon to NMFS to review as this SEIS goes to press (the BA will be publicly available at ML102990042).
Should NMFS determine that continued operation of IP2 and IP3 has the potential to adversely impact the shortnose sturgeon, NMFS will issue a biological opinion. Included in the biological opinion would be any reasonable and prudent measures that the applicant could undertake, as well as the terms and conditions for the applicant to comply with the formal Section 7 consultation. Possible mitigation measures could range from a resumption of monitoring to determine the number of shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 to changes in the cooling water intake system, as described in Section 4.1.5 of this FEIS. Additionally, as described in Chapter 8, the installation of cooling towers could reduce impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts for all aquatic resources, including those that are Federally listed.
In addition to the WOE information provided in Table 4-4, the staff examined the new information from the ESA Section 7 consultations with NMFS to determine the level of impact for the purposes of NEPA. Because NMFS (2013) finds that license renewal would not change the status or trend of the Hudson River 24
Section 7 Consultation population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole, the NRC staff finds that the level of impact would be SMALL for this species. For Atlantic sturgeon, NMFS finds that license renewal would not change the status or trend of the Hudson River population of Atlantic sturgeon or the status and trend of the NYB DPS as a whole. NMFS (2013) calculates that the highest observed annual impingement of Atlantic sturgeon at the traveling screens would represent about 0.5 percent of the Hudson River origin juveniles. This potential reduction would not be observable or noticeable through any population study. Therefore, the staff finds that the level of impact would be SMALL for Atlantic sturgeon.
Furthermore, development and implementation of an appropriate monitoring plan for these species at IP2 and IP3 would help ensure protection of these species.
Based on the NRCs (2011C) previous analysis, as corrected herein, and NMFSs (2013) biological opinion, the staff finds that the level of impact for aquatic special status species would be SMALL.
4.2 History of Section 7 Consultation for Shortnose Sturgeon Under Section 7 of the ESA, the NRC staff (2008b) initiated consultation with NMFS in a letter dated December 22, 2008, upon publication of the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and the staffs (NRC 2008a) original biological assessment, which found that the relicensing of IP2 and IP3 could adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon, which had been listed as endangered under the ESA in 1967. In response to that biological assessment, on February 24, 2009, NMFS (2009) requested additional information from the NRC. NMFS stated that it required this information before it could begin formal consultation. On July 1, 2009, the NRC staff obtained the relevant information from Entergy (2009). On August 10, 2009, the NRC (2009) provided that information (including revised impingement data) to NMFS and stated that the data would be addressed in the FSEIS and in a revised biological assessment. The NRC staff published its FSEIS in December 2010 and transmitted its revised biological assessment to NMFS on December 10, 2010 (NRC 2010b).
On February 16, 2011, NMFS (2011) formally responded to the NRC staffs letter of December 10, 2010, and stated that (1) NMFS currently has all the information it needs to complete a formal consultation, (2) NMFS considers formal consultation to have begun on December 16, 2010, (3) NMFS expects the consultation will conclude within 90 days after it began (i.e., by March 16, 2011) unless extended, and (4) NMFS expects to issue its biological opinion by April 30, 2011. On March 1, 2011, Entergy (2011a) formally notified the NRC staff that it will participate in the consultation process and requested a 45-day extension of the consultation conclusion date in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(e).
In teleconferences on March 9 and March 11, 2011, NMFS and the NRC staff discussed extending the consultation to allow time for Entergy to submit additional information on the shortnose sturgeon pertinent to the consultation (NRC 2011h). NMFS formally extended the consultation period in a March 16, 2011, letter (NMFS 2011a) for a period of 60 days until June 29, 2011, in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(e). On April 18, 2011, the NRC staff (2011a) held a Category 1 public meeting during which Entergy presented a data synthesis on the shortnose sturgeon updated with the most recent annual Hudson River monitoring reports. On April 28, 2011, Entergy (2011c) formally submitted to the NRC the information it had presented during this public meeting.
On June 16, 2011, the NRC staff learned that Entergy had submitted a final, verified triaxial thermal model to NYSDEC concerning aquatic conditions at IP2 and IP3. The staff also learned that NYSDEC had relied on that model and Entergy's associated information to reach 25
Section 7 Consultation conclusions about thermal conditions at Indian Point for inclusion in a draft SPDES permit (NYSDEC 2011). The NRC staff (2011b) brought this information to NMFSs attention in an e-mail to NMFS on June 16, 2011.
The NRC staff held three teleconferences with NMFS and Entergy during the weeks of June 20 and June 27, 2011 (NRC 2011d). On June 20, 2011, the NRC staff and NMFS discussed the NRCs statutory authority to implement terms and conditions or reasonable and prudent measures identified in a biological opinion. On June 22, 2011, the NRC staff, NMFS, and Entergy discussed NMFSs outstanding questions on thermal impacts, impingement, and entrainment of prey species and the design of the IP2 and IP3 cooling system. The NRC staff also requested that Entergy formally submit to the NRC the thermal modeling information that Entergy had given to NYSDEC. By letter dated June 29, 2011, Entergy (2011d) formally submitted to the NRC various documents related to the thermal studies it had conducted.
During a teleconference on June 29, 2011, the NRC staff, NMFS, and Entergy addressed questions that had arisen during the teleconference on June 22, 2011, and the parties agreed to a revised consultation schedule in which the consultation would end by September 20, 2011, provided that Entergy and the NRC staff would supply NMFS with the information related to NMFSs outstanding questions in a timely manner. The NRC staff (2011c) supplemented its revised biological assessment on July 26, 2011, as a result of the information that Entergy submitted to the staff on June 29, 2011.
