ML20079N179

Responds to NUMARC Survey Re Waste Mgt,Aquatic Resources & Socioeconomic Impacts

ML20079N179
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/11/1991
From:	POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110101
Download: ML20079N179 (29)

Text

'

r q 1

P At.tagheent..1 dian_Poitit_,2 Responges_to_INMARC Survev A ln Faste.Manacement Ouestions A. Spent fuel questions h iques for Which of the following EurInnt tecd nhow?

Q 1. at-reactor storage are you using an Re-racking of spent fuel.

A. Control rod repositioning.

B. Above ground dry storage.

C.

D. Longer fuel burnup.

E.

Other (please identify).

Response "A" ol with Ans. 1.

Re-racking of the IP-3 spent fuelleted po June city maximum density racks will be compThis will increas torage 1990 from 040 storage locations to 1345 s locations. f these current Do you plan on continuing the use oof spent fuel rating Q. 2. techniques for at-reactor starage modify them during the remaining time of your opelicens in some way? is Question 1) capacity ror The current re-racking program (see aintaining Ans. 2. projected to provide adequate storage l Alternate capability for a full core discharge.

subsequent t commenced to intact techniques for at-reactor storage 2006 are an acceptance and removal of spent site. for at-reactor Whic'h of the following techniquestil off-site Q. 3. storage do you anticipato using unl ble and how?

spent fuel storage becomes avai a A.

Re-racking of spent fuel.

B.

Control rod repositioning.

C.

Above ground dry storage.

D.

Longer fuel burnup.

E.

Other (please identify).

91111101o3 933333 PDR NUREO p9g 1437 c

(

k httachment 1 (cont'd)

RCARQnses to NUMARC S.urvey for Indian Point 3 Ans. 3. Response "D" and "E" A. Re-racking now underway as described (Qunstion 1 and 2). Additional re-racking is not anticipated to bn practical.

D. Control rods can be stored in fuel assembly guide tubes until consolidation becomes important.

C. Above-ground dry storage will be considered if fuel consolidation is not developed as an economic practJcal system.

D. Longer fuel burnup is a natural outcome of current plans for transition to 24-month operating cycles.

E. No firm plan has been established at this time if additional at-reactor storage capacity is required beyond 2006. However, fuel consolidation would be a probable method for further expanding the spent fuel storage capacity at IP-3 providing the technology has been developed and the economics and other factors are acceptable.

Q. 4. Mill the techniques described above be adequato for continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal, or are you developing other plans?

Ans. 4. The maximum density racks in conjunction with fuel

- consolidation (if developed and demonstrated - see Question 3) would satisfy requirements for at-reactor stor. age of spent fuel through the current projected operating lifetime for IP-3, i.e., 2015. These techniques would only partially accommodate a 20-year license renewal period, and no detailed plans are currently being developed to cover this potential need for additionel spent fuel storage capacity. We will follow the technology as it develops.

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Resnonses to imMAnc survev for Indian Poitt,l Q. 5. Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional land for the storage of spent-fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal? If so, how much land? When would this acquisition occur?

Where? (If answer is "yes", 3-4 sentences.)

Ans. 5. No additional land would be required through 2015 with use of the maximum density racks in conjunction with fuel consolidation (see Question 4). There are no anticipated plans to acquire additional land for storage of spent fuel. The IP-3 site is r ideal for dry storage systems as it is restric; 'n size and the IP-3 plant has a crane capacit) only 40 tons.

Q. 6. Do you anticipate any additional construct 12D s

activity on-site, or immediately adjacent to the power plant sito, associated with the continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetilne of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal? (yes/no)

Ans. 6. Plans beyond 2006 are not firm and could invnive additional construction activity on-site dependent on final selection of technology for further expanding spent fuel storage capacity.

Q. 7. If you answered yes to Question 6, briefly describe this construction activity (e.g.,

expansion of fuel storage pool, building above ground dry storage f acilities)

Ans. 7. No' response - no plan in plact beyond 2006, although we are considering fuel consolidation for additional storage along with dry storage systems.

~

4 Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Responses to NUMARC Surygv for Indian Point 3 B. Low-level radioactive waste management questions Q. 1. Under the current scheme for LLRW disposal (i.e., LLRW Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and regional compacts) is there currently or will sufficient capacity for wastes generated during the license renewal period be available to your plant (s)? If so, what is the baFis for this conclusion?

Ans. 1. The Authority expects to have sufficient disposal capacity for its LLW for at least the first portion of the license renewal period. This expectation is based on the followings the requirements set forth in t!2 New York State Low Level Waste Management Act (i.e.,

that the state will provide disposal capacity),-the current plans being considered by the NYS LLW Siting commission (i.e., that the facility will be designed for a minimum of thirty years), and the current schedule published by the siting commission (i.e., that the disposal facility will commence operation in late 1995).

Q. 2. If for any reason your plant (s) is/sre denied access to a licensad dispossi site for a short period of time, what plans do you have for continued LLRW disposal?

Ans. 2. The Authority has no plans for continued LLW disposal in the event that New York generators are denied access to operating LLW disposal facilities for a short period of time. However, our plants would resume LLW disposal i

at the operating facilities whenever access to them is reinstated.

Q. 3. In a couple of pages, please describe'the specific

( methods of LLRW management currently utilized by yo0r plant. What percentage of your current LLRW (by volume) is managed by:

A. Waste compaction?

B. Waste segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation check point)?

c. Decontamination of wastes?

D. Sorting of waste _ priot* to shipment? ..

E. Other (please identify)

,,,y . . . . , - , - . . , - , - . , , .

