NL-09-0364, Comment (16) of Fred R. Dacimo on Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Northeast Re Comments on NUREG-1437, Draft Supplement 38

Comment (16) of Fred R. Dacimo on Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Northeast Re Comments on NUREG-1437, Draft Supplement 38

ML091040133
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/18/2009
From:	Dacimo F Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
73FR80440 00016, NL-09-0364, NUREG-1437
Download: ML091040133 (299)

Text

,1,-

Entergy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 SýEntergy Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel 914 788 2055 Fred Dacimo Vice President License Renewal 4/ Z) g7Z March 18, 2009 Re: Indian Point Units 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-09-036 77 Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 M.

SUBJECT:

Comments on NUREG-1437, Draft Supplement 38 C:)

CD

Reference:

Letter from Mr. David J. Wrona, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Vice President, Operations, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. entitled "Notice of Availability of the Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 38 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (TAC NOS.

MD541 1 and MD5412)," dated December 22, 2008.

Dear Sir or Madam:

In response to the referenced letter, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), is submitting the four enclosed reports and enclosed letter as comments on NUREG-1437, Draft Supplement

38. In addition, Entergy is including the enclosed matrices that summarize the enclosed reports and letter and also provide additional substantive and editorial comments.

As an initial matter, Entergy agrees with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff's preliminary recommendation, namely that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 2 and 3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. Further, Entergy appreciates the tremendous effort that the NRC Staff and its contactors have put forward in order to complete this thorough document.

Entergy recognizes that the Staff and its contractors evaluated more than 30 years worth of environmental data and assessment studies in order to make its findings and recognizes the enormity of this undertaking.

6 o ,O~ 7- 2 ej9~i~~ 6~-~-~/ ~-~-

,,ýff -Xz16:5 =ý- 15ý)1-1,

I-4t NL-09-036 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 2 of 4 As noted below, however, Entergy is providing certain substantive and editorial comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). The comments provided are intended to aid the NRC in preparing the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) to eliminate any errors and inconsistencies that may have been introduced into the DSEIS due to the complexity and volume of data that was considered.

In large measure, Entergy's comments focus on those portions of the DSEIS assessing the potential impacts of entrainment, impingement, thermal shock, and associated mitigation measures evaluated in the DSEIS (collectively, "Aquatic Issues"), based on the efforts of leading consultants whose past work informed Entergy's Environmental Report for Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3. In particular, the following consultants submitted comments on the DSEIS in the attached reports:

• Dr. Larry Barnthouse of LWB Environmental Services, Inc., Dr. Doug Heimbuch of AKRF, Inc., Dr. Mark Mattson of Normandeau Associates, Inc., and Dr. John Young of Applied Science Associates, Inc., address impingement and entrainment. While their report includes numerous comments, their focus on the potential impacts to Bluefish, characterized as "LARGE" in the DSEIS, deserves mention. The DSEIS accurately reflects that impingement and entrainment of early life stages of Bluefish occurs at Indian Point in only a very limited fashion. As such, impingement and entrainment, alone, could not reasonably be expected to directly impact the area Bluefish population. Further, while the DSEIS mentions potential food-web implications of Indian Point's operations, it mistakenly identifies the composition of the Bluefish diet. Again, therefore, the DSEIS does not support its conclusions of indirect impacts to Bluefish. As a result, the FSEIS should identify potential impacts to Bluefish as "SMALL."

" Dr. Mattson also addresses shortnose sturgeon. Among the several points he makes in the report, Dr. Mattson outlines how the DSEIS calculation of potential impinged shortnose sturgeon is incorrect by approximately an order of magnitude --

that is, the DSEIS significantly overstates potential impacts to shortnose sturgeon.

Similarly, the DSEIS does not account for the substantial population increase (i.e.,

400% to 500%) in shortnose sturgeon over the period of Indian Point's operations or the retrofitting of the stations' cooling water intake structures with state-of-the-art Ristroph screens and fish return systems designed specifically to reduce potential impacts to fish, including shortnose sturgeon. Finally, the DSEIS does not reflect the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) staff's prohibition on impingement sampling for shortnose sturgeon to eliminate sampling-related mortality. In short, there are many and important reasons why Indian Point's potential impacts to shortnose sturgeon, during the license renewal period, should be considered "SMALL" in the FSEIS.

NL-09-036 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 3 of 4

• Dr. David Harrison of NERA, Inc. addresses electric-system reliability, air emissions, and climate change considerations associated with certain mitigation alternatives addressed in the DSEIS. Based on Dr. Harrison's assessment, which is echoed by the New York Independent System Operator and the National Academy of Sciences, reduced output at Indian Point may have a significant negative impact on electric-system operation, air quality in the region, and New York's climate change goals.

Focus on these considerations in the FSEIS is particularly appropriate, given that electric-system reliability and air-quality concerns were prominent in the February 12, 2009 public meetings on the DSEIS.

• Dr. Craig Swanson of Applied Science Associates, Inc., addressed potential thermal impacts. As Dr. Swanson's independent review of the Indian Point thermal record illustrates, a historic NYSDEC-mandated thermal assessment by multiple Hudson River facilities modeled conditions under a specific slack tidal condition that do not and cannot actually exist in the River. In particular, NYSDEC required an assumption of a tidal condition defined as near slack water (specifically the lowest 10th percentile current during the flood tide) at mean-low water, as a conservative condition for thermal dispersion; however, near the Indian Point site, slack water conditions occur near mid-tide, not at mean-low water. Thus, the condition imposed by NYSDEC offers no insight whatsoever into the present or future compliance calculus for Indian Point Units Nos. 2 and 3. Moreover, Indian Point's current SPDES permit confirms its compliance with applicable law. As such, any heat shock assessment in the FSEIS should identify potential thermal impacts as "SMALL."

• Sam Beaver, of Enercon Services, Inc., addresses potential impacts from various cooling tower systems. As the Enercon report underscores, conclusions about the potential impacts of closed-cycle cooling suffer from omissions about site-specific construction and operational hurdles. Thus, for instance, the DSEIS fails to account for known on-site strontium and tritium radiological contamination, and also blasting and excavation activities that would place the Indian Point site among the top three largest mining operations in the nation. When accounted for appropriately, these and other conditions support the conclusion that impacts of the closed-cycle cooling mitigation alternative should be "LARGE" in the FSEIS.

It is Entergy's conclusion, after reviewing the DSEIS and expert reports referenced above, that continued operation through the license renewal periods for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 will not result in any adverse environmental impacts.

NL-09-036 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 4 of 4 There are no new commitments identified in this submittal. We look forward to receipt of the FSEIS. If you have .any questions regarding the enclosed reports and/or matrices of comments, please contact Ms. Dara Gray, Chemistry Supervisor (914) 736-8414.

Fred R. Dacimo Vice President License Renewal : IPEC Draft SEIS Substantive Comments and Stenographic Comment Matrices : Letter dated March 17, 2009 from Goodwin Procter to NRC, "Comments on NUREG-1437, Draft Supplement 38" : Enercon Services Inc. Report dated March 2009, "Response to the Indian Point Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" : NERA Economic Consulting Report dated March 2009, "Economic Comments on Nuclear Regulatory Commission DSEIS for Indian Point Energy Center" : Applied Science Associates, Inc. Report dated March 16, 2009, "Review of Thermal Discharge Issues to the Hudson River in NRC Draft SEIS for Indian Point 2 and 3" : Fisheries Expert's Report dated March 16, 2009, "Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3" cc: w/Enclosures - CD ROM Mr. John P. Boska, NRC NRR Senior Project Manager Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. Sherwin E. Turk, NRC Office of General Counsel, Special Counsel Mr. Drew Stuyvenberg, NRC Environmental Project Manager IPEC NRC Residents Mr. Robert Callender, Vice President, NYSERDA Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Dept. of Public Service

ENCLOSURE 1 TO NL-09-036 IPEC Draft SEIS Substantive Comments and Stenoqraphic Comment Matrices ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286

Substantive Comments INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment 1 2-13 8-10 Description of fish return system only applies to IP2 fish return system. The FSEIS should state that the IP3 fish return system discharges to the river by the northwest corner of the discharge canal.

2 2-16 3 The FSEIS should state that IP1 provides waste processing for IP2 only.

Replace the paragraph with the following: "IP2 has mixed waste storage facilities covered by a Permit, NYD991304411, and other agreements issued by NYSDEC under 6 NYCRR Part 373, for the accumulation 3 2-22 15-18 and temporary storage of mixed wastes onsite for more than 90 days. Mixed wastes are temporarily stored onsite for more than 90 days at IP3 based on a mixed waste conditional exemption for Permit NYD085503746, per 6 NYCRR Part 374-1.9."

There is very little information in the DSEIS about tidal conditions in the Hudson River, yet the importance of 2-35 5-42 tidal processes on the location and extent of the thermal plume is critical. It appears that some entities 4 2-36 1-3 (NYSDEC, previous modelers, etc.) did not appreciate that the modeled scenarios were not only unrealistic but impossible. The FSEIS should include additional description of the tidal conditions in the Hudson River.

(See Section 2 of ASA's DSEIS response.)

If the polyhaline zone begins at RM (river mile) 1, RKM (river kilometer) should also be 1 and not 2 as 5 2-35 28 currently written.

These data suggest to the NRC staff that variations in sources and the importance of carbon inputs can be 30 influenced by a variety of nonanthropogenic factors and result in changes to food web structure and function 6 2-37 through 2- that directly impact higher trophic levels. The authors cited in the DSEIS to support this statement, Caraco 38, line 6 and Cole (2006), discussed only carbon and primary production. They did not discuss impacts on food web structure and function. Inferences about food-web effects of changes in carbon inputs made by NRC are not supported by known published studies of the Hudson River ecosystem. As such, food-web effects should given a low weight when assessing impacts in the FSEIS, e.g., for bluefish.

In the HRSA, IP2 and IP3 originally agreed to install dual speed pumps (not variable speed). As a result, the 7 2-43 14 FSEIS should be revised to reflect that IP3 has exceeded commitments made to NYSDEC and others in 1981, by installing variable speed pumps.

The distinction made between vertebrates and large vertebrates is not material and there is no basis for distinction. Large vertebrates should be removed and vertebrates used in its place.

Change this sentence to read: "Permits for IP2 and IP3, Bowline Point 1 and 2, and Roseton 1 and 2 9 2-49 23-24 became effective on October 1, 1987, and have been administratively continued by the NYSDEC since October 1, 1992 (NYSDEC 2003a). This change is necessary to accurately reflect the current state of these

_permits Page 1 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page

1. Line # Comment Should be changed to: "As it was not required by the NYSDEC no further studies were conducted after the 10 2-50 24-26 installation of the modified Ristroph system at IP2 and IP3 to determine actual mortality of key species, and no additional impingement monitoring was conducted."

The DSEIS has expanded the list of Representative Important Species (RIS) species significantly from prior RIS definitions. NRC's RIS list is intended to "represent the overall aquatic resource and reflect the complexity of the Hudson River ecosystem by encompassing a broad range of attributes, such as biological importance, commercial or recreational value, trophic position, commonness or rarity, interaction with other species, vulnerability to cooling system operation, and fidelity or transience in the local community."

However, it is difficult to understand how this definition excludes any of the 200+ species that have been encountered in the estuary from being added to the RIS list. Table 2-4 provides no justification as to why 11 2-51 Table 2-4 any of the species are actually on the list.

Although the NRC is attempting to be more holistic in its analysis, by adding additional species to an RIS list and then analyzing each individually simply increases the probability that some species will be deemed to have large impacts simply by "alpha inflation" due to the number of species being examined and the problems noted below with the classification process. In the FSEIS, the NRC should employ the RIS list established for Indian Point in conjunction with its environmental regulators. If it does so, the NRC should conclude that potential impingement and entrainment impacts to all RIS are SMALL.

The Atlantic sturgeon is erroneously labeled as "protected" in Table 2-4. This label should be removed from the FSEIS because the Atlantic sturgeon has merely been added as a "candidate species," which does not 12 2-52 Table 2-4 carry any procedural or substantive protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including being subject to ESA biological assessments. Moreover, potential impacts to this species should be considered SMALL as detailed in the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP. (See Section VI.A. of the Goodwin Procter comments).

The ASMFC (2006) stock assessment for Atlantic menhaden provides more complete information than do the landings statistics cited in the DSEIS. ASMFC (2006) shows that the reproductive capacity of the coastal population is well above the target established by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council 13 2-60 11-25 ASMFC, indicating that the population is healthy. The importance of including agency stock assessments as lines of evidence in the FSEIS is discussed in Section 5.of Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3. Impacts of entrainment and impingement on Atlantic menhaden should be characterized as SMALL.

Page 2 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The DSEIS states that entrainment mortality has caused a 23.8% annual reduction in juvenile American shad, with most mortality occurring in the Albany region. This historical impact was almost entirely due to the Albany Steam Station, which was shutdown 10 years ago. As noted in CHGEC (1999), the same 14 2-61 27-30 source from which the 23.8% value was obtained, entrainment at IP has been no more than about 1% per year throughout the entire period of operation of IP2 and IP3. Therefore, the FSEIS should state that Indian Point's contribution to entrainment mortality of American shad is very low. The relevance of the quantitative entrainment and impingement mortality estimates (termed conditional mortality rates, or CMRs) from CHGEC (1999) to the DSEIS is discussed in Section 5 and Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.

The conclusion in Chapter 4 regarding impacts of entrainment and impingement on bluefish conflict with the 15 2-66 30-34 information provided on page 2-66. The information summarized on lines 30-34 of page 2-66 supports a SMALL finding concerning impacts of entrainment and impingement on bluefish.

The DSEIS states that entrainment mortality has caused a 23.8% annual reduction in juvenile American shad, with most mortality occurring in the Albany region. This historical impact was almost entirely due to the Albany Steam Station, which was shut down 10 years ago. As noted in CHGEC (1999), the same source from which the 23.8% value was obtained, entrainment at IP has been no more than about 1% per 16 2-70 13-15 year throughout the entire period of operation of IP2 and IP3. Therefore the FSEIS should state that Indian Point's contribution to entrainment mortality of American shad is very low. The relevance of the quantitative entrainment and impingement mortality estimates (CMRs) from CHGEC (1999) to the DSEIS is discussed in Section 5 and Appendix D of Review of the NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.

The DSEIS does not describe a basis for a health advisory being issued for white catfish in this particular 17 2-73 17-20 stretch of the Hudson River. Because the basis is unknown, it should be noted in the FSEIS that there is no relation between the health advisory and Indian Point.

Published data for Hudson River white perch (Barth and O'Connor 1985) show that in the Hudson white perch feed almost exclusively on invertebrates and fish eggs. Therefore, the FSEIS should cite Bath and 18 2-75 10-11 O'Connor (1985) and state that no evidence has been found that Hudson River white perch consume other fish. See Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.

As there is abundant information available on the Hudson River, there is no reason to include information on 19 2-75 42-43 the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, the discussion of the Chesapeake Bay in Section 2.2.5.4 of the DSEIS I _ _should be deleted and not included in the FSEIS.

Page 3 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment 20 2-76 42 Section 2.2.5.4 should be clarified that total landings of sturgeon are for the East Coast of the United States and not just for the Hudson River.

The following sentence "In 1998, a recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon was finalized by NMFS (NMFS 21 2-77 34-35 1998) not in list." begins on line 34. "Not in the list" appears to be a partially completed sentence and should be completed or removed. In addition, there is no "NMFS 1998" reference shown in the Section 2.3 references.

Zebra mussels are limited to freshwater regions of the Hudson and do not directly affect the food web of the brackish regions of the Hudson, where Indian Point is located (Strayer et al. 2004). Therefore, the FSEIS 22 2-79 14 should be revised to state that impacts of zebra mussels have been limited to freshwater regions of the Hudson that are not influenced by Indian Point.

is 23 2-85 13 Change "The three federally listed species..." to "The three federally listed and candidate species..." This necessary because the cottontail has not been listed, but is still a candidate species.

24 2-85 13-26 The bald eagle discussion should be removed, as it is no longer a federally listed species, which is the topic of the paragraph, and is therefore not relevant to this discussion.

The description of the Indiana bat should include recent information on white nose syndrome and its effects on this federally listed species in New York. (See Reference 10.26 cited in Section 7.2 of ENERCON's 25 2-86 21 DSEIS response and attached to the report). If this information is included and Indiana bats are properly assessed, the NRC may conclude in the FSEIS that potential impacts associated with a closed cycle cooling mitigation alternative, if assessed, are LARGE.

Eutrophication is not applicable to Indian Point, as this typically deals with facilities discharging to a lake.

26 4-2 Table 4-1 The FSEIS should delete row 4 of the table.

Replace the sentence with the following: "The NRC Staff reviewed information provided from the Entergy 27 4-3 1-4 ER, the NRC Staff's site visit, the scoping process, the administratively continued New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits for IP2 and IP3 and the subsequent draft permit, ongoing Hudson River monitoring programs and their results, and other available information."

Replace the sentence with the following: "The NRC Staff identified no new and significant information related to these issues during its independent review (including information provided from the Entergy ER, the NRC 28 4-6 6-10 Staff's site audit, the scoping process, the administratively continued SPDES permits for IP2 and IP3 and the subsequent draft permit, ongoing Hudson River monitoring programs and their results, and other I__available information)."

Page 4 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Ln

1. Line# Comment Replace the sentence with the following: "The SPDES permit for the Indian Point site, which addresses 29 4-6 26-28 discharge from the currently operating IP2 and IP3, as well as the shutdown IP1 unit, was administratively continued by NYSDEC since a timely SPDES permit renewal application was filed 180 days prior to the

_current permit's expiration date of April 3, 1992."

Indian Point, and virtually every large scale New York power plant with a recently-renewed SPDES permit, is required by NYSDEC to conduct a future thermal study; this statewide initiative carries no inference of past i30 4-7 14-30 or future non-compliance. (See Section VII of the Goodwin Procter Comments.) Therefore, the discussion of thermal impacts in the ESEIS should conclude that thermal impacts of license renewal are SMALL.

NYSDEC's assessment of the effects of entrainment and impingement has not made any causal connection between the magnitude of mortality and actual effect on the fish community or Hudson ecosystem (FEIS -

NYSDEC 2003a). NYSDEC has merely pointed out that there are downward trends in some species, and also stated that entrainment and impingement numerical losses are too large and must be reduced, without 31 4-8 7-45 drawing a connection between the two conditions. No analysis was proposed to examine likely causes of observed declines or whether reduction of entrainment and impingement losses would reverse them. The Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3 does make these evaluations, employing extensive, verified datasets through 2005; if the NRC considers the data contained in the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, potential impingement and entrainment impacts to Hudson River species should be considered SMALL in the FSEIS.

32 4-8 12-13 Replace the sentence with the following: "The last SPDES permit for IP2 and IP3 has been administratively continued under provisions of the New York State Administrative Procedure Act."

NYSDEC quoted comments submitted by Riverkeeper, and performed no independent analyses. The 33 4-8 31-32 Riverkeeper comments were not supported by any data or analyses. Therefore, the FSEIS should be revised to note that NYSDEC was discussing generalized characteristics of ecosystems, not the specific characteristics of the Hudson River ecosystem.

In conducting its analysis of impingement and entrainment impacts in Section 4.1 of the DSEIS, NRC Staff should rely on the current information contained in the AEI Report, rather than more dated information contained in the 2003 generic FEIS for several Hudson River facilities. (Barnthouse et al 2008) The generic FEIS has been judicially determined to be incomplete. Moreover, the generic FEIS is not site-specific, and I _ _ does not reflect current, known fisheries information, for Indian Point.

-Page 5 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment For instance, the generic FEIS entrainment assessment for Indian Point is based on in-plant entrainment sampling from six years in the 1980s, whereas the AEI Report analyzes data generated over three decades 34 4-9 Generally from the NYSDEC-approved Hudson River Monitoring Program up to and including 2005. (Barnthouse et. al 2008) Thus, the AEI Reportis the more site-specific, complete and current dataset, and should be accorded weight in,'theDSEIS. (Barnthouse et-.al 2008) If NRC Staff gives the AEI Report appropriate weight in its analysis, potential impacts relating to impingement and entrainment in the FSEIS should be classified as SMALL. (See Section III of the Goodwin Procter Comments and the Review of NRC's Impingementand Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and iP3.)

The DSEIS states that undisclosed non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and citizens have "expressed the opinion that many species of fish in the Hudson River are in decline and that the entrainment and impingement ... is contributing to the decline." To our knowledge, these opinions are not supported by any analysis or study to demonstrate causation between entrainment and impingement and the perceived population declines. Only Barnthouse, et. al., 2008 examines possible causation and concludes that other 35 4-9 15-18 causes are far more likely to be responsible. Two of the species often mentioned as declining by the undisclosed NGOs and citizens are Atlantic sturgeon and American shad, both of which have clearly been overfished and fishery management agencies are correctly focusing on reducing fishing mortality. Prey species currently in decline include blueback herring and alewife, both of which are preyed upon by striped bass and other predatory species.

This predation could be heavy enough to seriously affect abundance (Heimbuch 2008). The state of Connecticut attributes the decline of river herring in their state to striped bass predation (http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/fishing/freshwater/herringclosure.pdf).

Certain statements in Section 4.1 of the DSEIS are inconsistent and conflict with assumptions made in the be 36 4-9 28-32 weight of influence (WOE) approach that the distribution of fish in the immediate vicinity of IP should given higher weight than the riverside distribution of fish. (See Section 5 of the Review of NRC's IImpingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

Page 6 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS IPage1 Line #

1. .Comment The phrase "...using a variety of techniques" requires clarification because impingement sampling was based on a total count of all fish impinged at each unit on each day of the year when at least one circulating water pump was operated during the period from 1975 through 1980, and based on a stratified random 37 4-10 23 sample of 110 days per year during the period from 1981 through 1990. Therefore, the FSEIS should strike using a variety of techniques." (A complete description of the impingement monitoring studies conducted at IP2 and IP3 appears in Appendix H to this draft SEIS) and replace it with "as summarized in Appendix H of this FSEIS"..

The DSEIS is incomplete with respect to the chronology and extent of impingement data and impingement 38 4-12 13 mitigation studies available for Indian Point. In fact, extensive, peer-reviewed Ristroph screen and fish handling and return system studies were performed from 1989 to 1995. (See the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, Section 2.2.) This information represents a sound basis for concluding, in the FSEIS, that potential impingement impacts are SMALL.

Change to: "As it was not deemed necessary by NYSDEC, no further monitoring of impingement rates or 39 4-12 19-21 impingement mortality estimates was conducted after the new Ristroph screens were installed at IP2 and IP3 in 1991."

The word "assumed" with the phrase "Observed eight-hour" is not correct as these data were based on 40 4-12 22 empirical studies described in the peer reviewed scientific publication by Fletcher (1990), therefore the data were not assumed. The word "assumed" should be removed in the FSEIS. The complete Fletcher reference is provided in the DSEIS reference list found on page 4-67, lines 37 and 38.

41 4-12 24-26 In this sentence, "several" should be changed to "4 of the 10" to provide more specific information.

Should be changed to:" ... return systems to increase the survival rates of impinged organisms, since it was not deemed necessary by NYSDEC the actual improvements in fish survival after installation of these systems at IP2 and IP3 have not been established (impingement monitoring last occurred in 1990)."

This statement suggests that the DSEIS's assessment would be based on the likely effects of IP on ecological, commercial, and recreational values. The information developed in the DSEIS does not provide informationthat sheds light on the likely ecological, commercial, or recreational value of the aquatic losses due to IP and how those values would be reduced with closed-cycle cooling. (See page 23 of the NERA Report.) As such, the DSEIS has not supported the need for mitigation, and the mitigation alternative should bhe removed from the FSEIS.

Page 7 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS.SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line # Comment The statement in Section 4.1.3 of the DSEIS that "fish surviving to the YOY stage are at greater risk from the cooling system operation" is not supported by the DSEIS analysis and conflicts with conclusions of previous assessments of IP cooling system impacts. Fish surviving to the YOY stage are susceptible to impingement, but not to entrainment. Section 2.1 and Appendix B of the Review of NRC's Impingement and 44 45 13 Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3 cite previous assessments demonstrating that impacts of impingement at IP on Hudson River fish populations are very small. Section 2.2 of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3 shows that even these small impacts have been greatly reduced by the Ristroph screens and fish return system that have operated at IP2 and IP3 since 1990.. Therefore, the FSEIS should conclude that impacts to all RIS due to impingement are SMALL.

Eleven attributes were used in the original source of the WOE method (Menzie et al. 1996). However, the DSEIS only used seven of these attributes with no explanation for the effects or rationale for omission of the additional four attributes. All attributes should be accounted for, or their omission explained, in the FSEIS.

Using Monte Carlo simulation of populations with expected population changes ranging from a 70% decline over 30 years to a 230% increase over 30 years, and 3 different levels of variability, the NRC decision rules, within the WOE methodology, produced classifications that bore little relationship to the underlying 4-16 35-38' population trend. As such, errors in the NRC WOE decision rules do not support the findings in the DSEIS 46 4-17 1-8 and impacts for impingement and entrainment in the FSEIS should be SMALL. For example, a LARGE impact generally would be assigned only to declining populations, MODERATE impacts had a 20% to 40%

chance of being assigned to population growth ranging from -50% to +230% over 30 years. Classifications for data smoothed with a 3-year moving average were even worse, with populations growing to 50% of original sizing have some probability of being assigned to the LARGE impact category, and MODERATE and SMALL categories nearly equally probable over a range of population growth from 0% to 230%.

Absent consideration of the magnitude of population effects, the DSEIS cannot reasonably assess the 47 4-18 1-8 potential for IP2 and IP3 to "destabilize" or "noticeably alter" attributes of the resource, nor can it provide a basis for a meaningful assessment of the "ecological, recreational, and commercial importance" of the impacts of IP2 and IP3. (See page 27 of the NERA Report.)

48 4-18 30-32 The conclusions of Section 4.1.3.1 of the DSEIS conflicts with information summarized in Appendix-E, which shows a 400% increase in abundance of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson since the 1970s. Based on I _ _NRC's decision rule, impact determination for shortnose sturgeon should be SMALL.

Page 8 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The statement about there being a limited amount of impingement data for shortnose sturgeon from IP2 and IP3 for the years before installation of the Ristroph screens is incorrect. A total count of all shortnose 4-18 31 sturgeon impinged was obtained for all days of operation of IP2 and IP3 from 1975 through 1990. Viewed E-98 21 properly, zero catch samples are not a lack of available data, but evidence of the absence of impact. Thus, consistent with the references in this comment potential impacts to shortnose sturgeons should be characterized as SMALL in the FSEIS. (See Section 3.0 and Appendix A of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3 for additional information).

50 4-19 1-16 The method used by NRC to assess the "strength of connection" between Indian Point and the RIS, summarized in 4.1.3.2 of the DSEIS reflects certain errors and inconsistencies as documented in Section 4.2 of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.

Effects on bluefish should be SMALL because there is no significant documented impingement or 51 4-19 7, 34 entrainment of bluefish, and the DSEIS misconstrues bluefish consumption. Thus, the FSEIS should show that there are no established potential entrainment or impingement impacts to bluefish. (See Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The treatment of endangered species in the DSEIS should be revised. First, the DSEIS characterization of impacts to shortnose sturgeon as "UNKNOWN" is incorrect. In 1979, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concluded that Indian Point operations (even without later-installed technologies intended to reduce impingement mortality) would have a "negligible" impact on this species, and that baseline conclusion, although subject to review by NMFS, presumptively controls, absent credible scientific evidence of increased impact by Indian Point or a more compromised endangered population. Neither is present here. Rather, as and IP3, the 4-19 35-38 detailed in the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 52 4-51 35-36 shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson River has increased some 400% since the 1970s. Moreover, to 4-52 4-12 the in-place technologies have reduced potential impacts on any such species. As such, impacts shortnose sturgeon should be SMALL in the FSEIS. (See Section VI of the Goodwin Procter Comments.)

Second, despite evaluating closed-cycle cooling as an alternative, NRC Staff did not consult with the appropriate resource agencies, such as USFWS, to determine whether this alternative would adversely affect a terrestrial endangered species, the Indiana bat. NRC staff should consult with USFWS with regard to this alternative and update the FSEIS to reflect a consistent treatment of aquatic and terrestrial species.

(See Section VI of the Goodwin Procter Comments.)

Page 9 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The DSEIS conclusion regarding Atlantic menhaden conflicts with ASMFC (2006) stock assessment that 53 4-19 36 shows a large, stable population of Atlantic menhaden inhabiting the entire Atlantic coast from Florida to Maine. Only a small fraction of menhaden are ever exposed to IP. ASMFC (2006) stock assessment shows that population reproductive capacity has been stable or increasing since 1980 and is well above the management target. As such, potential impacts to Atlantic menhaden should be SMALL in the FSEIS.

Conflicts with information summarized in Appendix E, which shows a 400% increase in abundance of 54 4-19 36 shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson since the 1970s. Based on NRC's decision rule, impact determination for shortnose sturgeon should be SMALL.

The DSEIS appears to assume that if adequate data were not available from the sources it used in its WOE process, the result was "UNKNOWN" and hence the impacts could not be narrowed down from the entire 55 4-20 4 range from SMALL to LARGE. Other sources of data or reasoning allow a narrowing of impacts. (See page 28 of the NERA Report; See also the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The DSEIS does not account for the performance of in-place mitigation technologies required by Entergy's SPDES permit, i.e., modified Ristroph screens, that will operate during the license renewal period. The use of peer-reviewed data is scientifically valid, and therefore presumptively preferable under NEPA. The modified Ristroph screens were subject to independent (Riverkeeper, Inc.) and regulatory (NYSDEC staff) review, culminating in peer-reviewed published analysis in the leading Transactions of the American Fisheries Society publication. The FSEIS cannot therefore reasonably consider inadequate a dataset that 56 4-21 2-5 has been limited by the regulating entity, here NYSDEC.

In short, because the use of the modified Ristroph screens is an integral component of the proposed action, particularly as it relates to the evaluation of environmental impacts, the peer-reviewed survival estimates from Table 4-3 in the DSEIS should be factored into the impact assessment. (See Section V of attached Goodwin Procter comments.) As further described in the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, using the survival estimates from Table 4-3 of the DSEIS and a corrected WOE approach, the potential impacts of Indian Point operations during the license renewal periods should be classified as SMALL in the FSEIS.

Page 10 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment Overall, the DSEIS has not provided sufficient evidence to find that the existing cooling system would "destabilize," or "noticeably alter" any of the 18 RIS and thereby adversely impact their ecological, 57 4-21 32-34 commercial, or recreational value. Therefore, the DSEIS does not adequately support findings of MODERATE or LARGE impacts. (See page 29 of the NERA Report.) If the correct standards were applied, the DSEIS would conclude that impacts are SMALL. (See the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The application of the CORMIX model, in calculating the thermal plume across the Hudson River was sufficiently flawed to invalidate results obtained from its use. A close inspection of the modeling presentation 4-25 38-45 in CHGEC (1999) clearly shows that the supplementary work using the CORMIX 3.2 model does more than 4-26 1-3 over-estimate the cross-river extent of the plume, i.e., it was incorrectly applied and its results incorrectly interpreted. The FSEIS should note that the supplementary modeling was disregarded. (See Section 3 of ASA's DSEIS response.)

Replace the sentence with the following: "According to NYSDEC (2003b), the last SPDES permit for the 59 4-26 34-36 Indian Point facility has been administratively continued under provisions of the NY State Administrative '

Procedure Act since 1992."

The DSEIS states that existing information regarding thermal impacts must be used even though it was pointed out during an independent review of the historic thermal assessments that the thermal modeling previously performed was flawed based on two premises: 1) the hypothetical conditions chosen by NYSDEC for modeling (slack water at low tide) never exist in the Hudson River at the IP site; and 2) the duration of the slack water condition assumed in the previous CORMIX modeling at the site is completely incorrect.

60 4-27 14-30 (Swanson 2008; NYSDEC 2003) NRC cites the NYSDEC contention that this modeling shows that discharges from IP2 and IP3 could raise water temperatures to a level greater than that permitted by water quality criteria. (NYSDEC 2003) The modeling results presented are erroneous and therefore cannot be used to draw .any conclusions, specifically that adverse effects are possible. Based on the fact that there is no valid reported effects of thermal analysis, the FSEIS should conclude that potential heat shock impacts would be SMALL. (See Section 4 of ASA's DSEIS response.)

Page 11 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line# C

1. Comment The mitigation alternative in the DSEIS that includes restoration alternatives is, arguably, unlawful under the 4-28 25 federal CWA under a federal court ruling which NYSDEC has determined applies to Indian Point. In 61 xv 36-39 Riverkeeper I and II, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals twice held that EPA impermissibly construed 8-4 9-10 §316(b) to allow compliance with that section, in whole or in part, through restoration measures. Thus, the 8-16 25-28 DSEIS's efforts to evaluate federal CWA law, particularly compliance with §316(b), by means that include, in whole or in part, restoration measures is not proper. (See Section IV of the Goodwin Procter Comments.)

Therefore, this alternative should not be included in the FSEIS.

Section 4.4.5.2 of the DSEIS states that "...there is the potential for prehistoric and historic archeological resources to be present on the northeastern portion of the site." If cooling towers were required, one tower 62 4-43 31-34 would be located on the northeastern portion of the site. As there is the potential for prehistoric and archeological resources to be present and, pending the outcome of future surveys, the FSEIS should state that conversion to closed-cycle cooling could have an impact on the historic and archeological resources at Indian Point. (Phase 1A Literature Review and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site, ENERCON 2007; See Section 2 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The data in Table 4-11 of the DSEIS for the number of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 in each year from 1981 through 1990 are grossly overestimated, the source of which Entergy cannot discern. Using the available information, the DSEIS numbers in Table 4-11 are approximately an order of 4-52 Table 4- magnitude higher than the numbers as reflected in Section 3.0 and Appendix A, Table A-1 of the Review of 63 E-98 11 NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3. Further, contrary to the 4 information contained in the DSEIS, Permit to Take No 1580 issued by NMFS in March 2007 for fisheries sampling activates undertaken by Entergy annually for the Hudson River Monitoring Program allows a take of up to 82 juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon per year. Using these correct impingement numbers, the current allowable take and surging shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson River, potential impacts to sturgeon in the FSEIS should be SMALL.'

Clarification is needed for footnote (a) to Table 4-11 where the "-" (i.e., "dash") symbol represents "zero 64 4-52 11 catch", and not the more ambiguous "not indicated in sample", except for 1975 at IP3, which was not in operation until 1976.

Reference to the transmission lines should be deleted in the following sentence as the transmission lines 65 4-52 18-1 1 within scope are on the Indian Point property and do not cross any state or federal waters.

Page 12 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The DSEIS appears to assume that if adequate data were not available from the sources it used in its WOE process, the result was "unknown" and hence the impacts could not be narrowed down from the entire range from SMALL to LARGE. (See page 28 of the NERA Report) However, as discussed in Section 5 and 4-52 8-11 Appendix D of Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, 66 inclusion of other available information would have enabled NRC to refine its assessment. Rather, entrainment and impingement should be considered SMALL for all species. As set out in Section 5 and Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, a finding of LARGE is not supportable for any of the identified species.

67 4-53 26 Start new paragraph after "... vicinity of the site." Previous paragraph discussed one species and presumably the same pattern should be followed for all three species.

Zebra mussels are limited to freshwater regions of the Hudson and do not directly affect the food-web of the brackish regions of the Hudson, where Indian. Point is located (Strayer et al. 2004). The FSEIS should state 68 4-56 30-31 that any effects of zebra mussels would be limited to the freshwater zone of the Hudson, which is not influenced by Indian Point.

The DSEIS trends analysis was limited to segment 12 (Albany), so the conclusions apply only to segment 69 4-56 40 12, and'not to the IP segment of the Hudson. The relevance of this trends analysis to License Renewal has not been demonstrated and has not been attributed to Indian Point.

Contrary to what is stated in the DSEIS regarding the AEI Report, the AEI report reached this conclusion only for American Shad. Moreover, the AEI Report conclusion is supported by NYSDEC and ASMFC stock assessments. There is no doubt that in the past overfishing has greatly influenced many Hudson River fish 70 4-57 9-10 species, including American shad, river herring, striped bass, weakfish, and Atlantic sturgeon. This conclusion is confirmed by numerous fish stock assessments performed by NYSDEC and ASMFC. In contrast, no studies have demonstrated adverse impacts of IP2 and IP3 on any fish population, despite more than 30 years of intensive monitoring. Given this circumstance, the DSEIS is clearly unbalanced in highlighting "potential" impacts of'Indian Point that cannot be demonstrated from measured data and mischaracterizing the thoroughly documented impacts of fishing as "potential" influences on the Hudson.

Page 13 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment NRC's conclusion concerning cumulative impacts on aquatic resources should be revised in light of the errors and inconsistencies documented in the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3. A corrected assessment would conclude that there is no evidence that the food web or the abundance of RIS have been noticeably altered, or that any RIS has been directly 71 4-58 22-34 influenced by the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems. The more rigorous assessment documented in the AEI Report (Barnthouse et al. 2008) demonstrated that any impacts of IP2 and IP3 on Hudson River fish populations are small in comparison to impacts of other stressors such as fishing and predation by striped bass. There is no doubt that the cumulative impacts of human development of the Hudson River valley have been LARGE; however, the only reasonable conclusion supportable by NRC's analysis is that the contribution of Indian Point to these impacts is SMALL.

Since each type of effect is to be considered in the assessment of environmental issues and is to be discussed in proportion to the significance, of the impact attributed to license renewal per Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Section 4.8.6 of the FSEIS should revised to read as follows: "The NRC Staff has 72 4-62 28-33 determined that the cumulative impacts on environmental resources resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including non-IP2 and non-IP3 actions, would be LARGE, due mostly to past and pqssible future land development and disturbance. The NRC Staff notes, however, that continued operations during the license renewal term .(the proposed action) would likely represent either no change or a SMALL incremental effect over the current level of cumulative impact."

73 4-63 15-17 Insert the following after "... depending on the species." However,, these impact level conclusions are based on historical data as previously discussed in this DSEIS.

74 5-6 Table 5-3 The last entry for IP3 (loss of essential service water) should be 1.8x10 8 rather than 1.9x10 8 The entries for In-vessel steam explosion for IP2 and IP3 are 1 and 0, respectively. This appears to be due to rounding up or down at 0.5%., However, this is not consistent with the treatment for Intact Containment and may lead to confusion since the percentages for IP2,no longer add up to 100%. Suggest that the percentage for In-vessel steam Explosion be shown as "<1" for both IP2 and IP3.

The total population dose for IP3 is 24.5 rather than 24.3. Suggest changing "22.0" and "24.3" to "22" and 76 5-7 1Table 54 "24" for IP2 and IP3, respectively.

Page 14 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The DSEIS states that Entergy identified 5 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for IP2 in the baseline analysis and two additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs (44 and 56) when uncertainties are considered. ER 77 5-8 30-34 Table 4-4 (page 4-74) indicates that SAMA 28 was not cost-beneficial without accounting for uncertainty.

The FSEIS should state that Entergy identified 4 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for IP2 in the baseline analysis and three additional (28, 44, and 56) when uncertainties are considered.

78 5-9 11-14 See comment for pages 5-8, lines 30-34. For consistency with SAMAs 44 and 56, SAMA 28 should be annotated "(cost beneficial with uncertainties)".

The FSEIS should make clear that its conclusion regarding comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions for fossil fuels versus nuclear units depends on implementing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at fossil sources. The future costs of CCS and the likely time at which CCs would be commercially viable are highly uncertain. Applying current information on the large uncertainties associated with CCS, the FSEIS should 79 6-15 26-28 conclude that Indian Point is important to stated federal, and state climate change goals. (See pages 19-21 of the NERA Report.). See Wald 2008, Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html.

The DSEIS statement about potential climate change impacts of renewable fuel cycles is incomplete. For example, some 'types of renewables (in particular, biomass facilities) do involve a fuel cycle and have greenhouse gas emissions associated with'production and transportation of energy. Correction of this error 80 6-16 16-20 should occur in the FSEIS; if corrected, NRC may conclude that renewables options are not as favorable as represented in the DSEIS. (See pages 18-21 of the NERA Report and see Biomass Power, Department of Energy, http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/biomass-power.html.)