NMFS (2011b) issued a draft biological opinion on August 26, 2011. In an e-mail dated September 6, 2011, the NRC staff provided NMFS with Entergys comments on the draft biological opinion (NRC 2011f). In a separate e-mail on the same day, the staff submitted its comments on the draft biological opinion (NRC 2011e). The NRC staff stated that its comments on the draft biological opinion were complete and that it would respond to the procedural issues raised in NMFSs cover letter to the draft biological opinion in a separate letter. On September 19, 2011, NMFS (2011c) requested more time to complete the final biological opinion. On September 20, 2011, the NRC staff (2011g) sent its letter addressing the issues NMFS had raised in the cover letter to its draft biological opinion.
NMFS (2011d, 2011e) issued its final biological opinion for shortnose sturgeon on October 14, 2011 (referred to as the 2011 biological opinion), which concluded the Section 7 consultation for the IP2 and IP3 license renewal. The NMFS 2011 biological opinion is discussed below.
4.3 Summary of the National Marine Fisheries Services Biological Opinion for Shortnose Sturgeon NMFSs 2011 biological opinion (2011d, 2011e) included an incidental take statementITS for shortnose sturgeon and stipulated a number of reasonable and prudent measures, as well as terms and conditions with which the NRC and Entergy must comply to be exempt from prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA.
Under the 2011 biological opinion, IP2 and IP3 may take up to the following numbers of shortnose sturgeon during the terms of their renewed operating licenses, which NMFS assumed would not begin before the completion of the initial operating licenses for IP2 and IP3:
6 shortnose sturgeon at Unit 1 104 shortnose sturgeon at Unit 2 58 shortnose sturgeon at Unit 3 26
Section 7 Consultation NMFS included Unit 1, even though it is not in operation, because Unit 2 uses water from the Unit 1 intake as service water.
The 2011 biological opinion stipulated four reasonable and prudent measures that require Entergy to (1) implement an NMFS-approved monitoring program, (2) release all live sturgeon back to the Hudson River, (3) transfer any dead sturgeon to NMFS for necropsy, and (4) report all shortnose sturgeon impingements or sightings to NMFS. The terms and conditions provided the NRC and Entergy with more specific details on how the reasonable and prudent measures must be carried out. The terms and conditions can be found on pages 64-67 of the biological opinion. If the NRC renews the IP2 and/or IP3 licenses, compliance with the terms and conditions of the biological opinion (as later revised) will be required, as appropriate1.
4.4 Reinitiation of Consultation Due to NMFSs Listing of Atlantic Sturgeon On February 6, 2012, NMFS listed five distinct population segments (DPSs) of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) under the ESA (77 FR 5880; 77 FR 5914). In the Hudson River near Indian Point, Atlantic sturgeon primarily belong to the New York Bight DPS, which NMFS listed as endangered. The NRC staff had previously addressed the environmental impacts of license renewal on the Atlantic sturgeon in the final SEIS and had requested that NMFS conduct a Section 7 conference with the staff regarding the Atlantic sturgeon, which was proposed for listing at that time. On May 16, 2012, in response to the listing, the NRC staff (2012) prepared and submitted a biological assessment to NMFS, along with a request to reinitiate Section 7 consultation for the newly-listed Atlantic sturgeon. The NRC staff expects to continue consultation with NMFS in 2012 regarding Atlantic sturgeon at IP2 and IP3, and will consider the results of that consultation, as appropriate.
The NRC provided much of the information needed for this reinitiated consultation in its FSEIS (NRC 2010a) and the revised biological assessment for shortnose sturgeon (NRC 2010b) and its supplement (NRC 2011). Entergy (2011e) and its consultants (Barnthouse et al. 2011) provided additional information to NMFS on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River, the characteristics of IP2 and IP3, and the facilitys effects on the two sturgeon species. Entergy (2012) also provided lists and reviews of reports providing information on the effects of IP2 and IP3 on Atlantic sturgeon.
In its May 16, 2012, biological assessment, the NRC (2012a) concluded that operation of IP2 and IP3 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Atlantic sturgeon during the remainder of the current operating license period and the 20-year license renewal term (through September 28, 2033 and December 12, 2035, respectively), if license renewal is approved.
NMFS considers reinitiation of consultation to have begun on May 17, 2012, the day after it received the NRC staffs biological assessment. On July 3, 2012, in a telephone call between NMFS and the NRC staff, the NRC staff clarified that its was requesting reinitiated consultation to consider the effects to shortnose sturgeon and the five DPS of Atlantic sturgeon due to operation of IP2 and IP3 during both the remainder of the present license terms and the possible renewed license terms. On July 23, 2012, Entergy supplied additional information on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon impingement at IP2 and IP3 (AKRF et al. 2012). The NRC staff and NMFS, by mutual agreement, then 1
The 2011 biological opinion stated: This [incidental take statement] ITS applies to the extended operating period, beginning at the date that the facility begins to operate under the terms of a new license and extending through the expiration date of that license. (NMFS 2011e) 27
Section 7 Consultation extended the consultation to allow time to review and incorporate the new information in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(e). NMFS transmitted the draft biological opinion to the NRC for review on October 26, 2012, and the NRC staff then transmitted it to Entergy. On November 9, 2012, the NRC (2012b) transmitted to NMFS both Entergys and the NRC staffs comments on the draft biological opinion. The NRC staff requested, via a conference call, that the consultation period be extended for 7 days on November 26, 2012. On December 5, 2012, NMFS requested that the consultation be extended to January 9, 2013, to allow time for the NRC and NMFS to discuss language in the ITS. During a conference call on January 8, 2013, the NRC and Entergy provided additional comments related to the ITS, and Entergy submitted additional comments on wording to NMFS on January 9, 2013. On January 9, 2013, the NRC staff and Entergy requested an extension of consultation until January 30, 2013, to afford time for NMFS to consider the comments. NMFS submitted the final biological opinion to the NRC on January 30, 2013 (NMFS 2013), which concluded the formal consultation in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(l).