__ __ _ . _ ___ _ _ _ _ ____ _. _.~ _ _ _ _ _ _

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Responses to NUMARC Survey fgr Indian Point 3 Ans. 3. Procean Wastes. Plant resins and plant fil. ors are transferred to a high intogrity container L d shipped for disposal.

Dry Wastes. Dry wastes are managed through a combination of minimization, segregation, decontamination and recycle / reuse. A wastc minimization program applies to materials entering the radiologically controlled arna. Once inside the RCA, individual itras such as tools or bulk materials are segregated, frisked and released for reuse. Trash from the RCA is sorted visually for bulk items, equipment, metals or tools. Retrievables from trash are deconned and reused onsite, except for scrap which may be sent to an offsite vendor for removal of contamination and release. Non-retrievables from trash are compacted onsite in a drum compactor, which achieves a volume reduction ratio of about 4:1, and are then sent to an offsite supercompaction vendor, where the volume is reduced by another third prior to disposal.

Compaction: 100% of non-retrievables (90% of volume)

Decontamination: 100% o* retrievables (5% of volume)

Reuse / recycle 5% of volume Q. 4. In a couple of pages, please describe the anticioated plans for LLRW management to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remainder of the operating license and through the license renewal term. What percentage of your anticioated waste (by volume) will be managed by!

A. Waste compaction?

B. Waste segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation check points)?

c. Decontamination of wastes?

D. Sorting of waste' prior to shipment? __

E. Other (please identify)

Ans. 4. Waste management techniques that are currently under consideration for future application include: Resin drying 20% volume reduction, DAW incineration (offsite) and metals smelting (offsite).

Attachment 1 (cont _'sQ Responses to NUMARC,_Eurvey for Indian Point 3 Q. 5. Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional land for the storage of LLRW for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal? If so, how much land? When would this acquisition occur? Where? (If answer is "yes", 3-4 scatences)

Ans. 5. The Authority does not anticipate the need to purchase additional land for LLW storage.

Q. 6. To provide information on the timing of future low-level waste streams, if you answered yes to question #5, over what periods of time are these activities contemplated?

Ans. 6. The Authority does not have sufficient basis to provide a response to this question at the present time.

Q. 7. Do you anticipate any additional construction activity, on site, or immediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with tenpnrary LLRW storage for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license reuewal? (yes/no)

Ans. 7. The Authority has already constructed five-year interim onsito LLW storage facilities at both the IP3 and JAF sites. The design basis for each storage facility included the LLW produced by the plant over a five-year period, as currently provided for under NRC guidelines and 10CFR50.59. The design for each facility also took into account the possibility of expansion at some future date. Assuming the regulatory approvals are in place under which storage could extend beyond five years, the Authority would need to modify and expand the existing storage facilities or construct additional capacity on site.

Q. 8. If you answered yes to question 7, briefly describe this construction activity (e.g., storage areas for steam generator components or other matetials exposed to reactor environment).

Ans. 8. As stated above, the nature of any construction activity related to LLW would most likely be to modify and expand the LLW storage facilities that currently exist at each site. Also, under the proper regulatory framework, the Authority might establish the means for onsite disposal of certain of its LLW, for instance waste that might be deemed below regulatory concern.

) l Attachment 1 (cont'd)

ILSDponses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 1 Q. 9. To provide information on future low-level waste streams which may effect workforce levels, exposure, and wasto compact planning, do you anticipato any major plant modifications or refurbinhment that are likely to generate unusual volumes of low-level radioactive waste prior to, or during, the relicensing period for the plant? If so, pleese describe these activities. Also, what types of modifications do you anticipate to be necessary to achieve license renewal operation through a 20-year license renewal term?

Ans. 9. The authority implements major plant modifications that naintain or improve the safety, reliability ad operability of the plants that are imposed by regulation; or that can be shown to have significant benefits in terms of operating costs and radiation exposure reduction. Specific activities that might ha're a major impact on the LLW stream are not established at the present time.

C. Mixed low-level radioactive wasta question:

Q. 1. If your plant generates mixed LLRW, how is it current'.y being stored and uhat plans do you have for managing this waste during the license renewal period?

Ans. 1. IP3 does not have mixed LLW at the present time.

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Ruponses to NUMARc survey for Indian Point 3 Acuatic Resourgg_Questiong c

R.oulatory Backo.r.rnuld The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued an operating license for Indian Point 2 in 1973 and the station began commercial operation in 1974. The license allowed Indian Point Unit No. 2 to operate with once-through cooling until May 1, 1979. After that date, a cooling tower was amur required. In 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (successor to AEC) issued an operating license to Indian Point Unit No. 3 subject to the same restrictions cessation of once-through cooling by May 1, 1979.

The requirement for closed cycle cooling (i.e. a cooling tower) was based on AEC environmental impact statement (1972) that concluded that entrainment of striped bass by Indian Point could substantially deplete the Hudson River striped bass population and recommendod that a closed-cycle cooling system be built to reduce water withdrawala from the river. Beginning in 1973, con Edison and other utility companies (Orange and Rockland Utilities, Incorporated, and Central Hudson Gas and Electric Company) operating power plants on the lower and middle zones of the Hudson River funded a research affort to obtain the evidence needed to resolve the entrainment question. The New York Power Authority later joined this effort.