The DSEIS refers to "The normal design flow rate of 3,180,000 liters per minute (840,000 gallons per minute 81 8-2 6-7 (gpm)).for each unit...." The actual flow rate varies through the use of VSPs and Dual-Speed motors, therefore the "normal design flow rate" given in the DSEIS is actually the maximum design flow rate." The FSEIS should be revised accordingly. (See Section 6 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

82 8-2 14 "Has" should be changed to "may potentially have".

Page 15 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

I # Comment 4 4 -1 If NRC staff determines the FSEIS should contain a discussion of closed-cycle coo ling at Indian Point, the discussion of costs and outage duration for such technology contained in the DSEIS, which is based upon dated and inaccurate information, should be revised. As detailed in the Goodwin Procter Comments, the DSEIS statement that "NYSDEC (2003b) ... indicated that estimates for cooling conversion by the previous owners of IP2 and IP3 overestimated a variety of costs and selected a more expensive technology than was necessary" incorrectly attributes that statement to NYSDEC. Rather, the quote is the NYSDEC administrative tribunal's summary of unsupported statements by the parties from the February 3, 2006 Ruling on Proposed Issues for Adjudication and Petitions for Party Status in the Indian Point SPDES Proceeding (i.e., the NYSDEC (2003b) document referenced in the DSEIS). (See Section II of the Goodwin Procter Comments.)

Likewise, the DSEIS statement that "[I]n the Hudson River Utilities FEIS, ... EPA indicated that costs [of cooling towers] may have been somewhat inflated" is incorrect, because EPA never commented on the On p. 8-3, FElS. Similarly, the DSEIS statement that."EPA (2004) indicated that estimates for cooling conversion by the previous owners of IP2 and IP3 overestimated a variety of costs and selected a more-expensive

• 8-3 15; on p. technology than was necessary" is incor.rect, because, in developing the Phase II Rule, EPA did not examine 83 8-4 8-4, lines the estimates for cooling conversion prepared by the previous owners of IP2 and IP3 or infer what those 8-6 13-16 and costs might be based on a limited dataset of "retrofit" cases that were not representative of the unique 37-40; on . .

34 on6, alcircumstances faced by Indian Point.' (See Section II of the Goodwin Procter Comments.)

p. 8-6, all.

Finally, the DSEIS statement that "EPA (2004) indicated that Entergy's outage duration was likely exaggerated" is incorrect, because Enercon's 2003 estimated outage of 42 weeks (without contingency) is consistent with EPA's final estimated outage time in the Phase II Rule (i.e., 10 months or 40 weeks). (See Section Ii of the Goodwin Procter Comments.) Moreover, since the 2003 Enercon Report, the discovery of on-site strontium and tritium contamination - well known to the NRC - will unavoidably result in costs and outage durations well in excess of those reported in the 2003 Enercon Report. (See Section II of the Goodwin Procter Comments). In sum, these statements should be removed from the DSEIS, and any cost estimates or outage durations associated with the retrofit of cooling towers at Indian Point presented in the FSEIS should rely on the most recent site-specific information available -- namely, the 2003 Enercon Report and information with regard to on-site radiological contamination. (See Section II of the Goodwin Procter Comments.)

Page 16 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The most current cost estimates should be used to evaluate the closed-cycle cooling alternative (ENERCON 84 8-3 37-41 2003). If the previous owners' (ConEdison and NYPA) estimates are referenced, a comparison should be provided in the FSEIS between the previous and current estimates. (See Section 5 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.) "

Section 8.1 of the DSEIS states that "...EPA indicated that costs may have been somewhat inflated (EPA 2004)." The most recent cost estimate is a conservative value (ENERCON 2003). The estimate does not 85 8-3 39-40 account for many significant costs, such as the costs of handling, transporting, and disposing of any contaminated spoils, decommissioning of the cooling towers, and inflation during the five-year construction period. (See Section 5 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Section 8.1 of the DSEIS states that "...EPA indicated that costs may have been somewhat inflated (EPA 2004). EPA also indicated some uncertainty with regard to outage duration for the plant retrofit." The EPA 2004 reference does not support these claims. (See Sections 4 and 5 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS notes that both NYSDEC (2003b) and EPA (2004) indicated that estimates for cooling conversion by the previous owners of IP2 and IP3 overestimated a variety of costs and selected a more-8-3 37-39 expensive technology than was necessary. Neither reference supports the claims of overestimated costs.

8-4 13-15 In addition, the DSEIS notes that "in the Hudson River Utilities FEIS, NYSDEC indicated that the previous owners' closed-cycle cooling cost estimates were likely generally reasonable" (Page 8-3, lines 37-39). (See Section 5 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

"[C]losed-cycle cooling would result in a loss of generating capacity due to lowered thermal efficiency and parasitic loads related to cooling system pumps and auxiliary systems (an average annual loss of 26 MW(e),

88 8-4 3-6 per unit) because of power demands of the closed-cycle system (Entergy 2007)." The total average yearly losses due to conversion to closed cycle cooling, when considering both parasitic load and thermal efficiency losses in both units,' would be 74 MW(e). The maximum total losses at peak load conditions would be 127 MW(e). (See Section 8 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.) The FSEIS should be corrected to reflect this information and the larger impact of the closed cycle cooling mitigation scenario as a result.

The DSEIS states that EPA (2004) indicated that Entergy's outage duration was likely exaggerated. The 8-3 40-41 outage duration for closed cycle cooling conversion listed in EPA 2004 is 10 months. While not appropriate 89 8-4 15-16 for use as an estimate for Indian Point, the EPA estimate is approximately equal to the conversion estimate for IP2 and IP3 of 42 weeks and does not indicate an exaggerated outage duration. (See Section 4 of I__ JENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Page 17 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The DSEIS should not include an analysis of closed-cycle cooling as a mitigation measure, as the stated DSEIS justification inadvertently relied on dated (and now inaccurate) material. NYSDEC staff's-2003 draft State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, which tentatively, but without any feasibility or alternatives analysis, identified closed-cycle cooling as a potential "best technology available" (BTA) for Indian Point under §316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and 6 NYCRR §704.5, was vacated by the NYSDEC Assistant Commissioner in August 2008. At this time, NYSDEC staff must re-evaluate BTA for Indian Point based upon feasibility and other studies to be completed by December 2009. Thus, no closed-cycle cooling determination -- draft, conceptual or otherwise -- exists for Indian Point, invalidating the 8-4 Section premise for the closed-cycle cooling analysis in the DSEIS. (See Section I.A. of the Goodwin Procter 90 8.1.1 Comments.) The FSEIS should be corrected to reflect this information and the larger impact of the closed 4-7 4-2 7-11 cycle cooling mitigation scenario as a result.

27-31 Removal of the discussion of closed-cycle cooling from the FSEIS is entirely consistent with (1) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking record which rejected closed-cycle* cooling on a nationwide basis and on a site-specific basis for Indian Point, (2) NRC precedent in comparable license-renewal proceedings, and (3) the long history of consensus agreements (i.e., agreements including NYSDEC, Riverkeeper, Inc. and other stakeholders) governing operations at Indian Point from 1981 through the present, none of which required closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point. Therefore, the closed-cycle cooling mitigation alternative should not be included in the FSEIS. (See Sections I.B. - I.D. of the Goodwin Procter Comments.)

The FSEIS assessment should include a full list of reasons for rejecting single-stage mechanical draft cooling towers including: compromises Station equipment, safety, and systems, particularly over time; 91 8-4 39-42 interferes with plant visual-oriented security systems; dominates the skyline in the area of the plant; creates local fogging and icing conditions in winter; long-term shadow from plume can harm vegetation; associated salt deposition could harm plants in the area; can be ingested into tower intakes (recirculation); degrading performance. (See Section 2 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

92 Page 18 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line# C

1. ., Comment The DSEIS states that the NRC Staff has previously assessed closed cycle cooling with a hybrid cooling tower in the license renewal SEIS for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) (NRC 2006). The Oyster Creek round hybrid cooling tower assessment is based on the 2006 Determination of Cooling Tower 93 8-5 19-24 Availability for Oyster C.reek Generation Station. The NRC 2006 assessment/decision for Oyster Creek is not appropriate for assessment at Indian, Point. At Indian Point, the round tower arrangement offers improved thermal performance due to reduced recirculation potential and requires a smaller site area than the: rectilinear towers. Furthermore, the Oyster Creek closed cycle cooling assessment is site-specific and does not provide a basis for the feasibility or availability of closed cycle cooling at Indian Point. (See Section 3 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Cooling tower configuration (i.e., round vs. rectilinear arrangements) has significant implications regarding 94 8 2 construction and performance that were not adequately addressed in the DSEIS. The accuracy of DSEIS statements regarding cooling towers depend on the configuration considered. Thus, the particular configuration considered should be clearly indicated in any cooling tower assessment (e.g., footprint required, plume characteristics, etc.). (See Section 3 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Should hybrid towers prove prohibitively expensive, the DSEIS notes that single-stage mechanical draft towers will produce similar decreases in impacts to aquatic life. Single-stage mechanical draft towers have 95 8-5 25-31 been rejected by NYSDEC at Indian Point, due to the negative impacts, and there is no basis for further consideration of the technology. (See Section 2 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS states that "...single-stage mechanical draft towers... may result in less land-clearing or blasting 96 8-5 25-28 debris than the hybrid cooling tower option." No land-clearing or blasting debris will be avoided by using round single-stage towers, as they require the same land area as round hybrid towers. (See Section 2 and 3 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS states that for single stage mechanical draft cooling towers "...plumes in highly-saturated 97 8-5 28-31 atmospheric conditions will impose slightly greater aesthetic impacts..." The aesthetic impacts of a single-stage mechanical draft tower plume are significantly greater than those of the hybrid tower. (See Section 2 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Crews excavating areas for the cooling tower basins and associated piping will (not "may") "need to blast substantial amounts of rock during the construction process." The ENERCON 2003 report determined that 98 8-5 40-41 blasting is the only feasible method of large-scale excavation of material (Inwood marble) at the site.

Additionally onsite blasting would require regulatory approval. (See Section 5 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Page 19 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment Disposal of approximately 2 million cubic yards (CY).of contaminated material from the excavation would (not ",may") either create offsite land use impacts or create additional onsite land use impacts if stored at Indian Point. In addition, a portion of the material from the excavation may have been exposed to tritium and/or strontium groundwater contamination (Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report for the Indian Point 98-6 36-37 Energy Center, GZA 2008). Excavation of this quantity and type of material (Inwood marble) would require blasting to beý conducted onsite, which would in turn require regulatory approval and introduce the possibility of disturbing current groundwater plumes. During the estimated 30 month excavation schedule, 350,000 round trips would be needed to remove the excavated materials in dump trucks capable of removing 6 CY of material. (See Section 7 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS estimates that the impact on land use would be SMALL to LARGE as the construction of the towers would, require approximately 40 acres of land, and waste disposal may require a large amount of 100 .8-7 17-20 offsite land. However, the clear-cutting of approximately 40 acres of forested land and the removal of approximately 2 million cubic yards of potentially contaminated oil, rock, and debris would have a LARGE impact. (See Section 7 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS estimates the impact on the aquatic ecology would be SMALL as the entrainment of aquatic organisms would be reduced substantially (93 to 95 percent). However, conversion to closed-cycle cooling could only reduce entrainment by an additional 79-percent from the design flow rates, significantly less than the 93-to-95-percent reduction estimated in the DSEIS. Therefore, the improvement over existing conditions is overstated due to comparison with design flow rates rather than actual flow rates. (See Section 6 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Visible plumes from single stage mechanical draft towers would significantly mute incoming sunlight,

-102 8-8 28-29 producing a shadow in which native vegetation would likely not thrive. As a result, the impact on Terrestrial Ecology due to the plume would greatly increase with the use of single-stage mechanical draft towers.

References to single-stage mechanical draft towers in the FSEIS should be revised to account for a more I _ _complete list of potential impacts. (See Sections 2 and 7 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Page 20 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line# C

1. Comment Given the great threat of high mortality that white nose syndrome is causing to the endangered Indiana bat, the fact that nearly all of Westchester County, including the Indian Point area, is within the predicted range 8-9 7-12 of the Indian bat, that roosting trees may exist on site, that feeding habitat may exist at the river bank on the 8-23 1-3 site, and the proposed construction of cooling towers as a mitigation alternative for impingement and entrainment of fish, it seems inappropriate to classify the Terrestrial Ecology impacts of the New Closed -

Cycle Cooling Alternative as SMALL. (See Section 7.2 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.) This is an inconsistent treatment of aquatic species versus terrestrial'species.

The DSEIS estimates the impact on the terrestrial ecology would be SMALL to MODERATE as the onsite forest habitats would be disturbed and drift from towers may affect vegetation.

As 38% of the onsite forest would be destroyed completely and the remaining vegetation would be damaged 104 8-9 13-17 by cooling tower plume drift, conversion to closed-cycle cooling is likely to have a LARGE impact on terrestrial ecology. This loss of woodland area will affect a potentially environmentally-sensitive area (e.g.,

the site is a potential habitat for terrestrial endangered and threatened species, specifically the.Indiana bat).

(See Section 7.2 and Attachment A of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Air quality based on replacement power for parasitic loads and power losses due to thermal inefficiencies is parasitic 105 8-10 34-36 not quantified.. The FSEIS should include the quantification of air quality impacts based on the loads and power losses provided in ENERCON's DSEIS response. (See Section 8 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Fossil-fired plants are likely to be the source of replacement power for IP. Rough quantitative estimates of the air emissions increases due to the cooling towers indicate that the cooling tower installation/operation would increase emissions of C02 in the year of installation by more than NYS's annual reduction target in 2018 under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program. Also in 8-10 33-36 the year of installation, NOx emissions would increase by 60 percent of the projected level of NOx 8-11 33-34 reductions in NYS under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2015. These increases would make it substantially more difficult for NYS to achieve its goals under RGGI and CAIR. (See pages 19-21 of the NERA Report.) By DSEIS criteria, air emissions impacts should be characterized as LARGE based on their implications for state air emissions policy initiatives. (See pages 21-22 of the NERA Report.)

Page 21 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment Thermal efficiency losses will continue in addition to parasitic load losses. As a result of cooling tower operations (i.e., operation of additional pumps and cooling tower fans) average parasitic load losses for both units combined would be 53 MW(e). The conversion to closed cycle cooling would also result in thermal 107 8-10 34-36 efficiency losses, which would be significant and should be included in the FSEIS. For both units combined, the average yearly thermal efficiency losses would be 21 MW(e), but the maximum thermal efficiency losses would increase to 74 MW(e) at peak load conditions. Therefore, the average total losses would be 74 MW(e), but would reach a maximum of 127 MW(e) at peak load conditions. (See Section 8 of ENERCON's

_DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS estimates the impact on air quality would be SMALL as the primary impacts would be from vehicles and equipment emissions during construction, and from replacement power, Which should be limited by existing regulations. However, emissions would increase due to construction (5 years) and 108 8-11 29-34 replacement power (permanent). As Westchester County already violates existing air quality regulations, the impact of conversion to closed-cycle cooling on air quality is understated and is evaluated in detail in the NERA 2009 economic analysis. (See Section 8 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS states, "Whether reused, recycled, or disposed of, the material will have to be transported off site. If disposed of, the waste will require additional offsite land use." Tritium and strontium site contamination increase the likelihood that excavated material must be properly treated as low-level 109 8-11 38-42 radioactive waste and therefore would have to be disposed of or recycled at a considerable cost which should be considered in the FSEIS. The scale of excavation coupled with strontium and tritium site contamination would significantly increase waste disposal processing, resulting in a LARGE impact. (See Section 7 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS estimates the impact on waste would be SMALL to LARGE as the construction would generate 110 8-12 7-10 approx. 2 million CY of soil, rock, and debris requiring offsite disposal. The scale of excavation coupled with strontium and tritium site contamination would significantly increase waste disposal processing, resulting in a LARGE impact. (See Section 7 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Page 22 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The DSEIS understates or does not fully consider electricity price impacts of cooling towers, which, according to existing analyses, would be substantial. (See pages 14-15 of the NERA Report.) Existing engineering analyses indicate that the outage would need to occur, at least in part, during the peak summer demand period. The reliability impacts of removal of IP during this period would, according to existing 111 8-13 27-32 analyses by NYISO, NERA, and others, be highly significant, including potential substantial violations of New York reliability requirements. (See pages 11-15 of the NERA Report.) Socioeconomic impacts of cooling towers related to the electric system should be characterized as LARGE based on the above-described reliability and price impacts. (See page 15 of the NERA Report.)

The DSEIS states "As noted previously, fogging and icing is not expected to be significant." This statement would not be true or applicable if single-stage mechanical draft towers were used. References to single-stage mechanical draft towers in the FSEIS should be revised-to account for a more complete list of potential impacts. (See Sections 2 and 3 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS estimates that the impact on transportation would be SMALL to LARGE as the increased traffic associated with construction (workers and waste disposal) would be significant, though of little effect during operations. Per engineering analysis, the increase in traffic would be significant during the construction period (5 years) (ENERCON 2003). During the estimated 30 month excavation schedule, 350,000 round 113 8-14 16-21 trips would be needed to remove the excavated materials in dump trucks capable of carrying 6 cy of material (Inwood marble). Assuming continuous excavation for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> in every day of the 30 month excavation period, approximately 32 filled dump trucks would have to leave the site every hour (one truck every 2 minutes) to achieve this rate of excavation. In addition, a significant number of temporary workers will be required for the construction of cooling towers. The overall impact on transportation would be MODERATE to LARGE. (See Section 8 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Section 4.4.5.2 of the DSEIS states that "...there is the potential for prehistoric and historic archeological resources to be present on the northeastern portion of the site." (DSEIS Pg. 4-43 / Line. 31-34) If cooling 114 8-15 21-25 towers were required, one tower would be located on the northeastern portion of the site. As there is the potential for prehistoric and archeological resources to be present and, pending the outcome of future surveys, conversion to closed-cycle cooling could have an impact on the historic and archeological resources at Indian Point. (Phase 1A Literature Review and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site, ENERCON 2007; See Section 2 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

Page 23 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. LeComment 115 8-16 9-13 The DSEIS notes that replacement power during the estimated 42 week cooling tower construction outage could increase air quality effects, but the FSEIS should also address effects from replacement power for parasitic load losses and thermal efficiency losses. (See Section 8 of ENERCON's DSEIS response.)

The DSEIS understates the difficulties of constructing and siting new coal power plants due in part to concerns related to climate change and air quality issues. The prospects for constructing a coal plant near New York City seem very small, a conclusion reached by the -National Research Council. (See page 38 of NRC/NA (2006), Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs.) As such there is not an established basis for this mitigation alternative and it should be eliminated.

The heat rate'(measured as btu/kWh) assumed for alternative technologies is important because this assumption affects likely fuel consumption and air emissions. The provided heat rate of 5,700 btu/kWh for the plant proposed in the DSEIS for the natural gas combined cycle alternative is optimistic relative to information developed by experts in the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA assumes a 117 8-50 34-36 heat rate of 6,333 btu/kWh in the long run for a new advanced combined cycle unit. Using the EIA heat rate instead of the heat rate assumed by the DSEIS would imply an 11 percent increase in both natural gas consumption and carbon dioxide emissions for the natural gas combined cycle alternative. (See EIA 2008, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008: Electricity. Online:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf.)

In considering alternative energy technologies, it is important to consider possible risks related to fuel price volatility and fuel supply availability. The DSEIS does not consider these risks in its discussion of natural gas combined cycle units. NYISO, the agency responsible for managing the operation of the New York electricity 118 8-53 32 system,* considers these issues important, and has expressed concern over the dominant role of natural gas in downstate electricity generation. If these risks are appropriately considered in the FSEIS, then NRC may conclude that the natural gas alternative is less favorable than is represented in the DSEIS. (See page 12 of the NERA Report.)

In its evaluation of purchased power, the DSEIS does not estimate potential greenhouse gas emissions and air emissions effects arising from the increased generation from the facilities providing the purchased power.

119 8-57 5-6 Since purchased power is likely to come from fossil units, such effects are likely and thus should be part of a potential complete analysis of the impacts of purchased power in the FSEIS. (See pages 18-21 of the NERA Report.)

Page 24 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line# C

1. Comment Assessing impacts on air emissions and greenhouse gas emissions is important for a complete evaluation of alternatives. In its evaluation of combination alternative 1, the DSEIS does not quantify estimates of increased emissions arising from the alternative, though it acknowledges "some impact on air quality." The 120 8-68 36-41 DSEIS then concludes that air quality impacts from combination alternative 1 would be SMALL. This conclusion is not justified given the likelihood of air emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel generation and should be MODERATE. (See pages 18-21 of the NERA Report.)

121 8-72 6-7 The following sentence has incomplete information: NRC calculations indicate that onshore installations could require xx ha (xx ac) (reference).

Assessing impacts on air emissions and greenhouse gas emissions is important for a-complete evaluation of alternatives. In its evaluation of combination alternative 2, the DSEIS does not quantify estimates of increased emissions arising from the alternative, though it acknowledges "some impact on air quality." The 122 8-73 10-14 DSEIS then concludes that air quality impacts from combination alternative 2 would be SMALL to MODERATE. This conclusion is not justified given the likelihood of air emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel generation and should be MODERATE to LARGE. (See pages 18-21 of the NERA Report.)

Based on Table 8-3, Page 2-45, change "SMALL to LARGE" under Coal-Fired Plant Alternate Site column to 123 9-9 Table 9-1"MDRT.

"MODERATE".

Add footnote for IP2 Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment Permit Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment 124 E-3 Table E-2 Permit that states: "Permit has been administratively continued based on conditional mixed waste exemption."

125 E-3 Table E-2 Add footnote for IP3 Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment Permit that states: "Permit has been administratively continued based on conditional mixed waste exemption."

Add footnote for IP1, 2, and 3 SPDES Permit that states, "Timely renewal application was submitted; 126 E-4 Table E-2 therefore, permit is administratively continued under New York State Administrative Procedures Act."

127 E-4 Table E-2 IP2 Hazardous Substance Bulk Storage Registration Certificate was renewed and now expires 09/04/09.

128 E-4 Table E-2 IP3 Hazardous Substance Bulk Storage Registration Certificate was renewed and now expires 08/16/2010.

129 E-4 Table E-2 Simulator Transformer Vault SPDES Permit was renewed and now expires 2/28/13.

130 E-4 Table E-2 Tank Farm SPDES Permit has been allowed to expire as it is no longer needed.

Page 25 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

P# Comment 131 E-4 Table E-2 Buchanan GT SPDES Permit was renewed and now expires 2/28/13.

132 E-4 Table E-2 ISFSI Stormwater SPDES General Permit for Construction Activities has been cancelled and replaced with the ISFSI Project SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit NYR O0E 125 which has no expiration date.

133 E-5 Table E-2 IP2 Hazardous Waste Generation Identification number is NYD991304411.

134 E-5 Table E-2 IP3 Hazardous Waste Generation Identification number is NYD085503746.

Add a footnote for IP2 Major Oil Storage Facility and IP2 Hazardous Waste Part 373 Permit that states, 135 E-5 Table E-2 "Timely renewal application was submitted; therefore, permit is administratively continued under New York State Administrative Procedures Act."

136 E-5 Table E-2 IP2 WCDOH GT1 Air Permit was renewed and now expires 12/31/09.

137 E-5 Table E-2 IP2 WCDOH GT2 Air Permit was renewed and now expires 12/31/09.

138 F-2 Table E-2 IP2 WCDOH Vapor Extractor Air Permit was renewed and now expires 12/31/09.

Add footnote for IP3 Vapor Extractor Air Permit that states, "Application has been submitted to WCDOH, but a permit has not yet been issued".

140 E-6 Table E-2 IP3 WCDOH Petroleum Bulk Storage Registration Certificate was renewed and now expires 09/07/2010.

141 E-6 Table E-2 IP2 South Caroline Radwaste Transport Permit is no longer needed as Barnwell is closed to non-compact members.

IP3 South Caroline Radwaste Transport Permit is no longer needed as Barnwell is closed to non-compact 142 E-6 Table E-2 members.

1431 E-6 Table E-2 IP2 Tennessee Radioactive Waste License for Delivery is now #T-NY010-L09 and expires 12/31/09.

144 E-6 Table E-2 1P3 Tennessee Radioactive Waste License for Delivery is now # T-NY005-L09 and expires 12/31/09.

145 E-89 27 Only Roseton has River Miles (RMs) noted when other power plants on river do not. There is no reason to

__ 145_E-89_27 identify and single out particular plants other than Indian Point.

Page 26 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment Replace sentence with: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) currently conducts no monitoring 146 E-96 22-24 program to record entrainment at IP2 and IP3, as no NYSDEC current monitoring requirements have been i-mposed; therefore, any entrainable life stages of the shortnose sturgeon taken in recent years would go unrecorded.

Survival of shortnose sturgeon would be expected to be comparable to that observed for striped bass (91%;

Fletcher 1990). Moreover, based on field experience with gill nets, a comparatively harsh method of capture, shortnose sturgeon in good condition at the time of first capture by gill nets exhibit high survival, indicating 147 E-98 16-20 comparably high survival of these fish if impinged on the Ristroph screens and return system installed and operated at Indian Point. As such, and consistent with the information presented in Section 3.0 and Appendix A of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3 describing the robust population of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River, potential impacts to this species in the FSEIS should be SMALL.

The thermal modeling is not a "worst-case scenario" since that designation implies that it is theoretically possible. In fact, the scenario is impossible to achieve based on the fundamental tidal processes occurring 148 E-99 21-26 in the river at the site. The FSEIS should state that, without further modeling and disregarding the flawed supplementary modeling, it is not possible to conclude that the SPDES permit conditions would be violated, nor that a negative impact to shortnose sturgeon would occur. As such, potential thermal impacts in the FSEIS should be SMALL. (See Section 5 of ASA's DSEIS response.)

Change under the Comment column for Ground water quality degradation (saltwater intrusion), "IP2 and IP3 149 F-2 Table F-i do not use for any purpose" to "IP2 and IP3 do not use groundwater for any purpose".

150 G-3 Table G-1 The last entry for IP3 (loss of essential service water) should be 1.8x10-8 rather than 1.9x108 The entries for In-vessel steam explosion for IP2 and IP3 are 1 and 0, respectively. This appears to be due to rounding up or down at 0.5%. However, this is not consistent with the treatment for Intact Containment and may lead to confusion since the percentages for IP2 no longer add up to 100%. Suggest that the percentage for In-vessel steam Explosion be shown as "<1" for both IP2 and IP3.

The total population dose for IP3 is 24.5 rather than 24.3. Suggest changing "22.0" and "24.3" to "22" and 152 G-4 Table G-2 "24" for IP2 and IP3, respectively.

Parenthetical information indicates that gas turbine and AFW components are located in 'sheet metal clad 153 G-14 5-6 structures'. It should list EDG components rather than AFW components. ER Section E.1.3.3.1 indicates that the high wind analysis resulted in proposal of an enhancement to upgrade the EDG building.

Page 27 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line# C

1. ,Comment Change the text to read "The information was derived from Westinghouse Electric Company, Core Radiation Sources to Support IP2 Power Uprate Project, CN-REA-03-4 (3/7/2005), and Westinghouse Electric Company, Core Radiation Sources to Support IP3 Stretch Power Uprate (SPU) Project, CN-REA-03-40 (5/19/2005)". (See the response to RAI 4a in reference Entergy 2008A.)

Text states that a modification to replace the existing gas turbines with an IP2 SBO/Appendix R diesel is planned for the near future. In fact, installation of this diesel was made a condition of acceptance of the LRA for review. The diesel was installed and operational prior to 4/30/08. See Entergy letter NL-08-074, Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, Amendment 4 to License Renewal Application (LRA), April 30, 2008 (ML081280491).

156 G-25 Table G-6 Change population dose risk reduction from "18" to "1' for IP2 SAMA 56. The value is 0.45 (see ER Table E.2-2).

Change population dose risk reduction from "20" to "40" for IP2 SAMA 65. The value is 40.45 (see ER Table 157 G-25 Table G-6 E.2-2).

Text states that Entergy identified 5 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for IP2 in the baseline analysis and two additional (44 and 56) when uncertainties are considered. ER Table 4-4 (pg 4-74) indicates that SAMA 158 G-30 10-15 28 was not cost-beneficial without accounting for uncertainty. FSEIS should state that Entergy identified 4 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for IP2 in the baseline analysis and three additional (28, 44, and 56) when uncertainties are considered.

159 G-30 25-28 See comment #158 for page G-30, lines 10-15. For consistency with SAMAs 44 and 56, SAMA 28 should be annotated "(cost beneficial with uncertainties)".

The overall multiplier shown has been rounded to one decimal place for each unit: "(i.e. 3.8x2.1=8.0 for IP2 and 5.5xl .4=7.7 for IP3)". While not incorrect, this does create a slight apparent disconnect with the 160 G-32 31-33 description, which states that the multiplier of 8 slightly exceeds the (actual calculated value). Suggest keeping the second decimal (as follows) to provide,,some clarification: "(i.e. 3.80x2.10=7.98 for IP2 and I 1.5.53x1 .40=7.73 for IP3)".

Page 28 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment Evaluations of the prototype and installed Ristroph screens and fish return system at IP2 and IP3 (separately and then together) continued annually at each facility from 1985 through 1995 to validate the performance of the installed return system and verify that installation maximized screen performance and minimized 161 H-2 16-17 reimpingement. These survival estimates were obtained from full field studies/testing during normal operations. If this information is accounted for, the FSEIS must find a SMALL impact on all species. Table 1 of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2,and IP3 demonstrates projected reductions in annual average impingement losses from 1974-1990 are 82% for IP2 and IP3 at each facility. See chronology of impingement studies presented in Section 2.2 and Table 1 of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.

Paragraph indicates that applicant, NYSDEC, and non-governmental groups have evaluated data on fish H-6 12-14 abundance and the latter two have expressed the opinion that "entrainment of juvenile and adult fish at 162 H-17 38-40 Indian Point is contributing to the decline, destabilization, and ultimate loss of these important aquatic resources." To our knowledge, neither NYSDEC nor the non-governmental groups have produced any analysis that supports this statement.

The statistical statement is in error. If the slope applies to 1985-1990 as stated, "n" could not be 16 because 163 H-8 33 only 6 data points are included in the stated time frame. NRC should check their statistical analysis of the data in Figure 1.

NRC mischaracterized the impingement count data from Figure H-I. In addition to low impingement in 1984 and 1990, impingement counts were also approximately 1 million or less in 1976, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986. The text should be corrected to present a more accurate description of impingement trends.

The statement that "decrease in the percent of RIS impinged and total impingement would suggest that RIS and all other taxa within the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 have decreased from a high in 1977..." is not supported 165 H-9 19-20 by Figures H-1 and H-2. The observed decline in percent RIS and total impingement could be generated by a change in RIS in the Indian Point region without any change in abundance of non-RIS. NRC should not put forth interpretations that are not founded in the data presented.

166 H-0 12-14 The statement attributed to Greenwood is incorrect. Greenwood's reference does not mention Indian Point.

Page 29 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The DSEIS expressed concern regarding potential effects of entrainment that are not immediately observable, i.e., inability to escape predators and reduced ability to forage. Beginning with the early entrainment survival studies at IP2 and IP3, upon collection, fish were classified as live (swimming vigorously, no orientation problems, behavior normal), stunned (swimming erratically, struggling, swimming on side, mobile but twitching), or dead (no vital life signs or movement, no response to gentle probing).

167 H-13 23 (Lauer et al. 1974) Those classified as live fed well if offered natural foods, and survived up to a month after 33-34 collection, after which they were used in temperature and pressure tolerance studies. As sampling methods improved, the proportion of live organisms in the sample increased, while proportions stunned and dead decreased (EA 1989). The high proportions of hardy species such as striped bass, white perch and Atlantic tomcod that are initially classified as live and subsequently survive to 96-hours or beyond does not suggest they would be unable to escape predators or forage successfully.

This concern of the DSEIS does not support findings beyond "SMALL" for entrainment impacts.

The DSEIS suggests that the effects of entrainment on some fraction of the individual organisms entrained, and thermal discharges could lead to adverse environmental impacts at lP2 and IP3. On the issue of entrainment impacts, Langford (1983) stated "... there have, as yet, been no demonstrably significant effects of entrainment mortalities on planktonic or nectonic invertebrates or fish populations, and also that modeling studies generally suggest that there may not be such effects..." (page 208) Langford concluded the chapter on thermal discharges with "In the environment at large the ability of organisms to acclimatize to 168 H-24 21-26 temperature and to avoid adverse conditions, combined with the often transient nature of thermal plumes both spatially and temporally, means that the dramatic consequences extrapolated from results of experimental or short-term exposures do not often occur.".(page 169)

The effects that NRC is hypothesizing may occur have not been documented at IP2 and IP3, and even to the extent that they might occur,vwould not be likely to lead to an adverse environmental impact. The DSEIS should conclude that potential entrainment and thermal impacts are "SMALL." (See Langford, T. E. 1983.

Electricity Generation and the Ecoloqy of Natural Waters. Liverpool University Press.)

Overall, the DSEIS has not provided sufficient evidence to find that the existing cooling system would "destabilize" or "noticeably alter" any of the 18 RIS and thereby adversely impact their ecological, 169 H-24 38-41 commercial, or recreational value. In other words, the DSEIS does not adequately support findings of MODERATE or LARGE impacts. If the correct standards were applied the FSEIS should conclude that Iimpacts are SMALL. (See page 29 of the NERA Report.)

Page 30 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line# C

1. Comment Without an operational definition of stability, it is not possible to determine when the ecosystem has been or could be "destabilized". Peters (1991) stated that stability "is a 'pseudo-cognate' because a meaning for the term is grasped intuitively, without the onerous necessity of operational definition. Regrettably, different scientists intuit different meanings and failure to define this term has ended in a terminological and H-25 1-6 conceptual morass." (pages 95-96) NRC has not defined stability, but instead uses variability, which is 169 typically large in temperate estuarine systems, as a measure of instability. The FSEIS, if it retains stability as part of the classification criteria, should define stability and rigorously apply that definition. Variability alone is not necessarily indicative of instability, and with the statistical problems in NRC's definition (See Section 4.1.3 of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.), does not support impingement and entrainment findings greater than SMALL impact. (Peters, R. H. 1991. A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge University Press)

The DSEIS provides no citations to instances where entrainment and impingement "alters food web dynamics and produces indirect effects thatrmay result in decreased recruitment, changes in predator-prey 170 H-27 28-43 relationships, changes in population feeding strategies, or movements of populations closer or farther away H-29 8-12 from the cooling system intakes and discharges." Such theoretical potential impacts have not been documented in the established scientific literature. (See Langford 1983, cited in comment 167). As such, reliance on theoretical impacts should'be eliminated from the ESEIS.

NRC has provided no precedent, nor anytheoretical justification, for use of the ratio of ranks being proposed 171 H-29 14-28 as a measure of strength of connection is meaningful to determining potential for adverse impact. The FSEIS should establish a reliable basis for this metric. (See Section 4.2 and Attachment 2 of Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The DSEIS claims that impingement density, in proportion to river density is indicative of a medium strength of- connection. The assessment of strength of connection should consider the relationship between the entire fish population and IP, not simply the relationship between IP and the small portion of the population in the 172 H-29 18 region adjacent to IP. Not considering the entire population can lead to erroneous conclusions. Correctly accounting for population magnitudes supports that conclusion that impacts are SMALL. (See Section 4.2 and Attachment 2 of Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment I_ Ifor IP2 and IP3.)

Page 31 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line C

1. ie# Comment The DSEIS claims that measurements associated with entrainment of prey have highest use and utility values. This claim is not supported by peer reviewed literature on predator-prey relationships in estuaries.

Furthermore, the DSEIS's method for including IP effects on prey did not consider the biomass of prey 173 H-30 40 entrained and trophic conversion efficiencies, both of which are critical to the potential effects of IP on predator prey relationships. (See Section 5 and Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The DSEIS provided insufficient justification for the use and utility scores applied in the Strength of Connection Analysis, and the scores should not be used. The alternative sets of scores developed in the Barnthouse et al review more accurately reflect Hudson River conditions. If this more accurate dataset is 174 H-32 1 used in the DSEIS, results of the analysis would change to support the conclusion that impacts are SMALL.

(See Section 5 and Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.).

The DSEIS assumed that the level of effect of the IP cooling water system on RIS could be determined by comparing the ranks of RIS abundance in the regionadjacent to IP to the ranks of entrainment or impingement abundance. Potential effects of the IP cooling water system on RIS must consider magnitudes of entrainment orimpingement in comparison the population abundance of the RIS, and not simply ranks.

The assessment of strength of connection should consider the relationship between the entire fish 1751 H-33 27-43 population and IP, not simply the relationship between IP and the small portion of the population in the region adjacent to IP. Not considering the entire population can lead to erroneous conclusions. Correctly accounting for population magnitudes supports that conclusion that impacts are SMALL. (See Section 4.2 and Attachment 2 of Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The OSEIS'assu'med that a ratio (of the rank for entrainment or impingement over the rank for abundance in the region, adjacent to IP) over 1.5 is strong evidence that IP cooling systems are affecting the RIS. No 1761 H-34 1-4 justification for this claim is provided. The potential effects of IP cooling water system on RIS should consider magnitudes (of losses and population abundances), not simply ranks. Correctly accounting for population magnitudes supports that conclusion that impacts are SMALL. (See Section 4.2 and Attachment 2 of Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

Page 32 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line #

1. Comment The DSEIS strength of connection analysis contained numerous inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of the Hudson River and IP data. The DSEIS used the sum of density (i.e., number of fish per unit volume) from the FJS and catch per haul (i.e., number of fish per unit area) from the BSS as an estimate of H-37 18-25 population abundance in vicinity of IP. Density (from the FJS) and catch per haul (from the BSS) are not 1-40 16-19 additive metrics of abundance. Correcting those inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of data materially changed the results of the NRC analysis. The corrected results support the conclusion that impacts are SMALL. (See Section 4.2 of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

Shortnose sturgeon were caught in sufficient numbers for independent researchers to develop a reliable 178 H-41 15-17 index of abundance based on the Fall Juvenile Fish Survey (Woodland 2005 and Secor). See the comment on pages 4-18 of the DSEIS and the analysis of shortnose sturgeon.presented in the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.

The DSEIS stated that the concordance of ranks (entrainment or impingement vs. fish abundance in the region adjacent to IP) can be used to evaluate how efficient the IP water intake structures are at removing 179 H-45 8-11 RIS from the river. The statement is incorrect. The concordance of ranks provides no information on the proportion of the river abundance of a fish stock that is removed. Correctly accounting for population magnitudes supports the conclusion that impacts are SMALL. (See Section 4.2 and Attachment 2 of Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The DSEIS strength of connection analysis contained numerous inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of the Hudson River and IP data. The DSEIS claims that a higher rank in impingement, compared to abundance rank in river, is strong evidence that the operation of the cooling systems is affecting a species.

180 H-45 13-16 The statement is incorrect. Because the rank of each RIS is not independent of the ranks of the other RIS, an increase in the river abundance for one species will cause a decrease in the river abundance ranks for other species. Therefore, without any increase in impingement, some species may have a higher rank in impingement than in the river. (See Section 4.2 and Appendix C of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

These were conclusions from the AEI report, supported by rigorous data analysis, not hypotheses. Replace "hypotheses" with "conclusions". (Barnthouse et al. 2008)

The DSEIS trends analysis was limited to segment 12 (Albany), so the conclusions apply only to segment 182 H-52 14-23 12, and not to the IP segment of the Hudson. The relevance to License Renewal has not been I _ _demonstrated and has not been attributed to Indian Point.

Page 33 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line # '

1. Comment ',

183 H-54 18-19 The conclusion in Barnthouse et. al 2008 regarding the decline in American shad abundance is supported by NYSDEC and ASMFC assessments concluding that excessive mortality of subadult and adult shad is responsible for the decline in shad abundance in the Hudson and other east coast populations, Figures: I- The criteria for deciding to analyze the pre- and post-1985 FSS data is faulty. Any gear effect (difference in I-11 to 3, 1-4, 1-5, catching efficiency of epibenthic sled and beam trawl) would be real and consistent across all FSS data sets.