After reviewing the proposed action, the status of the species, the environmental baseline, the effects of the action, and the cumulative effects including climate change, the biological opinion (NMFS 2013) concludes that
[T]he continued operation of Indian Point Unit 2 is likely to adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon or the New York Bight, Gulf of Maine or Chesapeake Bay DPS [distinct population segments]
of Atlantic sturgeon. It is also NMFS biological opinion that the continued operation of Indian Point Unit 3 is likely to adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon or the New York Bight, Gulf of Maine or Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. No critical habitat is designated in the action area; therefore, none will be affected by the proposed actions.
The biological opinion (NMFS 2013, page 126) finds that the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon has experienced an increasing trend and is stable at high levels and that renewal of the operating licenses would not change the status or trend of the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole (NMFS 2013, page 119). It also finds that license renewal would not change the status or trend of the Hudson River population of Atlantic sturgeon or the status and trend of the NYB DPS
[New York Bight Distinct Population Segment] as a whole (NMFS 2013, page 125).
The 2013 biological opinion includes an ITS that applies to both shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 for both the remainder of the present license terms and the possible renewed license terms (NMFS 2013, page 127). The ITS (NMPF 2013 pp 130) exempts the following take (injure, kill, capture or collect) as described below:
A total of two dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 2 dead or alive New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) impinged at the Unit 1 intake screens from now until the IP2 proposed renewed operating license would expire on September 28, 2033.
A total of 395 dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 269 New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) impinged at Unit 2 intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP2 proposed renewed operating license would expire on September 28, 2033.
28
Section 7 Consultation A total of 167 dead or alive shortnose sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) and 145 dead or alive New York Bight DPS Atlantic sturgeon (injure, kill, capture or collect) impinged at the Unit 3 intakes (Ristroph screens) from now until the IP3 proposed renewed operating license would expire on December 12, 2035.
All shortnose sturgeon with body widths greater than 3 impinged at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 trash racks (capture or collect).
All Atlantic sturgeon with body widths greater than 3 impinged at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 trash racks (capture or collect). These Atlantic sturgeon will originate from the New York Bight (92), Gulf of Maine (6%
percent) and Chesapeake Bay DPSs (2% percent).
NMFS (2013, pages 130-131) would consider the ITS to be exceeded if any one of 16 conditions occurs, each of which specifies the species and population of impinged fish, the number impinged, the generating unit involved, the location of impingement (intake screens or trash racks), and a time period. The ITS states (NMFS 2013, pages 132-133) that Entergy must comply with the following reasonable and prudent measures that NMFS finds necessary or appropriate to minimize and monitor impacts of incidental take of endangered shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon:
(1) A program to monitor the incidental take of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon at the IP1, IP2 and IP3 intakes must be developed, approved by NMFS, and implemented as described in the Terms and Conditions [of the Biological Opinion]. This program must be implemented throughout the remaining duration of the existing IP2 and IP3 operating licenses as well as during the time IP2 and/or IP3 operate pursuant to the proposed renewed operating license(s).
(2) All live, incidentally taken shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon must be released back into the Hudson River at an appropriate location away from the intakes and thermal plume that does not pose additional risk of take, including death, injury, harassment, collection/capture.
(3) Any dead, incidentally taken shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon must be transferred to NMFS or an appropriately permitted research facility NMFS will identify so that a necropsy can be undertaken to attempt to determine the cause of death.
(4) A genetic sample must be taken of all incidentally taken Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon.
(5) All incidental takes of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon associated with the Indian Point facilities and any shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon sightings in the action area must be reported to NMFS.
The ITS also contains eight specific, non-discretionary terms and conditions that implement the reasonable and prudent measures and outline required reporting and monitoring requirements. Entergy must comply with, and the NRC must ensure through enforceable terms of the existing and renewed licenses of IP2 and IP3 that Entergy does comply with, the terms and conditions of the ITS (NMFS 2013, pages 133-138). NMFS further identifies (NMFS 2013, pages 138-140) seven discretionary conservation recommendations that it recommends the NRC consider, and identifies the conditions for reinitiation of consultations.
29
Section 7 Consultation 4.5 Conclusion for Aquatic Special Status Species In addition to the WOE information provided in Table 4-4, the staff examined the new information from the ESA Section 7 consultations with NMFS to determine the level of impact resulting from license renewal of IP2 and IP3 for the purposes of NEPA. Because NMFS (2013) finds that license renewal would not change the status or trend of the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole, the NRC finds that the level of impact would be SMALL for this species. For Atlantic sturgeon, NMFS finds that license renewal would not change the status or trend of the Hudson River population of Atlantic sturgeon or the status and trend of the NYB DPS as a whole.
NMFS (2013) calculates that the highest observed annual impingement of Atlantic sturgeon at the traveling screens would represent about 0.5 percent of the Hudson River origin juveniles. This potential reduction would not be observable or noticeable through any population study. Therefore, the staff finds that the level of impact would be SMALL for Atlantic sturgeon. Furthermore, development and implementation of an appropriate monitoring plan for these species at IP2 and IP3 would help ensure protection of these species. In addition, license renewal for IP2 and IP3 would be subject to the terms and conditions of the ITS as stated by NMFS. After assessing this new information, the staff finds that the level of impact for aquatic special status species would be SMALL.
30
5.0 REFERENCES
References that appear with an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number can be accessed through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisions (NRCs) Web-based ADAMS at the following URL: http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.
10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions.
50 CFR 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, Interagency cooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
77 FR 5880. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in the Northeast. Federal Register 77(24):5880-5912. February 6, 2012.
77 FR 5914. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in the Southeast. Federal Register 77(24):5914-5982. February 6, 2012.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.
[AKRF] AKRF, Inc. 2011a. Review of Estimates of Numbers Entrained Presented in NRC 2009 EFH Assessment and 2010 FSEIS. ADAMS Accession No. ML11286A140.