In 1975, subsequent to issuance of the operating licenses for i

Indian Point Units 2 and 3, the US Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) issued a NPDES permit for Units 1 and 2 and a I separate NPDES permit for Unit 3 pursuant to the authorities of l the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act L Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA). The permits would have required the l installation of a closed-cycle cooling system for Indian Point l Unit No. 2 b May 1, 1979 and for Indian Point Unit No. 3 by September 15, 1980. (Unit No. 1 has not operated since october 1974). In December, 1975, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) l acquired Indian Point No. 3 from Con Edison to NYPA. (NOTE

In 1975, EPA also issued NPDES permits for 2 fossil-fuel plants which required the construction and operation of closed-cycle

! cooling systems: Bowline operated by Orange and Rockland and jointly owned by Orange and Reckland and con Edisont and Roseton operated by Central Hudson and jointly owned by Central Hudson, con Edison and Niagara Mohawk.)

Attachment i fcont'il Resoonses to NUMARC Survey for Indipn Point 3 All of these closed-cycle cooling requirements waro imposed becausa EPA dotermined that it was the best technology available to minimize what it considered to be unacceptable entrainment impacts on striped bass and other species by these plants pursuant to Section 316(b) of the FWPCA. At that time, EPA also determined that it did not have sufficient information to decide whether or not to grant the utilities' requests for alternative thormal limits (equivalent to existing once-through cooling systems) under Section 316(a) of the FWPCA. The utilities requested Section 316(a) variances because the existing once-through cooling systems were not consistent with national power plant effluent guidelines which required closed-cycle cooling and because some plants, including Indian Point, would violate numerical thermal water quality criteria.

The five utility companies affected by the NPDES cooling tower requirements - Con Edison, NYPA, Orange and Rockland, Niagara Mohawk, and Central Hudson - contested the permits and asked for adjudicatory hearings on the closed-cycle cooling requirements.

The utilities contended that the impact of their existing once-through cooling systems was not biologically significant, would not result in cny material reduction in the fish populations of the Hudson River, and did not justify the construction and operation of cooling towers which are expensive and also have adverse environmental impacts of their own.

The adjudicatory hearings began in 1977 and ended with a 1980 l settlement agreement among the utilities, EPA, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), other government agencies and environmental groups. The settlement became effective in May 1981 and was made part of the SPDES permit DEC issued to Indian Point in 1981. This was a single permit, covering disenarges from all Indian Point Units. (The Settlement Agreement was also made part of SPDES permits issued to other Hudson River power plants.) Thb Settlement Agreement called for continued operation of the plants with once-through cooling systems for a ten year pariod in return for the cancellation of Con Edison's proposal Cornwall Pumped Storage Plant and other actions by the utilities to reduce the effects of the plants' operatiens on the Hudson i

River fishery. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached (see Exhibit A).

The current SPDES permit was issued in 1987 and expirow in 1992.

The Settlement Agreement expires in 1991.

10 Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Responses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point y Q. 1. Post-licensing modificat'ons and/or changes in operations of intake and/or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic

. resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts that were not anticipated in the design of the plant. Describe any such modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the isouance of the Operating License.

Ans. 3. The Settlement Agreemont .>.11ed for Con Edison and NYPA to implement certain teructural and operational modifications to minimize water intake impacts regarding fish impingement and entrainment. These actions includes schoduled plant outages; installation of dual speed pumps; cooling water flow rate rer.trictions; installation of Ristroph intake screens; and operation of a striped bass hatchery.

Cgolina Water flow Restrictions. A cooling water flow rate schedule was established to minimize river water withdrawal without compromising plant operating efficiency or inducing additional thermal mortality in entrained fish. Flow rates vary seasonally, ranging from full flow between June 9th and September 30th to 60%  ? full flow between November 1st and May 15th.

Dual Soeed Pumns. TO facilitate achieving the required flow schedule, new dual speed circulating water pumps were installed at Unit 2 in 1984 and variable speed pumps were installed at Unit 3 in 1985.

Plant Outane Schedules.. Units 2 and 3 combined were required to average 42 unit days off-lina each year between May 10 and August 10 during the lo year agreement period 'a total of 420 Unit days). The outage requirements generally reflected the prior operating history of the units and were intended to ensure tnat entrainment impacts did not inersase above the historical level.

( Fish Protective Screens. The Agreement anticipated

! that angled intake screens, a promising technology l

at the time of the Settlement, would ba installed.

l However, it provided that other devices could be substituted if tests then underway elsewhere, suggested that angled screens would not be effective. It

, was subsequently determined that angled screen l effectiveness at an intake as large as those at Indian l

l-

{

_._._. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ __.___._._.__.___._______~-m._ __

4 Attachment 1 (cont'd) ,

Respongas to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 Points Units 2 and 3 was uncertain and alternative  :

fish protective intake modifications were considered.

After field and laboratory testing, modified Ristroph screent were determined to reflect the best available technology for Indian Point. These screens are scheduled to be installed at both units by January 1991 (see Exhibit B).

Strined Bass Hatcherv. A striped bass hatchery along the Hudson River was installed with a goal of stocking up to 600,000 three inch striped bass into the river annually.

The current SPDES permit reflected modifications to condenser chlorination and service water chlorination practices. This permit change.is discussed in Exhibit C.

Q. 2. Summarize and describe (or provide documentation of) any known impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., fish kills, violations of discharge-permit conditions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) '

enforcement actions that have occurred since issuance of the op rating License. How have these been resolved or change. over time? . (The response to this question should indicate whether impacts arm ongoing or were the result of start-up problems that were subsequently resolved.)