184 1-30 1-12, 1-13, The DSEIS has separated the two gear types inconsistently from one analysis to another, depending on 1-14 whether CPUE or density was being analyzed and whether data were only for Segment 4 or the whole river.

The FSEIS should properly address these important datasets.

The DSEIS strength of connection analysis contained numerous inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of the Hudson River and IP data. The DSEIS claims that the number impinged divided by sample size was a measure of density. However, that metric of density is confounded by changes in sampling intensity that are 185 1-41 3-10 unrelated to impingement density. The strength of connection analysis contained numerous inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of the Hudson River and IP data. Correcting these inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of data materially changed the results of the NRC analysis. The corrected results support the conclusion that impacts are SMALL. (See Section 4.2 and Appendix C of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The DSEIS strength of connection analysis contained numerous inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of the Hudson River and IP data. The DSEIS claims that the number entrained divided by sample size was a measure of density. However, that metric of density is confounded by changes in sampling intensity that are 186 1-41 11-15 unrelated to impingement density. Furthermore, the actual method used in the DSEIS was also confounded by winter sampling that occurred in one year only. The strength of connection analysis contained numerous inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of the Hudson River and IP data. Correcting those inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of data materially changed the results of the NRC analysis. The corrected results support the conclusion that impacts are SMALL. (See Section 4.2 and Appendix C of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.) I Page 34 of 35 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS Page Line# C

1. Comment The DSEIS claims that YOY striped bass are an important prey item for spottail shiner. That claim is not 187 1-41 23-36 supported by the scientific literature. The reference provided in the DSEIS to support this claim was a laboratory study of starved spottail shiner that were only given striped bass YOY (larvae) to eat. The same study found no striped bass YOY in the stomachs of spottail shiner in the wild. (See Appendix D of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The DSEIS has incorrectly applied the Normal distribution to assess instability. The DSEIS stated that for a Normal distribution, 32% of observations would lie outside a +/- 1 standard deviation band. 32% is actually an expectation, not a fixed value. Sampling from a Normal distribution might actually have a higher or lower percentage of observations outside the band, and the percentage would be more variable for smaller sample 1-8 188 13-15 sizes. Thus, for a data set of 25 or so observations, there is a not insignificant probability that at least 40%

188 1-14 11-12 of the observations would lie outside the +/- 1 SD band even if there is no change in either the mean or level of variation. This probability biases the analysis of potential impacts toward overestimating the degree of potential impact. With proper selection of variability bounds, to the extent that variability can be shown to be useful criterion for assessing impact at all, the FSEIS should produce more accurate information about potential impacts. (See Section 4.1.3 of the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3.)

The DSEIS attempted to achieve convergence of their segmented regression estimates by eliminating data points that were outliers or otherwise deemed to be hindering convergence of the algorithm. There are many other actions that could have been taken to see if convergence could be achieved, such as revising initial parameter estimates, using another method for the search, and/or changing search parameters. Even if convergence was not achieved, the estimates might still be valid and useful. However, the DSEIS deleted 189 App I data points deemed to be outliers, which typically were years of higher abundance. These deleted data points, although statistical outliers, may well have been valid points that reflect the highly variable pattern of recruitment that is seen in many fish species. By deleting these data points, the DSEIS may have biased the slope estimates and also biased the impact classification by achieving significance to the slope as a result of deleting data that don't fit the regression model. The FSEIS should reconsider omission of I _ ipurported outlying data points.

Page 35 of 35 3/18/2009

Stenographic Comments INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page# Line# Comment Inconsistent use of English vs. metric units. In some places, metric units are listed first and in others English units are listed first. In other instances, either the metric or English unit is given, but not the corresponding unit for the other system. Information should be provided in English units with metric units in parentheses.

1 General Comment This is throughout the document.

The degree symbol is shown in the Abbreviations and Acronyms list and should not be written out as 2 General Comment degrees. This is throughout the document.

3 General Comment Inconsistent use of abbreviations, acronyms, and scientific names of species versus common names.

Both tons and tonnes are used to describe metric tons. The proper usage in the United States is metric 4 General Comment tons.

There are two cooling systems for IP2 and IP3 - one for each unit. The text needs to be changed to reflect 5 General Comment that. Both system and systems are used to describe the cooling systems. This is throughout the document.

6 ix NA Make the following change: "Figure 2-6. FIP3 intake structure".

7 x NA Table 2-3 has Table 2-3 in the heading and the title. Title Table 2-3 needs to be removed.

8 xxv 2 R-EMP should be R-EMAP.

9 1-1 27 After 1974, add, "and is currently in SAFSTOR."

Change "Entergy, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 . .. ." to "Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC ...." In the ER we said that the Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and the two LLC plants 10 1-1 28 would be referred to collectively as Entergy, but not that Entergy Corporation was a joint applicant.

11 1-2 31 Change Table E-1 to "Tables E-1 and E-2".

There should not be a qualifier on the amount of electricity generated by IP3, as there is not a qualifier for 12 1-6 4,1-42 the amount generated by IP2.

13 2-1 13 After shut down, add "and is currently in SAFSTOR."

14 2-5 15 Insert "immediately" after "... is located".

There is no Entergy "2009a" shown in the Section 2.3 references. Change "Entergy 2008a" to "Entergy 2008" 15 2-8 4 to be consistent with how it's shown in the Section 2.3 references.

16 2-11 NA Make the following change: "Figure 2-6. FIP3 intake structure".

The DSEIS contains a math error that inadvertently overstates total service water flows through IP3. Please 2-13 36 change 170 m 3/s to 0.378 m 3/sec because 13 cfs or 6,000 gpm converts into 0.3785 m3/sec not 170 m3/sec.

17 This should be corrected in the FSEIS.

Page 1 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page # Line # Comment 18 2-19 18 iChange "2004a" to "2004" to be consistent with how it's shown in the Section 2.3 references.

There is no Entergy "2008b" listed in the Section 2.3 references. Change "Entergy 2008b" to "Entergy 2008" 19 2-21 30 Ito be consistent with how it's shown in Section 2.3.

20 2-25 NA Figure 2-9 is not referenced in the Section 2.0 write-up anywhere.

There is no "USDOC 2008a" listed in the Section 2.3 references. Change "USDOC 2008a" to "USDOC 21 2-27 26 2006a" to be consistent with how it's shown in Section 2.3.

There is no "USDOC 2008b" listed in the Section 2.3 references. Change "USDOC 2008b" to "USDOC 22 2-27 32 2006b" to be consistent with how it's shown in Section 2.3.

23 2-29 1 "States" should not be capitalized.

!Make the following change: These permits restrict nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions to 23.75 2-5 tons (t) (22 24 2-29 25-27 23 metric tons (MT)) per year per station by restricting engine run time and fuel consumption.

Make the following change: The fourth subsection of the river identified by CHGEC (1999) is located from RM 38 to 24 (RKM 62 to 39) and includes the Croton-Haverstraw and Tappan Zee study areas (Figure 2-10 25 2-34 4-5 6).

26 2-35 26 Underline "Salinity".

27 2-36 23 Replace "reject" with "produce".

Change "Ashizawa and Cole (1997)" to "Ashizawa and Cole (1994)" based on how it's shown in the Section 28 2-36 33 12.3 references.

Make the following change: This facility is located in the Poughkeepsie study area approximately 30 mi (48 29 2-36 34-35 kkm) upstream from IP2 and IP3 (Figure 2-10 6).

30 2-37 Line 24 Make the following change: (Figure 2-10 6).

Make the following change: Measurements of DO taken in August from 1975 to 2000 during the Long River Surveys indicate the lowest percent saturation (less than 75 percent) at West Point and the highest (greater 31 2-37 21-24 than 90 percent) at the Kingston and Catskill reaches (Figure 2-10 6).

32 2-42 38 Extra space within first parentheses.

33 2-44 8 DDT is used in the text, but is not in the acronyms list.

6 through 2-34 2-47 48, line 25 Cite is incorrect. Correct source of the information summarized in this section is to Barnthouse et al. 1984.

35 2-48 37-38 Cite is incorrect. Should be Barnthouse et al. 1984.

36 2-51 21 There is no "Fletcher (1990)" listed in the Section 2.3 references.

37 2-54 1 Make the following change: Table 2-5. Locations in the Hudson River Estuary (see Figure 2-10 6).

38 2-62 45 There is no "Dew and Hecht 1976" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

39 2-63 27 Make the following change: (Table 2-5, Figure 2-10 6).

Page 2 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page # Line # Comment 40 2-69 27 Make the following change: Figure 2-10 6).

41 2-69 27 Change runs to run. Smelt is plural.

Sentence which begins "Juveniles eat larger..." is out of place and should be the last sentence of the 42 2-74 4 3-44 previous paragraph.

43 2-75 14 Callinectes sapidus should be in italics.

44 2-76 26 and 34 There is no "NMFS 2007" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

45 2-76 44 Extra ")" after 127.

46 2-77 4 There is no "Peterson et al. (2000)" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

47 2-78 39 Make the following change: (Figure 2-10 6).

The scientific name of eel grass has been used used on line 37 of page 2-79. The common name should be 48 2-80 2 used from this point on.

The scientific name of water chestnut has been used used on line 37 of page 2-79. The common name 49 2-80 3 should be used from this point on.

50 2-83 26-27 Change "EPA 2007" to "EPA 2007a" to be consistent with how it's listed in the Section 2.3 references.

There is no need for the note in parentheses. Other reports/documents noted within the draft SEIS are 51 2-107 32-33 available from the NRC, but this is the only one noted as such.

52 2-107 346 and 37 There is no "Entergy 2008c" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

53 2-107 44 There is no "NRC 2008" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

54 2-108 20-21 There is no "Entergy 2008d" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

55 2-108 30 There is no "NYSDEC 2007d" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

56 2-111 Table 2-7 The total for the Percentage of Total column equals 100.1 rather than 100.

There is no "CCWD no date" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references. However, Section 2.3 does show 23ýand 28- a "CCWD 2006" reference. Does the "CCWD no date" need to be changed to "CCWD 2006" or does another 57 2-113 29 reference need to be added to Section 2.3?

58 2-117 NA Footnote b to Table 2-10 needs a ")" at the end of the sentence.

Based on the Section 2.3 references, need to change "USDA 2002d" to "USDA 2002e" which pertains to the 59 2-119 5 "Census of Agriculture."

For Orange county, totals of all percentages equal 99.9%. For Putnam county, totals of all percentages 60 2-122 Table 2-12 equal 99.9%. For Westchester county, totals of all percentages equal 99.9%.

For Dutchess county, totals of all percentages equal 99.8%. For Putnam county, totals of all percentages 61 2-123 Table 2-13 equal 99.9%. For Westchester county, totals of all percentages equal 99.9%.

In list of New York counties, is there a reason a line is between Rockland and Suffolk? If not, it should be 62 2-124 Table 2-14 removed.

Page 3 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page# Line# Comment In list of New York counties, is there a reason a line is between New York and Orange? If not, it should be 63 2-126 Table 2-15 removed.

64 2-129 18 "40 percent" should be "39 percent" (See item on Table 2-18).

65 2-129 20 There is no "NYSOSC 2007" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

66 2-129 25 There is no "NYSERDA 2007" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

67 2-129 35 "43 percent" should be "44 percent" (See item on Table 2-18).

In column "Percent of Total Revenue", the percentages for Buchanan should be 40, 44, 39, 39. The 2nd and 68 2-130 Table 2-18 the 4th numbers are being changed.

69 2-131 Table 2-18 For Paleo-lndian Period, it should be 10,000 - 7000 BC as that is what is stated in line 9 on page 2-131.

70 2-134 14 Change "&" to "and" 71 2-137 25 There is no "EPA 2008d" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

72 2-137 32 Change "NOAA 2007b" to "NOAA 2007" to be consistent with how the reference is listed in Section 2.3.

73 2-137 37 and 39 There is no "NYSDOS undated" reference listed in the Section 2.3 references.

15-17 "72 FR 20-21 The following are not referenced in the Section 2.0 write-up: "40 CFR Part 264", "32 FR 4001" and 74 2-138 34-37 69033".

Change "Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). "2006 Weakfish Stock Assessment....." to "Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006c "2006 Weakfish Stock Assessment..." to be 75 2-139 38 consistent with how it's shown in the Section 2.0 write-up.

76 2-140 3-7 "ASMFC 2007a" is not referenced in the Section 2.0 write-up.

77 2-147 13-17 The following are not referenced in the Section 2.0 write-up: "Hirschberg et al 1996" and "Howard 2001".

78 2-150 11 "NSSL 2006" is not referenced in the Section 2.0 write-up.

78 2-153 26-31 The following are not referenced in the Section 2.0 write-up: "NRC 2006" and "NRC 2007".

79 2-156 17-18 "Snow 1995" is not referenced in the Section 2.0 write-up.

80 3-5 16 Underline on bulleted text is not complete.

81 3-6 28 Header of line should be underlined - "Public services ... recreation."

Need to clarify what table is being referred to in this sentence: A table summarizing the attainment status of the counties within the immediate area of IP2 and IP3 shows nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 8-hour ozone in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester 82 3-9 29-31 Counties.

83 3-9 40 Delete "Part" after "40 CFR" Page 4 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page# Line# Comment 84 3-12 30 There is no "(Enercon 2006)" listed in the Section 3.4 references.

Make the following change: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007. "Applicant's Environment Report, Operating 24 License Renewal Stage." (Appendix E of "IP2 and IP3, Units 2 and 3, License Renewal 22 Application"). April 23, 2007. Agency wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 85 3-14 3-6 Accession No. ML071210530.

86 4-2 4 Operation should be operations, as the discussion is about 2 separate systems.

87 4-5 28-29 Underline "Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal".

Change the "Entergy 2007b" reference designation to "Entergy 2007c" since there are currently two "Entergy 88 4-11 2 and 4 2007b" references listed in the Section 4.10 references.

Change the "Entergy 2007b" reference designation to "Entergy 2007c" since there are currently two "Entergy 89 4-12 26 2007b" references listed in the Section 4.10 references.

Change the "Entergy 2007b" reference designation to "Entergy 2007c" since there are currently two "Entergy 90 4-13 38 2007b" references listed in the Section 4.10 references.

Change the "Entergy 2007b" reference designation to "Entergy 2007c" since there are currently two "Entergy 91 4-14 6 2007b" references listed in the Section 4.10 references.

92 4-21 39 Insert "Part" after "6 NYCRR".

93 4-21 41 Insert "Part" after "6 NYCRR".

94 4-22 20 Insert "Part" after "6 NYCRR".

95 4-26 32 Extra space after "83".

Change the "Entergy 2006" reference in the following sentence to "Entergy 2007c" since the Entergy 2006a reference pertains to the 2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report: This matter is still 96 4-27 11-12 under review before NYSDEC, and may not be resolved before NRC issues a final SEIS (Entergy 2006).

97 4-27 25 Make the following change: _4P# 1P3.

98 4-29 18 Change "EPA 2008" to "EPA 2008a" to be consistent with how the reference is listed in Section 4.10.

Underline Impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops 99 4-32 10-11 honeybees, wildlife, livestock).

iChange the "Entergy 2008" reference designation to "Entergy 2008a" since there is a "Entergy 2008" and 100 4-34 11 "Entergy 2008b" reference listed in the Section 4.10 references.

101 4-37 18 Underline Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation.

102 4-39 43 There is no "VBNY 2006" listed in the Section 4.10 references.

103 4-40 3 Change "NRC 2007a" to "Entergy 2007a" since "NRC 2007a" pertains to protected species.

104 4-41 25 Change "43" to "44".

105 4-42 27 There is no "ACH 2008" listed in the Section 4.10 references.

Page 5 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page # Line # Comment 106 4-50 10 There is no "NRC 2008" listed in the Section 4.10 references.

107 4-50 37 There is no "Secor (2007)" listed in the Section 4.10 references.

Change the "Entergy 2007b" reference designation to "Entergy 2007c" since there are currently two "Entergy 108 4-51 26 2007b" references listed in the Section 4.10 references.

The data source in citation Entergy 2007b that was used to produce Table 4-11 should be clarified. There 109 4-52 Table 4-1 are two entries for this citation in Section 4.10 References on page 4-66, lines 37-41.

Change the "Entergy 2007b" reference designation to "Entergy 2007c" since there are currently two "Entergy 110 4-52 2 2007b" references listed in the Section 4.10 references.

In IP3 total column, 18 should be changed to 19 and the grand total for that column should be changed to 1675. In the grand total column for the same item, 42 should be changed to 43 and the grand total for that 111 4-52 Table 4-11 column should change to 4659.

112 4-56 27 There is no "Strayer (2007)" listed in the Section 4.10 references.

113 4-57 25 NGO is not on the acronym list. This is the first usage and needs to be fully written out.

114 4-58 5 and 16 There is no "Kennedy (1990)" listed in the Section 4.10 references.

115 4-58 33 Extra space after "populations)".

116 4-59 9 There is no "Swaney et al. 2006" listed in the Section 4.10 references.

22-30 and The following are not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up: "Abood et al. 2006", "Achman et al. 1996",

117 4-63 40-41 "ASMFC 2006", and "Baird and Ulanowicz 1989".

12-13, 21-22 The following are not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up: "Brosnan and O'Shea 1996", "Cochran 1997",

118 4-64 25-40 "Con Edison 1976a", "Con Edison 1976b", "Con Edison 1976a", "1979", "1980", and "1984a".

The following are not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up: "Con Edison 1984b", "Con Edison 1976a", "Con Edison and NYPA 1984", "Con Edison and NYPA 1986", "Con Edison and NYPA 1987", "Con Edison and 1-3, 7-21 NYPA 1988", "Con Edison and NYPA 1991", "Daniels et al. 2005", "EA 1981a", "EA 1981b", "EA 1982" and 119 4-65 and 24-41 "EA 1984".

120 4-66 3-11  ::The following are not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up: "EA 1985" and "EA 1989".

121 4-66 40 Change "2007b" designation to "2007c" since there is already a 2007b designation on Line 37 (Page 4-66).

122 4-67 6 Change "2008" designation to "2008a" since there is a 2008b designation on Line 11.

18-21 25-28 30-36 The following are not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up: "EPA 2004", "EPA 2008b", "FWS 2007", "Frank 123 4-67 39-42 et al. 2007", and "Greenwood 2008".

124 4-68 15-17 "Munch and Conover 2000" is not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up.

3/18/2009 Page 66 of Page 11 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page # Line # Comment 2-5, 20-25 The following are not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up: "New York Power Authority 1986", "NYSDEC 125 4-69 and 36-42 2007" "Normandeu 1987a", and "Normandeu 1987b".

1-7, 11-16, 20-22 and The following are not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up: "Normandeu 1988", "NEFSC 2005", "NRC 126 4-70 40-41 1996", "NRC 1999", "NRC 2006a", and "Riverkeeper 2007".

The following are not referenced in the Section 4.0 write-up: "Secor and Houde 1995", "Shepherd 2006 2-16, 24-26 (Atlantic Striped Bass)", "Shepherd 2006 (Bluefish)", "Snedecor and Cochran 1980", "Steinberg et al.

127 4-71 and 38-39 2004", "Ulanowicz 1995", and "Wolfe et al. 1996".

128 5-2 3 Write out definition of DBA. 1st usage.

Starting with Interfacing systems LOCA, the CDF and % contribution values do not line up with the initiating 129 5-6 Table 5-3 event names. Suggest aligning the line spacing.

130 5-11 24 Make the following change: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2008a.

131 5-11 24 Change "2008" to "2008a" for consistency with citations in text.

132 5-11 28-31 The "Entergy 2008b" is not references in the Section 5.0 write-up.

Underline Off-site radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-133 6-3 1-2 level waste).

134 6-9 11 Government should not be capitalized.

135 6-16 26-27 "10 CFR Part 63" is not referenced in the Section 6.0 write-up.

Make the following change: The NRG staff addressed this issue The NRC staff addressed this issue in 136 7-2 2-4 Sections 2.2.7, 4.3, and 4.5 of this draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS).

137 8-4 30 Delete "Part" after "40 CFR".

138 8-5 5 Change (2007) to (Entergy 2007).

139 8-9 5 Change "small" to "SMALL".

PM10 - the 10 is written as regular script, not subscript; PM2,5 - the 2.5 is written as regular script, not 24-25 subscript.

140 8-11 141 8-21 23 Extra space at beginning of line.

142 8-33 12 and 14 There is no "EIA 2007" reference listed in Section 8.5.

143 8-33 16 There is no "EPACT2005" reference listed in Section 8.5.

144 8-37 20 Remove page break.

145 8-42 25 Line 25 number of construction jobs should be consistent with number of construction jobs listed in line 16.

Page 7 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page # Line # Comment Make the following changes under the Comment column for Air Quality based on information contained on Pages 8-37 (Line 14), 8-38 (Line 28) and 8-39 (line 2): SOx: 5236 5230 MT/yr (5754 6748 tons/yr); NOx:

146 8-45 Table 8-3 1230 4420 MT/yr (1352 436-- tons/yr); CO: 1230 4-1429 MT/yr (1352 43-.- tons/yr).

Make the following change under the Comment column for Air Quality based on information contained on 147 8-54 Table 8-4 Page 8-49 (Line 42): CO: 93 MT/yr (135 402 tons/yr).

148 8-56 3 Insert "unit" after scheduled.

149 8-59 35 There is no "Power Naturally 2008" reference listed in Section 8.5.

Is the "DOE/EIA 2007" reference listed on this line referring to "DOE/EIA 2007a" or "DOE/EIA 2007b" shown 150 8-60 43 in Section 8.5?

151 8-61 41 There is no "EIA/DOE 2007a" reference listed in Section 8.5.

152 8-66 28 Insert "each" after 5 MW.

153 8-67 11 Delete "not" and replace with "no".

154 8-71 7 Insert "IP2 and IP3" before site.

155 8-71 13 Extra space at beginning of line.

Make the following change: As described in Section 8.3.36 of this draft SEIS, a current plan for new 156 8-71 31-32 transmission lines would impact 1155 ha (2855 ac).

157 8-72 7 Insert "or light industrial" after agriculture.

158 8-72 35 Insert "be" after "unlikely to".

159 8-72 39 Change like to likely.

Make the following change: As described in Section 8.3.35 of this draft SEIS, new transmission lines would 160 8-74 24-25 be 305 km (190 mi) long or longer.

Make the following change: In this draft SEIS, the NRC staff has considered alternative actions to license renewal of IP2 and IP3 including the no-action alternative (discussed in Section 8.2), new generation or energy conservation alternatives (supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas, nuclear, and conservation alternatives discussed in Sections 8.3.1 through 8.3.4), purchased electrical power (discussed in Section 8.3.35), alternative power-generating technologies (discussed in Section 8.3.46), and two combinations of 161 8-78 3-8 alternatives (discussed in Section 8.3.57-).

162 8-79 35 "Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA)" is not referenced in the Section 8.0 write-up.

163 8-79 39 "DOE 2002" is not referenced in the Section 8.0 write-up.

Make the following change: Entergy Nuclear Northeast (ENN). 2007e since it's shown as ENN 2007 on Page 164 8-80 8-6. Line 26.

Page 8 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page# Line# Comment 21-23 and 165 8-81 36-39 The following are not referenced in the Section 8.0 write-up: "EPA 2008c", "HRF 2008a", and "HRF 2008b".

166 8-82 14-18 "NOAA 2003" is not referenced in the Section 8.0 write-up.

17-19 25-26 The following are not referenced in the Section 8.0 write-up: "NYSDEC 2008b", "New York Times 1986", and 167 8-83 33-34 "NRC 2001".

2-7, 11-14 The following are not referenced in the Section 8.0 write-up: "NRC 2004a", "NRC 2004b", "Riverkeeper 168 8-84 and 27-30 2008", and "University of Liege 2007".

169 9-6 37 Delete" because" and Insert "as" after from Entergy.

170 9-6 38 Insert "permanently" after IP3.

171 9-8 8 Decision makers should be two words: decision makers.

172 iii 5 (1) should be superscript.

173 D-1 6 Unit should be Units.

174 E-3 Table E-2 "49 CFR 107" should be "49 CFR Part 107".

175 E-88 7 Unit should be Units 176 E-93 2 Insert together after that 177 E-94 23 Change "NEFSC 2006" to "Shepherd 2006" to be consistent with how the reference is listed in Section 6.0.

178 E-97 Table 1 10.2 should be 10.3 179 E-101 30-33 "NMFS No date" is not referenced in the Biological Assessment write-up.

180 181 G-1 26 Change "April 2" to "April 9" for consistency with reference.

182 G-3 Table G-1 Starting with SBO, the CDF and % contribution values do not line up with the initiating event names.

Suggest aligning the line spacing.

183 G-9 15 Change "adjacent to the each" to "adjacent to each".

184 G-10 23 Suggest adding "and IP3" after "IP2".

185 G-18 18 Reference (NRC 2003) is missing from Reference Section G.8.

186 G-22 8 Change "value" to "valve".

187 G-34 16 Change "postsafety injection" to "post safety injection" or "after safety injection".

188 G-34 23 'Change "following and" to "following a".

189 G-34 20 i"NRC 2007a and NRC 2007b" are not listed in the Section G.8 references.

190 G-37 4-6, 25-27 1"NRC 1990 and NRC 1999" are not referenced in the Appendix G write-up.

28-29, 32, Based on the references listed in Section H.3, is the reference "Con Edison 1984" referring to "Con Edison 195 H-3 38-39, 43 11984a" or "Con Edison 1984b"?

Page 9 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page # Line # Comment Tables H-2 Based on the references listed in Section H.3, is the reference "Con Edison 1984" referring to "Con Edison 196 H-5 and H-3 1984a" or "Con Edison 1984b"?

Based on the references listed in Section H.3, is the reference "Con Edison 1984" referring to "Con Edison 197 H-5 12 1984a" or "Con Edison 1984b"?

Based on the references listed in Section H.3, is the reference "Con Edison 1984" referring to "Con Edison 198 H-6 2 1984a" or "Con Edison 1984b"?

199 H-7 18 "ASA 2000" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

200 H-9 2 "Entergy 2007b" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

201 H-9 16 Should 26.2 10 be 26.2 x 106?

202 H-10 2 "Entergy 2007b" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

203 H-1 1 8 "Entergy 2007b" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

204 H-12 8 "Entergy 2007b" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

205 H-12 8 Con Edison and NYPA 1984 are not listed in the Section H.3 references.

206 H-14 26-27 Scientific names should be in italics 207 H-15 23 Scientific names should be in italics 208 H-16 5 13 should be IP3 209 H-17 30 Insert "of the Draft SEIS" after 4.1.2.2 210 H-1 7 36 Insert "of the Draft SEIS" after 4.1.1.2 211 H-18 8 "ASA" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

212 H-18 13 Change "proposes" to "purposes".

213 H-20 41-42 "ASA Analysis and Communications 2002" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

214 H-21 14 "Entergy 2007b" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

215 H-22 3 "Entergy 2007b" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

216 H-23 1 "Entergy 2007b" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

217 H-23 Table H-7 For entire table, columns of percentages do not equal 100 percent. Percentages range from 98.9 to 104.7 218 H-28 19 Make the following change: Figure 2-106-.

219 H-34 24 "EPA 1998" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

220 H-36 3 "Entergy 2007b" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

221 H-38 11, 19, 33 Make the following change: CHGEC el-aL 1999.

222 H-41 7 Make the following change: Figure 2-106&

223 H-42 4 Make the following change: Figure 2-10&

224 H-48 11-12 Change "Shepherd 2006" to "Shepherd 2006a".

Page 10 of 11 3/18/2009

INDIAN POINT DRAFT SEIS - TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS Page # Line # Comment The DSEIS statement about observed survival of striped bass is incorrect; the correct survival is 91% not 9%

H-48 27-30 based on the peer-reviewed study of the IP2 and IP3 Ristroph screens by Fletcher (1990) and summarized 225 in the DSEIS in Table 4-3 on page 4-12.

226 H-51 30 Make the following change: Figure 2-106.

227 H-55 3 "Normandeau 2008" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

228 H-56 1 "Normandeau 2008" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

229 H-57 1 "Normandeau 2008" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

230 H-58 1 "Normandeau 2008" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

231 H-60 16, 27-28 "Kennedy 1990" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

3-16 25-27, The following are not referenced in the Appendix H write-up: Entergy 2003, Entergy 2004, Entergy 2005, 232 H-63 35-39 Entergy 2006, EPA 1992 and FWS 2007.

233 H-65 12 Change "Shepherd 2006" to "Shepherd 2006a".

234 H-65 15 Change "Shepherd 2006" to "Shepherd 2006b".

Is the Con Edison 1986 - 1991 referring to individual reports? Section 1.4 references currently do not show 235 I-1 19 individual reports for 1989 and 1990.

Is the Con Edison 1986 - 1991 referring to individual reports? Section 1.4 references currently do not show 236 I-1 2 individual reports for 1989 and 1990.

237 I-1 23 Should 26.2 10 be 26.2 x 106?

238 1-4 4 "MMES 1983", NAI 1985a, 1985b and 2007 are not listed in the Section H.3 references.

239 1-6 25 "CHGE 1999" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

240 1-23 6-7 "Entergy 2007" is not listed in the Section H.3 references.

241 1-66 17-20 "ASA 2002" is not referenced in the Appendix I write-up.

21-25 and 242 1-67 28-29 The following are not referenced in the Appendix I write-up: "Con Edison Undated c" and "Con Edison 1983".

12-16, 27-31 243 1-68 37-40 The following are not referenced in the Appendix I write-up: EA 1988, EA 1991 and Entergy 2007.

22-26, The following are not referenced in the Appendix I write-up: MMES 1986, Normandeau 1985a, Normandeau 244 1-69 31-43 1985b and Normandeau 1986.

245 1-70 3-7 "Normandeau 1987" is not referenced in the Appendix I write-up.

Page 11 of 11 3/18/2009

ENCLOSURE 2 TO NL-09-036 Letter dated March 17, 2009 from Goodwin Procter to NRC, "Comments on NUREG-1437, Draft Supplement 38" ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286

GOODWIN I PROCTER Elise N.Zoli, Esq.

617.570.1612 Goodwin Procter LLP Counsellors at Law EZoli@goodwinprocter.com Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: 617.570.1000 F: 617.523.1231 March 17, 2009 Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: Comments on NUREG-1437, Draft Supplement 38

Reference:

Letter from Mr. David J. Wrona, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Vice President, Operations, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. entitled "Notice of Availability of the Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 38 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (TAC NOS.

MD5411 and MD5412)," dated December 22, 2008.

Dear Sir or Madam:

On behalf of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Entergy"), we respectfully submit the following comments on those portions of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("DSEIS"), prepared by consultants to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")

Staff for the License Renewal Application for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 (collectively, "Indian Point"), assessing the potential impacts of entrainment, impingement and thermal shock, and associated mitigation measures evaluated in the DSEIS (collectively, "Aquatic Issues"). The comments are intended to identify errors in the DSEIS that should be corrected in the process of generating the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS").

By way of background, Entergy, and its predecessors, have been collecting and assessing extensive information about fish species in the Hudson River for more than three decades.'

Major monitoring programs have been ongoing over the operating life of Indian Point, as directed and overseen by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

("NYSDEC") staff. The dataset has been characterized by NYSDEC staff (to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")) as "probably, the best dataset on the planet," and we are aware of no comparable dataset by any NRC-regulated licensee.2 Numerous analyses of this dataset, including with respect to impingement and entrainment, have been independently reviewed and published in peer-reviewed fisheries journals. Thus, while the NRC staff s consultants are to be commended for their efforts to review this information in drafting the

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 2 Aquatic Issues sections of the DSEIS, given the scope of the information available and the level of biologic expertise required to review it, it is hardly surprising that some of the conclusions reached are not fully reflective of the available information-and are, therefore, in error.

I. There is no basis under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") for the DSEIS to evaluate closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point.

Closed-cycle cooling is not properly considered as a potential mitigation measure in the DSEIS. As detailed below, its inclusion as a mitigation measure in the DSEIS is not warranted, because: (1) no closed-cycle determination has been reached in the pending NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ("SPDES") proceeding (the "Proceeding") for Indian Point, (2) the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") rulemaking record rejected closed-cycle cooling on a nationwide basis, including for Indian Point, and (3) there is no NRC precedent in comparable license-renewal proceedings for the inclusion of a closed-cycle cooling mitigation alternative. 3 Therefore, inclusion of closed-cycle cooling in the DSEIS contravenes NEPA's mandate that such reports be consistent and based upon accurate information. As such, Entergy respectfully requests that NRC staff issue an FSEIS that excludes closed-cycle cooling mitigation alternative. 4 A. No draft NYSDEC staff BTA determination presently exists.

The DSEIS states that a draft best technology available ("BTA") determination in the now-defunct NYSDEC staff tentative SPDES permit was the reason for NRC staff s consideration and evaluation of closed-cycle cooling as an alternative to status quo operations during the license renewal period. 5 However, as detailed below, the draft BTA determination on which the DSEIS apparently.relies was vacated by a decision of NYSDEC's Assistant Commissioner, and NYSDEC staff currently is required to reach a BTA determination based on feasibility and alternative analyses not due to. N YSDEC staff until December 2009. Thus, there is no current or effective NYSDEC staff draft BTA determination for Indian Point requiring closed-cycle cooling.

More specifically, the current posture of the SPDES Proceeding has evolved well beyond its characterization in the DSEIS, which appears to be based on documents from 2003.6 On August 13, 2008, the Assistant Commissioner of NYSDEC issued a decision (the "Interim Decision") clarifying the status of the NYSDEC staff draft SPDES Permit and the issues to be adjudicated in the SPDES Proceeding. That Interim Decision required NYSDEC staff to retract its prior draft BTA determination. The reasons for the retraction were several. First, the Interim Decision revised the New York legal standard governing BTA determinations. This rendered NYSDEC staff s prior BTA determination void, because it was not developed consistent with the

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 3 now-applicable standard. Second, the Interim Decision now requires that the site-specific feasibility and alternatives reports (previously reserved for a future SPDES permit) be submitted by December 2009 and considered by NYSDEC staff in arriving at a new BTA determination which, as necessary, will be subject to adjudication as part of the SPDES Proceeding.8 NYSDEC staff expressly has acknowledged that its current draft SPDES Permit is void, and also that it must reach a BTA determination that incorporates needed site-specific feasibility and alternatives information. 9 Therefore, there is no NYSDEC staff BTA determination at this time, draft or otherwise, requiring closed-cycle cooling. 10 Based upon the foregoing, the stated justification for the evaluation of closed-cycle cooling in the DSEIS no longer exists, and the consideration of closed-cycle cooling should be stricken from the FSEIS.

B. There is no other legal basis for considering closed-cycle cooling in the DSEIS.

No other legal basis exists for considering closed-cycle cooling in the DSEIS. To the contrary and as detailed below, the governing SPDES agreements for Indian Point contain no closed-cycle cooling-requirements. Thus, the DSEIS evaluation of closed-cycle cooling cannot be grounded on these prior agreements.

In the interest of completeness and to assist NRC staff in preparing the FSEIS, Entergy respectfully submits that neither the Hudson River Settlement Agreement ("HRSA"; effective from May 10, 1981 through May 10, 1991), nor the subsequent judicially approved consent orders (collectively, "Consent Orders"; effective through February 1, 1998, and with which Indian Point voluntarily complies today"'), require closed-cycle cooling. ' 2 Rather, the HRSA expressly stated that NYSDEC "will not seek or in any way support a requirement for closed-cycle cooling at any of the Hudson River Plants during the entire ten-year term of this Agreement."' 3 Likewise, the judicially approved Consent Orders which followed the expiration of the HRSA in 1991 also have not required the construction of closed-cycle cooling at Indian Pointor anyother facility.' 4 Thus, at no time since the effective date of the HRSA (i.e., May 10, 1981), and to date, has closed-cycle cooling been required at Indian Point.

NYSDEC's approach to Indian Point is consistent with its treatment of other New York facilities: NYSDEC has not required closed-cycle cooling at any other nuclear facility in New York. To the contrary, NYSDEC recently issued renewed SPDES permits for the James A.

FitzPatrick, Robert E. Ginna, and Nine Mile Nuclear Power Plants, none of which required closed-cycle cooling. Thus, there is no NYSDEC precedent at other New York nuclear facilities to support inclusion of closed-cycle cooling in the DSEIS.

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 4 C. EPA has not required closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point.

The DSEIS also points to the EPA's Phase II Rule, seemingly as support for consideration of closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point. Although presently suspended, in its Phase II Rule, EPA did not select closed-cycle cooling as the model technology for Indian Point or any other existing facility (listed in the Phase II Rule); rather, EPA rejected closed-cycle cooling nationwide:15 EPA did not select a regulatoryscheme based on the use of closed-cycle, recirculating cooling systems at existing facilities based on its generally high costs (due to conversions), the fact that other technologies approach the performance of this option, concerns for energy impacts due to retrofitting existing facilities, and other considerations. Although closed-cycle, recirculating cooling water systems serve as the basis for requirements applied to Phase I new facilities,for Phase H existingfacilities, a nationalrequirement to retrofit existing systems is not the most cost-effective approach and at many existingfacilities, retrofits may be impossible or not economicallypracticable.16 Thus, the EPA Phase II Rule also provides no support for inclusion of closed-cycle cooling in the DSEIS.

D. NRC precedent does not support consideration of closed-cycle cooling in the DSEIS.

Finally, NRC staff has not evaluated closed-cycle cooling in the context of any other license renewal application for which no valid BTA determination had been issued. Indeed, NRC staff has evaluated closed-cycle cooling at only one other facility with once-through cooling in the license renewal context - the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

("OCNGS"). However, for OCNGS, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

("NJDEP") had effectively completed (subject only to final public comment) its administrative SPDES permit process, with a permit that required closed-cycle cooling (or restoration). 17 Thus, OCNGS represents a very different dynamic, and does not support consideration of closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point.

In sum, while the Council on Environmental Quality's ("CEQ") NEPA regulations expect an agency issuing an environmental impact statement to "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives,"' 8 CEQ clarifies the meaning of "reasonable alternatives" by

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 5 stating that "reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense ... ."19 Because there is no present basis for concluding that closed-cycle cooling is technically and economically feasible at Indian Point, particularly given the fact that a retrofit of this scale has never been implemented at a "like" or comparable facility, there is no legal basis for the DSEIS to explore this alternative. Further, no, NYSDEC or EPA action supports the conclusion that a closed-cycle cooling alternative is reasonable, practical or feasible at Indian Point. Finally, the DSEIS cannot treat Indian Point differently from all other similarly situated license renewal applicants.20 Accordingly, the discussion of this alternative should not be included in the FSEIS.

II. The DSEIS misconstrues the NYSDEC's Final Environmental Impact Statement

("NYSDEC FEIS") and EPA Phase II Rulemaking record with respect to closed-cycle cooling.

As discussed above, a closed-cycle cooling alternative should not be included in the FSEIS. However, to the extent closed-cycle cooling is mentioned in the FSEIS, various errors must be corrected to reflect current, site-specific information. In the alternatives section of the DSEIS, the NRC staff asserts-that:

[t]he NRC staff, however, notes that both NYSDEC (2003b) and EPA (2004) indicated that estimates for cooling conversion by the previous owners of IP2 and IP3 overestimateda variety of costs and selected a more expensive technology than was necessary. Further, EPA (2004) indicated that Entergy's outage duration was likely exaggerated. 21

- - However, the DSEIS' assertion that conversion costs for Indian Point have been inflated lacks.factual support and is contradicted by the more current, and accurate, site-specific analysis

-: performed in 2003 by Enercon, a leading national expert in nuclear power plant design and construction, as supplemented by Enercon's comments, which we understand are also being submitted on behalf of Entergy. Therefore, in accordance with NEPA, the site-specific Enercon closed-cycle conversion assessment should be treated as controlling, and any suggestion that the Indian Point Environmental Report has inflated closed-cycle conversion costs and outage duration should be eliminated in the FSEIS. 22 A. NYSDEC and EPA have never criticized the Enercon Report.