[AKRF] AKRF, Inc. 2011b. Technical Review of FSEIS for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Sections 4.1.1-4.1.3 and Appendices H and I. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Hanover, MD: AKRF, Inc. March 28, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML110980163.
AKRF, Inc.; Normandeau Associates, Inc.; ASA Analysis & Communications, Inc.; and LWB Environmental Services, Inc. 2012. Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon Impingement at IPEC Units 2 and 3: Review of Historical Data, Projections of Impingement, and Assessment of the Condition of Impinged Sturgeon Upon Arrival at IPEC. July 23, 2012. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, NY. ADAMS Accession No. ML12206A028.
Barnthouse, L., Mattson M., and Young J.. 2011. Shortnose Sturgeon: A Technical Assessment Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC. April 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11126A202.
[CHGEC et al.] Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York Power Authority, and Southern Energy New York. 1999. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 and 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations.
December 1999. ADAMS Accession No. ML083400128.
Dadswell, MJ. 1979. Biology and population characteristics of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (Osteichthyes: Acipenseridae), in the Saint John River estuary, New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2186-2210.
Dadswell MJ, Taubert BD, Squiers TS, Marchette D, and Buckley J. 1984. Synopsis of biological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. NOAA Technical 31
References Report NMFS-14. Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Service. October 1984. 45 pp.
Available at <http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/shortnosesturgeon_biological_
data.pdf> (accessed January 12, 2012).
[Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2007. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of Operations License Renewal, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk.
Subject:
Supplement to License Renewal ApplicationEnvironmental Report References. December 20, 2007.
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML080080199; Long River Survey: ML11279A044; and Fall Shoals Survey: ML080080291, ML080080298, ML080080306.
[Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2009. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of License Renewal, to Document Control Desk, NRC.
Subject:
Transmission of additional requested information regarding sturgeon impingement data. July 1, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML091950345.
[Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2011a. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of License Renewal, Entergy, to A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC.
Subject:
Endangered Species Act consultation for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. March 1, 2011.
ADAMS Accession No. ML110670270.
[Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2011b. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of Operations License Renewal, to B. Holian, Division Director, NRC.
Subject:
Comments on final supplemental environmental impact statement for Indian Point Nuclear Generating.
March 29, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML110980073.
[Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2011c. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of License Renewal, Entergy, to A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC.
Subject:
Endangered Species Act consultation for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. April 28, 2011.
ADAMS Accession No. ML11125A071.
[Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 2011d. Letter from F. Dacimo, Vice President of License Renewal, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk.
Subject:
License renewal thermal study documents for Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3. June 29, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11189A026.
[Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Northeast. 2011e. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Vice President, License Renewal, to Andrew Stuyvenberg, NRC Environmental Project Manager, NRC, and Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service -
Northeast Region.
Subject:
Endangered Species Act Consultation, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64. April 28, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11126A202.
[Entergy] Entergy Nuclear Northeast. 2012. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Vice President, License Renewal, to David Wrona, Branch Chief, Projects Branch 2, Division of License Renewal, NRC.
Subject:
Endangered Species Act Consultation, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64. NL-12-043. March 7, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A116.
[Goodwin Proctor] Goodwin Proctor LLP. 2011. Letter from Elise N. Zoli, Goodwin Proctor LLC to David Wrona, Chief, Projects Branch 2, Division of License Renewal, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Subject:
Indian Point License Renewal-Entergy's Comments on NMFS' Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Correspondence. September 30, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11286A140.
Heidt AR, and Gilbert RJ. 1978. The shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River drainage, Georgia. In: RR Odum and L Landers, editors. Proceedings of the Rare and Endangered 32
References Wildlife Symposium. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Technical Bulletin WL-4. pp. 54-60.
Mendelsohn D, Swanson C, and Crowley D. 2011. Part 1 of Response to the NYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC. South Kingstown, RI: Applied Science Associates, Inc.
March 31, 2011. 13 pp. Available at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/
indnptpart1resp.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012).
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Letter from M. Colligan, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Biological assessment for license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. February 24, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML090820316.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Letter from P. Kurkul, Northeast Regional Administrator, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Reply to biological assessment for license renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. February 16, 2011.
ADAMS Accession No. ML110550751.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011a. Letter from P. Kurkul, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Extension of consultation periodlicense renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos 2 and 3. March 16, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML110830578.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. Letter from P. Kurkul, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Draft biological opinion for license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. August 26, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11249A012.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011c. E-mail from J. Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, to A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC.
Subject:
Schedule for biological opinion (revised proposal). September 19, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11300A037.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011d. Letter from P. Kurkul, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, to D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Biological opinion for relicensing of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
October 14, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11290A232.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011e. Biological Opinion for RelicensingIndian Point Nuclear Generating Station F/NER/2009/00619. October 14, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11290A231.
[NMFS] NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion: Continued Operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Pursuant to Existing and Proposed Renewed Operating Licenses, NER-2012-25252. January 30, 2013. ADAMS No. ML13032A256.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008a. Biological Assessment for License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Appendix E to draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38. 16 pp. ADAMS Accession No. ML083540614.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008b. Letter from D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC, to M. Colligan, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS.
Subject:
Biological assessment for license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. December 22, 2008. ADAMS Accession No. ML083450723.
33
References
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2009. E-mail from D. Logan, Aquatic Ecologist, NRC, to J. Crocker, NMFS.
Subject:
Indian Point Section 7new data from Entergy.
August 10, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092220524.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2010a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG-1437, Supp. 38.
December 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML103270072.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2010b. Letter from D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC, to M. Colligan, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS.
Subject:
Revised biological assessment for license renewal of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. December 10, 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML102990043.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011a. Summary of public meeting held on April 18, 2011, between NRC and Entergy to discuss Entergys shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon data at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. April 22, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML111090905.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011b. E-mail from A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC, to J. Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, NMFS.