Ar.s. 3. SPDES permit renewal applications require the applicant to summarize any permit violations during the period of the existent permit. The SPDES permit renewal application submitted in September 1979-reported no violations. The 1986 renewal application reported violations for the effluent from the sewage. treatment plhnt which was used to treat sanitary wastes from-the entire Indian Point site. (see Exhibit D). These violations, which are not specific to a nuclear power plant., were resolved via a Consent Order attached to-tha current SPDES permit. -Pursuant-to that Consent order, connections to the municipal sewer system ~were made and the discharge of sanitary wastewater from Indian Point was terminated in 1989. .

Intermittent minor variances from maximum seasonal flow rates established in the Settlement Agreement have been experienced. Deviations are largely flows less than those listed in the Settlement Agreetent.

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Responses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 Flow reductions occur when pumps are turned off to accommodate repairs or to clean debris from intake screens or condenser tubes. They have been reported to DEC and noted to the settlement parties in annual reports as required. No concerns have been expressed by any Settlement parties relative to those variances.

There have been other, periodic incidents -- i.e.,

discharge of sewage with elevated concentrations of radioactive material (June 1986); discharge of boron through an outfall other than that specified in the permit but within the plant's effluent limits (December, 1987). These have not been repetitive events and do not reflect any trends.

No discharge related fish hills have been observed

'ince Indian Point Units 2 and 3 began operation in 197? and 1976, respectively. Intake-relsted fish kills

-- i.e., entrainment and impingement -- are summarized in response to puestion 5.

From 1972 to 1980, Indian Point operated pursuant to a Consent Order entered into with the DEC which required the adjustment of cooling water flows whenever specified daily impingement limits were exceeded.

Additionally, from 1972 to 1976 the Consent order required the operation of an air bubbler system outside the intake screens to divert fish from the screens whenever the water temperature was below 40'F. On occasion, flow correctives were required. The Consent order was superseded by the 1981 Settlement Agreement.

Q. 3. Changes to the NPDES permit during operation of the plant could indicate whether water quality parameters were determined to have no significant impacts (and were dropped from monitoring requirements) or were subsequently raised as a water quality issue. Provide I a brief summary of changes (and when they occurred) to the NPDES permit for the plant since issuance of the Operating License.

l i

l l

1

~11-httachach 1 (cont'dL Resoonsel to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 Ann. 3. The 1975 HPDES permit for Units 1 and 2 at.d Unit 3, set forth thermal criteria, specifying that water temperature at the surface of the receiving river could not be more than 90*F at any point, provided further at least 60 percent of the cross sectional area and/or one-third of the r.urface width could not be raised more that 4'F or a maximum of 83'F, whichever is less.

However, during July through September if tho water temperature at the surface of an estuary before the addition of heat was more than 83*F, an increase in temperature not to excoad 1.5'F, at any point of the estuarine passageway was permitted. Further, monthly isothermal measurements of the thermal plume were requirnd. The maximum discharge temperature Vas 96'F.

In August, 1980, con Edison reported on its thermal survey program. The thermal survey program was designed to fulfill regulatory requirements mposed upon con Edison and PASHY by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) through the Environmental Technical Specification Requirements for the Station, EPA, and the New York 9 tate Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The Report concluded that oporation of the Indian Point Generating Station would comply with the cross sectional area and surface width constrainth of the NYS thermal criteria. The station would also comply with the 90'F thermal criteria for surface temperature with the exception that the 90*F surface temperature limitation might not be met if the river ambient temperature exceeded 79'F. Furthermoro, it recommended that further thermal surveys not be conducted and that existing analytical techniques (and a knowledge of plant operating conditions and available river ambient data) be useo to describe thermal plume patterns.

The thermal criteria and requirements to conduct thcrmal plume surveys were not included in the 1981 permit. The max.imum discharge temperature was rained to 110*F frou 96'F. A new requirement limiting the number of timen the daily average discharge temperature could exceed 93.2'F between April 15th and Jur.a 30th was imposed. The Settlement Agrooment, discussed previously, was attached to the 1981 permit.

l

14 Mt schment i fcont'd)

Respgn ar,_t.o NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 Exhibit C contains a discussion of changes in the 1987 )

SPDES permit from the 1981 permit. l Since issuance in 1987, two modifications have been  !

made to the current SPDES permit. First, in April, I 1989 the permit was modified to annex a December 1988 I i agreement signed by all parties to the Settlement Agreement providing for the installation of Ristroph l screens (see Exhibit B). Secondly, also in April 1989, I the permit was modified to allow the discharge of boron l from an additional internal waste stream.

Q. 4. An examination of trends in the effects on aquatic i resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have i increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable .

during operation. Describe and summarize (or provide l documentation of) results of monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota (e.g. , relatad to NPDES permits,-Environmental Technical Specifications, site-specific monitoring requizad by federal or stato agencies). What trends are apparent over time?

Ans. 4. The response to question 3 referenced the thermal survey program that was conducted. The thermal survey program was conducted to fulfill regulatory requirements imposed upon Con Edison and PASNY by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

through the Environmental Technical Specification Requirements for the Station; EPA, through the 1975 NPDES permit; and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), through the Section 401 Water Quahity Certification. Considerable amounts of data were obtained through twenty (20) field surveys ; results were contained in a total.of eighteen (18) reports submittted to both the NRC and the NYSDEC periodically during zhe six years from 1974 to 1980.

The conclusions fro'a the August 1980 summary report are contained in AppenGix E.