The discussion of conversion costs and outage duration in the DSEIS misconstrues federal and state environmental proceedings. First, the DSEIS states that "NYSDEC (2003b) ...

indicated that estimates for cooling conversion by the previous owners of IP2 and IP3

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 6 overestimated a variety of costs and selected a more-expensive technology than was necessary."23 However, this statement does not actually refer to a position asserted by NYSDEC or NYSDEC staff. Rather, the reference to NYSDEC (2003b) in Chapter 8 of the DSEIS appears to be the February 3, 2006 Ruling on Proposed Issues for Adjudication and Petitions for Party Status in the Indian Point SPDES Proceeding 24 (the "Indian Point Issues Ruling"), in which the New York administrative law judge summarized unsupportedarguments advanced by third parties during the issues conference. 25 These third party statements are not properly referenced in the DSEIS as NYSDEC's 26 conclusions or otherwise deserving of weight, since they are not supported by expert opinion.

In fact, NYSDEC's conclusion in the FEIS was that Entergy's predecessor's conversion cost estimates were reasonable, based upon NYSDEC's consultant's independent review of the conversion analysis contained in the 1999 generic draft environmental impact statement for the Hudson River facilities (the "1999 DEIS"). 2 ' NYSDEC's consultant concluded that the closed-cycle cooling conversion cost estimates in the 1999 DEIS were reasonable with respect to capital costs, but actually understated the economic impacts of any reduction in power generation and capacity.28 The NYSDEC consultant's report also states that "The projected loss of over 600,000 Mwhr/year is a very significant concern. Thus, NYSDEC could not, on this basis, have concluded that the closed-cycle conversion cost estimate in the 1999 DEIS was overstated, and furthermore, NYSDEC made no such decision.

In any event, Enercon's 2003 closed-cycle cooling conversion analysis, including costs and conversion outage duration, represents the most relevant, currently available, and accurate site-specific information available on these issues, though, as explained in Section III(B)(ii) below and in the Enercon comments, those cost estimates and outage durations are significantly understated based upon additional site-specific information developed since 2003 and of which NRC staff is aware. Moreover, Enercon's 2003 Report, again prepared by leading experts in the

-field; has not been called:into question by NYSDEC in the Indian Point SPDES proceeding or by EPA.

Likewise, the DSEIS also incorrectly asserts that "[i]n the Hudson River Utilities FEIS,

... EPA indicated that costs may have been somewhat inflated. EPA also indicated some uncertainty with regard to outage duration for the plant retrofit.""3 In the FEIS, NYSDEC never asserted that EPA reviewed or commented on the closed-cycle cooling conversion analysis in the DEIS because it did not do so. In fact, EPA did not provide any comments at all on the 1999 DEIS or the NYSDEC FEIS. 3 '

In short, Entergy respectfully submits that the FSEIS should rely on the 2003 Enercon Report, and correct the misstatements identified here.

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 7 B. Viewed appropriately, the Phase II Rule record supports Entergy's ER.

The DSEIS also cites 32 to the EPA Phase II Rulemaking in criticizing Entergy's closed-cycle cooling assessment.

First, as EPA itself recognized in the Phase II Rule, the dataset of four so-called "retrofits" that EPA used in determining that closed-cycle cooling was potentially feasible at existing facilities, and in estimating the costs of such conversions, was "not representative of the broader population of facilities and could be too narrow a set from which to develop national costs that would be applicable to a wide range of facilities." 33 Moreover, EPA's "retrofit" dataset does not provide a proper or specific assessment of nuclear facility costs, because nuclear costs routinely exceed those at fossil facilities by substantial margins. 34 Indeed, EPA's only purported "retrofit" involving a nuclear facility was the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan

("Palisades"), which is not comparable to Indian Point, because Palisades is a much smaller nuclear facility (approximately 800 MW(e) of power). More importantly, the cooling system conversion at Palisades cannot fairly be described as a "retrofit," because the conversion was contemplated during the latter stages of the initial construction of the facility, i.e., the cooling towers actually were constructed late in the facility's original construction process.35 Thus, unlike Indian Point, the initial planning and design of the Palisades facility took into account closed-cycle cooling. Second, each of EPA's four "retrofits" was performed before 1992, and therefore involved dated information and analysis potentially inapplicable today. Third, none of EPA's "retrofits" were conducted in New York, which poses a complex, and potentially more costly, regulatory environment than Ohio, Michigan and South Carolina.

The Phase II Rule's generalized conclusion regarding closed-cycle conversion capital costs is also inapplicable to Indian Point, because Indian Point presents several site-specific constraints expected to significantly affect the cooling system conversion cost estimates. - These site constraints include: (1) the Indian Point site requires major (i.e., among the largest mining operations in the United States) blasting operations that will generate substantial volumes of waste material to be properly disposed; (2) tritium/strontium contamination of this material may significantly exacerbate this excavation, and will increase transportation and disposal costs; (3) the presence of a major interstate natural gas pipeline likely complicates the design and construction of the cooling towers. Accordingly, the NRC staff should reconsider the Enercon 2003 Report's cooling tower conversion cost estimates in light of the unique circumstances at the Indian Point site and the fact that no comparable retrofit has ever been completed.

Second, the DSEIS' suggestion that "EPA (2004) indicated that Entergy's outage duration was likely exaggerated" is erroneous, because Enercon's estimated outage of 42 weeks (without contingency) is consistent with EPA's conclusions in the Phase II Rule. In the Phase II

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 8 Rule, EPA implied that outage periods associated with closed-cycle cooling tower retrofits can be significant and that an outage of ten months (or 40 weeks) was reasonable.3 6 Therefore, Enercon's estimated conversion outage of 42 weeks, without any-level -ofcontingency, is consistent with the ten month (40 week) timeframe for Palisades, a much smaller nuclear station that constructed cooling towers late in its initial construction program. 37 Moreover, as discussed in the Enercon comments and below, the discovery of on-site radiological contamination - well known to the NRC and discussed at length during the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

("ASLB") hearing - will unavoidably result in costs and outage durations in excess of those reported in the 2003 Enercon Report.

C. Subsurface radiological contamination present at the Indian Point Site, of which the NRC staff was well aware, must be considered in the DSEIS.

As discussed above in Section I(A), there is no legitimate basis for evaluating a closed-cycle cooling analysis in the DSEIS. However, to the extent such an analysis is included in the FSEIS, that analysis requires an accurate and complete assessment of site-specific conditions (where available) pertinent to the feasibility and costs of the alternative. 38 The existence of subsurface radiological contamination at the Indian Point site is well known to NRC staff, because NRC is overseeing the groundwater investigation occurring at the site, as discussed at length in the Indian Point ASLB. proceeding. 39 Consistent with Enercon's 2003 Report, and the Enercon comments, the radiological groundwater conditions must be addressed in the context of the closed-cycle cooling alternative, assuming one is considered. Given the import of site-specific analysis, NEPA requires that the DSEIS evaluate the impact of radiological subsurface contamination on feasibility, outage, and cost of the closed-cycle cooling alternative, which has not yet occurred. Therefore, assuming a closed-cycle cooling alternative is considered, NRC staff must include consideration of these conditions in the FSEIS.

III,. - The AEI Report is the only current assessment of impacts associated with.

impingement and entrainment at Indian Point.

The DSEIS states that the justification for independent analysis of impingement and entrainment impacts is the allegedly unresolved competing views of Entergy (as set forth in the AEI Report) and NYSDEC staff (as set forth in the NYSDEC FEIS) on these issues.4 0 However, as NYSDEC has clearly acknowledged, the NYSDEC FEIS was prepared before completion of the AEI Report, is based only on dated information and incomplete. By contrast, the AEI Report is site-specific, current and based upon accepted scientific principles of impact assessment performed by leading fisheries experts; as such, it should be afforded substantial weight in the DSEIS.4 2 If the DSEIS does give the AEI Report appropriate weight (in

GOODWIN PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 9 conjunction with its independent investigation), all impingement and entrainment impacts should be classified as "SMALL."

A. The NYSDEC FEIS is based on limited, dated data.

As it relates to Indian Point, the NYSDEC FEIS provides only a summary of data from six years in the 1980s. Specifically, Table 2 of the NYSDEC FEIS presents the average number of early life stages entrained during the limited period of in~plant entrainment sampling at Indian Point in 1981 and 1983-1987.43 This dated information should not be given primacy over the AEI Report, which reflects data through 2005.

B. The NYSDEC FEIS is incomplete.

Moreover, the NYSDEC FEIS is not final with respect to Indian Point. In October 2003, Entergy, among other parties, filed a judicial action challenging the content and legal effect of the NYSDEC FEIS. 44 The Decision and Order in that action recognized that "considerably more environmental review is necessary and ... specifically contemplated."4 5 In that action, NYSDEC stated that "detailed, site-specific" information would be necessary before reaching a final BTA determination for Indian Point and assessing the environmental impacts associated with that BTA determination.4 6 Moreover, the Interim Decisions also acknowledged the deficiencies in the NYSDEC FEIS and expressly required the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement to address those shortcomings following NYSDEC staff's future BTA determination.4 7 Thus, the NYSDEC FEIS should not be afforded weight in the DSEIS.

As discussed above, NEPA requires analyses based upon the most recent data available.

The NYSDEC FEIS fails that standard; the AEI Report does not and should be afforded weight in the FSEIS.

IV. The restoration alternative should not be included in the FSEIS.

The DSEIS includes alternatives likely illegal under §316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act ("CWA"); it therefore should be stricken in the FSEIS. Specifically, the DSEIS includes a mitigation alternative that combines the existing once-through cooling system with alternative intake technologies and additionalrestorationalternatives. 48 However, in Riverkeeper I and Riverkeeper II, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals twice held that EPA impermissibly construed federal law, i.e., CWA §316(b), to allow compliance with that section, in whole or in part, through restoration measures. 4 9 Thus, NRC staff's efforts to evaluate federal law, particularly compliance with §316(b), by means that include, in whole or in part, restoration measures is not proper.50

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 10 As noted above in section I(C), only reasonable alternatives should be considered in a NEPA environmental impact assessment.1 Reasonable alternatives include those that "are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense,"

which clearly exclude those that have been judicially proscribed (under the applicable statute). 52 Accordingly, the restoration alternative should not be included in the FSEIS.

V. The DSEIS improperly ignores the performance of in-place CWIS technologies.

Although the DSEIS appropriately characterizes the proposed action as renewal of the NRC operating licenses for Indian Point, without modifications to existing plant operations 54, it does not evaluate certain environmental impacts of that proposed action. In particular, it does not properly account for the well-documented effectiveness of in-place CWIS technologies (that will continue to be operated during the license renewal period) designed to reduce, among other things, impingement impacts. This failure violates, perhaps, a fundamental 55 requirement of NEPA: to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action.

The DSEIS properly recognizes that the Indian Point CWISs are configured with modified Ristroph traveling screens and a fish return system designed to collect. impinged fish and return them to the Hudson River. 56 The DSEIS also properly recognizes that these in-place screens and fish return systems were developed through extensive testing of various designs installed at Units 2 and 3.57 Furthermore, the DSEIS accurately reports the results of a comprehensive study, undertaken by a consultant to Riverkeeper, Inc., documenting the substantial reduction in impingement mortality associated with the then-prototype screens now installed at both units. 58 So effective were these screens that NYSDEC adopted "the performance of [the screens] as the state's best available technology [sic] standard for reducing fish impingement at water intake systems." 59 In other words, the Indian Point -impingement technology program has defined "state of the art" since its installation. Despite this and the DSEIS' express recognition that "the final design of the [Ristroph] screens appeared to reduce impingement mortality for some species based on a pilot study-cornipared to the original system in place at Indian Point (Fletcher 1990)," NRC staff s consultants chose not to include these peer-reviewed improvements in assessing impingement for the very same system installed at Indian Point (and the very same species likely to be impinged at Indian Point) when evaluating impacts position.in its independent analysis. As such, the DSEIS cannot be reconciled with NYSDEC's The DSEIS' stated basis for excluding this information is the purported lack of recent post-Ristroph screen installation impingement monitoring data. 6 1 However, the DSEIS does not account for the unchallenged validity of the peer-reviewed study conducted by Dr. Fletcher (published in the leading Transactions of the American Fisheries Society publication). The study by Dr. Fletcher evaluated the same screen design as those installed at Indian Point and evaluated

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 11 its effectiveness on those species found in impingement samples collected at Unit 2 over several years. 62 Likewise, the DSEIS does not point to any other evidence in the record to suggest that the survival estimates prepared by Dr. Fletcher and reported in Table 4-3 of the DSEIS are not accurate. Indeed, Dr. Fletcher opined that further changes to the screens likely would not result in any improvement in performance. 63 For those reasons, the Fletcher studies provide more than a reasonable basis to forecast future performance of the screens installed at Indian Point, and the FSEIS should account for that performance. 64 As such, exclusion'of peer-reviewed information regarding the effectiveness of the modified Ristroph screens is without support and necessarily results, as the DSEIS concedes, in "overestimates" of impingement impacts in the DSEIS' independent analysis. 65 According to the Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, which we understand is also being submitted on behalf of Entergy, the DSEIS utilizes a 0% impingement survival rate when the appropriate value is 82%

survival.66 Because the use of the modified Ristroph screens is an integral component of the proposed action, particularly as it relates to the evaluation of environmental impacts of the proposed action, the survival estimates from Table 4-3'shouldbe factored into the FSEIS impact assessment, as NEPA requires. 67 As further described in the. Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, using the survival estimates from Table 4-3 of the DSEIS and a corrected Weight of Evidence approach, the potential impacts of Indian Point operations during the license renewal periods should be classified as SMALL in the FSEIS.

VI. The DSEIS' treatment of endangered species deserves reconsideration.

Although the DSEIS correctly states that "[a]s of October 2006, NMFS has listed Atlantic sturgeon as a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"),), 68 it also incorrectly labels in one location the Atlantic sturgeon as "protected.",69, While this-may have been an inadvertent oversight, given contrary statements in many- other locations in the DSEIS, we submit the following comments to underscore the appropriate limits of the analysis of endangered species in the DSEIS. In accordance with its own NEPA regulations, NRC staff is required to evaluate impacts of the proposed action only on species protected under.the ESA,70 and the protections of the ESA extend only to species that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. 7 '

A. The DSEIS inadvertently considers species not protected under the ESA.

Atlantic sturgeon is not listed, or proposed to be listed, as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA.7 2 Rather, as the DSEIS notes, Atlantic sturgeon has merely been added to the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") list of "candidate species," i.e., species for

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 12 which NMFS has initiated its formal status review to determine if it should be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species. 73 Candidate species do not carry any procedural74 or substantive protections under the ESA, e.g., are not subject to ESA biological assessments.

NMFS expressly states as much, including on its website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concerni. Correction of the erroneous treatment of the Atlantic sturgeon as "protected" is therefore necessary for the FSEIS to comply with 10 C.F.R.

§51.53(c)(iii)(2)(E).

B. The Biological Opinion issued by NMFS should be accorded substantial weight.

Dr. Michael J. Dadswell, on behalf of NMFS, issued a 1979 biological opinion under

§7(b) of the ESA on the potential impact to shortnose sturgeon of once-through cooling at, among other facilities, Indian Point (the "1979 Biological Opinion"). 75 That opinion concluded that:

the once through cooling system of [Indian Point] is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon because, even assuming 100% mortality of impinged fish, its contribution to the natural annual mortality is negligible.- In ...

addition, the biology of the shortnose sturgeon effectively isolates.

the species from most of the effects of power plant intakes.7 6 Indeed, NYSDEC acknowledged this opinion, and took no issue with it in its own (concededly incomplete) FEIS.77 Thus, there has never been a finding that Indian Point operations are likely to jeopardize the shortnose sturgeon; in fact, just the opposite is the case. -

After the 1979 Biological Opinion was issued, Indian Point installed the modified Ristroph screens and fish return system that reduced potential impacts to impinged fish, as discussed in Section V above,- providing even greater protection to the shortnose sturgeon than the screening configuration analyzed by Dr. Dadswell in the 1979 Biological Opinion.

Moreover, there is no dispute that the shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson River has expanded substantially over the period of Indian Point operations.78 Indeed, the estimated number of spawning-age shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River population now exceeds 500%

of the safe level defined by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

("NOAA"), "clearly indicating that this population merits designation as 'recovered' and qualifies for delisting" from the endangered species list.",7 9 Thus, there is no reason to depart in the FSEIS from the 1979 Biological Opinion absent credible scientific evidence of increased impact by Indian Point or a more compromised endangered population, neither of which exists here.

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 13 C. There is no obstacle to a finding of SMALL impact to shortnose sturgeon.

As discussed above, NYSDEC staff authorized that continued impingement monitoring cease after installation of the modified Ristroph screens, because of the risk of mortality associated with collecting and handling shortnose sturgeon (among other species). As a result, Indian Point was not authorized to conduct impingement monitoring after 1990, both as a matter of NYSDEC directive and as a matter of the ESA's prohibition on the take of endangered species for scientific purposes absent a permit. 80 The absence of post-1990 imrpingement data therefore should not be used to. counter the absence of impacts discussed above.

In light of the foregoing, the FSEIS cannot reasonably conclude that continued operations consistent with the proposed action will result in impacts to Atlantic or shortnose sturgeon.

D. The DSEIS should reconsider potential impacts to terrestrial species associated with the closed-cycle cooling alternative.

As set forth in Section I above, there is no basis upon which the DSEIS should evaluate closed-cycle cooling as a mitigation alternative to license renewal with status quo operations.

However, to the extent the DSEIS evaluates the closed-cycle cooling alternative, it should evaluate (or request resource agency input on) the .effects of this alternative on endangered terrestrial species, specifically the Indiana bat.. .

NEPA requires that the NRC "consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved" with the proposed action or, any alternative. 82 Here, the DSEIS specifically identified the possibility that the Indiana bat, a federally endangered species, may inhabit a 83 portion of the Indian Point site.

Despite this finding,. in its request for comment from the U.S.TFish and Wildlife Service

("USFWS") in conjunction with the license renewal application,84NRC staff did not mention the closed-cycle cooling alternative under evaluation in the DSEIS. Having not sought or received any input from the USFWS on impacts associated with the closed-cycle cooling alternative, as NEPA requires, NRC staff concluded that the clearing of forested areas, and the construction of cooling towers on the site, not to mention their subsequent operation and emissions of plumes, would not impact the Indiana bat or its habitat. 85 Proper consultation with USFWS and treatment of this terrestrial endangered species, as required under NEPA, should be pursued in conjunction with the FSEIS.8 6 Moreover, as set forth above, the DSEIS identifies potential impacts to the shortnose sturgeon due to a lack of post-1990 impingement monitoring data, in spite of the 1979 Biological

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 14 Opinion and subsequent expansion of the population, but reaches the opposite conclusion for the Indiana bat. The disparate treatment of endangered species should be rectified in the FSEIS.

VII. The discussion of thermal impacts in the DSEIS should be revised.

The DSEIS proposes a finding of SMALL to MODERATE thermal impacts, purportedly because "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." 87 However, as detailed below and in the comments submitted by Applied Science Associates, Inc., there has never been a finding that Indian Point has been out of compliance with its current SPDES Permit. Therefore, no basis exists to assume actual discharges have exceeded applicable thermal discharge criteria. Accordingly, the DSEIS should be revised to conclude that impacts due to thermal discharges are "SMALL."

A. Entergy holds a currently valid SPDES Permit.

Entergy holds a currently valid SPDES Permit that governs, among other things, thermal discharges from Indian Point." Any NYSDEC-issued SPDES permit must comply with 6 NYCRR Part 704 (Criteria Governing Thermal Discharges) - 89 Therefore,'compliance with the terms of Entergy's SPDES permit necessarily means that thermal discharges from Indian Point comport with thermal discharge limits contained in 6 NYCRR Part 704.

B. A requirement to conduct future thermal studies does not equate to a finding of thermal impacts.

The DSEIS correctly notes that Entergy will conduct, at the direction of NYSDEC, a three-dimensional study of its thermal discharge. All recently-renewed SPDES permits for power plants in New York of which Entergy is aware have required a similar study; as such, this requirement is not unique to Indian Point or suggestive of any thermal impact. Moreover, the mere requirement to conduct a future study cannot form the basis of an impacts determination.

Accordingly, nothing in the record supports a finding in the DSEIS that thermal impacts are anything other than "SMALL."

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 15 Thank you for ur attention to these comments. Should you have any comments or questions, please n esitate to.telephone me (at 617/570-1612).

Indian Point's owners are responsible for the most significant portion of the costs of the NYSDEC-approved biological monitoring plan, under which $2.0 million dollars annually (in 1981 dollars, escalated) are dedicated to aquatic assessment. Total costs of the program to date exceed $50 million. We are aware of no comparable undertaking by any other NRC licensee.

2 See Letter from William Sarbello (then-a NYSDEC staff person) to Proposed §316(b) Rule Comment Clerk, United States Environmental.Protection Agency (November 9, 2000).

3 DSEIS, .at 4-28 ("additional mitigation options that may be available for the existing cooling system include the following: ... closed-cycle cooling using cooling towers (e.g., hybrid wet/dry mechanical draft towers").

4 See Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, 349 FI3d 1157, 1167(9"' Cir. 2003) (NEPA requires agencies to provide high quality information' including accurate scientific analyses, before decisions are made and actions taken); 40 C.F.R:. § 1500; 1(b) ("NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to the public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. ); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24 ("Agencies shall insire the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.").

5 See DSEIS, at 4-7 ("Given NYSDEC's statements in the proposed SPDES permit, the NRC staff decided to consider the environmental impacts thatmay occur if Entergy-institutes closed-cycle cooling at IP2 and IP3 ... in Chapter 8 of the SEIS"); id. at 4-28.("Because NYSDEC indicated closed-cycle cooling is the best technology available for IP2 and IP3, the NRC staff will review a-cooling tower alternative in Chapter 8 ... ").

6 See DSEIS, at 4-7 (describing 2003 Draft SPDES Permit and associated Fact Sheet); id. at 4-27.

7 See Interim Decision, p. 12 ("Based upon my review of the Second Circuit's construction of section 316(b) and in furtherance of the State's responsibility and authority over its aquatic resources, I am modifying the language in the final step of the State's four-step BTA analysis--.").. --

8 See Interim Decision, at. 24.

9 See NYSDEC staff's Motion to Clarify, at 7 ("it is obvious that NYSDEC staff is now required to reassess its previous BTA determination for Indian Point, as reflected in the current draft SPDES permit."); see also id. at 8

("As recognized in both the Interim Decision and the draft SPDES permit, NYSDEC staff has not had the opportunity to review or determine whether and to what extent closed-cycle cooling or any other as-yet proposed alternatives are actually 'available' at Indian Point.") (internal citations omitted).

10 See Interim Decision, at 20 ("In drafting a SPDES permit for this type of facility, Department staff should first apply the four-step BTA analysis to determine the appropriate BTA technology.").

II See DSEIS, at 2-24 (discussion of HRSA and consent orders).

12 See DSEIS, at 2-49 (discussion of HRSA and consent orders).

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 16 13 HRSA, Section 3(C). In addition to NYSDEC and the owners of the facilities subject to the HRSA, the other parties to the HRSA were the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), the New York State Attorney General, the Hudson River Fisherman's Association, Inc. (now know as Riverkeeper, Inc.), Scenic Hudson, Inc., and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

14 See Fourth Amended Stipulation of Settlement and Judicial Consent Order ("Consent Order"), Ninth Whereas Clause (noting expiration of HRSA). In addition to NYSDEC and the owners of the facilities subject to the Consent Order, the parties to the Consent Order were the Hudson River Fisherman's Association, Inc. (now known as Riverkeeper, Inc.), Scenic Hudson, Inc., and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

15 See Phase 11Rule, Appendix A, 69 Fed. Reg. at 41670-79 (listing selected technology for each EPA modeled facility).

16 Id. at 41605 (emphasis added).

17 See GETS Supplement No. 28 Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Final Report, at 8-2

("The NJDEP identified two alternatives to the current-cooling water system in the 2005 draft NJPDES permit for OCNGS. The NJDEP's preferred alternative is to 'reduce intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a closed-cycle, recirculating cooling system.' This alternative would require replacement of the existing once-through cooling system with a closed-cycle cooling system."). Moreover, the administrative process by which a draft SPDES permit becomes a final permit in New Jersey is far different than the process in New York. In New Jersey, a draft NJPDES permit is subject to public comment and, as necessary, a non-adversarial public hearing to collect additional information: See N.J .A.C. §7:14A- 15. 10(a) (requiring public comment on draft NJPDES permit);

§7:14A-15.12 (allowing non-adversarial public hearings on draft NJPDES permits, under certain circumstances).

NJDEP then issues a final NJPDES permit, which is thereafter subject to an adversarial adjudicatory hearing. See N.J.A.C. §7:14A-15.15(c). In New York, a draft SPDES permit is subject to adversarial adjudicatory hearings before the permit is issued as final. See, generally, 6 NYCRR Part 624. Thus, the content of a final NJPDES permit is left to the discretion of NJPDES staff, whereas in New York, the content of a final NYSDEC SPDES permit is the result of an adversarial adjudicatory proceeding.

[8 40 C.F.R. §1502.14(a) and (c).

19 48 Fed. Reg. 34263, 34267 (1983); see also EPA Policy and Procedures for the Review of Environmental Actions Impacting the Environment, Chapter 4, Section 3(D) ("If significant impacts are associated with the proposal and they cannot be adequately mitigated, EPA's comments should suggest an environmentally preferable alternative, including if necessary, a new alternative. The suggested alternative should be both reasonable and feasible. In this context, such an alternative is one that is practical in the technical, economic and social sense, even if the alternative is outside the jurisdiction of the agency."). -

20 See, e.g., City of New York v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 715 F.2d 732 (2nd Cir. 1983) (applying the "rule of reason" to the inclusion or exclusion of alternatives).

21 DSEIS, at 8-4 (emphasis supplied). See also id. at 8-3 ("... EPA indicated that [closed-cycle conversion cost estimates] may have been somewhat inflated. EPA also indicated some uncertainty with regard to outage duration for the plant retrofit.").

22 40 C.F.R. § 1500. 1(b) (information informing NEPA. analysis must be of "high quality"); id. at § 1502.24

("Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.").

23 DSEIS, at 8-4.

24 The DSEIS appears to include the wrong date for the Indian Point Issues Ruling. See DSEIS, at 8-82 (citing February 3, 2003 rather than February 3, 2006 as the date for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 and 3 - Ruling.

See In the Matter of a Renewal and Modification of a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)

Discharge Permit Pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 17 and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR) Parts 704 and 750 et seq. by

GOODWIN PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 17 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Permittees, February 3, 2006

("Indian Point Issues Ruling")).

_5 See Indian Point Issues Ruling, at 10- 1i ("According to [a third party's counsel], the cost of the cooling towers, and the time necessary for implementation, would be far less than Entergy projected), at 12 ("According to

[a third party's counsel], Entergy's estimates of the costs to retrofit the Stations are inflated, because the retrofit can be performed much more efficiently and inexpensively than Entergy predicts.").

26 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24 ("Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.").

27 See NYSDEC, Hudson River Power Plants Cooling Water System Design Analysis, Technical Report, October 20, 2000, prepared by D.B. Grogan Associates, Inc. (the "Grogan Report").

28 See id. at 3-4 ("(3) The cost estimates and economic analysis presented for the replacement system are reasonable when the same stipulated design and pricing criteria are applied. ... (4) ... Because of open market pricing of both fuel and electricity, the economic impacts of any reduction in power generation efficiency and capacity can be expected to be far more costly than the forecast in the DEIS.").

29 Id. at 3.

30 DSEIS, at 8-3.

See NYSDEC FEIS, at 47 (EPA not included in list of commenters on the DEIS).

32 As the DSEIS correctly notes, the Phase 1I Rule has been suspended in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's vacating the rule in Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475 F.3d 83, 109-10 (2nd Cir. 2007)

("Riverkeeper 11"): Nonetheless, the Phase 1I Rule contains information of value regarding closed-cycle cooling that contradicts the DSEIS and should be included in the FSEIS.

Phase 11 Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. at 41605-06.- Based upon its analysis of cooling system conversions at existing facilities, EPA also concluded that "[w]hile it is true that the vast majority of the new, greenfield utility and non-utility combined cycle plants built in the past 20 years have, wet cooling towers, EPA believes that it is significant that so few existing facilities retrofitted to the technology during the same period. The rarity of this technology as a retrofit further indicates that it is not economically practicable for the vast majority of existing facilities." Id. at 41606.

See Enercon Comments.

See Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule, EPA 821-R-02-003, April 2002 ("Proposed TDD"), at 4-4 ("The Palisades plant constructed the main portions of the tower system in 1972 and,1973, while the plant operated in once-through mode. Construction finished by early 1974. In August of,1973 the plant experienced the beginning of a sizable outage (ten months), which according to Consumer's Energy was due primarily to the connection and testing of the recirculating system.").: -

36 See 69 Fed. Reg..at 41605 (emphasis supplied) ("Some commenters also assert that EPA underestimated the down time that the facility would experience as it converts to cooling towers. This, again, is not an impact that would be experienced by new facilities. EPA agrees that such down time can be significant. Indeed, one of the four retrofit case studies [for Palisades]EPA developed indicateda down time of 10 months, and EPA believes it is reasonableto infer that many otherfacilities would experience the same loss."); see also Proposed TDD, at 4-5

("Through research into the historical electricity generation of the plant, the Agency confirms that the outage of ten-months occurred .... However, the Agency notes that it was unable to obtain specific records to show the cause(s) of the outage."). In the final Phase 1I Rule, EPA revised its previous estimate for a closed-cycle cooling conversion outage duration for nuclear facilities upward from 7 months to 10 months. Compare Phase II Rule NODA, 68 Fed.

Reg. at 13525 ("... EPA is incorporating the new information which suggests that cooling system conversions at nuclear power plants may take seven months."); with Phase II Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. at 41605.

See Proposed TDD, at 4 4-4.

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 18 38 National Audubon Society v. Dept. of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 205 (4th Cir. 2005) ("It goes without saying that additional site-specific [information] will enhance the environmental consideration that NEPA already requires.").

39 See In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3),

ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDO 1, July 31, 2008.

40 See DSEIS, at 4-9 ("Because the proposed SPDES permit (which includes NYSDEC's 316(b) determination regarding the cooling water intake structure) is still in draft stage and subject to ongoing adjudication, the NRC staff conducted an independent impact analysis for the purpose of addressing the Category 2 issues identified in Table 4-2 of this draft SEIS.").

41 See Sierra Club v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 116 F.3d 1482, **13-14 (7th Cir. 1997) ("For these reasons, the Court finds that serious questions exist with respect to the scientific accuracy of the FSEIS' projections of population trends for management indicator species. Absent a rational response to the ornithologists' criticisms and an explanationfor the failureto compile more recent data through the monitoringrequiredby the 1986 Plan, the Court finds that the reliance upon the 10-year-old Graber data to be arbitrary and capricious.") (emphasis supplied).

42 See Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, 349 F.3d 1157, 1167 (9t" Cir. 2003); 40 C.F.R.

§ 1500.1 (b); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24 ("Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.).

43 See FEIS, at 2, n. 2; Appendix VI-l-D-1 of the DEIS (which provides the annual numbers that are used to calculate the average number which appears in Table 2 of the FEIS).

44 See Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, et al. v. DEC, Civil Index No. 6747/03.

45 Decision and Order, at 3, 6.

46 See Decision and Order, at 3; FEIS, at 4.

47 See Interim Decision, at 38 ("The [FEIS]. expressly contemplated further scrutiny of the environmental impacts associated with the site-specific BTA chosen for the Stations."); id. at 39 ("[t]he specific impacts of closed-cycle cooling at the Stations, as well as such interim measures as flow reductions and fish protection outages proposed in the draft permit, were not fully examined in the FEIS."), id. ("[A]n SEIS should be prepared to examine the significant adverse environmental impacts that are not already addressed in the FEIS ... ").

48 See DSEIS, at 8 8-24.

49 See Riverkeeper, Inc. v: EPA, 358 F.3d 174, 189-91 (2nd Cir, 2004) ("Riverkeeper I").

50 The DSEIS correctly notes that "[r]egardless of the NRC staff's findings, the NRC does not have the regulatory authority to implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act, and it is not up to the NRC staff to judge the validity of Entergy's or others' claims. in the ongoing NYSDEC SPDES permit process." DSEIS, at 8-4. In the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("ASLB") July 31, 2008 decision regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, the ASLB held that "it is clear that ... (5) in accordance with CWA §51 1(c)(2), as implemented by the Memorandum of Understanding between [NRC and EPA], the NRC is prohibited from determining whether nuclear facilities are in compliance with CWA limitations, assessing discharge limitations, or imposing additional alternatives to further minimize impacts on aquatic ecology that are subject to the CWA .... ." In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BDOI, at 138 (July 31, 2008). Thus, the NRC cannot impose restoration, closed-cycle cooling, or any other CWA requirement as a condition of the license.

51 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) and (c).

52 See 48 Fed. Reg. 34263, 34267 (1983); see also EPA Policy and Procedures for the Review of Environmental Actions Impacting the Environment, Chapter 4, Section 3(D) ("The suggested alternative should be both reasonable and feasible. In this context, such an alternative is one that is practical in the technical, economic and social sense, even if the alternative is outside the jurisdiction of the agency.").

53 The modified existing once-through cooling system with restoration alternative is also unreasonable because it incorrectly assumes that closed-cycle cooling represents the baseline level of "net impact" that must be

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 19 achieved. For all of the reasons stated in Sections I and III, there is no basis under NEPA to evaluate closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point or assume closed-cycle cooling must serve as the benchmark for all other NEPA alternatives.

54 See DSEIS, at 1-6 to 1-7. See also Entergy's Environmental Report ("ER"), at 3-1 (indicating no changes with respect to the operation of Units 2 and 3 during the license renewal period).

55 See 42 U.S.C. §4334(C)(i) (requiring a detailed statement by the responsible federal agency on the environmental impact of the proposed action) (emphasis supplied). NRC's regulations implementing NEPA acknowledge this basic principle. See 10 C.F.R. §51.71 (d) ("the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action") (emphasis supplied).

56 See DSEIS, at 2-9, 2-11 to 2-13.

57 Id. at 2-50.

58 See id. at 4-12 (Table 4-3).

59 Fletcher, R.I. 1990, Flow dynamics and fish recovery experiments: Water intake systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society("Fletcher (1990)"), at 414.

60 See DSEIS, at 4-21 ("The NRC staff did not include the results of this pilot study during or following the application of the WOE approach.").

61 See DSEIS, at 4-21 ("[T]here have been no additional data since 1990 to validate any impingement mortality estimates.").

62 See Fletcher (1990), at 412.

63 See Fletcher (1990), at 414 ("Further refinements to the Ristroph family of screening systems are possible, of course, but I do not believe that improvements beyond those reported here are apt to bring about greatly enhanced reductions in fish kills."). .

64 SeeScientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission, 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (agency need not "foresee the unforeseeable, but by the same token" agency cannot avoid impact analysis because "describing the environmental effects of... particular agency action involves some degree of forecasting.").

65 See DSEIS, at 4 4-13, 4-21.

66 See Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, section 2.

67 See 42 U.S.C. §4334(C)(i) (requiring a detailed statement by the responsible federal agency on the environmental impact of the proposedaction); 10 C.F.R. §51.71 (d) ("the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects ofthe proposedaction")

(emphasis supplied). :-

68 See DSEIS, at 2-77 69 DSEIS, at 2-52 "

70 See 10 C.F.R. §51.71 (a) (requiring DSEIS to address topics covered in, inter alia, 10 C.F.R. §51.53); 10 C.F.R. §51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) (requiring an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on threatened or endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act).

71 See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (insuring that federal actions are "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species"); id. at §1538(a)(1) (prohibited acts regarding endangered species);

id. at § 1539 (authorizing incidental take permits associated with otherwise prohibited acts involving endangered species).

72 See 50 C.F.R. § 17.11 (list of all species of wildlife determined to be Endangered or Threatened);

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/other.htm# proposed (list of proposed species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS")).

73 See 71 Fed. Reg. 61022, 61023 (October 17, 2006) (adding Atlantic sturgeon to list of candidate species).

GOODWIN j PROCTER Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch Division of Administrative Services March 17, 2009 Page 20 74 See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(c) (biological assessments must be conducted for species which are listed or proposed to be listed).

75 See Dadswell Biological Opinion; see also ER at 4-30.

76 Id. at 16-17 (emphasis supplied).

77 See FEIS, at 26 ("In testimony to the EPA in 1979, NMFS concluded in a Biological Opinion made pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that the once-through cooling system of the power plants did not pose a threat to the shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson River.").

78 See DSEIS, at 4-50 ("The population of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River has increased 400 percent since the 1970s, according to Cornell University researchers (Bain, et. al. 2007)).

79 See Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3, Appendix A Impacts of IP2 and IP3 on Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon in the Hudson River. Moreover, the estimated numbers of impinged shortnose sturgeon reported in Table 4-11 of the DSEIS for the period from 1974 through 1990 is dramatically overstated and should be reduced from 734 to 31. Thus, not only is the dramatic expansion of this population essentially ignored in the DSEIS, but the level of impingement impacts to shortnose sturgeon is erroneously inflated.

so See 15 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A) (authorizing take permits for scientific purposes).

81 See Sierra Club v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 116 F.3d 1482, **13-14 (7th Cir. 1997) (reliance on historic information not arbitrary where absence of more recent information is rationally explained) (emphasis supplied).

82 42 U.S.C. §4332(C) (requiring discussion of appropriate alternatives in impact statements).

83 See DSEIS,-at 4-53 ("The NRC staff notes that it is possible that the 70-acre ... forest at the north end of the site could provide summer habitat for the Indiana bat because of the presence of suitable foraging habitat and possible roosting trees in the forest and the presence of large hibernacula within migration distance of the site.").

84 See DSEIS, Appendix E, at E-12 ý-13.

85 See DSEIS, at 8-9. (with respect to the impacts of the closed-cycle cooling alternative on threatened or endangered terrestrial species, including Indiana bats, the DSEIS states "because of both the site-specific environment and the lack of evidence of the species existing at the facility, potential impacts to these threatened or endangered species are considered SMALL.").

86 See 42 U.S.C. §4332(C) (requiring consultation with Federal agencies with special expertise).

87 DSEIS, at 4-27. -

88 See Declaration of William Little, Esq., submitted in ASLB Proceeding, ¶ 20 ("Before the October 1, 1992, expiration date, both Con Ed and NYPA submitted timely applications to renew their respective SPDES permits. By virtue of those timely renewal applications, pursuant to §401.2 of the New York State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) and 6 NYCRR §621.11(1), the operation of IP2 and IP3 was lawfully extended pending resolution of the pending SPDES renewal applications.").

89 . 6 NYCRR §750-1.1 1(a)(1) (listing SPDES permit requirements); 6 NYCRR §750-2.1 ("Upon issuance of a SPDES permit, a determination has been made ... that compliance with the specified permit provisions will reasonably protect-classified water use and assure compliance with applicable water quality standards.").

90 See e.g., NYSDEC, Final State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit for the James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, SPDES Number NY-0020109, dated July 23, 2008.

ENCLOSURE 3 TO NL-09-036 Enercon Services, Inc. Report dated March 2009, "Response to the Indian Point Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286

Response to the Indian Point Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement L

Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC Prepared by:

Enercon Services, Inc.