Subject:
Indian Point thermal information available on New York DEC website. June 16, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11167A108.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011c. Letter from L. Bauer, Acting Branch Chief, NRC, to M. Colligan, Northeast Assistant Regional Manager for Project Resources, NMFS.
Subject:
Supplement to revised biological assessment for license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. July 26, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11203A100.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011d. Summary of telephone conference calls held on Jun. 20, 22, and 29, 2011, regarding the ongoing Endangered Species Act consultation for the proposed Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal.
July 29, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11201A306.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011e. E-mail from A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC, to J. Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, NMFS.
Subject:
NRC staff comments on draft BO for proposed Indian Point license renewal. September 6, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11249A210.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011f. E-mail from A. Stuyvenberg, Project Manager, NRC, to J. Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, NMFS.
Subject:
FW: Entergy comments on draft BO. September 6, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11249A145.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011g. Letter from D. Wrona, Branch Chief, NRC, to P. Kurkul, Northeast Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS.
Subject:
NMFS Letter dated August 26, 2011, regarding the Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation for the proposed license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. September 20, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11259A018.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011h. Summary of telephone conference calls held on March 9 and March 11, 2011, regarding the ongoing Endangered Species Act consultation for the proposed Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal. April 14, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11089A031.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012a. Letter from J.J. Susco, Acting Chief, Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch, Division of License Renewal to Patricia A.
Kurkul, Northeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Subject:
Request 34
References to Reinitiate Section 7 Consultation for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Due to Listing of Atlantic Sturgeon. May 16, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML12100A082.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012b. E-mail from Dennis Logan, Aquatic Biologist, NRC, to Julie Crocker, Fisheries Biologist, NMFS.
Subject:
NRC and Entergy comments on NMFS's draft Indian Point biological opinion. November 9, 2012. ADAMS No. ML12314A415.
[NYSDEC] New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 2010. Letter from W.R.
Adriance, Chief Permit Administrator, NYSDEC to D. Gray, Entergy.
Subject:
Joint Application for CWA §401 Water Quality Certification, NRC License RenewalEntergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 and 3, DEC Nos.: 3-5522-00011/00030 (IP2) and 3-5522-00105/00031 (IP3), Notice of Denial. April 2, 2010. Available at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/
ipdenial4210.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012).
[NYSDEC] New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 2011. Letter from M.D.
Sanza, Assistant Counsel, NYSDEC to Administrative law Judges M. Villa and D.P. O'Connell, NYSDEC Office of Hearings and Mediation Services.
Subject:
Entergy Indian Point Nuclear Units 2 and 3 SPDES Permit Renewal/401 WQC Application Proceedings; DEC Staffs Review of Thermal Information. May 16, 2011. Available at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/
permits_ej_operations_pdf/indnptsanzaltr.pdf> (accessed January 4, 2012).
Swanson C, Kim Y, Mendelsohn D, Crowley D, and Mattson M. 2010. Preliminary Analysis of Hudson River Thermal Data. South Kingstown, RI: Applied Sciences, Inc. and Bedford, NH:
Normandeau Associates, Inc. February 10, 2010. 20 pp. Available at < http://www.dec.ny.gov/
docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/elecbdrexhj-k.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012).
Swanson C, Mendelsohn D, Cohn N, Crowley D, Kim Y, Decker L, and Miller L. 2011a. 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge From the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Entergy Center, Buchanan, NY. South Kingstown, RI: Applied Science Associates, Inc. January 31, 2011. 132 pp. Available at:
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/indnpthrmlrpt.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012). ADAMS Accession No. ML11189A026.
Swanson C, Crowley D, Kim Y, Cohn N, and Mendelsohn D. 2011b. Part 2 of Response to the NYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC. South Kingstown, RI: Applied Science Associates, Inc. March 31, 2011. 27 pp. Available at <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_
operations_pdf/indnptpart2resp.pdf> (accessed January 11, 2012).
Ziegeweid JR, Jennings CA, and Peterson DL. 2008a. Thermal maxima for juvenile shortnose sturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fish 3:299-307.
Ziegeweid JR, Jennings CA, Peterson DL, and Black MC. 2008b. Effects of salinity, temperature, and weight on the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1490-1499.
35
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Members of the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prepared this SEIS with assistance from other NRC organizations, as well as contract support from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Table 6-1 identifies each contributors name, affiliation, and function or expertise.
Table 6-1. List of Preparers Name Affiliation Function or Expertise NRC Jeremy Susco Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief David Wrona Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief Melanie Wong Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief Michael Wentzel Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager Lois James Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager Kimberly Green Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager Dennis Logan Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology Briana Balsam Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology Contractor Valerie Cullinan Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Statistics, Ecology Jeffrey Ward Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Ecology 37
APPENDIX A COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FSEIS FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 AND 3
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENT On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued the draft supplement to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Final Report (NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Volume 4, referred to as the draft supplement to the FSEIS) to Federal, tribal, state, and local government agencies and interested members of the public for comment in accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(f)(1). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Notice of Availability on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40036). The public comment period ended on August 20, 2012. As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft supplement to the FSEIS, the NRC staff did the following:
placed a copy of the draft supplement to the FSEIS at the Field Library in Peekskill, New York, the White Plains Public Library in White Plains, New York, and the Henrick Hudson Free Library in Montrose, New York; made the draft supplement to the FSEIS available in the NRCs Public Document Room in Rockville, Maryland; placed a copy of the draft supplement to the FSEIS on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/
supplement38/v4/;
provided a copy of the draft supplement to the FSEIS to any member of the public that requested one; sent copies of the draft supplement to the FSEIS to certain Federal, tribal, state, and local government agencies; filed the draft supplement to the FSEIS with the EPA; and published a notice of availability of the draft supplement to the FSEIS in the Federal Register on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40092).