Ectuary-wide measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity heve been taken since 1973 in conjunction with biological monitoring; prior to 1982, pH hnd turbidity were also measured. During the 1970's, sampling was done throughout the year but, since 1981, riverwide sampling has been largely restricted to April through early November. A summary of trends in these parameters through 1987 is found the 1986 and 1987 Year Class ReDort for the Hudson River Estuary Monitorina Procram (Sce Exhibit F) .

l Atj;EAERDt 1 (cont;'J;R Responses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point _3 Hudson River water temperatures fluctuate in a regular seasonal cycle, bwtween a minimum near o'c and a maximum of approximately 25-29'C. Thernsi dischar ges from the Indian Point stations have little effect on either the rato of warming in the spring or maximum sumaer temperature in the vicinity of Indian Point; however, thermal discharges from Indian Point, Lovett Generating Station, and Bowline Point may all contribute, along with intrusion of marine waters, to a delay in fall cooling. Long-term data indicate that mean temperatures in the middle estuary have increased about 0.5'C since 1951.

Salinity in the Hudson is controlled primarily by freshwater inflow. Salt front position generally fluctuates between Poughkeepsie during exceptionally dry periods and Yonkers during rainy periods. Annual tronds follow trends in r".9*all.

Dissolved oxygen in the Hudson River fluctuates seasonally, with lowest Do (approximately 5 ppm) in the warmest months. Do is lowest in the Yonkers (closest to New York City) and Albany regions, and highest in the middle part of the estuary. Mean weekly dissolved oxygen has not dropped below 4 ppm in any region since 1983, indicative of a trend of reduced sewage inflow to the river.

No trends in pH or turbidity have been distinguishable.

Acuatic Biotg Since the mid-1970's monitorint efforts have concentrated almost exclusively on fish. Three estuary-wide sampling programs have been conducted anhually to monitor abundance of key fish species, primarily striped bass, white perch, Atlantic tomcod, and American sha$. The monitoring studies include an ichthyoplankton survey conducted from April through Jur.e , a beach seine survey conducted from June through November, and an off-shore surysy conducted from July through November, other specialized studies have been conducted for particular species, such as bottom trawl surveys for white perch, and bottom trawl and box trap surveys for Atlantic tomcod.

Attachmant 1 (centf<Q Responses to RUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 Data have been used to calculate indices of abundance and, with information from entrainment and impingement sampling programs (described in response to Question

1. 5), to estimate plant impacts on fish populations. A description of the basic study program and patterns of abundance of species of interest through 1987 appears in the 1987 Year Class Reoort (see Exhibit F). In contrast to predictions by EPA scientists during the hearings on the 1975 HPDES permit that populations of some species might be substantially reduced by entrainment and impingement, populatinns of interest have either increased in abundance or are fluctuating ,

within expected ranges.

O. 5. Summarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling water system since issuance of the operating License. Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement. How has entrainment and impingement changed over time?

Ans. 5. Eptrainment Entrainment monitoring at Indian "oint was conducted periodically from the early 1970's through 1987.

Studies were also conducted to assess the survival l

rates of entrained zooplankton and ichthyoplankton.

Results of studies up to the time of the 1977 adjudicatory hearings were sumwgized in the 316(a) and 316(b) materials.

Macrozooplankton commonly entrained include Gammarus spp, Neomysis americana, Honoculodes edwardsi, Leptocheirus plumulosus, and Chaoborus punctipennis.

Microzooplankton primarily consist of copepod nauplii and rotifers. Survival of entrained zooplankton was L

shown to be high and that fact, coupled with the short generation time of these organisms, indicates that population offects are insignificant. Zooplankton monitoring has not been required since 1979.

1 Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Resoonses to NUMARC Survey for Indian __ Point _2 Ichthyoplankton monitoring continued through 1987.

Species composition and abundance of entrained ichthyoplankton varies from year to year, but reven taxa consistently comprise the major part of entrained ichthyoplankton (Table I). Studies of the survival of entrained ichthioplankton were conducted in 1985 and 1988. These studies confirmed the earlier work demonstrating the substantial proportions of some species survive entrainment, if the discharge temperature does not exceed lethal linits (see Exhibit G). Representative estimates of the numbers of ichthyoplankters entrained and killed are presented in the 1987 entrainment report (see Exhibit H).

l l

l l

l l

l

- _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . - - -_ _ . _ ___._._ _ _.~. _ ____ _ _

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

EtaDonttes to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 Table I Species Composition (%) and Total Number of Ichthyoplari?L,n Collected at Indian Point Generating Units 1985-1987 1985 1986 TAXQD 32B2 Bay anchovy 88.3 41.8 80.9 Striped bass 3.3 16.7 11.6 White perch 1.9 14.5 2.9  ;

American shad < 10 .1 <0.1 <0.1 f

Blueback herring /

alwife <0.1 16.5 0.4 Rainbow smelt <0.1 0.8 0.3 Atlantic tomcod 1.7 0.3 0.4 others 4.5 9.3 3.4 Total Number Collected 76,655 161,746 128,120 Imoinaemgnt Impingement monitoring has been conducted since Indian ,

Point Unit 2 began operation in 1974, and Unit 3 in 1976. Monitoring of impinged fish waL conducted daily from11974 through 1980, and on a reduced schedule in accordance with~a htratified random sampling design since 1981.- Additional studies-have-been done to-estimate collection efficiency,_ survival of fish impinged on fine-mesh and Ristroph-type screens, and to investigate the potential for variouc devices to reduce impingement (bubble curtains, pneumatic " poppers",

sound pulses, lights).

l l

l.