500 TownPark Lane, Suite 275 Kennesaw, GA 30144 March 2009

'E N ER CO0N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................... 11i I Draft SEIS Overview................................................................................I 2 Cooling Tower Technology Selection............................................................. 2 2.1 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 2.2 Analysis........................................................................................ 2 2.2.1 Single-Stage vs. Hybrid Mechanical Draft Towers................................... 2 2.2.2 Plume Considerations................................................................... 3 2.3 Response ...................................................................................... 4 3 Applicability of the Oyster Creek Cooling Tower Demonstration to Indian Point............ 5 3.1 Statement ...................................................................................... 5 3.2 Analysis........................................................................................ 5 3.2.1 Recirculation (Plume Entrainment).................................................... 5 3.2.2 Land Use................................................................................. 6 3.2.3 Commercial Availability of Hybrid Towers .......................................... 7 3.2.4 Cost ...................................................................................... 7 3.3 Response ...................................................................................... 8 4 Cooling Tower Outage Duration.................................................................. 9 4.1 Statement....................................................................................... 9 4.2 Analysis........................................................................................ 9 4.2.1 EPA Estimate............................................................................ 9 4.2.2 Site-Specific Outage Determination.................................................. 10 4.3 Response ..................................................................................... 11 5 Cooling Tower Capital Costs .................................................................... *12 5.1 Statement..................................................................................... 12 5.2 Analysis ...................................................................................... 12 5.2.1 NPDES - Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase 11 Existing Facilities; Final Rule ........................................... 12 5.2.2 Entergy Nuclear - Ruling ................... I.......................................... 13 5.2.3 IPEC Site Specific Difficulties ....................................................... 13 5.3 Response ..................................................................................... 15 6 Cooling Tower Ecology Assessment ............................................................ 17 6.1 Statement..................................................................................... 17 6.2 Analysis ...................................................................................... 17 6.2.1 Maintenance Outages .................................................................. 17 6.2.2 VSP/Dual Speed Pump Operation.................................................... 17 6.2.3 Historic Operational Intake Flow Rate............................................... 18 6.3 Response ..................................................................................... 18 7 Cooling Tower Land Use Assessment........................................................... 19 7.1 Statement..................................................................................... 19 7.2 Analysis ...................................................................................... 19 7.2.1 Waste .................................. .................................................. 19 7.2.2 Land Use ............................................................................... 20 7.2.3 Ecology................................................................................. 20 i

E N E RCON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 7.3 Response ....................................................................................................................... 21 8 Cooling Tow er A ir Q uality A ssessm ent .................................... ....................................... 22 8.1 Statem ent ....................................................................................................................... 22 8.2 Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 22 8.2.1 Replacem ent Pow er ......................................................................................... 22 8.2.2 Construction Traffic .......................................................................................... 23 8.3 Response ....................................................................................................................... 24 9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 25 10 References ............................................................................................................................. 28 Attachments Attachment 1: Correspondence and Figures Attachment 2: Endangered Species Analysis for Indiana Bats in Westchester County (Normandeau Associates Inc.)

ii

i EN E R CO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Indian Point Energy Center, owned by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, are seeking a renewal of the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission published the draft facility-specific supplemental environmental impact statement for the license renewal application in December 2008. Several conclusions in the draft SEIS are based on inaccurate or misconstrued information. This engineering response to the draft SEIS has been prepared to address the most significant engineering errors and/or misconceptions identified in the draft SEIS.

The draft SEIS has been reviewed by Enercon Services, Inc. from an engineering standpoint, especially with regard to the discussion of closed-cycle cooling in the draft SEIS. This response focuses on seven responses regarding the conclusions presented in the draft SEIS on the potential environmental impact of the closed-cycle cooling alternative. Responses on cooling tower implementation focus on the draft SEIS discussion of the cooling tower technology selection, the outage duration, the capital costs, and the Oyster Creek cooling tower demonstration. Responses on the environmental impacts of constructing cooling towers include responses to the assessments of the impacts of conversion to closed-cycle cooling on the ecology, land use, and air quality at Indian Point.

The impact of conversion of closed-cycle cooling is summarized in the draft SEIS as twelve conclusions, six of which are likely overly conservative: land use, aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, air quality, waste, and transportation. Each of these conclusions is impacted by at least one of the seven responses. Each conclusion is assessed using the following criteria from the draft SEIS:

SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

A summary of the original assessments provided in the draft SEIS and the engineering responses are provided below:

Land Use (DraftSEIS - SMALL to LARGE, Response - LARGE) o Draft SEIS estimates the impact on land use would be SMALL to LARGE as the construction of the towers would require approximately 40 acres of land, and waste disposal may require a large amount of offsite land.

o Per engineering analysis, the clear-cutting of approximately 40 acres of forested land and the removal of approximately 2.1 million cubic yards of soil, rock, and debris would have a LARGE impact.

III

ENERCON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Ecology: Aquatic (DraftSEIS - SMALL, Response - SMALL) o Draft SEIS estimates the impact on the aquatic ecology would be SMALL as the entrainment of aquatic organisms, as well as heat shock, would be reduced substantially.

o Per engineering analysis, the conversion to closed-cycle cooling could reduce entrainment by an additional 79-percent, at most, significantly less than the 93-to-95-percent reduction predicted. Therefore, the improvement over existing conditions is overstated due to comparison with design flow rates rather than normal operating flow rates.

• Ecology: Terrestrial (DraftSEIS - SMALL to MODERATE, Response - LARGE) o Draft SEIS estimates the impact on the terrestrial ecology would be SMALL to LARGE as the onsite forest habitats would be disturbed and drift from towers may affect vegetation.

o Per engineering analysis, 38% of the onsite forest would be destroyed completely and the remaining vegetation would be damaged by cooling tower plume drift, resulting in a LARGE impact.

" Air Quality (DraftSEIS - SMALL, Response - NERA Analysis) o Draft SEIS estimates the impact on air quality would be SMALL as the primary impacts would be from vehicles and equipment emissions during construction and from replacement power. Additionally, these impacts should be limited by existing regulations.

o Per engineering analysis, emissions would increase due to construction (5 years) and replacement power (permanent). As Westchester County already violates existing regulations, the impact of conversion to closed-cycle cooling is understated and is evaluated in detail in the NERA 2009 economic analysis.

" Waste (DraftSEIS- SMALL to LARGE, Response -LARGE) o Draft SEIS estimates the impact on waste would be SMALL to LARGE as the construction would generate approximately 2.1 million cubic yards of soil, rock, and debris requiring offsite disposal.

o Per engineering analysis, the scale of excavation coupled with strontium and tritium contaminated soil and rock would significantly increase waste disposal processing resulting in a LARGE impact.

" Transportation (DraftSEIS- SMALL to LARGE, Response - MODERATE to LARGE) o Draft SEIS estimates the impact on transportation would be SMALL to LARGE as the increased traffic associated with construction (workers and waste disposal) would be significant, though of little effect during operations.

o Per engineering analysis, the increase in traffic would be significant during the construction period (5 years), resulting in a MODERATE to LARGE impact.

iv

ENERCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 1 Draft SEIS Overview Indian Point Energy Center (Indian Point), owned by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (collectively, Entergy), are jointly seeking a renewal of the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3) in Buchanan, New York. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published the draft facility-specific supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the Entergy license renewal application in December 2008 [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008]. This engineering response to the draft SEIS has been prepared by Enercon Services, Inc. (ENERCON) at the request of Entergy. Several conclusions in the draft SEIS are based on incomplete or misconstrued information; this response aims to provide engineering insight to complete or clarify the relevant information.

The draft SEIS has been reviewed by ENERCON from an engineering standpoint, especially with regard to the discussion of closed-cycle cooling. This response focuses on the correct outage period for conversion to closed-cycle cooling, the blasting and waste-removal complications not anticipated in the draft SEIS relating to on-site radiological conditions, and the suggestions regarding alternative closed-cycle cooling configurations (particularly single-stage mechanical draft cooling towers). Several misconceptions, which lead to inaccurate conclusions in the draft SEIS, are identified and discussed in this response.

Throughout the draft SEIS and this response, each conclusion is assessed using the following criteria [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008]:

SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

I

EN ER C 0 N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 2 Cooling Tower Technology Selection 2.1 Statement The draft SEIS notes that "single-stage mechanical draft towers will produce similar decreases [compared to hybrid cooling towers] in impacts to aquatic life" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-5 / Ln. 26-27] and suggests that single-stage towers are an acceptable alternative if hybrid cooling towers "prove prohibitively expensive" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-5 / Ln.

25]. The draft SEIS further claims that single-stage towers "may result in less land-clearing or blasting debris than the hybrid cooling tower option" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-5 / Ln.

27-28]. However, no additional land-clearing or blasting debris would be required by hybrid tower installation. The round hybrid tower configuration selected would minimize the required footprint (discussed in Section 3). In addition, single-stage mechanical draft towers are not a viable option for IP2 and IP3 cooling due to the impacts of the visible plume on the surrounding roads, commercial facilities, and neighborhoods. For these reasons, single-stage towers have been rejected several times [Ref. 10.5, Enercon 2003; Ref. 10.3, Entergy 2007b; Ref. 10.6, NYSDEC 2003a] and there is no basis for further consideration of this technology.

2.2 Analysis 2.2.1 Single-Stage vs. Hybrid Mechanical Draft Towers A single-stage mechanical draft cooling tower is considered impractical for the Indian Point site because of risks created by its associated plume. Under the dominant atmospheric conditions at the site, a dense visible cloud of water vapor and entrained water droplets would be emitted from the tower. A hybrid cooling tower, also referred to as a "wet/dry" or "plume abated" cooling tower, is designed to eliminate visible plumes in the majority of atmospheric conditions. The reduction in visible plume due to hybrid operation is substantial (see Attachment 1). A hybrid tower is the combination of a single-stage wet tower with a dry heat exchanger section. After the plume leaves the lower "wet" section of the tower it travels upward through a "dry" section where heated, relatively dry air is mixed with the plume in the proportions required to achieve a non-visible plume. A potential exists for increased noise with hybrid towers due to additional fans in the dry section, but attenuation to acceptable levels is possible. Additionally, the round hybrid towers selected would require appreciably less ground area than rectilinear towers, as discussed in Section 3. Ground area is especially significant as there is the potential for prehistoric and historic archeological resources to be present on the northeastern portion of the Indian Point site [Ref. 10.25, ENERCON 2007]. If cooling towers were required, one tower would be located on the northeastern portion of the site. Round hybrid towers would minimize the footprint impacted by construction; however, even round hybrid towers could have an impact on historic and archeological resources at Indian Point.

2

EENERCON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 2.2.2 Plume Considerations There are several negative aspects associated with the highly visible plumes of single-stage mechanical draft cooling towers. The following issues are of particular concern at the Indian Point site:

"Degradation of Station equipment, safety, and systems, particularly over time

" Diminished capacity of HVAC systems during periods of plume ingestion

" Interference with plant visually-oriented security systems

" Obscure natural skyline in the area of the plant

• Creation of local fogging and icing conditions in winter

" Long-term shadow from plume can harm vegetation "Associated salt deposition could harm vegetation in the area

" Deposition of pollutants from the Hudson River

" Public psychological association with smokestack emissions The invisible plume of the round hybrid tower addresses the negative aspects associated with the visible plume of the single-stage cooling tower (ground fogging, visually-oriented security systems, long-term shadow over area vegetation, and visual blight). However, the plume is not entirely eliminated by the hybrid tower and some negative aspects remain (salt and pollutant deposition, icing conditions, and moisture-related corrosion). The plume produced by the hybrid tower generally contains less moisture content than the plume produced by the single-stage tower, resulting in reductions in icing conditions and moisture-related corrosion. Additional air flow from the dry section of the hybrid cooling tower enhances mixing with the ambient air and increases the cumulative exit velocity of the plume. The end result is a significantly greater plume height which dilutes the plume density and leads to less concentrated depositions. Therefore, although the hybrid tower does not eliminate all the negative aspects of the highly visible plumes of a single-stage mechanical draft cooling tower, it does reduce the impacts of those not eliminated.

The public concern with these negative aspects is also an important consideration, especially at the Indian Point site. In public hearings on the draft SPDES permit [Ref.

10.7, NYSDEC 2006], several members of the surrounding neighborhoods expressed strong sentiments against the installation of cooling towers at Indian Point:

John Basile, a board member of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, "expressed concern with respect to the plume associated with cooling towers, which could produce ice clouds and rain, leading to hazardous driving conditions and potential damage to homes and other property. Mr. Basile argued that the cooling towers would be a visual blight and would reduce property values in the vicinity of the Stations."

Donald Zern, a local resident and fisherman, said that "if cooling towers were built, a cloud of pollution would kill shrubs, cause frost in the wintertime, and contribute carcinogens to the air."

3

E NENERCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Bernard Molloy, President of Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce, stated that "cooling towers would have a negative visual impact on area viewsheds, and thus a detrimental effect on tourism and recreation-related businesses."

Mr. Siermarco, an engineer that serves as a volunteer liaison between the Village of Buchanan and Indian Point, "expressed concern both with the visual impact of the proposed cooling towers, as well as the saline plume that would be created by the cooling operation and would fall on the Village and surrounding areas. According to Mr. Siermarco... ten percent of the flora in the area would be killed by such a plume...the plume would also contain PCBs from the Hudson River that would be deposited in the area."

The Honorable Daniel O'Neill, Mayor of the Village of Buchanan, contended that

cooling towers would create visual blight as well as a moisture plume that has the potential for health problems from airborne contamination. ... The Village would seek to enforce its zoning laws and other land use laws to prevent cooling towers from devastating the environment in the Village."

The public comments are varied, and range from those with an empirical basis to those brought upon by emotion; however, the comments are representative of the public perception and concerns regarding cooling towers. The hybrid tower would avoid many of the issues raised by local residents and reduce the impact of the others. A plume analysis for the selected hybrid towers was conducted for wet operation only, which conservatively approximates the plume generated by a similarly sized single-stage mechanical draft tower.

The analysis indicated a visible plume 100 meters (m) from the towers during 100% of the year. The visible plume would extend over 600 m from the towers (i.e., beyond the eastern Indian Point property line) during 13.5% of the year. Hybrid towers eliminate the visible plume throughout the majority of the year. Additionally, the evaporative water lost from a single-stage plume would be approximately 1.7% of the total flow, while the losses from a hybrid plume would be approximately 1.5% [Ref. 10.5, ENERCON 2003]. The evaporative water loss corresponds to the amount of water drawn from the Hudson River and correlates directly to salt deposition, icing conditions, and corrosion.

2.3 Response The dense, highly-visible plume associated with single-stage mechanical draft cooling towers makes the technology inappropriate for the Indian Point site. State-of-the-art plume abatement is necessary to ensure that visually oriented security systems are not obscured, hazardous driving conditions are not created, and public concerns are not increased. In addition, the increased moisture deposition of the single-stage plume may compromise plant reliability due to increased corrosion and result in increased maintenance costs. Hybrid cooling towers address many of the negative aspects of the dense, highly-visible plume, and represent the only theoretically viable option for closed-cycle cooling at the Indian Point site.

4

V4ENERCON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 3 Applicability of the Oyster Creek Cooling Tower Demonstration to Indian Point 3.1 Statement The draft SEIS notes that NRC "previously assessed closed cycle cooling with a hybrid cooling tower in the license renewal SEIS for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station" [Ref.

10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-5 / Ln. 19-20]. The Oyster Creek assessment is based on the Determinationof Cooling Tower Availabilityfor Oyster Creek GenerationStation [Ref. 10.8, URS 2006], which was provided in response to the NRC's request for additional information.

First and foremost, closed cycle cooling assessments are site-specific; as such, the conditions determining cooling tower availability at Oyster Creek do not, and cannot, determine or include the full range of conditions that impact the feasibility of closed cycle cooling at Indian Point. Additionally, several of the conclusions concerning round hybrid towers included in the conceptual assessment of cooling towers at Oyster Creek are inconsistent with results from the site-specific cooling tower evaluation performed by ENERCON [Ref. 10.5, ENERCON 2003] for Indian Point. As such, the conclusions regarding Oyster Creek's cooling tower determination should not be considered for assessing the advantages or disadvantages of round hybrid towers at Indian Point.

3.2 Analysis The 2006 Determination of Cooling Tower Availability for Oyster Creek Generation Station conceptually compares six cooling tower options: natural draft, rectilinear mechanical draft, round mechanical draft, rectilinear forced draft wet-dry hybrid, round forced draft wet-dry hybrid, and dry cooling towers. The 2006 determination states that round towers are more susceptible to recirculation and require more land area than rectilinear towers. In addition, the 2006 determination estimated the costs of round hybrid towers to be significantly greater than rectilinear mechanical draft towers. As a result of these assumptions, the round hybrid towers were not fully considered for Oyster Creek. The exclusion of round towers, coupled with the site-specific differences between Oyster Creek and Indian Point, remove the Oyster Creek assessment as an appropriate evaluation basis for either the feasibility or the availability of cooling towers at Indian Point.

3.2.1 Recirculation (Plume Entrainment)

According to Recirculation and Interference Characteristicsof CircularMechanical Draft Cooling Towers, "crossflow circular towers recirculate much less than rectangular cooling towers" [Ref. 10.21, Cooper 1984]. In Cooling Tower Fundamentals [Ref. 10.9, SPX 2006a], SPX notes that the potential for recirculation in a round tower is significantly reduced due to two factors: air flow and plume buoyancy; as such, round towers are shown to be "significantly less affected by recirculation" than rectilinear towers by a factor of 50-80%. SPX Cooling Technologies, a leading cooling tower manufacturer with approximately eighty years in the cooling tower industry, published Cooling Tower Fundamentals [Ref. 10.9, SPX 2006a] which provides a basic overview of the cooling tower technologies available to satisfy design and environmental requirements.

5

ENERCON E ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS According to SPX's Cooling Tower Fundamentals, as air flows around an obstruction, a low-pressure zone forms on the downwind side of that obstruction. Air then rushes into that low-pressure zone by the shortest route possible. If the obstruction is low, flat, and wide (e.g., in a multi-cellular rectilinear cooling tower), the shortest route is over the top of the obstruction. Therefore, any broadside wind increases potential for recirculation in a rectilinear tower. For this reason, rectilinear cooling towers must be carefully oriented with respect to the prevailing onsite wind. If the obstruction is round, however (e.g., in a round cooling tower), the resulting downwind low-pressure zone is "almost negligible" and creates streamlined flow around the obstruction. In addition, round towers are unaffected by orientation with respect to prevailing winds, which allows for greater flexibility in site placement [Ref. 10.9, SPX 2006a].

SPX notes that the buoyancy of the cooling tower plume affects the rate at which it will rise above the ambient air. A plume of greater buoyancy rises more quickly and will be less susceptible to recirculation. If a rectilinear tower is oriented parallel to the prevailing wind, the plume of each cell combines with the downwind cell plume to create a combined plume of greater buoyancy. However, if the tower is oriented perpendicularly to the prevailing wind, the separate, less-buoyant plumes have greater potential for recirculation

[Ref. 10.9, SPX 2006a]. The prevailing winds at the Indian Point site are either north or south through the Hudson River Valley with over 80% of the winds measured within an hourglass-shaped range (northwest to northeast or southwest to southeast) [Ref. 10.5, ENERCON 2003]. As shown in Attachment 1, the Indian Point site would allow for a rectilinear tower orientation nearly parallel to the prevailing winds for IP3; however, due to elevation gradients and the location of the ISFSI, rectilinear towers for IP2 would likely not be oriented parallel to the prevailing wind. As a result, IP3 would experience significant recirculation approximately 20% of the year, while IP2 would likely experience significant recirculation most of the year. With a round tower arrangement, the centralized clustering of the fans would produce a concentrated plume of greater buoyancy, regardless of wind direction [Ref. 10.9, SPX 2006a].

SPX continues by listing another related tower efficiency issue, plume interference between towers. If multiple towers are placed too closely together, the plume from one tower can be recirculated in a downwind tower, thereby resulting in performance degradation. The concentrated plume of the round towers rises more quickly and therefore reduces interference, regardless of wind direction, and allows for greater flexibility in tower placement. Interference considerations may require significant spacing between rectilinear towers to account for the possibility of broadside winds [Ref. 10.9, SPX 2006a].

Air flow and plume buoyancy also affect the occurrence of ground fog and icing due to the cooling tower plume. For the reasons listed above, the round towers reduce ground fog, and thus icing, when compared to the rectilinear towers [Ref. 10.9, SPX 2006a; Ref. 10.12, B&V 1996].

3.2.2 Land Use For the cooling of large water flows, round tower arrangements ordinarily require less plant site area than multiple-cell rectangular cooling tower arrangements of equal cooling duty [Ref. 10.12, B&V 1996, Ref. 10.21, Cooper 1984]. According to Cooling Tower Fundamentals, round mechanical draft "towers can handle enormous heat loads with 6

E N E RCON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS considerably less site area impact than that required by multiple rectilinear towers" [Ref.

10.9, SPX 2006a]. The required land use is also reduced when considering hybrid designs:

"The circular hybrid tower is a much compacter unit and it therefore requires much less ground space than a cell type tower designed for the same performance" [Ref. 10.10, Streng 2000]. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, rectilinear towers must be oriented carefully with respect to the prevailing wind on the site. Since several rectilinear towers are required to handle the large cooling loads of a nuclear power plant, interference considerations determine the placement of these towers with respect to each other. A suitable arrangement of rectilinear hybrid cooling towers to satisfy the cooling requirements of IP2 and IP3 would cover a greater area than the selected single round tower for each unit (see , Section 2).

As stated in the draft SEIS, clear-cutting of onsite trees for cooling tower construction "would destroy fragments of onsite eastern hardwood forest habitat" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-8, Ln. 25-26]. The proposed site for the cooling towers is not only environmentally-sensitive (e.g., the site is a potential habitat for terrestrial endangered and threatened species, specifically the Indiana bat (see Attachment 2)), but also costly to build on, due to rocky terrain, steep slopes, and heavy forestation. Thus, minimizing the area required for tower construction is an important consideration.

3.2.3 Commercial Availability of Hybrid Towers No round hybrid towers have been retrofitted or installed at U.S. nuclear facilities. One round hybrid cooling tower has been constructed at a new nuclear electric-generating facility by Balcke-Dtirr (now owned by SPX) in Europe [Ref. 10.10, Streng 2000; Ref.

10.11, SPX 2006b]. This tower, commissioned in 1988, provides cooling for a 1,300 MW nuclear power plant in Neckarwestheim, Germany.

In 2003, ENERCON was provided a budgetary quote by SPX for round hybrid cooling towers designed to best meet the constraints of the Indian Point site (see Attachment 1, Section 1).

3.2.4 Cost A site-specific cost estimate must account for the specific Indian Point site restrictions. An arrangement of multiple rectilinear towers would be required to provide sufficient cooling for IP2 and IP3 and each of the rectilinear towers must individually be serviced by a separate circulating water inlet pipe train. Compared to the single circulating water inlet pipe train needed for each round cooling tower, the rectilinear piping costs represent a cost increase (i.e., more circulating water pipes are needed and they are typically much longer due to tower placement limitations) [Ref. 10.9, SPX 2006a]. Likewise, as discussed in Section 3.2.3, round cooling towers minimize the area required for tower construction and reduce the required grading and excavation costs, which are of particular significance at Indian Point. While the component cost (tower only) of the round hybrid tower is typically more than the component cost of equivalent rectilinear hybrid towers, the additional piping and excavation costs required for rectilinear tower arrangements are often significant:

"When total system costs are considered, the round tower arrangement generally has a comparable, if not lower, total evaluated cost than the rectangular arrangement for units 500 MW and larger" [Ref. 10.12, B&V 1996].

7

ENERCON E ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 3.3 Response The Indian Point draft SEIS cites the Oyster Creek cooling tower assessment, which is in turn based on the 2006 Determination of Cooling Tower Availabilityfor Oyster Creek Generation Station. The 2006 determination leads to conclusions about the round hybrid technology that are not appropriate for an assessment of closed cycle cooling for Indian Point. At Indian Point, the round tower arrangement offers improved thermal performance due to reduced recirculation potential and requires a smaller site area than rectilinear towers. Furthermore, the Oyster Creek closed cycle cooling assessment is site-specific and does not provide a basis for the feasibility or availability of closed cycle cooling at Indian Point.

8

E NENERCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 4 Cooling Tower Outage Duration 4.1 Statement The draft SEIS states that the 2004 EPA NPDES - Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities (Phase II Rule) [Ref. 10.13, EPA 2004] "indicated some uncertainty with regard to outage duration for the plantretrofit" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-3 / Ln. 40-41] and "indicated that Entergy's outage duration was likely exaggerated" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-4 / Ln. 16]. However, the EPA's 2004 Phase II Rule does not support these claims. EPA does not propose closed-cycle cooling tower technology for Indian Point or any site in the 2004 regulations; although, as part of the justification for not recommending the installation of cooling towers, an EPA case study "indicated a down time of 10 months, and EPA believes it is reasonable to infer that many other facilities would experience the same loss" [Ref. 10.13, EPA 2004]. The general EPA estimate of 10 months for the outage required for cooling tower installation is approximately equal to the 42-week duration estimated by Entergy. Considering the unique challenges that the Indian Point site provides, the 42-week outage duration is considered conservative, and unanticipated construction impacts could extend the estimated duration considerably.

4.2 Analysis 4.2.1 EPA Estimate EPA's 2004 Phase II rule "establishes requirements reflecting the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at Phase I1 existing power generating facilities" [Ref. 10.13, EPA 2004, Pg. 41582]. In this rule, EPA provides generalized compliance guidance, addressing specific facilities on a very limited basis. In the case of Indian Point, the facility is only discussed in terms of impacts on the aquatic environment of the Hudson River. EPA does provide outage duration estimates for specific facilities based on the technology EPA "modeled as the most appropriate compliance technology" for each facility. EPA does not mention the outage duration estimate for cooling conversion at IP2 and IP3, and therefore does not provide basis or "indicate" such estimates were "uncertain" or "exaggerated."

Since EPA does not recommend cooling towers for any facility in the rule and therefore does not present any site-specific estimates for a conversion to cooling towers. "EPA did not select a regulatory scheme based on the use of closed-cycle, recirculating cooling systems at existing facilities based on its generally high costs (due to conversions), the fact that other technologies approach the performance of this option, concerns for energy impacts due to retrofitting existing facilities, and other considerations" [Pg. 41605]. In the justification for not requiring cooling tower retrofits, EPA mentions a case study which "indicated a down time of 10 months, and EPA believes it is reasonable to infer that many other facilities would experience the same loss" [Pg. 41605]. The generalized EPA estimate of 10 months for the outage required for cooling tower installation is therefore 9

ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS ENERCON approximately equal to the Entergy estimate of 42-weeks for the IP2 and IP3 conversion to closed-cycle cooling.

4.2.2 Site-Specific Outage Determination The proposed construction schedule revolves around minimizing the time for which IP2 and IP3 would be off-line. A significant portion of the work, however, cannot be completed while the units are on-line. Construction activities that require the units to be taken off-line include discharge canal modifications, work at or near existing service water lines, tie-in of circulating water supply and return piping, demolition or rerouting of existing systems, and electrical tie-ins. Any modification work involving existing systems will force an outage, as the reactor cannot operate safely without these auxiliary systems intact and functional. Detailed outage considerations are available in ENERCON's 2003 report [Ref. 10.5, ENERCON 2003]. A summary of the proposed outage schedule is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. IP2 and IP3 Cooling System Conversion Schedule Task Discharge Canal Modifications Temporary Quay Wall Selective Demo Dewater and Dredge Intake Construction Permanent Quay Wall Major Excavation of Service Lane Locate Underground Obstructions Drive Sheet Piling Trenching and Excavation Precast Pile and Saddles IP2 & IP3 Pump House Excavation and Selective Demo Construction Mechanical Electrical Install Large Bore Return Piping IP2 & IP3 Condenser Tie-In Reroute Existing Supply Line Install New Supply Piping Tie-in IP2 & IP3 Shake-Out and Testing Pressure Testing Backfill and Repave II1 Final Systems Testing 10

ENERCON E ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS The 42-week outage duration is a conservative estimate for the Indian Point cooling tower retrofit. Several challenges have been identified for the Indian Point conversion to closed-cycle cooling that may extend the necessary outage duration:

a) The conversion to closed-cycle cooling would require significant modifications and/or tie-ins to the condenser and other core components of the plant. After outage work has begun, the units could not be brought back online until the full range of outage installation work had been completed. A setback in any aspect of construction (including administrative delays) after outage work began would extend the outage.

b) Excavation and piping support operations located within the protected area will be extremely time-consuming, with much of the work performed by hand in order to protect existing buried sub-structures and utilities. Pile-driving at the river's edge poses particular safety hazards in addition to safety hazards associated with working in tight spaces such as transmission line clearances. The outage estimate allows only six weeks for the trenching and excavation of the service lane and ten weeks for driving sheet piling. To ensure the safety of excavation workers, the excavation schedule should not be compressed.

c) Tritium and strontium contaminated soil and rock will require specialized excavation and disposal methods. The extent of the soil and rock contamination was not known at the time of the original outage estimation and will undoubtedly slow the excavation process and extend the necessary outage duration [Ref. 10.20, GZA 2008].

d) A reliable and, sufficient craft labor force is assumed in the outage estimate.

Availability of craft labor may be limited due to seasonal outage work at other plants, regular maintenance work at the site, and the potential construction of approximately 29 new nuclear reactors in the United States.

e) The outage estimate is based on an aggressive schedule that requires working double shifts to complete construction activities. The plant proximity to the suburban neighborhoods of Buchanan is likely to limit construction activities at night due to sound ordinances.

4.3 Response Implementation of cooling towers at Indian Point will require extensive onsite blasting, large bore pipe routing and connection, along with several other activities during an extended outage. The current 42-week duration is detailed within Attachment 6 of ENERCON's 2003 Report [Ref. 10.5, ENERCON 2003] and was determined conservatively to assume as short a time as possible. The EPA estimate for the installation of cooling towers in general, while not appropriate for use as an estimate for Indian Point, is approximately equal to the conversion estimate for IP2 and IP3 and does not indicate an exaggerated outage duration. EPA also acknowledges that site-specific concerns could lengthen the necessary outage duration.

II

ENERCO EN N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 5 Cooling Tower Capital Costs 5.1 Statement The draft SEIS states that "both NYSDEC and EPA indicated that estimates for cooling conversion by the previous owners of IP2 and IP3 overestimated a variety of costs and selected a more expensive technology than was necessary" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-4 /

Ln.13-15]. Also, the draft SEIS states that EPA "indicated that [closed-cycle cooling] costs may have been somewhat inflated" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-3 / Ln. 39-40]. Neither the EPA nor the NYSDEC reference supports the claims of overestimated costs.

5.2 Analysis 5.2.1 NPDES - Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule EPA's 2004 Phase II rule "establishes requirements reflecting the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at Phase 11 existing power generating facilities" [Ref. 10.13, EPA 2004, Pg. 41582]. In this rule, EPA provides generalized compliance guidance, addressing specific facilities only on a limited basis. In the case of Indian Point, the facility is only discussed in terms of impacts on the aquatic environment of the Hudson River. EPA does provide compliance cost estimates for specific facilities based on the technology EPA "modeled as the most appropriate compliance technology" for each facility. EPA does not list cost estimates for cooling conversion at IP2 and IP3, and therefore no basis is provided from this reference to indicate such estimates were overestimated or inflated.

Additionally, EPA does not recommend cooling towers for any facility in the rule and does not present any site-specific estimates for a conversion to cooling towers. "EPA did not select a regulatory scheme based on the use of closed-cycle, recirculating cooling systems at existing facilities based on its generally high costs (due to conversions), the fact that other technologies approach the performance of this option, concerns for energy impacts due to retrofitting existing facilities, and other considerations" [Pg. 41605]. As part of the justification for not requiring cooling tower retrofits, EPA "estimates that the total capital costs for individual high-flow plants (i.e. greater than 2 billion gallons per day) to convert to wet towers generally ranged from $130 to $200 million, with annual operating costs in the range of $4 to $20 million" [Pg. 41605]. The EPA estimate is a generalized figure and EPA further acknowledges that "the costs and benefits presented are those developed at proposal... subsequent analyses, such as those presented in the NODA, have resulted in higher costs in general" [Pg. 41604] and that these estimates "may not have anticipated some site-specific costs or the costs for retrofit may exceed those EPA considered" [Pg.

41603]. EPA does not provide a breakdown of the conversion to wet towers cost estimate as EPA rejected the conversion to closed-cycle cooling towers option and the report focused on the cost of options not rejected. Therefore, a direct comparison of the generalized EPA estimate to the IP2 and IP3 estimate is not possible, but the cost 12

E N E RCON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS difference can reasonably be assumed to stem from several site-specific challenges, which are briefly outlined below and presented in detail in ENERCON's 2003 report.

5.2.2 Entergy Nuclear - Ruling The draft SEIS claims that NYSDEC indicated that estimates for cooling conversion were overestimated in a ruling in the matter of a renewal and modification of the SPDES Discharge Permit for IP2 and IP3 on February 3, 2003 [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-82 /

Ln. 36-41]. NYSDEC did not provide the draft permit until November 12, 2003; therefore, a February 3, 2003 ruling on the modifications in the draft would not have been possible.

According to the NYSDEC Office of Hearings and Mediation Services, "the administrative proceedings concerning the [SPDES permit renewal] commenced with legislative hearing sessions on January 28, 2004. Therefore, the NYSDEC Office of Hearings and Mediation Services did not issue any rulings prior to the February 3, 2006 ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge Maria E. Villa (see Attachment 1, Section 1)."

The correct reference is assumed to be the February 3, 2006 ruling and the remainder of this response will address that reference.

The NYSDEC 2006 ruling documents the concerns raised during public hearings and the issues proposed for adjudication during the issues conference. Presentations were made by NYSDEC and Entergy during the public hearing; however, the presentations by NYSDEC and Entergy are not recorded in the ruling. No statement by NYSDEC regarding the cost of conversion is recorded in the public hearings portion of the ruling. In the issues conference, the estimated conversion costs are addressed in relative terms, namely, whether the costs of conversion are "wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits to be gained" [Pg. 29]. The issue is not the numerical estimate of the conversion costs, but rather the determination of what value should be considered "wholly disproportionate." In related documents, NYSDEC states that "the projected capital cost to construct hybrid cooling towers is approximately $740 million" [Ref. 10.14, NYSDEC 2003b] and that "the information presented in the DEIS regarding cooling tower design and cost estimates is generally reasonable" [Ref. 10.6, NYSDEC 2003a]. These statements do not support the claim that NYSDEC considers cost estimates to be overestimated.

5.2.3 IPEC Site Specific Difficulties ENERCON developed a preliminary construction cost estimate for the proposed round hybrid towers of $739,680,000 [Ref. 10.5, ENERCON 2003]. This site-specific estimate is higher than the generalized estimate presented in the 2004 EPA rule due to the acknowledged underestimation by EPA and several major site-specific costs at the Indian Point facility. The most significant site-specific costs are discussed below:

a) Approximately 40 acres of heavily-wooded land area must be cleared for placement of the cooling towers and the necessary cut back for air intake and safety zone. This means approximately 38% of the total amount of wooded land area on the Indian Point Site must be cleared [Ref. 10.3, Entergy 2007b; Ref. 10.5 ENERCON 2003]. The proposed area for the IP2 cooling tower pad is heavily forested with larger old-growth trees. The tree removal, clearing, and grubbing required prior to the construction of cooling towers will reduce the site's natural 13

EýN E0 NENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Fj] ENERCON erosion control. Environmental protection in the form of silt fencing and, if required, a collection basin would be necessary to prevent run-off from operations at both pad locations into the river. The tree removal and environmental protection measures represent additional site-specific costs.

b) The proposed IP3 cooling tower pad is located atop a portion of the Algonquin Gas Transmission pipelines, which is a major supplier of natural gas to the city of New York. This pipeline would have to be relocated approximately 700 feet south of its existing location to accommodate the construction of the IP3 cooling tower. It is likely that Spectra Energy Transmission (Spectra), the owner and operator of the Algonquin Gas Transmission, would require Entergy to bear any costs or expenses related to relocating the pipeline. The estimated cost of this work is approximately $25 million, based on information regarding relocation of existing gas pipelines in the New York City area. Significant additional costs may be introduced in the relocation negotiations with Spectra. Additionally, Spectra may conclude that the relocation is not acceptable; in that case, the proposed siting of the IP3 cooling tower is not likely to be acceptable at any cost.

If the relocation of the pipeline were approved, all relocation activities would have to be complete before work related to the IP3 cooling tower could begin.

c) Existing overhead and underground utilities create significant challenges for installation of the large bore piping required for return and supply lines to the towers. A matrix of underground utilities will require relocation and isolation. A significant portion of this work must be performed manually in order to protect remaining sub-structures and utilities; hence it will be time consuming, labor intensive, and expensive.

d) Blast removal is the only feasible excavation method at IPEC, based on the quantities of inwood marble (a crystalline metamorphic rock "made from" limestone with considerable heat and pressure) bedrock requiring removal (approximately 2.1 million cubic yards). Considering the proximity, volume, and overall complexity of this project, the input and guidance of one of the world's leading and most respected precision blasting experts, Dr. Calvin J. Konya was solicited. Dr. Konya's report aptly emphasizes the need to hire a professional blasting company based on a variety of criteria and not simply the lowest bidder (ENERCON 2003). Dr. Konya's initial cost estimate for drilling and blasting is over $62 million.

e) Tritium and strontium contaminated soil and rock will require specialized disposal methods. The soil and rock contamination was not known at the time of the original cost estimation and will undoubtedly be a significant source of increased costs.

f) As discussed in Section 2, selection of the hybrid cooling tower is required to meet Indian Point site restrictions. Hybrid towers are appreciably more expensive than wet towers due to the addition of a "hot" section requiring additional fans and an extensive network of heat exchangers. Because of the brackish water 14

ENERCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS present in the Hudson River at the Indian Point site, titanium heat exchangers must be utilized for corrosion control, at significantly increased costs.

g) Industry standard contingency for conceptual design estimates range from 20-30 percent of overall cost according to RS Means and industry experience. This type of contingency relates to typical unknowns such as labor availability and productivity, inclement weather, and additional issues raised with final, detailed engineering designs. The minimum recommended contingency for the IP2 and IP3 conversion to closed-cycle cooling was therefore $123 million (20% of the estimated cost), which was included in the final estimate. This contingency represents a significant cost that is likely underestimated as the Indian Point site is likely to experience more inclement weather and final design issues than the minimum expected for any construction project.

h) The cost of decommissioning the cooling towers is not included in the cost estimate. Financial assurance for decommissioning would be required for license renewal; therefore, the funding for cooling tower decommissioning would need to be secured.

i) As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, Village of Buchanan "would seek to enforce its zoning laws and other land use laws to prevent [the construction of] cooling towers" [Ref. 10.7, NYSDEC 2006]. Local opposition could increase the difficulty of obtaining the necessary permits for conversion to closed-cycle cooling. Any unexpected delays in the schedule would result in increased construction costs.

The site-specific estimate of $740 million was determined using direct quotes for vendors (SPX, Johnston Pump, Northwest Pipe, Mercer Rubber) for all major components and standard construction industry costing references (RS Means, Construction Industry Institute, Engineering News Record). A detailed breakdown of the major cost drivers in the estimate is available in ENERCON's 2003 report [Ref. 10.5, ENERCON 2003]. This cost estimate includes only the minimum recommended contingency and assumes the current value of engineering and construction of the project without inflation, labor rate increases, material market impacts, or other escalating criteria. Additionally, the cost of decommissioning is not included. The estimate was prepared with the goal of reflecting the lowest reasonable cost for conversion, and is therefore as conservative as responsibly possible. Historically, as design engineering continues and related concerns and encumbrances are better defined, cost of construction increases.

5.3 Response The cost estimate for the conversion of IP2 and IP3 to closed-cycle cooling is a conservative calculation, based on several site-specific challenges. The statement in the draft SEIS that EPA and NYSDEC indicate "inflation" and "overestimation" of the conversion costs is unsupported by the provided references. In the 2004 Phase II rule, EPA provided a generalized estimate for existing facilities' conversion to closed-cycle cooling with wet towers. The EPA did not intend for this figure to apply to any specific facility and their estimate is not appropriate to use in that manner. In the 2006 ruling in the matter of the IP2/3 15

ENERCON EN ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS SPDES permit renewal, the NYSDEC neither stated that Entergy overestimated their costs nor provided a competing estimate. The issue of whether the costs would be "wholly disproportionate" to the expected benefits is the only cost-related matter discussed in the ruling and does not provide sufficient support for the claims of NYSDEC indicating an overestimation. The conversion cost estimate detailed in ENERCON's 2003 report is a conservative, site-specific determination where the actual construction costs are likely to be significantly higher.