During the public comment period, the NRC staff received comments from eight individuals or groups. Each comment letter is part of the docket file for the IP2 and IP3 license renewal application, all of which are accessible in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Table A-1 lists each individual that provided a comment during the comment period, and their assigned correspondence identification number. The NRC staff reviewed and assigned each comment within each comment letter a specific comment identification number consisting of the correspondence identification number and a number associated with the sequential order of the comment within the specific document. Table A-2 lists the comments, grouped by category, and where the comment and response can be found within this appendix.
A-1
Appendix A Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Comment Period Comment Source Commenter Affilitation (if stated) Correspondence ID (ADAMS Accession #)
Brancato, Deborah Riverkeeper, Inc. Letter 001 ML12236A207 Bullard, John National Marine Fisheries Letter 002 Service (NMFS) ML12230A106 Dacimo, Fred Entergy Nuclear Operations, Letter 003 Inc. ML12244A002 Kremer, Arthur New York Affordable Reliable E-Mail 004 Electricty Alliance ML12234A093 McTiernan, Edward New York State Department Letter 005 of Environmental ML12235A149 Conservation Mitchell, Judy-Ann U.S. Environmental Letter 006 Protection Agency (EPA) ML12244A003 Raddant, Andrew U.S. Department of the Letter 007 Interior (DOI) ML12235A410 Sipos, John New York State Office of the Letter 008 Attorney General ML12235A409 Table A-2. Comments by Category Comment Category Page Commenter (Comment ID)
Aquatic A-4 Brancato, Deborah (001-1) (001-2) (001-3)
A-7 Dacimo, Fred (003-1)
A-21 McTiernan, Edward (005-1)
A-24 Mitchell, Judy-Ann (006-1)
Endangered Species A-8 Brancato, Deborah (001-4)
General A-16 Bullard, John (002-1)
A-19 Kremer, Arthur (004-1)
A-26 Raddant, Andrew (007-1)
License Renewal Process A-14 Brancato, Deborah (001-5)
A-32 Sipos, John (008-4)
Postulated Accidents A-23 McTiernan, Edward (005-2)
A-27 Sipos, John (008-1) (008-2) (008-3)
A.1 Public Comments and NRC Staff Responses A-2
Appendix A A-3
001-1A In the FSEIS, the staff addressed the Pisces 2009 comments on the draft SEIS and, in addition, modified its entrainment and impingement analysis methods in the FSEIS in response to new Appendix A information and comments submitted on the DSEIS.
The staffs new strength-of-connection analysis in the FSEIS did not contain elements about which Pisces had expressed concerns in the original analysis in the draft SEIS. Appendix A of the FSEIS presents the staffs responses, and the body of the FSEIS shows where text was changed. The staff agrees with the commenter that the new information incorporated in the supplement to the FSEIS changed the conclusions for one fish species but did not change the overall conclusion of the FSEIS regarding the effects of entrainment and impingement. The staff made no A-4 further changes in response to this comment and considers no further changes to be warranted.
001-1B In the FSEIS, the staff addressed the ongoing use of a once-through cooling water intake structure as part of discussion of the direct and indirect effects of operating the cooling water system (Section 4.1 and Appendices H and I) and the cumulative impacts on aquatic resources (Section 4.8.1 and Appendices H and I). The effects of ecosystem condition are inherently part of the empirical population trend analyses performed in the FSEIS and the supplement because the sampled populations experience the actual ecosystem conditions. Appendix A of the FSEIS presents the staffs responses to comments on the DSEIS, and the body of the FSEIS shows where text was changed. The staff made no further changes to the supplement in response to this comment, as no further changes are warranted.
A-5
001-1C The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), not the NRC, regulates construction and operation cooling water intake structures under the Clean Water Act and both Federal and New York State regulations. At this time, NYSDEC and Entergy have made no decisions regarding installation and implementation of cylindrical wedgewire screens. The FSEIS presents a general discussion of wedgewire or fine-mesh screens in Section 4.1.5, Potential Mitigation Options. At this time, it is speculative whether cylindrical wedgewire screens will be installed and utilized at the facility. If NYSDEC and/or Entergy reach a decision that wedgewire screens will be installed, the NRC staff would consider whether that would require the NRC to reinitiate a Section 7 consultation with NMFS. The staff made no A-6 further changes to the supplement in response to this comment.
001-2 The staffs assessment of population trends in the FSEIS and this supplement to the FSEIS uses empirical monitoring study data from 1974 through 2005 (the most recent data then available), and its assessment of thermal impacts in the supplement uses data from a study that Entergy submitted to the NYSDEC in 2011. The staffs analyses based on these empirical studies take into account any changes to the fish populations in the Hudson River that have occurred over the years. The impingement and entrainment data used in the strength of connection analyses date from1975 through 1990 and are the most recent impingement and entrainment data available.
001-2 (cont) The staff has no reason to believe that the conditional impingement and entrainment mortality rate estimates based on those data would be different today, and the commenter presents no information to suggest that such rates have changed. The staff made no further changes to the supplement in response to this comment.
001-3 The NRC staff recognizes that the effects of the thermal discharge from IP2 and IP3 are the subject of an ongoing hearing in which new information and views are being assessed. At this time, the triaxial plume studies cited in the comment provide the best technical information available to the staff to assess possible thermal effects to aquatic resources. Those studies support the staffs conclusion. The staff did not change its conclusion about the level of impact as a result of A-7 this comment, although it recognizes that information that may become available in the future could lead to a different understanding at a later time. In addition, 10 CFR 51.92(a)(2) and (c) address preparation of a supplement to a final environmental impact statement for proposed actions that have not been taken, under the following conditions:
There are new and significant circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, or The NRC staff determines, in its opinion, that preparation of a supplement will further the purposes of NEPA.