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Responses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 seasonal and annual trends in impingement are summarizel in annual reports of which the 1988 annual report is representative (see Exhibit I). Monitoring studies have demonstrated a distinct reduction in impingement since 1982, particularly for the most commonly collected taxa, white perch, blueback herring, and bay anchovy. For all three species, the decline in impingement can be attributed, at least partially, to reduced abundance in the immediate vicinity of the Indian Point intakes, although this reduction in abundance is not rnpresentative of abundance throughout the entire estuary.

Q. 6. Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g., anadromous fish runs) during operation may have enhanced the biological communities in the vicinity of the plant. Alternatively, degradation of habitat or water quality may have resulted in loss of biological resources _near the site. Describe any changes te aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in the vicinity of the power plant sinco the issuance of the Operating License including those that may have resulted in different plant impacts that those initially predicted.

Ans. 6. There have been no substantive changes in monitored water quality or habitat characteristics in the vicinity of the Indian Point Station since the Unit 2 license was issued in 1973 (see response to Question

\

1. 4). l Since many of the species of interest at Indian Point are anadromous or migratory over large expanses of the estuary water, vater quality outside of the vicinity of the station may influence the seasonal abundance of'entrainable and impingeable fish. There has been

! notable improvement in sewage treatment throughout the estuary, resulting in measurable increase in dissolved oxygen below Albany and in the New York City area.

Although there are restrictions on the consumption of many fish and shellfish taken from the Hudson estuary because levels of toxic cubstances, if any, on the L abundance of biota is unknown. Changes in toxicant

! levels through time are largely undocumented, but l levels of certain organic toxicants have probably l declined.

1 b

l Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Resoonces to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Hudson River Utilities have operated a striped bass hatchery.

Since 1983, an average of 240,000 striped bass of at least three inches in length have been stocked each year (total through 1989, 1.6 million fish).

Monitoring suggests these fish have contributed a few percent on average to annual juvenile recruitment.

Q. 7. Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by others.

Harvest by commercial or recreational fishermen may be constraf.ned by plant operation. Alternatively commercial harvesting may be relatively large coursrod with fish losses caused by the plant. Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g., swimming, boating, annual harvest by commercial and recreational fisherien) and how these impacts have changed since issuanco of the operating License.

Ans. 7. Fisheries statistics for Hudson River species affected by the Indian Point Station were discussed to the extent they were available through 1975 in the section 316 materials. (see Question 49). Of those species, only striped bass and American shad have continued to support commercial fisheries of any importance.

The commarcial fishery for striped bass and many other fish in the Hudson estuary above the George Washington Bridge was closed in 1976 because PCD levels exceeded i FDA guidelines for consumption. In 1984, the FDA revised its guidelines downward to 2 ppm and the I

closure of the striped bass fishery was extended to all but certain eastern waters of New York's marine district. In 1986, the fishery was closed entirely in response to Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) plans to restore the Chesapeake striped bass stock. The ASMFC has recently moved to allow limited commercial fishing and New York State has proposed a limited commercial fishery in marine waters for the fall of 1990. However, the commercial fishery in th-l Hudson estuary proper will remain closed, and coastal fishing will be restricted to certain eastern district waters because of PCB levels of fish from these waters.

i Although there was some decline in PCB levels in fish from the late 1970's through the early 1980's, levels have since stabilized and PCB-related commercial fishing restrictions are expected to continue through the foreseeable future. Reduction in fishing has contributed substantially to an increasing Hudson River l stock of striped bass.

4 Attachment 1 (cont'd)

ResDonses to NUKARC Survey for Indian Point 3 Commercial landings of American shad in the New York portion of the Hudson River increased substantially after 1976, and have remained relatively stable over a range of about 400,000 to 700,000 pcunds. No information is available on the recreational shad catch, but it is believed to be limited.

During recent years, a commercial fishery has developed in the Hudson River for blue crabs and recreational crabbing. Although poorly documented, recreational crabbing is believed to have increased, in spite of health advisories limiting consumption. .

Since fishing licenses are not required on the tidal portion of the Hudson, information on recreational fishing within the Hudson estuary is extremely limited.

Fishing is probably general and opportunistic.

However, fishing for large-mouth and small-mouth bass, mostly well above the Indian Point area, has increased greatly in recent years and numerous tournaments are held each year.

Q. 8. Describe other sources of impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., industrial discharges, other power plants,

! agricultural runoff) that.could contribute I to cumulative impacts. What are the relative l contributions by percent of the.e sources, including

! the contributions due to the power plant, to overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biota?

Ans. 8. The effects of four fossil fueled electric generating stations (Bowline Point, Rosaton, Lovett and Danskammer) on the Hudson estuary above and below i Indian Point were considered during the NPDES L

permit hearings for the Indian Point station and the i cuhulative effects are treated in the 316(b) documenta, Changes in the operation of two of these stations,

' Bowline Point and Rosaton, were conditions of the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A). The impacts of the other Hudson River stations relative to that of Indian Point remain substantially the same as presented in the 316(b) demonstration materials. (see question (9) l..

m.. _ __ . . ~ _ , . . . _ _ _ . .. _.,.-.-- _ _ . _ . _ . _- __ .-

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

PJtsponses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 1 Four relatively large base load station and several 4 small peak load stations on the East River, Arthur Kill and lower Hudson River may contribute to a limited extent to the cumulative impact on some of the anadromous and migratory Hudson River species, but the effects have not been quantified. Similarly, one smaller station on the Hudson estuary at Albany (about 100 miles upriver) may contribute slightly to the effects on a few species. These plants have all been on-line since at least 1977 and most began operation much earlier, so their effects have long been reflected in the biota. More recently (1984), a small (60 MW) refuse burning station began operation immediately upstream from Indian Point. 7ts effects are minimal.