16

ENERCO E N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 6 Cooling Tower Ecology Assessment 6.1 Statement It is stated that "during the summer months, when water use is at its highest, service and cooling tower makeup water would be withdrawn at a rate of approximately 250,000 to 314,000 1pm (66,000 to 83,000 gpm) for the combined needs of IP2 and IP3. This would be a 93-to-95-percent reduction in water use compared to the existing IP2 and IP3 once-through systems, which have a normal design flow rate of 3,200,000 1pm (840,000 gpm) for each unit"

[Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-7 / Ln. 31-36]. The actual flow rate of the IP2 and IP3 once-through systems is significantly lower than the design flow rate. An accurate evaluation of the closed-cycle cooling reduction in water intake must be based on the actual water intake flow at Indian Point, not the design flow rate.

6.2 Analysis Hudson River intake water is used at Indian Point for circulating water and service water. In order to determine the actual intake flow, the service water intake flows of 30,000 gpm at IP2 and 36,000 gpm at IP3 should be included in total River intake calculations. Additionally, water from the IP 1 river water pumps can be used to supplement the IP2 SW System with up to 16,000 gpm of water. This service water intake will not be affected by the conversion to closed-cycle cooling; therefore, the baseline flow (licensed design flow) is 886,000 gpm for IP2 and 876,000 gpm for IP3. Since Entergy purchased Indian Point in 2001, the annual flow reductions from the baseline flows have been approximately 14% for IP2 and 29% for IP3.

The greatest reductions in flow occur in February, March, and April at IP2 and January, February, March, and April at IP3. The reductions from baseline flow correspond to planned refueling outages, periods of lesser flows through the service water system due to reduced cooling demands, periods of lesser flows through the circulating water system via the dual-speed and variable speed pumps (VSPs), and unplanned outages.

6.2.1 Maintenance Outages At Indian Point, maintenance (refueling) outages are staggered so that IP2 and IP3 are not offline at the same time. There is generally a nominal amount of service water flow entering the CWIS for whichever unit is off-line. Refueling outages occur every 24 months for each unit, which results in an outage each year for one unit or the other.

Refueling and maintenance outages typically last approximately 25 days. Outages are scheduled, where reasonably practicable, in a manner sensitive to entrainment considerations, typically during the late spring entrainment period, with the result that only one unit is operating during that outage period each year.

6.2.2 VSP/Dual Speed Pump Operation The operation of IP2 and 1P3 is limited to protect the surrounding aquatic ecological resources. These limits translate to flow reductions that are achieved by dual-speed pumps installed at IP2 and variable-speed pumps installed at IP3. The maximum flows are utilized only when necessary to ensure the safe operation of the facility or to comply with the thermal standards set forth in the SPDES permit [Ref. 10.15, NYSDEC 2003c]. The 17

ENERCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS design flow rate is approached only during the hottest months; at all other times flow rates are significantly decreased.

6.2.3 Historic Operational Intake Flow Rate Both planned and unplanned periods of reduced power decrease the actual amount of flow entering the CWIS. Additionally, periods of reduced flow through the service water and circulating water systems result from reduced cooling needs. These flow reductions are considered reductions in the baseline flow and, therefore, are considered to be operational measures meant to reduce entrainment.

Indian Point supplied eight years (2001-2008) of measured intake flow data for IP2 and IP3. Table 2 shows the monthly and annual average historic flow rate reductions from the baseline design value. The annual average historic (2001-2008) intake flow rate for IP2 is 765,440 gpm, which represents a 14% reduction in flow from the baseline flow value of 886,000 gpm. For IP3, the annual average historic intake flow rate is 624,340 gpm, which represents a 29% reduction in flow from the baseline flow value of 876,000 gpm.

Table 2. Flow Reduction from Baseline (2001 -2008)

Month IP2 IP3 January 22% 52%

February 28% 54%

March 29% 60%

April 26% 51%

May 13% 29%

June 3% 5%

July 2% 3%

August 2% 3%

September 2% 2%

October 5% 7%

November 21% 36%

December 13% 43%

Annual 14% 29%

6.3 Response Comparison of current once-through to closed-cycle water use must be benchmarked against the actual intake water volume, including the effects of VSPs, dual-speed pumps, and maintenance outages. Based on historical operational flow (2001-2008), IP2 and IP3 utilize only 86% and 71% of their total intake capacity (i.e., circulating water and service water combined), respectively. This corresponds to an existing 21% average reduction from the maximum entrainment at IP2 and IP3. At most, the conversion to closed-cycle cooling could reduce entrainment by an additional 79-percent from on the design flow rates. This reduction is significantly lower than the 93-to-95-percent reduction predicted in the DSEIS.

18

ENERCON E ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 7 Cooling Tower Land Use Assessment 7.1 Statement The draft SEIS estimates the impacts on waste, land use, and the ecology to range from SMALL to LARGE. However, as the draft SEIS acknowledges, the clearing of 16 hectares (ha) (40 acres (ac)) of forested land and the excavation of 2.1 million cubic yards (cy) of soil, rock, and debris represents a significant part of the anticipated environmental impacts of the closed-cycle cooling alternative. The impacts of land clearing and excavation on some resource areas may be underestimated. Reuse and recycling of excavated material is likely to be extremely limited due to soil and rock contamination. The potential for reuse and recycling is sufficiently small that the conclusions in the draft SEIS are overly conservative.

7.2 Analysis 7.2.1 Waste "Based primarily on the large volume of rock and soil that would require offsite transportation and may require disposal, the draft SEIS concludes that waste-related impacts associated with the closed-cycle cooling alternative at IP2 and IP3 could range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on whether material can be reused or recycled" [Ref.

10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-12 / Ln. 7-10]. This conclusion of the waste-related impact should be reassessed because strontium and tritium contaminated soil and rock have been discovered at Indian Point [Ref. 10.20, GZA 2008]. Due to the discovery of this contamination, excavated materials may need to be tested for contamination and any contaminated spoils must be disposed of properly. Also, additional protective measures may be required to protect workers, the public, and the local ecology.

Currently, there are three commercial low-level waste (LLW) disposal sites in the United States. Only one of these sites will accept waste from Indian Point: EnergySolutions Clive Operations (Clive), located in Clive, Utah. Clive accepts waste from all regions of the United States, but is licensed by the State of Utah for Class A waste only [Ref. 10.16, NRC 2007]. Class A wastes may have a maximum tritium concentration of 40 curies/m 3 or a maximum strontium concentration of 0.04 curies/m 3 [Ref. 10.17, 10 CFR 61] If both tritium and strontium contamination is present, the maximum concentration of both radionuclides is determined by the sum of fractions rule, as described in 10 CFR 61.55.

The sum of fractions rule significantly reduces the maximum concentration allowed of both (or either) radionuclide. If the radionuclide concentrations exceed these values, there is currently no disposal site that will accept the contaminated material. In addition to the maximum concentrations, Class A waste must be packaged according to 10 CFR 61.56.

The testing and packaging of the materials will slow the excavation process and add significant costs to the construction budget.

The radionuclide concentration in the excavated materials cannot be accurately determined until excavation is underway. The volume of material requiring LLW disposal is expected to be significant. If it is assumed that 5% of the spoils are contaminated, 105,000 cy of LLW would need to be removed from the site.

19

99: ENERCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Based solely on the large magnitude of excavation required, the impact on waste should be considered LARGE. The additional disposal requirements of any contaminated soil and rock further exacerbates this LARGE impact.

7.2.2 Land Use The draft SEIS "concludes that construction activates associated with cooling tower installation at IP2 and IP3 would result in SMALL to LARGE land use impacts, depending largely on how much material Entergy is unable to reuse or recycle, and where Entergy disposes of excavated material that cannot be reused or recycled" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-7 / Ln. 17-20]. Conversion to closed-cycle cooling will require approximately 16 ha (40 ac) of land for cooling tower construction and roughly 305 m (1000 ft) of river bank for the installation of water pipes. The clear-cutting and excavation of these areas will certainly have noticeable effects on land use at Indian Point. NYSDEC requires a Mined Land Reclamation permit for any mining operation from which more than 750 cubic yards of minerals are removed during a twelve month period [Ref. 10.22, 6 NYCRR Part 421].

For each 12 month period of excavation at Indian Point, an average of 420,000 cubic yards of soil, rock, and debris (mostly inwood marble) would need to be removed. Although, as a construction site, the Indian Point excavation would be exempt from obtaining this permit, it is impossible to justify a SMALL impact to land use when the same excavation would be considered a major project under the Mined Land Reclamation Law if cooling towers were not built following excavation [Ref. 10.22, 6 NYCRR Part 421].

Additionally, the potential for reuse and recycling of the excavated materials is much lower than previously thought, due to the soil and rock contamination discussed in Section 7.2.1.

The disposal of nearly all 2.1 million cy of excavated soil, rock and debris (mostly inwood marble) is likely to have significant offsite land use impacts. The total disposal volume is greater than 50% of the total crushed marble sold or used in the U.S. in 2005 and if the excavation were operated commercially, Indian Point would be the 3 rd largest crushed marble quarry currently in operation in the U.S. [Ref. 10.23, USGS 2007]. It is expected that construction activities associated with cooling tower installation would result in LARGE land use impacts, due to the scale of construction needed and the contamination present at the site.

7.2.3 Ecology The draft SEIS "concludes that the aquatic ecological impacts (including those to threatened and endangered species) from the construction and operation of the hybrid mechanical-draft closed-cycle cooling alternative for IP2 and IP3 would be SMALL" [Ref.

10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-8 / Ln. 20-22]. Roughly 305 m (1000 ft) of river bank must be clear-cut and excavated to install large-diameter water pipes. River banks play a significant role in aquatic ecology and the required river bank excavation at Indian Point is likely to have both short-term and long-term effects on the aquatic ecology of the Hudson River. In the short term, excavation will remove most of the vegetation along the affected length of river bank, destroying that section of habitat. In the long term, much of the vegetation is likely to grow back, but the presence of cooling towers and the associated piping and support systems will have a significant impact on the localized run-off and 20

EN ERC0 N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS groundwater flows. These changes could affect the local stability of the aquatic environment and are not mentioned in the conclusion presented in the draft SEIS.

Additionally, the draft SEIS "concludes that the overall effect on terrestrial ecology would be SMALL to MODERATE" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-9 / Ln. 16-17). Construction of cooling towers will require approximately 16 ha (40 ac) of land, most of which is presently wooded. The installation of cooling towers will permanently destroy the required area of eastern hardwood forest habitat. Although Indian Point is located near the Blue Mountain Reservation, the portion of forest located at Indian Point is cut off from the reservation by a strip of development and two four-lane highways. Therefore, the relocation of displaced species is extremely limited. It is likely that many of the local terrestrial species, potentially including terrestrial endangered (e.g., Indiana bat (see Attachment 2)) and threatened species [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-9 / Ln. 8-10], are essentially confined to the Indian Point site and construction activities would destroy a significant portion of that localized terrestrial ecosystem. The effects of closed-cycle cooling conversion are likely to have a LARGE effect on the terrestrial resources confined at or very near Indian Point.

7.3 Response The clear-cutting and excavation required for closed-cycle cooling conversion at IP2 and IP3 will have long-lasting effects on local environmental resources. These effects may be underestimated in the assessment of conversion effects on waste, land use, and ecology provided in the draft SEIS. Strontium and tritium contamination in the excavated materials will have significant waste-related impacts. The clear-cutting and excavation of 16 ha (40 ac) of wooded area and the disposal of 2.1 million cy of excavated materials will have significant land use impacts. The combination of soil and rock contamination and large areas of clear-cut and excavated habitat (38% of the total wooded area at the site) could have significant impacts on ecological resources. In addition, excavation of this quantity and type of material (inwood marble) would require blasting to be conducted onsite, which would in turn require regulatory approval and introduce the possibility of disturbing current groundwater plumes. It is likely that impacts in any of these environmental resource areas will be LARGE.

21

i EN ERC ON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 8 Cooling Tower Air Quality Assessment 8.1 Statement The draft SEIS states that the air quality effects from replacement power would "cease when IP2 and IP3 return to service, with exception of any output lost to new parasitic loads from the closed-cycle cooling system" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-10, Ln. 35-36]. The output lost to parasitic loads and thermal efficiency losses from the closed-cycle cooling system is not negligible. The draft SEIS also claims that "the amount of pollutants emitted from construction vehicles and equipment and construction worker traffic would likely be small compared with total vehicular emissions in the region" [Pg. 8-10 / Ln. 43 to Pg. 8-11 / Ln. 2].

8.2 Analysis 8.2.1 Replacement Power The conversion to closed-cycle cooling will decrease the net power output of IP2 and IP3.

The reduction in net power output is due to the parasitic loads of cooling tower operation and thermal efficiency losses from condenser and turbine operation at suboptimal conditions. The losses that would result from the conversion to closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point are tabulated in Table 3.

Utilizing mechanical draft cooling towers instead of once-through cooling would introduce significant additional electrical loads, termed "parasitic losses", which reduce Station output. The towers have "wet" and "dry" section fans, 44 in each section, at 300 and 350 horsepower, respectively. Additionally, for the closed-cycle configuration, circulating water system horsepower would also be increased. The net effect would be an annual average parasitic loss of approximately 26 megawatts for each unit.

Moreover, converting the condenser cooling system of an existing plant from once-through to closed-cycle operation presents fundamental design problems. The design of the condenser and turbine is based on the anticipated inlet temperature of the condenser cooling water. If the condenser cooling water is not as cold as the as-built design requires, then the condenser heat rejection is reduced and the backpressure on the turbine increased.

With an increase of backpressure on the turbine, performance is significantly affected, and ultimately generator output is reduced. This issue is of significant consequence at Indian Point. River water temperatures are low throughout the year, and the condenser/turbine package was designed accordingly. Cooling towers, through evaporative cooling, cannot match the low temperature of the river intake. In the winter months the impact is lessened, but the summer performance will suffer appreciably. Lost generation due to thermal efficiency losses at maximum load conditions would be approximately 47 megawatts for IP2 and approximately 27 megawatts for IP3. On an annual average basis, the effect is less, but still significant at about 15 megawatts for IP2 and about 6 megawatts for IP3.

22

ENERCON E ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Table 3. Losses due to conversion to closed-cycle condenser cooling at IPEC, in MW(e)

IP2 IP2 IP3 IP3 IPEC IPEC (max) (avg) (max) (avg) (max) (avg)

Parasitic Electrical 26.48 26.48 52.96 Thermodynamic Efficiency 47 15 27 6 74 21 Total 73.48 41.48 53.48 32.48 126.96 73.96 The total annual average decrease in Indian Point power output, including power lost to parasitic loads and thermal efficiency losses is approximately 74 megawatts (Table 3). At maximum load conditions, the net power output loss is approximately 127 megawatts.

Replacement power is likely to come from existing generating facilities within the New York City metropolitan area. Many of these facilities are coal- or natural-gas fired and therefore the generation of the required replacement power is likely to have an impact on local air quality. The African American Environmentalist Association (AAEA) has raised the issue of environmental justice with respect to the required replacement power.

According to the AAEA, "there are 24 power plants in the New York metropolitan area, and only a small number of those plants are located in areas not predominantly populated by minorities" [Ref. 10.7, NYSDEC 2006]. The AAEA contends that "restrictions on Indian Point's operations would shift the burden of air pollution to minority communities."

The air quality impacts of generating an annual average of approximately 74 megawatts replacement power will be a permanent impact due to the closed-cycle cooling conversion.

8.2.2 Construction Traffic The construction of cooling towers will require an average work force of 300 and will take an estimated 62 months. During the outage phase of the effort, the work force will peak at approximately 600. It is anticipated that the majority of the workforce will be temporary.

Only a small percentage of this work force will look for permanent residence in the area. A work force of approximately 950 is generally on-site during a routine refueling outage.

However, a routine refueling outage lasts only about four weeks, compared to over five years for the construction of cooling towers. The increased construction-related vehicle emissions will include workers commuting, running equipment on site, and the vehicles required to remove 2.1 million cy of excavated material. During the estimated 30 month excavation schedule, 350,000 round trips would be needed to remove the excavated materials in 6-cy dump trucks. To achieve this rate of excavation, a loaded truck would have to leave the site every 3.5 minutes, if excavation continued 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day.

The draft SEIS notes that "the entire States of New Jersey and Connecticut are designated nonattainment areas for ozone (8-hour standard). Several counties in Central and Southeastern New York within a 50-mi radius [of Indian Point] are also in nonattainment status for the 8-hour ozone standard" [Pg. 8-10 / Ln. 23-26]. Westchester County is in nonattainment status, along with every county bordering Westchester and most others in the immediate area [Ref. 10.18, EPA 2008a]. A nonattainment status indicates that an area violates a national ambient air quality standard established in the Clean Air Act. The health risks associated with ground-level ozone pollution include lung irritation (wheezing, coughing), permanent lung damage, aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, pneumonia 23

E NENERCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS and bronchitis [Ref. 10.24, TRC 2002]. NO, and VOC emissions from vehicles are the primary contributors to ground-level ozone formation [Ref. 10.19, EPA 2008b]. NO, pollution is also associated with respiratory health risks: damage to lung tissue, reduction in lung function, and respiratory illness - bronchitis [Ref. 10.24, TRC 2002]. In addition to the human health effects, ground-level ozone pollution increases susceptibility of plants to disease, reduces crop and forest yields, aesthetically damages leaves and trees, and damages rubber and fabrics. NO, pollution deteriorates water quality (oxygen depletion) and is a precursor to acid rain formation. Both ground-level ozone and NOx pollution impair visibility. Though the construction-related vehicle emissions may represent a marginal increase from normal conditions in the area, the nonattainment status indicates that significant air problems already exist and would be exacerbated by any increase in emissions.

8.3 Response The draft SEIS concludes that overall impact to air quality is likely SMALL because "air quality effects during construction would be controlled by site practices and compensatory measures required to maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act (CARA) (should a conformity analysis show the need to take other action), because replacement power would be required to also comply with CAA requirements (and it would be short lived), and air quality effects during operations would be minor" [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008, Pg. 8-11 / Ln. 29-33]. The assumption that CAA standards will be met is not reliable, as IP2 and IP3 are located near several areas that currently violate CAA standards. The air quality impact of the construction activities will span a period of five years and are likely to undermine current efforts to reduce ozone pollution in surrounding areas to national standards. The permanent impacts of generating 127 megawatts of replacement power at peak load conditions may be significant, depending on which facilities generate replacement power, and may raise environmental justice issues. In an area with existing air quality issues, the effects of Indian Point conversion to closed-cycle cooling are likely to be noticeable and may even destabilize efforts to address current issues. Therefore, the impact of conversion to closed-cycle cooling on air quality is understated and is evaluated in detail in the NERA 2009 economic analysis [Ref.

10.26, NERA 2009].

24

ENERCO E-. N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 9 Conclusion The NRC published the draft facility-specific SEIS for the Entergy license renewal application for Indian Point in December 2008 [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008]. This engineering response to the draft SEIS has been prepared to address the most significant engineering errors and/or misconceptions identified in the draft SEIS.

The draft SEIS presented conclusions on the potential environmental impact of the closed-cycle cooling alternative for twelve impact areas [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008]. The conclusions of the draft SEIS are likely to be overly conservative for six of the twelve areas considered: land use, aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, air quality, waste, and transportation. These conclusions should be reassessed using the most recent information available, particularly regarding groundwater contamination, current operating procedures, and plant net power output losses due to the installation of cooling towers.

These conclusions are assessed using the following descriptions [Ref. 10.1, NRC 2008]:

SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

Summary of Evaluated Environmental Impacts of a Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative and ENERCON Responses Impact Draft SEIS Evaluation ENERCON Response Category Impact I Comment Impact I Comment Clear-cutting of 16 ha Construction of towers (40 ac) of forested land SMALL to requires about 16 ha and removal of 2.1 Land Use LARGE (40 ac). Waste disposal LARGE million cubic yards of may require much soil, rock, and debris offsite land. would have significant impact. (Section 7)

While the aquatic Entrainment and impact of conversion to Ecology: impingement of aquatic closed-cycle cooling Aquatic SMALL organisms, as well as SMALL would be SMALL, the Aquatic heat shock, would be improvements over reduced substantially. existing conditions are overstated. (Section 6) 25

E ENERCON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Summary of Evaluated Environmental Impacts of a Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative and ENERCON Responses Impact Draft SEIS Evaluation ENERCON Response Category Impact [ Comment Impact [ Comment 38% of onsite forest Onsite forest habitats would be destroyed Ecology: SMA4LL to disturbed while drift LARGE completely. Remaining Terrestrial MODERATE from towers may affect vegetation would be vegetation. damaged by drift.

(Section 7)

Releases to surface water would be treated as necessary to meet No Water Use and permit requirements.

Quality Runoff from Engineering Rsos construction activities Response is likely to be controlled.

Emissions would Primary impacts from increase from vehicles and equipment No construction (5 years) emissions during Engineering and replacement power Air Quality SMALL construction, as well as Response, (permanent).

replacement power. NERA Westchester county Existing regulations Analysis already violates existing should limit effects. regulations. (Sections 3, 8)

Construction would Scale of excavation generate about 2 coupled with strontium Waste SMALL to million cubic yards of LARGE and tritium LARGE soil, rock,offsite requiring and debrissoil rock would increaseand ririgofsie waste impact. (Section disposal. 7)

Workers experience minor accident risk No Human Health SMALL during construction. No Engineering impacts on human Response health during operation.

26

EN ERC 0 N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Summary of Evaluated Environmental Impacts of a Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative and ENERCON Responses Impact Draft SEIS Evaluation ENERCON Response Category Impact Comment Impact Comment No impact to offsite No Socioeconomics SMALL housing or public Engineering services occurs. Response Increased traffic associated with Significantly increased SMALL to construction (workers MODERATE traffic during Transportation LARGE and waste disposal) to LARGE construction period of would be significant, five years. (Section 8) though little effect during operations.

Construction of two towers, 150 to 165 ft tall, would have a No Aesthetics MODERATE noticeable impact on Engineering the aesthetics of the Response site. Minor noise issues could occur.

Historical and Existing procedures are No Archeological SMALL adequate to protect Engineering resources on the espone Resources largely-disturbed site. Response No significant impacts are anticipated that No Environmental SMLL could no Justice disproportionately enpone affect minority or low- Response income communities.

27

E NE RCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 10 References 10.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3." Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. DRAFT 10.2 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007a. "License Renewal Application -

Indian Point Energy Center." April 23, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML071210507 10.3 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. "Applicant's Environment Report, Operating License Renewal Stage." (Appendix E to Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, License Renewal Application). April 23, 2007. Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML071210530.

10.4 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2007c. "Supplement to License Renewal Application (LRA) Environmental Report References." November 14, 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML073330590.

10.5 Enercon Services, Inc. (ENERCON). 2003. "Economic and Environmental Impacts Associated with Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration." Kennesaw, GA. June 2003.

10.6 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003a. "Final Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits for Roseton 1 and 2, Bowline 1 and 2, and Indian Point 2 and 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations,Orange, Rockland, and Westchester Counties. Hudson River Power Plants FEIS." June 25, 2003.

10.7 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2006.

"Entergy Indian Point 2 and 3 - Ruling. In the Matter of a Renewal and Modification of a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Discharge Permit Pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 17 and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR)

Parts 704 and 750 et seq. by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Permittees." February 3, 2006.

10.8 URS Corporation (URS). 2006. "Determination of Cooling Tower Availability for Oyster Creek Generating Station, Forked River, New Jersey." March 2, 2006.

10.9 SPX Cooling Technologies (SPX). 2006a. "Cooling Tower Fundamentals." 2 nd Edition.

Overland Park, Kansas.

10.10 Streng, Andreas Ph.D (Streng). 2000. "Circular Hybrid Cooling Towers." Cooling Tower Institute, January 31, 2000. CTI Paper No: TPOO-1 1.

28

ENERCO N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 10.11 SPX Cooling Technologies (SPX). 2006b. Brochure. "Hybrid Cooling Towers." May 2006.

10.12 Black & Veatch (B&V). 1996. "Power Plant Engineering." Edited by Lawrence F.

Drbal. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. pp. 362-363.

10.13 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities." FederalRegister, Volume 69, Number 131, pp. 41576-41693. Washington, DC. July 9, 2004.

10.14New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b. Fact Sheet. "New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Draft Permit Renewal with Modification, IP2 and IP3 Electric Generating Station, Buchanan, NY."

November 2003.

10.15 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003c. "Draft State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Discharge Permit." 2003.

Available at URL:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits ej operations pdf/lndianPointSPDES.pdf.

Accessed February 2, 2009.

10.16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Website. "NRC: Locations of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities." Available at URL: http://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/Iocations.html. Accessed February 4, 2009.

10.17 10 CFR Part 61.55. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

10.18 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008a. Website. "Areas Designated for the 1997 Air Quality Standards I 8-hour Ground-level Ozone Designations I US EPA."

Avaliable at URL: http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/statedesig.htm. Accessed February 9, 2009.

10.19 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008b. Website. "Air Emission Sources I US EPA." Available at URL: http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/. Accessed February 9, 2009.

10.20 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA). 2008. "Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report, Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, New York." Norwood, Massachusetts. January 7, 2008.

10.21 Cooper, John (Cooper). 1984. "Recirculation and Interference Characteristics of Circular Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers." Presented at the 1984 Cooling Tower Institute Annual Meeting. Houston, TX. February 6-8, 1984.

29

ENERCO Eq,, N ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 10.22 6 NYCRR Part 421. New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Title 6, Department of Environmental Conservation, Part 421. "Mineral Resources (Mined Land Reclamation):

Permits." Effective January 18, 1995.

10.23 United States Geological Survey. (USGS). 2007. "2005 Minerals Yearbook, Stone, Crushed." Willett, Jason. February 2007.

10.24 TRC Environmental Corporation. (TRC). 2002. "Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Village of Buchanan, New York: Emissions Avoidance Study." Lyndhurst, NJ. August 2002.

10.25 Enercon Services, Inc. (ENERCON). 2007. "Phase 1A Literature Review and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site, Westchester County, New York." Tulsa, OK. March 2007.

10.26NERA Economic Consulting, (NERA). 2009. "Economic Analysis of Nuclear Regulatory Commission DSEIS for Indian Point." Boston, MA. March 2009.

30

-- ENERCON ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Attachment 1 Correspondence and Figures Section 1: Correspondence Section 2: Figures

' E E N E R C 0NENERCON ON AttachmentRESPONSE 1,Section 1: TO IPEC DSEIS Correspondence NYSDEC OHMS Email Regarding NYSDEC Reference From: adn To:

Subject. Re: Entergy Nudear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nudear Indian Point 3, LLC-:Ruling, February 3, 2003 Date: Thursday, January 1S, 2009 10:16:13 AM Ms. Brown:

The administrative proceedings concerning the referenced electric generating facilities commenced with legislative hearing sessions on January 28, 2004. Therefore, the DEC Office of Hearings-and Mediation Services did not issue any rulings prior to the February 3, 2006 ruling issued byAdministrative Law Judge Maria E. Villa.

The February 3, 2003 date referenced in the untitled 2008 NRC document mentioned in you e-mail is an unfortuate typographical error.

Daniel P. O'Connell Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings and Mediation Services NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, First Floor Albany, New York 12233-1550 Telephone: 518-402-9003 FAX: 518-402-9037

>>> "Ashlie Brown" <abrown@enercon.com> 01/15/09 9:43 AM >>

Good morning, I just spoke with your office on the phone about the following reference in a 2008 NRC document:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b.

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 and 3-Ruling. In the Matter of a Renewal and Modification of a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)

Discharge Permit Pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 17 and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and 40 Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR) Parts 704 and 750 et seq. by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Permittees. February 3,.2003.

We were not able to locate this reference, however we did locate a similarly title ruling with a date of February 3, 2006 rather than February 3, 2003.

I have accessed the 2006 ruling via the NYSDEC website, and believe it to be the correct reference.

I would like to have a record stating that the 2003 ruling does not appear in your records. I would greatly appreciate a response to this email, simply stating that the 2003 ruling that is referenced above could not be found at the Office of Hearings and Mediation Services for the NYSDEC.

Thank-you very much.

Sincerely, Ashlie Brown Mechanical Engineer Enercon Services, Inc.

(770) 919-1931 x563 I

ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS Aj ENERCON Attachment 1, Section 1: Correspondence SPX Cooling Technologies Budgetary Quote for Round Hybrid Cooling Towers Sam Beaver From: John.Arntson@marleyct.spx.com Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:31 PM To: sbeaver@enercon.com Cc: JIM.VANGARSSE@marleyct.SPX.COM

Subject:

Indian Point Budgetary Pricing Sam, Please see the attached spreadsheet for the revised pricing.

The main changes are a significant reduction in the cost of the fintube bundles, cost of the exterior structure based upon a preliminary design, and elimination of other costs which were included in other categories inthe previous breakdown. I have been working on the cost of the exit cone but so far have not tied this price down (a fabric membrane structure). What we have innow should be very conservative.

The pricing is now inthe ballpark of escalated GKNII when adjusted for titanium tubes and labor rates.

Indian Point Study Budgetary Pricing (615103)

Cooling Tower Item (Delivered & Installed) Price Fin Tube Bundles with titanium tubes $ 27,400,000 Mechanical equipment including VFD's $ 17,250,000 Dry section inlet and return piping $ 3,540,000 Wet tower section and mixing tunnels .$ 32,900,000 Sound attenuation $ 10,800,000 Concrete wall @ fans $ 5,725,000 Exterior galv. steel structure with concrete deck incl. Ladders, platforms, stair towers $ 7,460,000 Exit cone (erected) $ 13,300,000 Rolling Doors or Louvers (erected) $ 882,000 Misi. equipment, supervision, & labor $ 5,443,000 Budgetary Total = $ 124,700,000 Preliminary MateriallLabor Breakdown: 2/31113 Cooling Tower Basin, Foundations. Misi. Concrete Supports Concrete: 11400 Rebar: 1140 Budgetary Price = $ 15,800,000.00 Preliminary Materlal/Labor Breakdown: 30 %170%

2

ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS

, ENERCON Attachment 1, Section 2: Figures Round Hybrid Cooling Tower Footprint vs. Linear Single-Stage Cooling Tower Footprint i#/j ,------ at--.....

! i/ I

• 1- * - *-7W.,: .....

4no r

" ~~~INDIANPOINTSl

&S4Dll *tIANP INT

'OONOENSERCOO UNGC;ONVERSDON RALTERNATE SITE LAYOUT

..... I * ,i I.

3

ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 14ENERCON Attachment 1, Section 2: Figures Hybrid Cooling Tower Plume vs. Single-stage Cooling Tower Plume 4

ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS F* ENERCON Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Endangered Species Analysis for Indiana Bats in Westchester County (Normandeau Associates, Inc.)

ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS

'" ENERCON Attachment 2 ENDANGERED SPECIES ANALYSIS FOR INDIANA BATS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDIAN POINT SITE Preparedfor ENERCON SERVICES, INC.

500 Town Park Lane, Suite 275 Kennesaw, GA 30144 Preparedby NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.

25 Nashua Road Bedford, NH 03110 R-19998.002/001 March 2009 I

ES N E R C r~ 0 N ENERCON RESPONSE TO Attachment IPEC DSEIS2 INDIANA BATS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRIBUTION Nearly all of Westchester County, including the Indian Point area, is within the predicted range of the Indiana bat, according to the NY Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP 2008). Although no records of Indiana bat hibemacula, maternity roosts, or other summer roosts arc reported from Westchester County as of February, 2008 (NYNH P 2008), the known distribution of Indiana bats in southeastern New York and surrounding states suggests that this species is likely to be present in the county.

Numerous areas within 70 miles of the Indian Point site are known to provide summer and winter habitat; 70 miles is well within the known dispersal capabilities of the Indiana bat (IJSFWS 2007).

The Williams Mine Complex, located roughly 42 miles north from Indian Point near the Town of Kingston, Ulster County, hosted nearly 30,000 over-wintering Indiana bats annually between 2000 and 2006. There are eight and live known maternity colonies in Orange and Dutchess Counties, respectively. Morris County, NJ hosts two active hibemacula which have hosted an annual maximum of 115 and 537 Indiana bats between 2000 and 2006, and there arc known maternity colonies in northern New Jersey, including five in Morris County and one in Sussex County (UJSFWS 2007).

Although there is a historic hihernacula located in Litchfield County, CT this location was not occupied by Indiana bats during the 2000-2006 period. There is a current (2000 -2006) record of a single individual over-wintering in New Haven County, CT. There are no known maternity roosts in C(1 (US FWS 2007).

Fifty-eight female bats from the Williams Mine complex were tagged between 2004 and 2007, and 42 were subsequently relocated at maternity colonies in Orange and Dutchess Counties (Hicks, ct al.

2008). Tracking efforts were intensive for the 3-week life of the radio tag batteries, and included ground and aerial tracking. Repeated use of the same locations over multiple years during these studies suggests high site fidelity, which has been observed in the results of other Indiana bat maternity roost surveys (USFWS 2007). A limited radio telemetry study of Indiana bats from hihernacula in Mornis County, NJ suggests that those bats remain local to their over wintering habitat (Chenger et al. 2007).

Male Indiana bats and non-reproductive females are generally not present at maternity colonies.

Research indicates that they will roost singly or in small groups, and tend to be more dispersed across the landscape, as compared to reproductive females (USFWS 2007). Most of the effort to find Indiana bat summer locations has focused on maternity colonies, and knowledge about the distribution of summer habitat is therefore incomplete. Because Indiana bats have the capability to be highly mobile it is likely, even certain, that some individuals do use Westchester County during the summer, where suitable habitat (roost trees) is present.

ROOST TREE SUITABILITY In summner, most reproductive females occupy roost sites under the exfoliating bark of dead trees that retain large, thick slabs of peeling bark. Primary roosts usually receive direct sunlight for more than hal f the day. Roost trees measured in I5 different studies averaged just under 18 inches in diameter and were typically within canopy gaps in a forest, in a fence line, or along a wooded edge. Habitats in which maternity roosts occur include riparian zones, bottomland and floodplain habitats, wooded wetlands, and upland communities. Because adult males are less energetically constrained then reproductive females, they can accept a wider range of roost conditions, including cooler 19980oo21ooI am101o9 NormandeauAssociates, Inc.

2

EN ERCON IAttachment ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS 2

INDIANA BATS INWESTCHESTER COUNTY temperatures. Males accept small trees more often than do females, and they may be more tolerant of shaded sites. Like female Indiana bats, adult males roost primarily tinder bark and less often in narrow crevices. Indiana bats have been recording using 23 different species of tree fir roosting, and the tree species used is generally the species in that particular location most likely to exhibit the characteristics of a preferred roost site, i.e., large, with exfoliating bark and good thermal properties.

Indiana bats are only rarely recorded using non-natural roosts, but have been documented using buildings, bat boxes, and highway underpasses (USWFS 2007).

WHITE NOSE SYNDROME White Nose Syndrome (WNS) is a condition that debilitates cave-hibernating bats during hibernation.

Most affected bats are presumed to die, though carcasses arc difficult to locate. Aln 80 to 100%

decline in the number of ovcr-wintcring bats has been documented at caves known to harbor WNS.

The cause and mechanism of spread of WNS remains unknown, and a variety of research efforts are in progress to understand the syndrome (Hlicks et al. 2008).

WNS was first identified in 2006. at a single hibernaculom in Schoharie County, NY. In 2007 WNS was identified in five additional NY hibcrnacula near Albany, out of 23 searched in NY, VT. MA, CT and PA. By 2008, WNS was confirmed in 27 out 65 caves searched in NY, VT, MA, (Cf, IPA, and NJ.

All but one of the surveyed locations within 80 miles of the original site were confirmed positive in 2008, and these positive caves were located in NY, VT, MA, and CT (Hicks, et al. 2008). Monitoring is underway throughout the northeast for the 2008-2009 winter season.

Based on the results of the 2008 surveys, all cave-hibernating species appear to be affected by WNS.

Little brown bats were most affected, i.e., had the biggest decline in numbers hibernating from 2007 to 2008. Indiana bats also decline severely in some locations, but registered only small declines in other locations (Hicks ct al. 2008). Based on these preliminary data, WNS has the potential to have a severe population level impact on Indiana bats, as well as other species.

WHITE NOSE SYNDROME AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The Center for Biological Diversity wrote a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on January 29, 2008 (CBD, 2008a). The letter asked the agency to close to recreational use all caves and abandoned mines in the eastern United States whcre tbur federally listed endangered bat species are known to hibernate. There has been no apparent action on this request at the federal level. Ilowever, at tile state and local level, closures are being implemented, as this post from US Cavers Fornim demonstrates (ht-pJ/nssnI*cL-brfruni.roboards28.con/indcex.egi'?oiard=b-ats&action=

disola &thread=1236 accessed Feb 2, 2009):

Apparently many caves arc being closed due to the White Nose Syndrome. A few states are sending letters to private cave owners and/or putting out advisories to stay out of caves or mines with bats such as New York, Vermont, and New Jersey. Also Connecticut. New Ilampshire and West Virginia are also considering doing the same.

T'he National Speleological Society (NSS) http://caves.orlfrprescrves has closed the John Guilday Caves Nature Preserve aka Trout Rock Caves which includes Trout Cave, New 19998 00Wo) V1a0109 2 NormandeauAssociates, Inc.

3

ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS ENERCON E Attachment 2 INDIANA BATS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY Trout Cave, and Hamilton Caves, McFail's Cave, Barton liull Nature Preserve which includes Gage Caverns, Keyhole Cave and Greenes Cave, Schoharie Caverns.

The Northeastern Cave Conservancy has closed all the caves they own Cave Preserves and many other privately owned caves, state owned caves and government owned cave properties are also expected to be closed.

If you have knowledge of a closed cave please post the information so cavers will know which caves remain open for caving. Thanks Thc thread continues, listing multiple other closings in caves across the east.

On April 14, 2008 a letter of intent to sue was written by the Center for Biological Divcrsity and co-signed by the Adirondack Council, Friends of Blackwater. HIeartwood, and Restore: The North Woods. The agencies named in the letter were the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Federal I lighway Administration, Army Corps of [ngineers, National Park Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Department of Defense. The conservation groups asserted that federal agencies conducting activities potentially harmful to four endangered bat species must revisit these projects in light of the new threat of white-nose syndrome. The activities include logging, road-building, prescribed burning on public lands, and federally financed highway construction (C0I) 2008b).

"The law and common sense require federal agencies to reexamine their activities in light of this horrific threat to bats," said Mollie Matteson. conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Logging and road-building have pushed these bats closer to extinction for decades. White-nose syndrome could be the final blow, which is why action is needed now to prevent the loss of these important species." (CBI) 2008b).

19908,002A001 3110509 .3 NormandeauAssociates, Inc.

4

ENERCON RESPONSE TO IPEC DSEIS

-4 ENERCON Attachment 2 INDIANA BATS INWESTCHESTER COUNTY REFERENCES Center for Biological Diversity. 2008a. Mysterious Disease 'hrcatens the Survival of North American Bats; Conservation Groups Ask for Immediate Protections. Press Release January 29, 2008. htto://www.biologicaldiversitv.ormlnews/prcss rcleasesl2008bfats-01-29-2008.html Center for Biological Diversity. 2008b. Lawsuit Will Be Filed to Protect Endangered Bats From Deadly White-Nose Syndrome. Press Release April 14, 2008.

htt://www.biologicaldiversity.orejnews/press relea.ses/2008/bats-04-14-2008.hmnxl Chcnger, J., Christenson, K., Craddoek. M., Hopkins, M., Frantz, K., Machauer, W., Pyle, A.,

Rhome, K., Sanders, C., Shearer, A., Sinander, 'I'., Sturgcss, L., Van Dc Venter, J. 2007. Two Mines and len Bats. Paper given at the 2007 Northeast Bat Working Group Meeting. North Branch, NJ, January 9-1I, 2007.

Hicks A., l lerzog, C., Vonlinden, R., Darling, S., Coleman, .I. 2008. Whitc Nose Syndrome: Updates and Current Status (Power Point Presentation) Available on line at:

http://www.eaves.org/WNS/wnsweb/index.html Accessed January 15, 2009.