001-4A The staff addressed this comment in Section 4.0 of this supplement to the FSEIS, which has been revised to reflect the completion of consultations with A-8 NMFS on endangered species (including both shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon), NMFSs biological opinion, and its issuance of an Incidental Take Statement for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
001-4B The staff addressed this comment in Section 4.0 of this supplement to the FSEIS, which has been revised to reflect the completion of consultations with A-9 NMFS on endangered species (including both shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon), NMFSs biological opinion, and its issuance of an Incidental Take Statement for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
Comment response on preceding page(s).
A-10
Comment response on preceding page(s).
A-11
Comment response on preceding page(s).
A-12
Comment response on preceding page(s).
A-13
001-5 Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.20(b)(2) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA),
the renewal of a power reactor operating license requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an existing EIS. An A-14 EIS is prepared for any action determined to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In general, an EIS contains detailed analyses of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the proposed action, and the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and involves extensive public participation and coordination with local, State, and other Federal agencies. Whether or not a new water quality certification or a CZMA consistency determination is needed for the NRC to issue a renewed license is not within the scope of this FSEIS Supplement. See Section 1.5 of the FSEIS for further discussion of this issue.
Comment response on preceding page(s).
A-15
002-1 This comment was received in response to the NRCs request for NMFS to review and comment. The comment provides no new information; therefore, no changes were made to this supplement to the FSEIS in response to this comment. This discussion of the NRC staffs consultations with NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has been updated to reflect the completion of those consultations, NMFSs issuance of a biological opinion in January 2013, and NMFSs issuance of an Incidental Take Statement for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
A-16
A-17 003-1 Regarding Entergys 2009 comments on the draft SEIS, the staff addressed those comments in the FSEIS and modified its entrainment and impingement analysis methods in the FSEIS in response to new information and comments submitted on the DSEIS.
Regarding Entergys 2011 comments on the FSEIS, the staff considered those comments in depth in preparing the FSEIS. This supplement to the FSEIS discusses only those comments for which new information could change any conclusions in the FSEIS.
The NRCs 2012 Technical Analysis and Support for Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Volume 4 Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Suppl. 38, Vol. 4, June 2012) (ML12257A346)
A-18 presents the NRC staffs assessment of Entergys 2011 comments and the analyses the staff conducted to better understand the implications of the comments and how these comments might affect the staffs FSEIS conclusions. The staff did not find any new and significant information in Entergys previous comments beyond the information that the staff has already addressed.
004-1 This comment expresses support for the updates in the draft supplement to the FSEIS and for the renewal of the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses. This comment does not provide any new information; therefore, no changes were made to this supplement to the FSEIS in response to this comment.
A-19
Comment response on preceding page(s).
A-20
005-1 This comment is similar to comment 001-2. The staffs assessment of aquatic species population trends in both the FSEIS and the supplement to the FSEIS uses empirical monitoring study data from the Hudson River Monitoring Program from 1974 through 2005 (the most recent data then available), and its assessment of thermal impacts in the supplement uses data from a study that Entergy submitted to the NYSDEC in 2011.
The staffs analyses based on these empirical studies take into account any changes to the fish populations in the Hudson River that have occurred over the years.
The impingement and entrainment data used in the strength of connection analyses (dated from 1975 through 1990) are the best and most recent site-specific data available. The staff has no reason to believe that the conditional impingement and entrainment mortality rate estimates based on those data would be different today, and the commenter presents no information to A-21 suggest that such rates have changed. The staff made no further changes to this supplement to the FSEIS in response to this comment.
Regarding the approach used in the staffs analysis, the staff used a weight of evidence approach adapted from EPAs guidelines for ecological risk assessment rather than a single species fisheries modeling approach. The staff acknowledges that it could have undertaken a broader, even more holistic analysis had data been available for aquatic non-fish populations. The Hudson River Monitoring Program on which the staff based its trend analyses is an extensive and well-designed monitoring program that samples many fish species; the staff found it provides reliable and substantial data that are adequate to support an impact assessment for the purposes of NEPA.
Comment response on preceding page(s).
A-22
005-2 As noted in the comment, a massive earthquake off the east coast of Honshu, Japan, produced a devastating tsunami that struck Fukushima. In response to the earthquake, tsunami, and resulting Appendix A reactor accidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi (hereafter referred to as the Fukushima events), the Commission directed the staff to convene an agency task force of senior leaders and experts to conduct a methodical and systematic review of relevant NRC regulatory requirements, programs, and processes. Based on the agencys current knowledge of the Fukushima events, they do not provide a seriously different picture of the environmental impacts of severe accidents (as compared to the severe accident parameters analyzed in the GEIS (e.g., GEIS Chapter 5)), so as to require specific consideration in this FSEIS supplement.
Nevertheless, the NRC will continue to evaluate the need to make improvements to existing regulatory A-23 requirements based on the task force report and additional studies and analyses of the Fukushima events as more information is learned. To the extent that any revisions are made to NRC regulatory requirements, they would be made applicable to nuclear power reactors generally, regardless of whether or not they have a renewed license. Therefore, no additional analyses have been performed in this FSEIS Supplement as a result of the Fukushima events.
This comment provided no new or significant information regarding the information or analysis in this supplement to the FSEIS that would challenge the conclusions of the supplement; therefore, no change was made to this supplement to the FSEIS.
006-1 The staff acknowledges that new impingement and entrainment data could increase the certainty of the staffs conclusions. In numerous places in the FSEIS, the staff pointed out the lack of confirmatory studies on impingement mortality. The New York State Department of Environmental Protection (NYSDEC),
not the NRC, regulates construction and operation of cooling water intake structures under the Clean Water Act and both Federal and New York State regulations.
Therefore, the NYSDEC can require further studies on impingement and entrainment mortality rates, should it choose to do so. Although additional impingement mortality studies might increase the certainty of the staffs findings, the staff has no reason to believe that the conditional impingement and entrainment mortality rate estimates that it used would be significantly different today, and the commenter presents no A-24 information to suggest that such rates would have changed. In addition to these data, the staff utilized data for the period of 1974 through 2005 from the Hudson River Monitoring Program, which is an extensive and well-designed monitoring program that samples many fish species, affording the staff a high degree of confidence in its findings. The staff made no further changes to this supplement to the FSEIS in response to this comment.