At the time the licenses were issued for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and during the subsequent HPDES permit hearings, a large pumped storage plant was planned at Cornwall upstream from the Indian Point station. It was estimated that the impacts of that storage plant would exceed the impacts of the Indian Point Station and the cumulative effect of Indian Point and the l Cornwall plant was of concern. Under the terms of l

the Settlement Agreement, plans for the pumped storage j plant were abandoned.

! Several municipalities and institutions withdraw l

domestic water from the upper estuary, but the effects

( are unquantified. New York City operates a drought l emergency water pumping station about 30 miles north of I Indian Point. It has operated only three times during the 1980's for a total of less ' Tan six months. Its contribution to entrainment and impingement have not been quantified and its future operation is uncertain.

1 The effects, if any, of point and non-point dischargen on Hudson River biota have not been quantified (see response to Question #6).

Q. 9. Provide a copy of your Section 316(a) and (b)

Demonstration Report required by the Clean Waste Act.

What Section 316(a) and (b) determinations have been made by the regulatory authorities?

Ans. 9. The cover page and table of contents from all Section 316(a) and 316(b) demonstrations reports are con ained in Exhibit J. In lieu of Section 316(a) and (b) determinations, all inter 4'sted parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (see Exhibit A).

1 4

~23-Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Resoonses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Pqi[1L1 Socioeconomic Ouestigns for all Utilitiga Q. 1. To understand the importance of the plant and the degree of its r,ocioeconomic impacts on the local region, estinein the number of permanent workers on-site for the most recent year for which data are available.

Ans. 1. 1990-600 Q. 2. To understand the importance of the plant to the locC region, and how that has changed over time, estimate the average number of permanent workers on site, in five-year increments starting with the issuance of the plant's operating License. If possible, provide this information for each unit at a plant site.

Ans. 2.

• 1975 - All con Ed Staff (approximately 500 for 2 units) 1980 - 350 1985 - 490 1990 - 600

• NYPA assumed operation from Con Ed in 1978.

Q. 3. 5 10 understand the potential impact of continued terration for an additional 20 years beyond the original licensing term, please provide for the following three cases:

A) a typical planned outage; B) an ISI outage; and c) the largest single outage (in terms of the number of workers involved) that has occurred to date; an. estimate of additional workers involved (for the entire outage and for each principal task), length of outage, months and year in which work occurred, and cost. Also, estimate occupational doses received by permanent and temporary workers during each principal task.

Ans. 3. a) Typical Outage 1-Additional workers - 750 2-Length of outage - 90 days 3-Outage dates - 6/85 start

• 4-Cost - $24 Million 5-Occupational doses - 520 Man-Rem

i Attachment 1 (cont'd) ,

Resoonses to RUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 b) ISI outage (10-year ISI outage) l-Additional workers - 950 2-Length of outage - 120 day.

3-Outage dates - 5/87

• 4-Cost -

$2r Million 5-Occupational doses - 420 Man-Rem c) Largest Single outage (Steam Generator Replacement)

Additional workers - 1000  ;

2-Length'of Outage - 140 days -

3-Outage dates - 2/89 ,

- $27 Million

~

• 4-Cost 5-Occupational doses - 850 Man-Rem ,

• Direct labor cost only. '

Q. 4. To understand the plant's fiscal.importance to specific jurisdictions, for 1980, 1965, and the least year for which data are available, estimate the entire plant's taxable assessed value and the amount of taxes paid to the state and to each local taxing jurisdiction, i Ans. 4. As a non-profit, public benefit corporation of-the State of New York, the_ Power Authority;is exempt from payment of State _and local taxes.

However, New York State has_ paid nearly $46 Million to the Village of Buchanan, Town of Cortlandt, Hendrick Hudson School District and Verplanck Fire District ';o compensate for Indian Point 3's removal from the tax rolls-due to Power Authority acquisition.

1 .

l

.Approximately'$1.5 Million was paid in 1989,. including

$558,000 to Buchanan,.$88,000_to the Cortlandt Fire District and_$842,000 to the school district.

1 Biannual payments are made pursuant to state law and

• are projected to continue at least 40 years.

.Thesa " transition" payments'are made.under Section 545 ,

of;the state's-Real Property Tax Law, which provides for payments from the State's General Fund when two percent or more of a taxing entity's assessed valuation becomes exempt due to the acquisition of real entste by the state-or its-agencies or authorities.

The_ law prescribes a formula for transition assessments that gradually reduces the amount of payments over many '

. years.

1:

, , . , , _ _ , , ~ _ . . , _ _ , _ - , _ . _ . , , , - . . , - . , _ . - , - , , . . ...,#..,,_- ....-..,,.m. , . , ..

an - a. - . . .

v- ~25-

.. A

.. ' - Attgghment 1 (cont'd) e , Tesponses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3

%s-  ;'.

TVI %ents equal to taxes based on the full assessed NDU,hk, -

~

, 3 lue of the property and its improvements are made

? ,~

f ;'t."

(f;. y#, .s .. -s ..:. first year after its acquisition by the state, y j"g*

m. a 'i? -  ;

succeeding payments equal the preceding years payment,

.s

• = n'"

~ ~ '

less two parcent of the total ascessed valuation of the

"[

tax diatrict for the previous year, times the tax rato for thu current year. The state reduces the paytnents tu the extent any in-lieu-of-ta

: payments are made.

~

e )?