New York Natural I-leritage Program. 2008. Indiana Bat Species Report. Available on line at:

http:/www.acris.nynh~or,/r____p.rphpidL 7405 Accessed Jan 15, 2009.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) L)raft Recovery Plan:

First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 258 pp.

192995002/001 3110M0 4 NormandeauAssociates, Inc.

5

ENCLOSURE 4 TO NL-09-036 NERA Economic Consulting Report dated March 2009, "Economic Comments on Nuclear Regulatory Commission DSEIS for Indian Point Energy Center" ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286

March 2009 Economic Comments on Nuclear Regulatory Commission DSEIS for Indian Point Energy Center Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC NERA Economic Consulting

Project Team David Harrison, Jr., Ph.D.

Albert L. Nichols, Ph.D.

Meghan McGuinness David Nagler NERA Economic Consulting 200 Clarendon Street, 11 th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Tel: +1 617 927 4500 Fax: +1 617 927 4501 www.nera.com

Contents Contents Co n tents ....................................................................................................................................... i L ist o f T ab le s ............................................................................................................................. iii E xecutive Summ ary .................................................................................................................... 4 I. Int ro ductio n ............................................................................................................................. 6 A . B ackground ..................................................................................................................... 6 B. Objectives of This Report ........................................................................................... 7 C. Outline of the Report .............................................................................................. 8 II. Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Related to the Electricity System ........... 9 A. Overview of DSEIS Analysis and Conclusions Regarding Socioeconomic Impacts Related to Electricity Market Effects .......................................................................... 9

1. DSEIS Analysis of Electricity Market Effects........................................................ 9

2. DSEIS Conclusions Regarding Socioeconomic Impacts ...................................... 9

3. Limitations of the DSEIS Information on Electricity System Impacts .................... 9 B. Information on the Indian Point Outage Period .......................................................... 10 C. Information on the Effects of Indian Point Outage on Electricity System Reliability .... 11

1. Significance of Indian Point to the Electric System ............................................. 11

2. New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Assessments ......................... 12

3. National Research Council Study ......................................................................... 12 4 . M odeling R esults ..................................................................................................... 13 D. Information on the Effects of Indian Point Outage on Electricity Prices ..................... 14

1. National Research Council Study ....................................................................... 14 2 . M odeling Results ................................................................................................... 14 E. Conclusions Regarding the Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling ........... 15 III. Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling on Air Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions ........... 16 A. Overview of DSEIS Approach and Conclusions Regarding Air Emissions Effects ........ 16

1. DSEIS Conclusions Regarding Air Emissions Effects ......................................... 16

2. Limitations of the DSEIS Information on Air Emissions Effects .......................... 16 B. Lost Output Due to Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems ................................................... 17 C. Emission Rates for Replacement Power ....................................................... I................. 18

1. Likely Sources of Replacement Power ................................................................ 18 2 . E m issio n rates ......................................................................................................... 18 D. Estimated Increases in Emissions .............................................................................. 19

1. Carbon Dioxide (C0 2) ......................................................................................... 20

2. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) ...................................................................................... 20 E. Significance of the Increased Emissions .................................................................... 20

1. Comparisons of Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Required Reductions under RGGI .... 20

2. Comparisons of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions to CAIR Required Reductions ....... 21 F. Conclusions Regarding Air Emission and GHG Emission Impacts of Closed-Cycle C o o ling ......................................................................................................................... 21 NERA Economic Consulting

Contents IV. Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System ............... 23 A. Overview of DSEIS Approach and Conclusions Regarding Aquatic Effects ......... 23

1. Identification of "Environmental Component or Value to be Protected".............. 23

2. DSEIS Conclusions Regarding Aquatic Ecosystem Effects ................................. 23

3. Method for Developing Species Ratings ............................................................. 24

a. L ines of Evidence ......................................................................................... 24

b. Overall Rating for Each Species .................................................................... 25 B. Lack of Connection between "Environmental Component or Value to be Protected" and Information Developed in DSEIS ...................................................................... 25

1. A ssessm ent of C ausality ..................................................................................... 25

2. Quantification of Population Impacts .................................................................. 26

3. Meaningful Aggregation across Species .............................................................. 27 C. Limitations of DSEIS Information on the Implications of Uncertainty ...................... 27

1. Information that Can Narrow Uncertainties .......................................................... 28

2. Sensitivity to Alternative Assumptions ................................................................ 28 D. Conclusions Regarding Aquatic Ecology Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Co o ling S y stem ............................................................................................................. 29 V . C o nclu sio ns .......................................................................................................................... 30 R e feren c es ................................................................................................................................ 31 NERA Economic Consulting ii

List of Tables List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Results of DSEIS Evaluation for Two Alternatives ............................... 7 Table 2. Summary of Lost Electricity Output due to Cooling Towers .................................... 17 Table 3. Estimated Emission Rates for Existing and New Gas-Fired Replacement Power ......... 19 Table 4. Estimated Emissions Associated with Replacement Power Required by Cooling Tower Installation and O peration ......................................................................................... 19 Table 5. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary from DSEIS ................................ 24 NERA Economic Consulting iii

Executive Summary The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") in December 2008 released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("DSEIS") in connection with the license renewal application for Indian Point Energy Center ("IP") Units 2 and 3. This report provides comments outlining corrections of mischaracterizations in the DSEIS from an economic perspective.

The DSEIS considers nine different alternatives or scenarios. NERA Economic Consulting

("NERA") has reviewed the DSEIS from an economic perspective, focusing on two of these scenarios, both of which assume the NRC renews the operating licenses. In one scenario, the two IP units continue to operate with a once-through cooling system. The other scenario assumes that the New York State Department of Environment and Conservation ("NYSDEC") requires retrofit of a closed-cycle cooling system with two cooling towers. The DSEIS rates impacts of each scenario in twelve impact categories using the following three-level qualitative scale:

" SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

" MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

" LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

We identify corrections related to three impact categories developed in the DSEIS.

1. Socioeconomic Impacts of License Renewal with Closed Cycle Cooling (DSEIS -

SMALL; Response - LARGE)

" The DSEIS lists socioeconomic impacts, which include electricity system impacts, as SMALL. The DSEIS acknowledges that the need for replacement power during construction may affect electricity prices and reliability, but dismisses this concern because of a contention that plant operators would be able to schedule outages to avoid summer peak demand periods and thus avoid reliability and price impacts.

• Based upon engineering judgment (provided by Enercon) that it would not be feasible to avoid a summer outage and an economic assessment of the existing information on the importance of IP units to the electricity system, the socioeconomic impacts of license renewal with closed cycle cooling should be categorized as LARGE.

2. Air Emissions (Including Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Impacts of License Renewal with Closed Cycle Cooling (DSEIS - SMALL; Response - LARGE)

• The DSEIS concludes that air quality impacts would be SMALL, based upon arguments that (a) any air quality effects related to vehicle and equipment emissions during construction 4

Executive Summary would require compensatory measures to comply with Clean Air Act ("CAA") requirements, (b) replacement power would be required also to comply with CAA requirements (and would be short lived), and (c) air quality effects during operations would be minor.

" Based upon rough estimates of the likely increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides ("NOx")

and carbon dioxide ("C0 2") from replacement power during the outage and ongoing generation losses, and comparisons of these increases to the relevant New York State reduction targets, the air emissions impacts of license renewal should be categorized as LARGE. (Specifically, the construction outage would counteract more than a year's worth of New York State CO 2 reductions under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and a majority of a year's worth of NO, reductions under the Clean Air Interstate Rule.)

3. Aquatic Ecosystem Effects of License Renewal with Existing Cooling System (DSEIS

- SMALL to LARGE)

" The DSEIS provides an overall rating for aquatic ecosystem effects of license renewal with the existing cooling system of SMALL to LARGE. This overall rating is based upon combining the ranges of ratings for each of the 18 Representative Important Species ("RIS").

The DSEIS notes that these species are "ecologically, commercially, or recreationally important."

" Overall, the DSEIS has not provided sufficient evidence to find that the existing cooling system would "destabilize" or "noticeably alter" any of the 18 RIS and thereby adversely impact their ecological, commercial, or recreational values. In other words, the DSEIS does not adequately support findings of MODERATE or LARGE impacts.

NERA Economic Consulting 5

Introduction I. Introduction This report provides comments from an economic perspective on specific misimpressions and errors in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") December 2008 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("DSEIS") for Indian Point Energy Center ("IP") in connection with Entergy's application for renewal of operating licenses for IP's generating units 2 and 3.

A. Background The DSEIS considers nine different alternatives or scenarios. We focus on two of those scenarios, both of which assume the NRC renews the operating licenses. In one scenario, the two IP units continue to operate as they do now, with a once-through cooling system. The second scenario assumes that the New York State Department of Environment and Conservation (NYSDEC) would require the installation of a closed-cycle cooling system with two cooling towers.' The DSEIS rates the impacts of each scenario in twelve impact categories using a three-level qualitative scale. The NRC scale has three levels based on guidelines from the Council on Environmental Quality:

" SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

" MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

" LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

Table 1 summarizes the conclusions in the DSEIS regarding the environmental impacts of the two alternative scenarios.

The NRC will decide whether to renew the operating licenses. It will not decide whether to require the installation of a closed-cycle cooling system, which is the purview of the NYSDEC (and the courts). However, the DSEIS evaluates cooling-system options as alternative scenarios should it renew the licenses.

NERA Economic Consulting 6

Introduction Table 1. Summary of Results of DSEIS Evaluation for Two Alternatives License renewal with License renewal with Impact category Existing cooling system Closed-Cycle Cooling Land Use Small Small to Large Ecology-aquatic Small to Large Small Ecology-terrestrial Small Small to Moderate Water use & quality Small Small Air quality Small Small Waste Small Small to Large Human health Small Small Socioeconomics Small Small Transportation Small Small to Large Aesthetics Small Moderate Hist. & Arch. Resources Small Small Env. Justice Small Small Better rating NA I Equal rating NA 6 Worse rating NA 5 Note: Entries in bold and non-italics represent categories in which the rating of the alternative in question is worse than that for License renewal. Entries in bold and italics represent categories in which the alternative has a better rating.

Source: NRC 2008, Table 9-1 and NERA tabulations.

License renewal with the NYSDEC requiring closed-cycle cooling has worse ratings than license renewal with the existing cooling system in five of the twelve categories, but it has a better rating for ecology-aquatic with a rating of SMALL, as opposed to SMALL to LARGE with the existing system.

B. Objectives of This Report This report focuses on the following three assessments in Table 1.

1. Socioeconomic impacts (particularly electricity system impacts) of the closed-cycle cooling option, which the DSEIS lists as SMALL;

2. Air emissions (including greenhouse gas emissions) impacts of the closed-cycle cooling scenario, which the DSEIS lists as SMALL; and

3. Ecology-aquatic impacts of license renewal with the existing cooling water system, which the DSEIS lists as SMALL to LARGE.

We focus on these three issues because there is a significant economic component to the assessments and because they affect judgments regarding the relative environmental effects of the existing and closed-cycle cooling systems. The DSEIS appears to conclude that the aquatic impacts would be substantially reduced due to closed-cycle cooling (i.e., a change from NERA Economic Consulting 7

Introduction "SMALL to LARGE" to "SMALL") and that the air quality and socioeconomic impacts and air quality would not be substantially affected by closed-cycle cooling (SMALL for both categories in each of the two alternatives).

The available information indicates that both the negative socioeconomic impacts (as reflected in electricity system effects) and the negative air quality impacts (including effects on greenhouse gas emissions) would be substantial if closed-cycle cooling was required. The available information indicates that these impacts would fit the definition of LARGE (i.e., "clearly noticeable and... sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource"). We thus conclude that the ratings should be changed to LARGE for both elements in the case of license renewal with closed-cycle cooling.

With regard to aquatic impacts, we conclude that the information developed in the DSEIS is insufficient to support findings of MODERATE or LARGE impacts.

C. Outline of the Report The report is organized into four additional sections. Sections II, III and IV relate to the three specific issues noted above.Section II considers electricity market impacts (in the context of the socioeconomic impacts) of closed-cycle cooling.Section III considers air emissions and greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the closed-cycle cooling systems, and Section IV considers aquatic impacts of IP license renewal with the existing cooling water system.Section V summarizes our conclusions.

NERA Economic Consulting 8

II. Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Related to the Electricity System This section considers the socioeconomic impacts of license renewal with closed-cycle cooling, focusing on impacts on the electricity system.

A. Overview of DSEIS Analysis and Conclusions Regarding Socioeconomic Impacts Related to Electricity Market Effects

1. DSEIS Analysis of Electricity Market Effects The DSEIS addresses the effects of the closed-cycle cooling systems on the electricity system (within the context of assessments of socioeconomic impacts related to construction and operation of the closed-cycle cooling systems) in only a single paragraph:

The need for replacement power during construction may affect electricity prices, but the size of this effect depends on the cost of replacement power and the duration of the outages. Plant operators would likely schedule outages to avoid-to the extent possible-summer peak demand periods to avoid affecting grid reliability and power transmission into New York City. (NRC 2008, p. 8-13)

2. DSEIS Conclusions Regarding Socioeconomic Impacts The NRC staff provides the following conclusion regarding the socioeconomic impacts of closed-cycle cooling:

The NRC staff concludes that most socioeconomic impacts related to construction and operation of closed-cycle cooling systems at the site would be SMALL.

(NRC 2008, p. 8-13).

This conclusion does not explicitly state that the NRC staff has concluded that the socioeconomic impacts related to electricity market effects are SMALL, since it notes only the conclusion that most of the impacts are small. Nevertheless, the statement implies that either the electricity market impacts are small or that, even if they are not small, the electricity market effects are not sufficiently important to lead to a judgment that the overall socioeconomic impacts should be deemed more significant.

3. Limitations of the DSEIS Information on Electricity System Impacts The information provided in the DSEIS does not provide a sufficient assessment of the potential impacts that construction and operation of the closed-cycle cooling systems could have on the electricity system. The available information indicates the following.

9

Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Related to the Electricity System

" The outage for construction of closed-cycle cooling systems would take most of a year (including the summer), so it would cover the period of peak summer demand, when capacity is most highly utilized.

" Such an outage could have substantial impacts both on the reliability of the regional electricity system and on electricity prices.

" These electricity markets effects would be greater if a requirement to install closed-cycle cooling systems made it more economical for the owner to close the IP units permanently rather than to incur the added costs and risks related to installing closed-cycle cooling. The effects would be greater yet if the NYSDEC and other relevant state and federal agencies in the northeast imposed similar requirements on other plants in the region, and they shut down as well.

" As discussed below, the above issues suggest that the DSEIS rating for socioeconomic impacts of closed-cycle cooling (as reflected in electricity market effects) should be changed to LARGE.

B. Information on the Indian Point Outage Period Enercon concluded in 2003 that the outage period required to connect the closed-cycle cooling systems would be 42 weeks in total, or more than 10 months (Enercon 2003, p. 14). Because of various additional challenges that have been identified, Enercon now believes that estimate is conservative; i.e., likely to be too short (Enercon 2009, p. 8). Moreover, Enercon has concluded that it would not be feasible to stagger the outage schedule to avoid summer months (Enercon 2009, p. 7).

In light of an outage of 10 months or more, it would not be possible to avoid summer peak demand periods, contrary to the assumption made in the DSEIS.2 Enercon's 2003 analysis of construction of the closed-cycle cooling systems assumes that the outage would occur from March into the early part of the next year, thus covering all of the summer.

Note that if the NYSDEC required the installation of closed-cycle cooling, the prolonged outage and other costs of the system might lead IP's owner to shut down the two generating units permanently. A permanent shutdown would increase the likely effects on electricity system reliability and prices (see GE-NERA 2002).

A one-time construction outage would be unlikely to result in construction of additional generation capacity, and thus the shortfall in generation would have to replaced by increased generation at existing resources. With a permanent shutdown, new capacity could be added, but 2 In Section I11,in discussing increased air emissions, we net out the four weeks that would overlap with a regularly scheduled refueling period. Here, however, the full length of the outage is relevant to scheduling and consequent impacts on reliability and prices. Refueling outages, which generally are less than four weeks, generally are scheduled in the early spring, when electricity demand is not high.

NERA Economic Consulting 10

Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Related to the Electricity System it would require substantial lead time (on the order of six to seven years) for planning, permitting, and construction.

C. Information on the Effects of Indian Point Outage on Electricity System Reliability Available information indicates that a NYSDEC requirement for closed-cycle cooling would lead to substantial negative impacts on electricity system reliability, as a result of either a substantial outage or a premature shutdown. This section summarizes information in the following categories:

" significance of Indian Point to the regional electricity supply;

• reports from the New York Independent System Operator ("NYISO") over many years describing the importance of IP to electricity system reliability;

" a 2006 study by a committee of the National Research Council of the National Academies (which we abbreviate "NRC/NA" to prevent confusion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), including a reliability assessment; and

" modeling estimates of potential reliability impacts that were submitted to the NYSDEC.

All of this information indicates the substantial negative impacts that an outage or premature shutdown of IP units due to a NYDEC requirement for closed-cycle cooling would have on electricity system reliability.

1. Significance of Indian Point to the Electric System IP accounted for about 19 percent of the annual energy requirement (MWh) and about 11 percent of peak summer demand (MW) in 2007 in the downstate region that it serves (NYISO 2008a).3 If IP were to be shut down during the summer months, as it would be if closed-cycle cooling was required by the NYSDEC, there could be major impacts on the reliability of the electrical system in the region because transmission congestion limits the extent to which additional power can be imported from outside the area.

As the NRC/NA committee noted it in its 2006 analysis of IP, "[t]he Indian Point generating plant is located in the premium southeastern New York Zone H; hence the consumers in Zones H, I, and J heavily rely on it to meet demand" (NRC/NA 2006, p. 41). Loss of IP's output would have to be made up in significant part by generating units in the area rather than by importing more power from farther away.

3 Consistent with the NRC/NA committee's work, unless otherwise noted the region in question is defined as zones H-K, which include Westchester County, New York City, and Long Island.

NERA Economic Consulting 11

Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Related to the Electricity System

2. New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Assessments NYISO is a not-for-profit corporation regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

("FERC") and charged with overseeing New York State's wholesale electric power system, including operation of the region's competitive wholesale power markets and maintenance of regional electric reliability. In this role, NYISO regularly publishes analyses of New York electric reliability, including forecasts of future loss-of-load-expectation ("LOLE") under alternative electricity market scenarios. LOLE is a reliability metric that measures the expected number of days per year during which lack of sufficient available capacity would require involuntarily disconnecting some customers' loads from the grid. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC"), Northeast Power Coordinating Council ("NPCC"), and New York State Reliability Council ("NYSRC") require a maximum LOLE of 0.1 in New York-that is, they require an expected frequency of involuntary load disconnection of no more than one day every ten years.

NYISO reliability evaluations have emphasized the importance of Indian Point to meeting State electric system reliability standards. In an assessment of reliability needs in 2006, for example, the NYISO stated that "[t]he NYCA LOLE increases significantly with the retirement of the Indian Point units to well in excess of 3.5 days per year" (NYISO 2005, p. 9). This loss-of-load expectation is 34 times greater than the minimum allowed under the above-described requirement.

In its 2007 report, NYISO noted that IP "is essential to New York City and the Lower Hudson Valley to meet electricity needs,"(NYISO 2007, p. 57).

The NYISO also has analyzed regional electric system reliability from the perspective of fuel diversity, most recently in an October 2008 White Paper. With reference to the NRC/NA report described below, the White Paper states that, "a closure [of IP] could exacerbate New York City's existing dependence on natural gas for power production" (NYISO 2008b, p. 3-6). The paper notes that the "comparatively limited downstate fuel diversity poses certain risks for the New York City and Long Island areas" (NYISO 2008b, p. 3-6), including negative effects related to the dominant role of natural gas prices in setting regional wholesale power prices.

3. National Research Council Study In 2003, Congress asked the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC/NA) to form a committee to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of various alternative means of replacing the output and capacity that IP currently provides to New York. The committee's members were experts in the relevant fields. Their 2006 report provided (among other analyses) an evaluation of the reliability implications of IP shutdowns under alternative scenarios. The NRC/NA modeling "included additional, aggressive programs to improve efficiency of electricity use and stronger demand-side measures to reduce peak demand" (NRC/NA 2006, p.

62), but nonetheless found that closure could result in major reliability problems.

The first modeling case assumed substantial capacity growth prior to and after the hypothetical shutdown of the two IP units, but no incremental new capacity added specifically to address the NERA Economic Consulting 12

Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Related to the Electricity System shutdown. Under this case, the committee determined that the IP shutdown would increase reliability risks "to unacceptable levels" (NRC/NA 2006, p. 62), including a LOLE more than 13 times greater than the maximum allowable standard.

The NRC/NA also developed a scenario in which a combination of aggressive demand-side measures and new capacity would be added to maintain an acceptable LOLE. The resulting scenario relied on, among other features, addition of the proposed 1,100-MW TransGas Energy facility proposed for Brooklyn, New York, which has since been cancelled following a permit denial by the New York State Department of Public Service (NYDPS 2008); accelerated addition of significant additional gas and wind-fired capacity in New York City and surrounding zones; and the aggressive demand-reduction assumptions described above. All of these assumptions, though perhaps useful as a hypothetical analysis at the time of publication, do not provide any assurance that reliability could be maintained if the IP units were not operating. As the NRC/NA notes, "[i]dentifying the generation and transmission system capability that must be provided to replace Indian Point is much easier than determining whether it actually would get built when needed. All these measures will take time to implement, and several factors may converge to make it even more difficult" (NRC/NA 2006, p. 73).

In summary, the NRC/NA notes that "Indian Point is a critical component of both the reliability and economics of power for the New York City area," (NRC/NA 2006, p. 14).

4. Modeling Results In 2002, General Electric Power Systems Energy Consulting ("GE") and NERA Economic Consulting completed a study of the impacts of potential shutdowns of northeastern nuclear units (GE-NERA 2002) that was submitted to the NYSDEC. The study used the GE-MAPS electricity market model, a state-of-the-art modeling system that identifies the least-cost means of meeting demand for electricity given the units in the system.

The 2002 study found that shutting down IP's units would reduce reserve capacity far below the reserve margins deemed adequate by the New York State Reliability Council. It also found that the shutdown would drastically increase the expected number of days per year when NYISO would need to implement emergency operating procedures due to reliability concerns.

The GE-NERA study is based upon an assumed permanent shutdown of IP's generating units, but the analyses also apply to a prolonged construction outage that would include the summer months, as would be required to install closed-cycle cooling at IP. The study suggests that had the construction outage occurred sometime in the 2002-2005 period, it would have caused significant reliability problems.

In addition to the analysis of the impact of an IP shutdown on reliability, the GE-NERA study also analyzed the impact if all nuclear units with once-through cooling systems shut down in response to a policy of the NYSDEC requiring closed-cycle cooling at all relevant units in the state. 4 In that case, the reserve margin would be negative (i.e., there would be insufficient 4 In addition to analyzing a potential IP shutdown and a shutdown of all relevant units in New York State, the GE-NERA study also evaluated the impacts on reliability and prices if a policy of requiring the retrofit of cooling NERA Economic Consulting 13

-Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Related to the Electricity System capacity to meet peak summer demands even if all units were available). Although it was not possible to calculate a LOLE, it is clear that the effects on system reliability would be very large.

D. Information on the Effects of Indian Point Outage on Electricity Prices Available information also provides substantial evidence that an outage at IP units would have substantial effects on electricity prices in New York generally and the downstate New York region in particular. This section summarizes the information contained in the study conducted by the NRC/NA committee and previous modeling results developed by NERA.

1. National Research Council Study In its 2006 IP study, the NRC/NA performed electricity market modeling using the GE MAPS model. The NRC/NA developed modeling runs based on alternative fuel prices and assumptions regarding the availability of generating units. For its "most likely" case, with IP still in service, the NRC/NA forecasted 2015 statewide average wholesale prices of $59/MWh and average prices in New York City (Zone J) of $67/MWh (NRC/NA 2006, p. 70). With IP removed, statewide average prices were forecasted to increase by about 12 percent, to $66/MWh. In New York City, the increase was even greater, with prices expected to rise about 18 percent to

$79/MWh (NRC/NA 2006, p. 70).

2. Modeling Results The GE-NERA (2002) study described above also estimated the effects of an IP shutdown on wholesale electricity prices. Over the 3.5-year period modeled (June 2002-December 2005), the study found that consumer expenditures on electricity would increase by about $3.4 billion due to an IP shutdown (GE-NERA 2002, p. 3). The underlying price increases measured about 11 to 16 percent in the state as a whole (depending on year) and 10 to 25 percent for the four downstate distribution companies (GE-NERA 2002, p. 17-29). As with reliability effects, these impacts would apply during a prolonged construction outage or during the first several years of a permanent outage, until sufficient time had passed to complete the planning, permitting, and construction of new units to replace the lost capacity. Even after replacement capacity was put in place, costs would be higher because replacement units would likely have higher operating costs as well as greater capital costs.

In the scenario involving the shutdown of all nuclear units in the New York, PJM, and New England regions, the estimated price increases were substantially higher, with New York consumer expenditures increasing by $9.8 billion, or about 40 percent, over the 3.5-year period modeled (GE-NERA 2002, p. 3). The corresponding estimated price increases were about 34 to towers at all existing nuclear plants in a broader region (New York and the two surrounding control areas, ISO-NE and PJM) were imposed and led to all of those plants closing. It found that simultaneous retirement of those plants would leave the multistate region with negative reserve margins and hence the virtual certainty of massive system failures during peak summer demand periods, as well as large price increases. This larger shutdown also led to estimated wholesale price increases of 29 to 41 percent for the four downstate utilities. However, such a policy is beyond the purview of the NRC and so we do not consider it here.

NERA Economic Consulting 14

Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Related to the Electricity System 43 percent (depending on year) for the state as a whole and 29 to 44 percent for the four downstate distribution companies (GE-NERA 2002, p. 31-42).

E. Conclusions Regarding the Socioeconomic Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling Given the findings of NYISO, the NRC/NA and the GE-NERA report regarding negative electricity system impacts, we are not aware of any basis for the DSEIS conclusion that the socioeconomic impacts of the NYSDEC's requiring closed-cycle cooling would be SMALL. The available information indicates that the negative socioeconomic impacts of closed-cycle cooling would be substantial and would properly be classified as "LARGE" based upon the DSEIS criteria (i.e., that effects are "clearly noticeable and are sufficient to stabilize important attributes of the resource").

" The outage required to complete a closed-cycle cooling system would include summer peak periods and would have significant negative impacts on the reliability of the regional electrical system.

" The likely outage would lead to substantial increases in the wholesale price of electricity for the duration of the outage and thus additional negative socioeconomic impacts.

These negative impacts would be substantially greater if IP's owner found it more economical to shut down IP2 and IP3 rather than install closed-cycle cooling systems. Moreover, if NYSDEC required that all nuclear plants in the state install closed-cycle cooling systems, and all of those plants closed as a result, the negative impacts would be even more extreme.

In sum, the socioeconomic impacts of closed-cycle cooling should be categorized as LARGE.

NERA Economic Consulting 15

Ill. Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling on Air Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions This section considers the effects of a requirement to install closed-cycle cooling on conventional air emissions and carbon dioxide (C0 2) emissions. These effects result from the replacement electricity generation due to the construction outage and ongoing losses due to closed-cycle cooling.

A. Overview of DSEIS Approach and Conclusions Regarding Air Emissions Effects The DSEIS does not quantify the increased air emissions that would be associated with the construction and operation of closed-cycle cooling systems at IP. The DSEIS acknowledges that a consultant to Entergy developed quantitative estimates of emission impacts (TRC 2002) and that "to the extent that coal- and natural-gas-fired facilities replace IP2 and IP3 output, some air quality effects would occur" as a result of the required construction outage. However, it then discounts those impacts, without evaluating their magnitude, because they "would cease when IP2 and IP3 return to service" (NRC 2008, p. 8-10). The DSEIS also notes that "new parasitic loads" could generate additional emissions on a continuing basis, but discounts those effects as well without quantifying them (NRC 2008, p. 8-10).

1. DSEIS Conclusions Regarding Air Emissions Effects The DSEIS concludes that the overall impacts of air emissions (including CO 2 emissions) would be "SMALL." Its reasoning is summarized as follows:

Because air quality effects during construction would be controlled by site practices and compensatory measures required to maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) (should a conformity analysis show the need to take other action), because replacement power would be required to also comply with CAA requirements (and it would be short lived), and air quality effects during operations would be minor, the NRC staff concludes that overall impact to air quality is likely SMALL. (NRC 2008, p. 8-11)

2. Limitations of the DSEIS Information on Air Emissions Effects The DSEIS does not explain why it chose to not consider TRC's quantitative estimates. In any event, as discussed below, the NRC could have developed rough estimates using readily available information. We made such estimates in four steps:

1. determine the lost output due to cooling towers;

2. determine the likely emission rates for replacement power;

3. determine the likely total emissions due to replacement power; 16

Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling on Air Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

4. assess the significance of these additional emissions.

The estimates developed using this simple approach indicate that the potential impacts should be judged LARGE rather than SMALL.

B. Lost Output Due to Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems The first step is to quantify the amount of electricity output that would be lost if IP2 and IP3 were required by the NYSDEC to install and operate closed-cycle cooling systems. There are two elements: (1) one-time losses associated with the construction outage; and (2) ongoing annual losses associated with increased parasitic losses and losses in gross output. Note that if requiring closed-cycle cooling systems led to the permanent shutdown of IP2 and IP3, the emissions estimated for the construction outage would continue for a much longer period.

For the construction outage, as noted above, Enercon (2003) estimates that the units would have to shut down for a total of 42 weeks (out of a total construction period of about 5 years). Enercon estimates that four of those weeks could overlap with a regularly scheduled refueling outage, leaving a net outage of 38 weeks. Total net capacity of the two units is about 2050 MW. Lost output over 38 weeks would be 13.1 million MWh (Enercon 2003, p. 14).

For the ongoing losses associated with the cooling towers, Enercon (2003) estimated lost output due to two types of losses:

1. Parasiticlosses. The pumps used to circulate water through the towers and the fans used to help cool the water would increase consumption on average by about 53.0 MW, or 418,000 MWh per year, assuming 90 percent capacity utilization (including prorated refueling outages).

2. Condenser-relatedreduced output. Because the water cooled by the tower will not be as cool as the water drawn from the Hudson most of the year, gross output will be reduced on average by about 21 MW, or about 166,000 MWh per year because the condenser was designed for use with the cooler river water.

Table 2. Summary of Lost Electricity Output due to Cooling Towers Reason for Lost Generation Lost Generation (MWh)

Plant Shutdown 38-week construction (one time) 13,090,000 Annual rate 16,162,000 Ongoing output losses (annual): 583,101 Source: Enercon (2003) and NERA calculations as discussed in text.

NERA Economic Consulting 17

Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling on Air Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions C. Emission Rates for Replacement Power During a construction outage, demand normally met by IP would have to be met by increasing output at other generating units. Estimates of the additional emissions resulting from generation to replace this lost output ideally would be based on modeling of the electric system at the likely time of the outage, both with and without IP2 and IP3 in operation. Such modeling could identify which units would generate additional output to make up for IP's lost output during the outage.

Source-specific emission factors then could be applied.

1. Likely Sources of Replacement Power Rough air emissions estimates can be developed based on reasonable assumptions. Although conservation and renewables are likely to play important roles in meeting future demand for electricity, existing requirements are already very ambitious. New York has set a target of 25 percent of generation to be from renewables by 2013. Progress, however, is behind schedule. The 2008 report on the program estimates that even when one includes capacity that is not yet in production but is under contract or has a pending contract, the state fell 25 percent short of its 2008 goal (NYSERDA 2008, Table 5).

For a temporary outage, it would not be practicable to institute additional conservation measures or to build additional renewable capacity. Thus, even to the extent that New York State policies to encourage renewable generation and conservation meet their goals, these sources would not serve as incremental replacement for lost output from IP. Existing nuclear and hydro plants similarly would not be expected to replace lost IP generation, since they generally operate as much as possible already. As a result, output from IP lost during the construction outage most likely would be made up by increasing output at fossil-fired units.

To be conservative (i.e., to err on the side of understating emissions), for purposes of our calculations we assume that all of the incremental generation would come from natural gas-fired units. To the extent that coal or oil substituted for lost output from IP some fraction of the time, emissions estimates developed below would be understated. For gas-fired units, the air emissions of primary interest are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and CO 2.

2. Emission rates Table 3 summarizes the emission rates used to develop the estimates below. For existing units, we used information from EPA's eGRID database (EPA 2007) to estimate average emission factors for NOx and heat rates (for calculating CO 2 emission rates) from gas-fired units in the downstate region served by IP.5 5 We include units in eGRID's NYC/Westchester and Long Island sub-regions. We restrict our analysis to units listed as using natural gas as their primary fuel. Many of these units are also capable of burning oil if natural gas is not available or is expensive relative to gas.

NERA Economic Consulting 18

Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling on Air Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Table 3. Estimated Emission Rates for Existing and New Gas-Fired Replacement Power Emission Rates (lbs/MWh)

Unit NOx CO 2 Existing (average) 0.869 1,189 New combined cycle 0.058 667 Note: Rates shown are pounds/MWh.

Estimates for existing units are based on 2005 data (the most recent available) from EPA's eGRID database (EPA 2007) for downstate New York units powered predominantly by natural gas. NOx rates are total emissions for those units divided by total generation. CO 2 rates are calculated based on the average heat rate of those same units (total heat input divided by total generation), which is 10,200 Btu/KWh, and an emission rate of 117 lbs/MMBtu (see, e.g., EIA 2008).

The NOx rate for new units is calculated from NOx emissions figures in DSEIS for natural gas combined cycle alternative (NRC 2008, p. 8-49). CO 2 emission rate for new units based on the heat rate of 5,700 Btu/KWh assumed in the DSEIS.

Source: EPA (2007) and NRC (2008).

In the longer run there would be time to build new units to generate power needed to replace the ongoing losses in IP's net generation. We compute the emission rates for such units based on the DSEIS analysis of the natural gas-fired alternatives it considered. 6 The units used in the DSEIS assume that would be highly efficient gas-fired combined cycle plants with tight limits on NOx emissions.

D. Estimated Increases in Emissions Table 4 reports the estimated increases in emissions of NOx and CO 2 based on the reduced generation in Table 2 and the emission rates in Table 3.

Table 4. Estimated Emissions Associated with Replacement Power Required by Cooling Tower Installation and Operation Emissions (tons)

Reason for Increase CO 2 NO, Plant Shutdown 38-week construction (one time) 7,781,000 5,689 Annual rate 9,607,000 7,024 Ongoing output losses (annual):

Short run (existing units) 347,000 253 Long run (new units) 194,000 17 Note: Emissions are in (English) tons Source: NERA calculations based on information in Table 2 and Table 3.

6 The DSEIS alternatives differ in whether the new units would be located on the IP site or elsewhere. However, both alternatives assume the same generation technology and emission rates.

NERA Economic Consulting 19

Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling on Air Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

1. Carbon Dioxide (C0 2 )

The IP construction outage would cause a one-time loss of about 13 million MWh of generation.

Replacing this output is estimated to increase CO 2 emissions by about 7.8 million tons. If the outage lasted longer than a year, CO 2 emissions would increase by about 9.6 million tons per year until the point at which new, more efficient replacement units could obtain permits and complete construction.

IP generation would decrease by about 580,000 MWh per year because of ongoing parasitic and gross output losses, resulting in increased annual CO 2 emissions of about 347,000 tons in the near-term and about 194,000 tons in the longer-run (when more efficient generation units would be in place).

2. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Table 4 shows that during the IP construction outage, emissions of NOx would increase by about 6,000 tons. Once the IP units resumed operation, NOx emissions initially would increase by about 250 tons per year. Once new, very tightly controlled plants were in place, the increase in NO, emissions would be much smaller.

E. Significance of the Increased Emissions These increases in emissions can be compared with regulatory requirements to provide a sense of perspective and provide the basis for determining the appropriate level of impact. Note that the two cap-and-trade programs discussed below both set overall caps on emissions, so increases resulting from replacement generation would have to be offset by reductions in emissions from other covered sources. Nonetheless, the gross increases in emissions provide a useful sense of the extent to which replacing the lost output associated with cooling towers at IP would make achievement of the caps more difficult and/or more costly.

1. Comparisons of Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Required Reductions under RGGI New York and nine other Northeastern states have joined together in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI") to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the electricity sector.

When New York announced the completion of enabling rules for RGGI in 2007, then-governor Spitzer stated: "Global warming is the most significant environmental problem of our generation, and by helping lead this regional program, we can reduce emissions from power plants - one of the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the Northeast," (Spitzer 2007). When Governor Paterson opened the first RGGI auction of allowances in 2008, he stated: "Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time," and that "by coming together with nine other states, New York is showing that we can take our own bold action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions." (Paterson 2008).

The increased emissions associated with the construction and operation of the cooling towers would make it more difficult for New York to achieve its goals under RGGI. Under RGGI, New NERA Economic Consulting 20

Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling on Air Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions York electric generators are required to reduce their annual emissions of CO 2 by about 6.4 million tons by 2018.7 Thus, the potential increase in emissions from just the construction outage (7.8 million tons) would exceed the annual New York RGGI reduction target by more than 20 percent. To put this result another way, the burden on New York sources to reduce emissions would more than double in the year of the outage. Were IP's units to shut down permanently, this burden would continue for many years.

2. Comparisons of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions to CAIR Required Reductions The Clean Air Interstate Rule ("CAIR") promulgated in 2005 established caps on NOx emissions that EPA estimated would reduce emissions in New York by about 10,000 tons in 2015 (EPA 2008a).8 The rule, which also tightened the cap on SO 2 emissions, was designed to address several ambient air problems. Emissions of NOx and SO 2 both react in the atmosphere to form very fine particles that have been associated with a wide range of effects, including increased mortality and other health effects. (EPA 2005). NOx also reacts in the atmosphere to from ground-level ozone, which causes a range of adverse effects on health and welfare (EPA 2005).

Southeastern New York currently violates the ambient eight-hour ozone standard and the standard for fine particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ("PM-2.5," see EPA 2008b).

The estimated 5,700 tons of increased NOx emissions resulting from a 38-week construction outage would amount to about 60 percent of the estimated reduction required by CAIR in New York in 2015 (EPA 2008a). Put another way, the reduction required to meet the cap would be 60 percent larger than otherwise.

F. Conclusions Regarding Air Emission and GHG Emission Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling The DSEIS does not provide any information on the likely impacts on emissions of GHGs and other air pollutants of adding a closed-cycle cooling system to IP. Without quantifying emissions, however, it concludes that the impact of emissions would be SMALL. Our rough calculations suggest, however, that the construction outage would counteract more than a year's worth of New York State CO 2 reductions under RGGI and the majority of a year's worth of NO, reductions under CAIR.

In light of this information, we are aware of no basis that the DSEIS reasonably could conclude that the air emissions impacts of closed-cycle cooling would be SMALL. Based upon the criteria used in the DSEIS for a LARGE impact ("clearly noticeable and... sufficient to destabilize 7 New York's official RGGI rule (NYSDEC 2008, pp. 45-46) notes that the state's cap for 2009 through 2014 is 64,310,805 tons; its cap for 2018 and subsequent years is 57,879,725 tons. The difference is 6,431,080 tons.

8 CAIR was overturned by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2008, in significant part because of the design of its trading program. However, the court has since modified its ruling to allow EPA to implement CAIR while working on new regulations that would satisfy the original ruling. For our purposes, CAIR provides a useful sense of scale for NOx emission reductions.

NERA Economic Consulting 21

Impacts of Closed-Cycle Cooling on Air Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Emissions important attributes of the resource"), the air emissions impacts should be characterized as LARGE.

NERA Economic Consulting 22

IV. Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System This section considers economic issues related to the aquatic ecosystem impact assessment in the DSEIS for permit renewal with the existing cooling system. In particular, we comment on two issues: (1) the extent to which the DSEIS provides information on the environmental component or value affected by the IP cooling system operation (since identification of the environmental value is the first step in its assessment); and (2) the treatment of uncertainty in the DSEIS assessment of aquatic ecosystem effects.