A-25 007-1 This comment was received in response to the NRCs request for the U.S. Department of Interior to review and comment on the draft supplement to the FSEIS. The comment provides no new information; therefore, no changes were made to this supplement to the FSEIS in response to this comment.
A-26
A-27 A-28 008-1 As discussed in Section 5.1.2 of the FSEIS, the issue of severe accidents at nuclear power plants and the resulting impacts on the environment, including impacts to surface water and groundwater resources, was evaluated in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). The determination in the GEIS is that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL for all plants; however, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants. As detailed in Section 5 and Appendix F of the FSEIS, the NRC evaluated Entergys analysis of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents (referred to as SAMAs), and found that Entergy has appropriately identified areas in which risk could be reduced in a cost-beneficial manner.
This comment provided no new or significant information regarding the information or analysis in this A-29 supplement to the FSEIS that would challenge the conclusions of the supplement; therefore, no change was made to this supplement to the FSEIS.
008-2 The issue of spent fuel storage accidents during the term of any renewed license was evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be of SMALL impact for all plants, and, thus, was designated a Category 1 issue for license renewal. The Commission reaffirmed this in 2008 upon denying two petitions for rulemaking seeking to challenge the Category 1 designation (73 FR 46204).
The Commissions determination to consider SFP accidents on a generic basis in the GEIS rather then in a site-specific SEIS - was upheld in Massachusetts v NRC 522 F. 3rd 115, 127 (1st Cir. 2008). As the Commission stated in 2008, given that the SFP risk level is less than that for a reactor accident, a SAMA that addresses SFP accidents would not be expected to have a significant impact on total risk for the site.
A-30 As a result of a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3rd 471 (D.C. Cir., June 8, 2012),
the issue of spent fuel storage, as it relates to the Commissions Waste Confidence Decision, (codified at 10 CFR 51.23), is subject to ongoing consideration by the Commission as a generic issue; this issue is outside the scope of this FSEIS suplement, and therefore, no change was made to address the issue in this supplement to the FSEIS.
008-2 The NRC continues to evaluate relevant regulatory requirements, programs, and processes in light of the reactor accidents at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. Based on the agencys current knowledge of the Fukushima events, they do not constitute information that would reveal a seriously different picture of the environmental impacts of severe accidents (as compared to the severe accident parameters analyzed in the GEIS) so as to require specific consideration in this supplement to the FSEIS.
The NRC will continue to evaluate the need to make improvements to existing regulatory requirements as more information is learned. To the extent that any revisions are made to NRC regulatory requirements, they would be made applicable to nuclear power reactors generally, regardless of whether or not they have a renewed license.
This comment provided no new or significant A-31 information regarding the information or analysis in this supplement to the FSEIS that would challenge the conclusions of the supplement; therefore, no change was made to this supplement to the FSEIS.
008-3 As part of the Federal governments National Response Framework, NRC is the Coordinating Agency for radiological events occurring at NRC-licensed facilities and for radioactive materials either licensed by NRC or under NRCs Agreement States Program. As the Coordinating Agency, NRC has technical leadership for the Federal governments response to the event. If the severity of an event rises to the level of General Emergency, or is terrorist-related, the Department of Homeland Security will take on the role of coordinating the overall Federal response to the event, while NRC would retain a technical leadership role; other Federal agencies who may respond to an event at an NRC-licensed facility, or involving NRC-licensed material, include the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Energy, the Environment Protection Agency , the Department of Agriculture, the Department A-32 of Health and Human Services, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of State.
Costs associated with nuclear incidents are governed by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (Price-Anderson Act; 42 U.S.C. 2210). The Price-Anderson Act is a Federal law that governs liability-related issues for non-military nuclear facilities in the United States. The main purpose of the Act is to provide prompt and orderly compensation to the public who may incur damages from a nuclear incident, no matter who might be liable.
008-3 contd Power reactor licensees are required to have the maximum level of primary insurance available from private sources (currently $375 million per 10 CFR 140.11) and are also required to participate in a Secondary Financial Protection Program. Under this program, should an accident at any participating power reactor result in injury or damage in excess of the maximum level of primary insurance, all power reactor operators will be charged a retrospective premium, up to a maximum of $111,900,000 per reactor per incident per 10 CFR 140.11. These insurance levels are subject to adjustments due to inflation at 5-year intervals. The last adjustment was made in August 2009.
There currently are 104 power reactors that participate in the Secondary Financial Protection program, creating a combined level of protection under both the primary and secondary layers of approximately $12 billion.
A-33 In the event of a nuclear incident involving damages in excess of the limits established in the Act, Price Anderson includes a provision that obligates Congress to take appropriate action to provide compensation for public liability claims.
This comment is outside the scope of the license renewal environmental review, and provided no new or significant information that would warrant a change to this supplement to the FSEIS.
008-4 This is a conclusion or summary of comments 008-1 through 008-3, discussed above.
This comment provided no new or significant information that would warrant a change to this supplement to the FSEIS.
A-34
Appendix A A.2 References 10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions.
50 CFR 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, Interagency cooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
73 FR 46204. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Attorney General of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, The Attorney General of California; Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking. Federal Register 73(154):46204-46213.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG-1437.
May 1996. ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2010. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Washington, DC: NRC. NUREG-1437, Supp. 38.
December 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML103270072.
[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Technical Analysis and Support for Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Volume 4 Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Suppl. 38, Vol. 4) June 2012. 98 pp. ML12257A346.
Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957, as amended. 42 U.S.C §2210.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. New York v. NRC, 681F.3rd471. June 8, 2012.
Decision on Petitions for Review of Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A-35
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG-1437, Vol. 4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants June 2013 Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Final Supplement