?.

a+

w b

e

)

_ = - - =. -- -. - -- .~ . - -

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Resp 9ngsp.to NUMARC 4<yvev for Indign Point 3 Socioeconomic Ouestions for Case Study Sites A. Employment and-Expenditures Q. 1. To understand the importance of the plant to local comme 3 Oles, and how that has changed over time, pro"iu. estimates of total plant expenditures, by local community, for equipment, materials, and services used

f. normal operations for the most-recent year data are available.

Ans. 1. Data not available Q. 2. To understand the possible offect of the plant on the local economy, how do the average salaries paid to plant employees compare to average salaries for comparable jobs, if they exist, in the loccl are.

(e.g., engineers, sacrataries, custodial personnel, electronics technicians, maintenance journeyman, food service emoloyees)?

Ans. 2. Average salary comparison: Plant employees vs. local comparable jobs. Average salaries for plant employees are 10 to 20% higher than. local comparable jobs.

Q. 3. To understand the possible=effect of the plant on *he local economy, what programs-has the utility spon. red i in the local area to improve employment opportunities, such as hiring policies, job training programs, or industrial recraltment.

Ans. 3.- Local utility programs to hire, train, recruit from local area.

Advertisements in local periodicals.

Temps.from local areas - potential for permanent Conducts Hgv to Interview for Jobs training'at local L high schools and colleges.

i Q. 4. To understand the importance of the plant to_ specific l jurisdictions near the plant, what is the current L distribution, by city and county or zip code or residence, of' permanent workers on site?

i-t

Attachment 1 (cont'dl Resoonses to RUMARC Survey for Indian -Point 3 Ans. 4. Current distribution of permanent workers by location:

45% Dutchess County 25% Westchester County 10% Rockland County 5% orange County 5% Putnam-County B. -Taxes 4

These questions are asked to validate information obe.:ined e from local government-sources or to obtain information if local _ governments feil to provide it.

Questions:

1. What types of local taxes must be paid on the plant and-property?

2. To what jurisdictions are these taxes paid *r

3. - What types.of state taxes must be' paid on the plant and property? ,

4.. 'Forfeach' tax type,Lplease gatimate-the totalianount.

thw utility paid to each relevant state and-local

-jurisdiction in 1960, 1985 and-1989 (or the.most recent year for which data'are available).

5. Have major plant modifications'or tefurbishment affected the plant's taxable asseesad value?:

6. Would an extended outage-for major plant modifications or refurbishment result in'a temporary cessation-or reduction of-tax paymentaJto state and/or-local

[ governments?;

7. Would-tax payments' cease in the event of plant decormissioning?

Answers:-

As a-non-profit, public benefit corporation of1the State of-New York, the'.-Power l Authority is exempt from payment of State "..u iceal-taxes.

'However, New. York State has paid-nearly'$46 Million-to the Village of Buchanan, town of Cortlandt, HendricL Hudson School District and Verplanck Fire District to compensate L

'~

for: Indian Point 3's removal from the tax rolls due to Power Authority acquisition.

l

__ .,-.,.- . , _ . - ._,2., -_, . , - . , . . , , , . - , - , , , , . - - , . _ . _ , . , , - - , ,

. . . _ . _ _ . .. .- -.____ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _,m _ _ . _ . . . - ._.__m__.__

g.

c Attachment 1 (cont'd)

Resoonses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 5

Approximately $1.5-Million was paid in 1989, including '

$558,000_to Buchanan, $88,000_to the Cortlandt Fire District and $842,000 to the school district- >

Biannual payments-are made pursuant to state law and are- _

projected to' continue at-least 40 years.

-These " transition" payments are made under Section 545 of the state's Real Property. Tax Law, which provides for payments;from the State's General Fund when two percent or-more of a taxing entity's assessed valuation becomes-exempt due to the_ acquisition of real estate by the state or its agencies.or authorities.

The law prescribes a ' formula for transition asses - that graduallyJreduces the amount of payments over many yuars.-

- Payments equal to taxes based on the full assessed value of the property-and'its improvements are made the first year after its acquisition by the state. Succeeding-payments-equal the preceding years payment,--less two percent _of

- the total assessed valuation of the-tax-district for the

previous year, times the . tax -rats for the current -year. - The state - reduced- the payments to the extent 'any 'in-lieu-of-tax

- paymet;;s-are made.

C.- Public Services 7 - ouestions:-

L

1. Please estimate the total annual plant expenditure for Leach-fee-paid public service (e.g.,_ water,_scwer, etc.)

in-fivu year intervals since-plant _ operations began.

Answers 1-  !

~ The:- Power = Authority provided $100,000 to tha Village of .

1 Buchanan, increasing the total-financial support since 1987 .

.: to $350,000 to help cover the costs of a new pump _ station L to deliver Indian Point sewage to the Village's wastewater-

treatment. plant.

The7 Power Authority also'is paying 20% (about $60,000): of

' the annual; operating and maintenance costs of the wastewater- ,

treatment plant.

'w- -

4 --

y --

f~[vve w

o

.,~

Attachment 1 (cont'd)

RiuiDonses to NUMARC Survey for Indian Point 3 The Power Authority will provida $400,000- to the Village-of BuchTnan when work begins this year on the Montrose Improv.aent District's Raw Water Interconnect Project. The money is a partial payment of the Village's share of the project's cost.

The $3.4 Million water connection between the City _of Peekskill and the Montrose Improvement District is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 1991.- It will providc:an alternate source of water to the village of Buchanan _and the plants at Indian Point.

t 9

l i

[

L _ i