A. Overview of DSEIS Approach and Conclusions Regarding Aquatic Effects This section provides an overview of the DSEIS approach and conclusions regarding aquatic effects of the existing cooling system.

1. Identification of "Environmental Component or Value to be Protected" The DSEIS provides the following summary of its identification of the "environmental component or value to be protected," the determination of which is the first step in its "Weight of Evidence" ("WOE") analysis of the impacts of IP2 and IP3 on aquatic ecology:

For this assessment, the environmental component to be protected is the Hudson River aquatic resources as represented by the 18 RIS [Representative Important Species] identified in Table 2-4. These species represent a variety of feeding strategies and food web classifications and are ecologically, commercially, or recreationally important. (p. 4-15)

This statement suggests that that the DSEIS's assessment would be based on the likely effects of IP on ecological, commercial and recreational values. As discussed below, the information developed in the DSEIS does not provide information that sheds light on the likely ecological, commercial or recreational value of the aquatic losses due to IP and how those values would be reduced with closed-cycle cooling.

2. DSEIS Conclusions Regarding Aquatic Ecosystem Effects The DSEIS reports a rating for each of the 18 RIS species on the SMALL to MODERATE to LARGE scale, as shown in Table 5. In constructing the overall score for the ecology-aquatic category, the DSEIS simply reported the range of the ratings for individual species, which ranged from SMALL to LARGE for those species rated. For the five species labeled "unknown" because of a lack of data, the DSEIS treats them as if their scores were SMALL to LARGE. As a result, the overall rating for aquatic ecology impacts is SMALL to LARGE.

23

Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System Table 5. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary from DSEIS Strength of Impacts of IP2 and IP3 Population Line of Connection Line of Cooling System on Species Evidence Evidence Aquatic Resources Alewife Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Bay anchovy Moderate Low to Medium Small to Moderate American shad Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Bluefish Large High Large Hogchoker Large Medium to High Moderate to Large Atlantic menhaden Moderate to Large Unknown Unknown Blueback herring Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate 1- *,ow smelt Large Medium Moderate Shý..-iose sturgeon Unknown Unknown Unknown Spottail shiner Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Atlantic sturgeon Large Unknown Unknown Striped bass Small High Small uic tomcod Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate White catfish Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate White perch Large Medium to High Moderate to Large Weakfish Small Medium to High Small Gizzard shad Unknown Unknown Unknown Blue crab Small Unknown Unknown Note: Where overall impact is "Unknown," the DSEIS notes that impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE Source: NRC 2008, Table 4-4.

3. Method for Developing Species Ratings

a. Lines of Evidence To develop the overall SMALL-MODERATE-LARGE impact rating for each species, the DSEIS uses a "WOE" approach with two general "lines of evidence" ("LOE"): (1) population trends and (2) a measure labeled "strength of connection." The first LOE uses multiple sources of data to estimate whether the population of a species has been declining. The DSEIS weights results from the individual data sources according to their "use and utility" to derive an overall population trend rating of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE for each of the species. The "strength of connection" measure is more complicated, and compares "the rank order of RIS caught in the river to the order observed in impingement and entrainment samples" (p. 4-19). For each species, the DSEIS reports four measures of strength of connection, looking at impingement and entrainment for both the species and its prey, weighting each measure according to its "use and utility" to derive an overall strength of connection rating of LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH NERA Economic Consulting 24

Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System

b. Overall Rating for Each Species Based on the scores on the two lines of evidence, the NRC staff assigned an overall rating for the impact of the IP2 and IP3 cooling system on aquatic resources. Equal weight is given to the population and strength of connection lines of evidence, but a SMALL impact on population trends or a LOW strength of connection score requires assigning an overall impact level of SMALL. Striped bass, for example, has a SMALL rating for population trends and a HIGH strength of connection rating. Thus, according to the DSEIS methodology, striped bass is assigned an overall impact rating of SMALL.

B. Lack of Connection between "Environmental Component or Value to be Protected" and Information Developed in DSEIS The DSEIS begins its assessments with an identification of the "environmental component or value to be protected" and notes that the species considered are "ecologically, commercially, or recreationally important." It would be expected, therefore, that the DSEIS would develop an assessment that provides information on the ecological, recreational or commercial importance of the losses due to IP units. The first step in assessing the impacts of the operation of IP2 and IP3 would be to determine whether there is a causal relationship between the operation of IP2 and IP3 and aquatic impacts of ecological, recreational, or commercial importance.

However, the DSEIS does not provide analysis that adequately assesses whether any species population declines are being caused by operation of IP, or rather result from other stressors.

Further, even if the DSEIS were able to show causality, the methods used in the DSEIS do not provide information on the magnitude of RIS population impacts from IP2 and IP3 and their implications for ecological, commercial, or recreational values. We understand that information is available that could be used to provide a more meaningful assessment of RIS population impacts and that could also be aggregated more meaningfully across species.

1. Assessment of Causality The DSEIS states that a finding of an adverse impact on a species "means that the data show both a measurable response in the RIS population and clear evidence that the RIS is influenced by the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling system" (NRC 2008, p. 4-19). In making this statement, the DSEIS is assuming that the 'strength of connection' LOE provides sufficient evidence of causality. However, as comments by Barnthouse et al. (2009) demonstrate, that LOE does not provide a meaningful assessment of the impact of IP2 and IP3 on RIS 9

populations.

Determining if there is a causal relationship between two variables is a standard problem in all fields, including economics as well as biology. Absent controlled experiments, causality can be difficult to determine. Providing statistical evidence of a causal relationship between the operation of IP2 and IP3 and RIS population levels would be the first step in providing a 9 Barnthouse et al. (2009) provide a complete assessment of the strength of connection LOE, demonstrating flaws in the methodology and its tendency to produce erroneous results.

NERA Economic Consulting 25

Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System connection to the "environmental component or value to be protected." A critical piece of assessing causality is to consider alternative explanations for the observed change in the dependant variable (e.g., decline in the population of an RIS) and to test to see which of those hypotheses are consistent with various aspects of the data. While the DSEIS acknowledges that "Detectable changes in RIS populations may be influenced by natural stressors or may be the result of stressors associated with human activities, which include the operation of IP2 and IP3,"

(p. 4-9) it makes no attempt to assess the relative impacts of individual potential stressors.

Further, the DSEIS does not adequately consider relevant information from Barnthouse (2008),

which evaluates several different possible explanations for declines in the populations of several RIS. Barnthouse et al. find that none of the population declines is consistent with IP being the cause and that most can be explained by one or two other factors, in particular, striped bass predation and overfishing.1 0 Although the DSEIS cites the Barnthouse et al. study and includes a table summarizing its findings, the DSEIS does not appear to have incorporated Barnthouse et al.'s results or approach into its analysis or conclusions, and does not attempt to reconcile discrepancies between its own results and those of Barnthouse et al." For example, while the DSEIS finds a HIGH strength of connection for striped bass and a MEDIUM to HIGH strength of connection for white perch, for both species Barnthouse et al. reject the hypothesis that IP has been the cause of population declines.

2. Quantification of Population Impacts The DSEIS rates the impact on each species as SMALL, MODERATE or LARGE based in theory on whether the operation of IP tends to "destabilize" or "noticeably alter" "any important attributes of the resource" (NRC, 2008 p. 4-18). The two LOE, individually and in combination, fail to tell us whether IP's operation in fact destabilizes or noticeably alters the population of any RIS. The population-trends LOE focuses entirely on whether there is a downward trend, with no attempt to reflect its magnitude, and as comments by Barnthouse et al. (2009) discuss, the strength-of-connection LOE fails to establish causality, let alone provide any estimates of the magnitude of any effect of IP's operation on the population either in absolute terms or in proportional terms.

We understand that quantitative estimates are available of the impacts of IP2 and IP3 on seven of the 18 RIS (ASAAC 2003). Those estimates include not only losses in numbers of organisms, but also in terms of their impacts on numbers of adult equivalents, thus making it possible to make meaningful comparisons across species impinged or entrained at different life stages, from eggs to fish aged one or more years. These estimates also are adjusted for new screens and 10For example, they find that striped-bass predation is the primary factor in the recent declines of Atlantic tomcod, river herring, and bay anchovy, and that the decline in American shad has resulted primarily from overfishing, with striped bass predation also a contributing factor. The three species with the highest impingement and entrainment scores in the NRC analysis, bluefish, hogchoker, and rainbow smelt, were not included in this analysis. We understand that comments provided by Barnthouse et al. (2009) will address the DSEIS findings for all three species.

1 The DSEIS presents some results from Barnthouse et al. in discussing cumulative impacts (section 4.8.1) and in Appendix H, but makes no attempt to consider the whether factors such as fishing pressure or predation, rather than IP2 or IP3, are the primary explanations for population declines.

NERA Economic Consulting 26

Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System operating procedures instituted in the early 1990s to reduce losses to impingement and entrainment. Absent consideration of the magnitude of population effects, the DSEIS cannot credibly assess the potential for IP2 and IP3 to "destabilize" or "noticeably alter" attributes of the resource, nor can it provide a basis for a meaningful assessment of the "ecological, recreational, and commercial importance" of the impacts of 1P2 and 1P3.

3. Meaningful Aggregation across Species The DSEIS concludes in section 4.1.3.5 that the "overall impact to aquatic resources from impingement and entrainment ranges from SMALL to LARGE, depending on species affected" (p. 4-21.) Thus, the overall score utilized for comparisons of impacts in chapters 8 and 9 is essentially the range of the minimum to maximum impact across the 18 RIS evaluated.

Moreover, because RIS for which the impacts are "unknown" are automatically given a SMALL to LARGE score, it is basically a foregone conclusion, particularly with a large number of RIS, that the overall score will be SMALL to LARGE, making it of little use for decision makers in distinguishing among cases.12 To develop a more meaningful aggregate score for the aquatic ecology category, it would be important to assess the relative importance of impacts on different RIS, presumably reflecting their "ecological, recreational, or commercial importance." This effort might include, for example, estimating the quantitative impact on recreational or commercial catches, both directly and indirectly through impacts on prey species.

Note that this process would not require developing full information on the value of the various losses due to IP operation. Rather, information could be developed on the size of the reduced commercial and recreational catch as well as the overall change in the species populations relative to the overall baseline populations.

C. Limitations of DSEIS Information on the Implications of Uncertainty The DSEIS notes the importance of addressing uncertainty in studies of ecological risk, citing EPA's (1998) recommendation that "...practitioners review and summarize the major areas of uncertainty in their analyses" (p. 4-20). Unfortunately, the discussion in the DSEIS is limited for two reasons:

• The DSEIS fails to consider evidence that is not part of its WOE process to narrow uncertainty; and

• The DSEIS does not meaningfully evaluate the impact of changes in its assumptions.

12 Note that of the 18 RIS, 5 were scored "unknown."

NERA Economic Consulting 27

Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System

1. Information that Can Narrow Uncertainties The DSEIS appears to assume that if adequate data were not available from the sources it used in its WOE process, the result was "unknown" and hence the impacts could not be narrowed down from the entire range from SMALL to LARGE. In fact, however, other sources of data or reasoning may allow a narrowing of impacts. For example, the impact on blue crab is listed as "unknown" because of inadequate information on the strength-of-connection LOE. However, because the population LOE score is SMALL, it is clear3 that regardless of the strength-of-connection score, the overall rating would be SMALL. 1 The shortnose sturgeon offers another example. In that case, the DSEIS lists the RIS as "unknown" on both LOE. However, the DSEIS discusses several pieces of evidence, all of which point to a SMALL impact. The DSEIS cites a paper (Bain et al. 2007) finding that the population of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River has increased about 400 percent since the 1970s (the period during which IP has operated). It also cites another paper (Woodland and Secor 2007) estimating increased sturgeon abundance more broadly. Both of these studies suggest a SMALL score on population trends. If the population-trend score is SMALL, according to the DSEIS methodology the overall score must be as well.

The DSEIS also cites evidence indicating that IP has little impact on the population of the shortnose sturgeon. First, "[b]ased on an evaluation of entrainment data provided by the applicant, there is no evidence that the eggs or larvae of either species are commonly entrained at IP2 or IP3." (p. 4-51). Second, the DSEIS notes that in a 1979 Biological Opinion, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimated that overall mortality from impingement and entrainment for the Hudson River (including plants other than IP) was only 0.3-0.4 percent of the shortnose sturgeon population (NRC 2008, p. E-98). The installation of the Ristroph screens and variable-speed pumps after the 1979 NMFS opinion would have brought the mortality rate even lower, as the DSEIS acknowledges (NRC 2008, p. E-98).

The DSEIS cites all of this evidence that any impacts of IP on shortnose sturgeon are modest but does not reflect this information in the score assigned.

2. Sensitivity to Alternative Assumptions The DSEIS acknowledges uncertainty and the overall 'conservativeness' of its assumptions in chapter 4, but it does not attempt to provide any systematic evaluation of the sensitivity of its findings for individual species to the assumptions or decisions made in the analysis. For example, the DSEIS uses the 7 5th percentile of impingement, entrainment, and population densities in calculating its strength-of-connection measures. 14 It would be sensible to see if using the mean or median made a difference. Similarly, the DSEIS has a long discussion of uncertainties about the impact of the Ristroph screens, but does not test the sensitivity of its 13 E.g., see the scoring for striped bass, where the strength of connection is HIGH but the overall score is LOW because the population-trends LOE is LOW.

14 Using the 7 5th percentile generally will give greater weight to species with relatively high year-to-year variability. The DSEIS does not explain why it chose to use this percentile.

NERA Economic Consulting 28

Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System results to its very conservative assumption that the Ristroph screens (and variable-speed pumps) made no difference. A systematic listing of key assumptions and analytic decisions that contribute to uncertainty, potential alternatives to these decisions, and the relative implications of these alternatives would provide a useful framework for consideration of uncertainty, and would provide decisionmakers information needed to assess whether the results of the DSEIS are robust.

D. Conclusions Regarding Aquatic Ecology Impacts of Permit Renewal with Existing Cooling System The approach used in the DSEIS to evaluate aquatic impacts does not provide sufficient information to determine the impact of IP2 and IP3 on the 18 RIS evaluated and the extent to which such impacts are "ecologically, recreationally, or commercially important." The DSEIS does not assess causality, largely ignoring the potential impacts of stressors other than IP2 or IP3. In addition, the DSEIS does not consider available evidence that provides useful information about the magnitude of impacts from IP2 and IP3. Finally, it does not evaluate the sensitivity of its results to important and often conservative assumptions made in the analysis.

Overall, the DSEIS has not provided sufficient evidence to find that the existing cooling system would "destabilize" or "noticeably alter" any of the 18 RIS and thereby adversely impact their ecological, commercial, or recreational value. In other words, the DSEIS does not adequately support findings of MODERATE or LARGE impacts.

NERA Economic Consulting 29

Conclusions V. Conclusions The DSEIS for Indian Point evaluates the environmental impacts of IP license renewal and potential alternatives to license renewal, including license renewal with closed-cycle cooling.

This report focuses on the DSEIS information with regard to three elements of these two alternatives.

" Socioeconomic Impacts. Existing analyses show that IP is critical to the reliability of the electric system in downstate New York, including New York City. Even if the outage for IP were only during construction, it would be long enough (10 months) to create potentially serious reliability problems during summer peak periods. An IP outage also would lead to substantial increases in electricity prices. These changes would be "clearly noticeable" and "sufficient to destabilize important attributes" of a reliable and cost-effective electricity system, and thus would be considered "LARGE" under the definition established in the DSEIS.

• Air emissions and C0 2 emissions impacts. The CO 2 emissions related to replacement power would exceed the 2018 annual New York State CO 2 emissions reduction target under RGGI.

The increase in NOx emissions would be more than half of the estimated reduction in New York State emissions under CAIR in 2015. These effects would be "clearly noticeable" and "sufficient to destabilize" desired air emissions and climate change outcomes in New York State. They should thus be categorized as "LARGE."

" Aquatic ecosystem impacts. The DSEIS has not provided sufficient evidence to find that the existing cooling system would "destabilize" or "noticeably alter" any of the 18 RIS and thereby adversely impact their ecological, commercial, or recreational value. In other words, the DSEIS does not adequately support findings of MODERATE or LARGE impacts.

NERA Economic Consulting 30

References ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc. 2003. Response to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Request for Information on Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3. June.

Bain, Mark B. et al. 2007. Recovery of a US Endangered Fish. PLoS ONE 2(1): e168. January.

Barnthouse, Lawrence W. et al. 2008. Entrainment and Impingement at IP2 and IP3: A Biological Impact Assessment. January.

Barnthouse, Lawrence W. et al. 2009. Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3. March.

Enercon Services, Inc. 2003.Economic and Environmental Impacts Associated with Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration.

Kennesaw, GA: Enercon, June.

Enercon Services, Inc. 2009. Response to the Indian Point Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Kennesaw, GA: Enercon.

Energy Information Administration. 2008. Frequently Asked Questions - Environment. Online:

http://tonto.eia.doe. gov/ask/environment faqs.asp.

Fletcher, R.I. 1990. Flow dynamics andfish recovery experiments: Water intake systems.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 119:393-415.

General Electric Power Systems Energy Consulting and National Economic Research Associates. 2002. Electricity System Impacts of Nuclear Shutdown Alternatives. March.

National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC/NA). 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Washington, DC:

National Academies Press.

New York Department of Public Service. 2008. State Siting Board Rules on TransGas Petition for Rehearing. Press Release 08077/01-F-1276. 14 July.

New York Independent System Operator. 2005. Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP) Reliability Needs Assessment. 21 December. Online:

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/press releases/2005/rna final 12212005 .pdf.

New York Independent System Operator. 2007. NYISO Power Trends 2007. May. Online:

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/press-reIeases/2007/nyisoptrends07final.pd f.

NERA Economic Consulting 31

References New York Independent System Operator. 2008a. 2008 Load & Capacity Data "Gold Book."

April. Online:

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/planning data reference documents/2 008_goldbook.pdf New York Independent System Operator. 2008b. Fuel Diversity in the New York Electricity Market. October. Online:

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/documents/white papers/fuel diversity-l 1202008.pdf New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2008. Express Terms: Part 242 CO 2 Budget Trading Program. Online: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air-pdf/242exptrm.pdf New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2008. New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard: Performance Report, Program Period ending June 2008.

September. Online: http://www.nyserda.org/rps/RPSPerformanceReportWEB.pdf.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2008. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants-Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 2 and 3. December.

Paterson 2008. Governor Paterson Rings in New Era to Combat Climate Change. Press release.

25 September. Online: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0925081.html.

Spitzer 2007. Governor Spitzer Unveils Cutting-Edge Global Warming Regulations. Press release. 24 October. Online: http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/1024071.html.

TRC Environmental Corporation. 2002. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Village of Buchanan, New York: Emissions Avoidance Study.

Lyndhurst, New Jersey: TRC, August.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment.

EPA/630/R-95/002F. Washington, D.C.: EPA, April.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule. Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Emission, Monitoring, and Analysis Division and Clean Air Markets Division. EPA-452/R-05-002. Washington, D.C.: EPA, March. Online: http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/pdfs/finaltech08.pdfE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. eGRID database. Online:

http://www.epa. gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. Clean Air Interstate Rule: New York. Online:

http://www.epa.%gov/interstateairquality/ny.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. Nonattainment Status for Each County by Year.

EPA Green Book. Online: httii://ena. uov/oar/oaCIsD/os/reenbk/anav. html.

NERA Economic Consulting 32

References Woodland, Ryan and David Secor. 2007. Year-Class Strength and Recovery of Endangered Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson River, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136:72-81.

NERA Economic Consulting 33

NERA Economic Consulting NERA Economic Consulting 200 Clarendon Street, 11 th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Tel: +1 617 927 4500 Fax: +1 617 927 4501 www.nera.com

ENCLOSURE 5 TO NL-09-036 Applied Science Associates, Inc. Report dated March 16, 2009, "Review of Thermal Discharge Issues to the Hudson River in NRC Draft SEIS for Indian Point 2 and 3" ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286

Review of Thermal Discharge Issues to the Hudson River in NRC Draft SEIS for Indian Point 2 and 3 Preparedby J. Craig Swanson Senior Principal 16 March 2009 Preparedfor Entergy NuclearIndian Point 2, LLC and Entergy NuclearIndian Point 3, LLC asa science, services, solutions.

Applied Science Associates, Inc.

55 Village Square Drive South Kingstown, RI 02879

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................... 3

2. Draft SEIS: The Hydrodynamics and Flow Characteristics of Section 2.2.5.1 The Hudson River Estuary (page 2-35, lines 5-42; page 2-36, lines 1-3) ....................................................... 3 ASA Comment on Draft SEIS Section ................................... 3 ASA Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section ..................... 4 Basis for Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section ................. 4

3. Draft SEIS: Section 4.1.4.3 Thermal Studies and Conclusions (page 4-25, lines 38-45; page 4-26, lines 1-3) ..... 5 ASA Comment on Draft SEIS Section ................................... 5 ASA Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section ..................... 6 Basis for Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section ................. 6

4. Draft SEIS: Section 4.1.4.5 NRC Staff Assessment of Thermal Impacts (page 4-27, lines 14-30) ............................ 7 ASA Comment on Draft SEIS Section ................................... 7 ASA Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section ..................... 8 Basis for Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section ................. 8

5. Draft SEIS: Section 4.3.3 Thermal Impacts of Biological Assessment in Appendix E (page E-99, lines 21-26) ................. 9 ASA Comment on Draft SEIS Section ................................... 9 ASA Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section ........................ 9 Basis for Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section ............... 10

6. References ............................ ................................... 10 2

1. Introduction The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Draft Supplement 38 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) regarding units 2 and 3 of the Entergy Indian Point generating facilities located in Buchanan, NY. These units use once-through cooling technology which results in a discharge of heated water to the adjacent Hudson River.

Applied Science Associates, Inc. (ASA) was contracted to review the DSEIS with a focus on the thermal discharge issues discussed. ASA has extensive experience in both the development and application of computer models that simulate the hydro-and thermo-dynamics of cooling water discharges into surface waters such as rivers, lakes and estuaries. The models have been extensively reviewed in the professional literature and well received by regulatory agencies at both the state and federal level.

The specific sections of the DSEIS that were found relevant during the review by ASA included the following:

Volume 1:

" The Hydrodynamics and Flow Characteristics of Section 2.2.5.1 The Hudson River Estuary (page 2-35, lines 5-42; page 2-36, lines 1-3)

" Section 4.1.4.3 Thermal Studies and Conclusions (page 4-25, lines 38-45; page 4-26, lines 1-3)

• Section 4.1.4.5 NRC Staff Assessment of Thermal Impacts (page 4-27, lines 14-30)

Volume 2:

• Section 4.3.3 Thermal Impacts of Biological Assessment in Appendix E (page E-99, lines 21-26)

The comments on these sections are related to two major issues: (1) a basic misunderstanding of the tidal processes in the Hudson River adjacent to the Indian Point facility; and (2) an error in the application of the CORMIX model and misinterpretation of the model results. Each section is discussed below in terms of a specific comment, identification of the change in the section sought and a summary of the basis for the change.

2. Draft SEIS: The Hydrodynamics and Flow Characteristics of Section 2.2.5.1 The Hudson River Estuary (page 2-35, lines 5-42; page 2-36, lines 1-3)

ASA Comment on Draft SEIS Section The draft SEIS contains very little information about tidal conditions in the Hudson River except for mention of 3

"Hydrodynamics and flow characteristics are controlled by a complex series of interactions that include...the influence of tides and currents in downstream portions of the river..." (page 2-35, lines 8-11) and "The typical tidal excursion in the lower Hudson River is generally 3 to 6 mi (5 to 10 km), but can extend up to 12 mi (19 km) upstream" (page 2-35, lines 35-36).

The importance of tidal processes on the location and extent of the thermal plume cannot be underestimated since these processes defined the controlling conditions under which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) required Lawler Matusky and Skelly Engineers (LMS) to perform CORMIX modeling for the applicant. This modeling was reported in CHGEC et al., (1999).

NYSDEC required an assumption of a tidal condition defined as near slack water (specifically the lowest 1 0 th percentile current during the flood tide) at mean-low water, considered by NYSDEC to be the most conservative condition for thermal dispersion. However, near the Indian Point site, slack water conditions occur near mid tide and not at mean low water. Thus the condition imposed by NYSDEC as environmental forcing is not possible for this site.

ASA Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section The following paragraphs are suggested for insertion to the draft SEIS at page 2-35 before line 26.

Tides in the Hudson River exhibit a complex relationship between the tidal elevation and the tidal currents. Blumberg and Hellweger (2006) note that at the Battery, essentially the mouth of the Hudson River at the southern tip of Manhattan Island, maximum flood currents occur at the same time as high tide and maximum ebb currents occur the same time as low tide. At the George Washington Bridge, they note that that the maximum flood occurs 30 minutes before high tide and maximum ebb occurs 30 minutes before low tide. The slack water condition occurs closer to high and low waters only at Albany.

Measurements taken along the entire Hudson River by Schureman (1934) confirm that maximum floods occur 15 minutes before high tide, while the maximum ebb occurs 45 minutes before low tide and the slack water occurs closer to the mid-tide at Peekskill, .the closest station to the Indian Point facility. The reason for the variation in the phasing between water level and currents is due to the fact that the tidal wave is considered a progressive wave at the Battery, a standing wave in Albany, with a combination of the wave types along the River between the Battery and Albany.

Basis for Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section Tidal processes in the Hudson River adjacent to the Indian Point facility are critical to the accurate understanding of the strength (temperature increase over ambient conditions) and extent of the thermal plume. A condition which never occurs in the River at the site is not representative of even a worst case extreme scenario. The appropriate extreme scenario must rely on conditions that can actually occur. ASA conducted an independent review (Swanson, 2008) of the information describing the 4

tides in the Hudson River and found a consistent explanation of the tidal conditions.

The following paragraph explains why the tidal conditions in the Hudson River occur as they do and the relationship between tidal elevation and tidal velocity.

The reason for the variation in the phasing between water level and currents is due to the fact that the tides are considered a progressive wave at the Battery, a standing wave in Albany, with variation along the River. In the case of progressive tidal waves, the tides and currents are in phase, with maximum flood currents occurring during high tide and maximum ebb currents occurring during low tide.

Standing tidal waves can be considered to be composed of two progressive tidal waves with the same period, but traveling in opposite directions. The primary wave that enters the estuary (Hudson River) from the open ocean and the secondary wave, caused by the reflection of the primary wave at the head of the estuary or at a dam, combine together to form a standing wave. In the case of a standing tidal wave, the tides and currents are out of phase by about 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, with slack currents occurring close to high and low tides. The friction, cross-sectional geometry, and wave reflection influence whether progressive or standing tidal waves are formed in estuaries.

Although not typical, the tidal characteristics of the Hudson River are not unique.

Many estuaries have similar conditions. For instance, in the eastern end of the central San Francisco Bay, the tides are standing waves due to reflection from the shore. The tides in San Pablo Bay, north of central San Francisco Bay, are nearly progressive with a 30-45 minute phase difference between the tides and currents (Cheng and Casulli, 1993). Wong (1993) showed that the tides and currents at the Fire Island Inlet in the New York Bight at the entrance to Great South Bay on Long Island are out of phase by 40 minutes, indicating a near progressive wave pattern.

Wong's modeling results showed the phase difference between tides and currents inside Great South Bay to be 2.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br />, with the wave characteristics changing from a progressive wave in Fire Island Inlet to a standing wave in Great South Bay.

In the Hudson River, the tidal wave is progressive near the Battery and changes to standing in Albany, due to the reflection at the dam at Troy (Blumberg and Hellweger, 2006).

3. Draft SEIS: Section 4.1.4.3 Thermal Studies and Conclusions (page 4-25, lines 38-45; page 4-26, lines 1-3)

ASA Comment on Draft SEIS Section The draft SEIS section discusses the thermal studies with specific reference to the modeling studies presented in CHGEC et al., (1999). A description of the models used and the results obtained are summarized in this section. The draft SEIS concludes:

These results suggest that the 4 degrees F (2 degrees C) lateral extent and cross-sectional criteria may sometimes be exceeded at IP2 and IP3. Exceedences generally occurred under scenarios that the applicants indicated may be considered quite conservative (maximum operation of three electrical generation facilities simultaneously for long periods of time, tidal conditions promoting maximum thermal impacts, atypical river flows). The steady-state assumptions of 5

CORMIX are also important because, although the modeled flow conditions in the Hudson River would actually occur for only a short period of time when slack water conditions are replaced by tidal flooding, CORMIX assumes this condition has been continuous over a long period of time. CHGEC et al. (1999) found that this assumption can result in an overestimate of the cross-river extent of the plume centerline. (page 4-25, lines 38-45; page 4-26, lines 1-3).

The application of the CORMIX model was sufficiently flawed to invalidate results obtained from its use. A close inspection of the modeling presentation in the CHGEC et al., (1999) would clearly show that the supplementary work using the CORMIX 3.2 model does more than over-estimate the cross-river extent of the plume, i.e., it was incorrectly applied and its results incorrectly interpreted.

ASA Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section The above paragraph should be modified to read as follows:

These results suggest that the 4 degrees F (2 degrees C) lateral extent and cross-sectional criteria may sometimes be exceeded at IP2 and IP3. Exceedences generally occurred under scenarios that the applicants indicated are too conservative (maximum operation of three electrical generation facilities simultaneously for long periods of time, atypical river flows). The steady-state assumptions of CORMIX are critically important because the modeled flow conditions in the Hudson River would not actually occur. Therefore, the results presented for the supplementary modeling and reported in CHGEC et al. (1999) provide no reasonable basis for estimating the cross-river extent of the plume centerline.

Basis for Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section As is noted by the draft SEIS the steady state CORMIX model runs provide results under the assumption that the slack water condition lasts indefinitely (or at least long enough for the thermal plume to extend across most of the river). In fact slack water conditions likely last for only 15 minutes totally invalidating the CORMIX results. This short time period for slack water conditions, or more precisely the 1 0 th percentile of currents surrounding slack water, can be determined using the Tides and Currents software (Nobeltec, 2001) based on NOAA tidal data. Details of the analysis can be found in Swanson (2008).

The CORMIX model was used by LMS to estimate the extent of the thermal plume relative to the width of the Hudson River. Since the CORMIX model is steady state it cannot accept time varying current speeds as input. It assumes that whatever current is used that it is constant over time. The LMS results using the NYSDEC required tidal conditions indicated that essentially the entire width (99-100%) of the Hudson River would exceed 4 0 F under the four summer months, June through September, modeled. The CORMIX results presented by LMS could not provide information on the time for the plume to travel from the discharge across the river based on the CORMIX version used (3.2). This information is critical since the plume will encounter significantly changing tidal currents in the river if it takes an appreciable amount of time to cross the river.

6

To determine the plume travel time, updated CORMIX runs were made using CORMIX-GI Version 4.1G, a newer version, using the same input parameters used by LMS and documented in Swanson (2008). The updated CORMIX simulations matched the LMS simulations and predicted that the plume would occupy the whole width of the river, but only if the 1 0 th percentile flood current speed of 0.29 fps (0.088 m/s) were to last for 2.93 hours0.00108 days <br />0.0258 hours <br />1.537698e-4 weeks <br />3.53865e-5 months <br />, which is the travel time of the plume across the river. However the 1 0 th percentile current speed lasts less than 15 minutes as the flood tide starts from slack water. What will actually occur is that while the plume is traveling across the river it will encounter increasing currents as the flood tide increases. The steady state assumption of 0.29 fps (0.088 m/s) constant flood current speed used in the CORMIX model grossly overestimates the cross-river travel distance of the plume and hence is totally unrepresentative of actual conditions in the river.

The use of the steady state model cannot be used without analysis of the plume travel time to determine the applicability of the model for this specific purpose. As the travel time is significant relative to the duration of the flood tide then the modeling results described in the draft SEIS should not be used.

4. Draft SEIS: Section 4.1.4.5 NRC Staff Assessment of Thermal Impacts (page 4-27, lines 14-30)

ASA Comment on Draft SEIS Section The NRC staff assessment of thermal impacts concludes:

In the absence of the 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 lifestages 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. The NRC staff, after a review of available information on aquatic life in the Hudson River Estuary, did not find evidence of adverse effects on aquatic life that are clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important attributes of an aquatic resource (the criteria for a LARGE finding). In the absence of specific studies, and in the absence of effects sufficient to make a determination of a LARGE impacts, the NRC staff concludes that thermal impacts from IP2 and IP3 could thus range from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the extent and magnitude of the thermal plume, the sensitivity of various aquatic species and lifestages likely to encounter the thermal plume, and the probability of an encounter occurring that could result in lethal or sublethal effects. Additional thermal studies-as proposed by NYSDEC and Entergy-will generate data that could further refine or modify this impact level. For the purposes of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE. (page 4-27, lines 14-30) 7

NRC argues that existing information must be used even though it was pointed out (Swanson, 2008) that the thermal modeling previously performed was flawed based on two premises: 1) the hypothetical conditions chosen by NYSDEC for modeling (slack water at low tide) never exist in the Hudson River at the IP site; and 2) the duration of the slack water condition assumed in the previous CORMIX modeling at the site is completely incorrect (it is closer to 15 minutes, not the almost 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> presented). The modeling results presented are erroneous.and therefore cannot be used to draw any conclusions, specifically that adverse impacts are possible.

In addition, NRC cites the NYSDEC contention (NYSDEC, 2003) that the modeling shows that discharges from IP2 and IP3 could raise water temperatures to a level greater than that permitted by water quality criteria. ASA conducted an independent review of the historic thermal assessments (Swanson, 2008) and found that the supplemental modeling presented in CHGEC et al. (1999) is fundamentally flawed for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph and is therefore no reasonable basis for suggesting thermal non-compliance based on this modeling. Although the modeling may predict thermal non-compliance, the critical fact that the modeling is fundamentally flawed disallows any interpretation as to the effects of the discharges.

The three dimensional (tri-axial) thermal study, which was proposed by NYSDEC, along with more up-to-date three dimensional modeling is the preferred approach to assess the thermal distribution in the Hudson River from the discharges from IP1 and IP2. This procedure is typically used as the standard in these types of studies.

ASA Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section The above paragraph should be modified to read as follows:

Although a thermal study as proposed by NYSDEC (or an alternative proposed by Entergy and accepted by NYSDEC) is preferred, existing information may be used to estimate the appropriate thermal impact level to sensitive lifestages of important aquatic species. The NRC staff, after a review of available information on aquatic life in the Hudson River Estuary, did not find evidence of adverse effects on aquatic life that are clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important attributes of an aquatic resource (the criteria for a LARGE finding). Based on available information, the NRC staff concludes that thermal impacts from IP2 and IP3 would be SMALL due to the small extent and magnitude of the thermal plume after discounting the flawed modeling, but including the sensitivity of various aquatic species and lifestages when exposed to the small thermal plume, and the low probability of an encounter occurring that could result in lethal or sublethal effects. Additional thermal studies-as proposed by NYSDEC and Entergy-will generate data that could further refine or modify this impact level. For the purposes of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL.

Basis for Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section The basis for the suggested change to this section is that the plume extent would be small when the CORMIX modeling is correctly implemented and interpreted. This was performed with CORMIX-GI Version 4.1G, a newer version, using the same input parameters used by LMS and reported in CHGEC et al., (1999). If one incorrectly 8

assumed that the plume would be affected by a constant 10th percentile flood current speed of 0.29 fps (0.088 m/s) the updated CORMIX simulations reproduced the earlier results that the plume would occupy the whole width of the river, but only if the that current speed were to last for 2.93 hours0.00108 days <br />0.0258 hours <br />1.537698e-4 weeks <br />3.53865e-5 months <br />, the travel time of the plume across the river. However the 10th percentile current speeds lasts less than 15 minutes as the flood tide starts from slack water. What will actually occur is that while the plume is traveling across the river it will encounter increasingly large currents as the flood tide increases. In fact the cross-river travel distance of the plume decreases from 1510 m to 51 m, as flood current speed increases from the 10th percentile level to 2.0 fps (0.61 m/s) (90th percentile). The steady state assumption of constant flood current speed by the CORMIX model grossly overestimates the cross-river travel distance of the plume and hence is inaccurate.

The NRC staff say that no evidence was found of adverse effects on aquatic life that are "clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important aspects of an aquatic resource" thus eliminating a LARGE finding yet, without any evidence, conclude that thermal impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE. If no evidence was found for LARGE impacts and no evidence was found for SMALL to MODERATE impacts it cannot be rationally concluded that somehow the SMALL to MODERATE significance levels are reasonable. To the contrary, based on the known data and conditions discussed in this report, no finding above SMALL is warranted.

5. Draft SEIS: Section 4.3.3 Thermal Impacts of Biological Assessment in Appendix E (page E-99, lines 21-26)

ASA Comment on Draft SEIS Section Appendix E of the draft SEIS contains Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Numbers 2 and 3 compliance status and consultation correspondence. Within the Appendix is a Biological Assessment spanning pages E-87 to E-102 with the following:

The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) associated with the SPDES permit for IP2 and IP3 (NYSDEC 2003) concludes that "Thermal modeling indicates that the thermal discharge from Indian Point causes water temperatures to rise more than allowed." The thermal modeling referred to in the FEIS appears to represent a worst-case scenario. Available modeling indicates the potential for the discharges from IP2 and IP3 to violate the conditions of the IP2 and IP3 SPDES permit, which could result in a negative impact on the shortnose sturgeon. (page E-99, lines 21-26)

The thermal modeling is not a "worst-case scenario" since that designation implies that it is theoretically possible. In fact, the scenario is impossible to achieve based on the fundamental tidal processes occurring in the river at the site as detailed above.

ASA Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section The above paragraph should be modified to read as follows:

9

The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) associated with the SPDES permit for IP2 and IP3 (NYSDEC 2003) concludes that "Thermal modeling indicates that the thermal discharge from Indian Point causes water temperatures to rise more than allowed." The thermal modeling referred to in the FEIS is, however, flawed and should not be used to infer impacts. Without further modeling or instream plume mapping it is not possible to conclude that the discharges from IP2 and IP3 violate the conditions of the IP2 and IP3 SPDES permit, nor that a negative impact on the shortnose sturgeon would occur.

Basis for Suggested Change to Draft SEIS Section The basis for the suggested change is that the CORMIX modeling is in error as has been documented in the discussion above.

6. References Blumberg, A. F., and F. L. Hellweger (2006). Hydrodynamics of the Hudson River Estuary, In: Hudson River Fishes and their Environment, Waldman, J., K. Limburg, and D. Strayer, Eds. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 51: 9-28, 2006.

Cheng, R. T., V. Casulli, and J. W. Gartner, (1993). Tidal, Residual, Intertidal Mudflat (TRIM) model and its application to San Francisco Bay, California, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 36, pp. 235-280.

CHGEC et al. (Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Consolidated Edison Company 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." 18 December 1999. ADAMS Accession No. ML083400128.

Nobeltec (2001). Tides and Currents Pro for Windows, Version 3.0, Nautical Software Inc., Beaverton, Oregon.

Schureman, P. (1934). Tides and currents in Hudson River, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Special Publication No., 189, .U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Swanson, J.C., (2008). Review of thermal modeling relative to discharge from Indian Point 2 and 3 to the Hudson River. Submitted to Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA.

Wong, K-C., (1993). Numerical simulation of exchange process within shallow bar-built estuary, Estuaries, Vol.16, No.2, pp. 335-345.

10

ENCLOSURE 6 TO NL-09-036 Fisheries Expert's Report dated March 16, 2009, "Review of NRC's Impingqement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3" ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 and 3 DOCKETS 50-247 and 50-286

Review of NRC's Impingement and Entrainment Impact Assessment for IP2 and IP3 Lawrence W. Barnthouse, Ph. D.

LWB Environmental Services, Inc.

Douglas H. Heimbuch, Ph. D.

AKRF, Inc.

Mark Mattson, Ph. D.

Normandeau Associates, Inc.

John R. Young. Ph. D.

ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc.

March 16, 2009

Executive Summary This report provides an in-depth review of the entrainment and impact assessment prepared by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and contractors for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

Entergy recognizes that the NRC staff and contractors were asked to evaluate more than 30 years worth of environmental data and assessment studies, with limited resources, under very short time constraints. The comments provided here are intended to aid NRC in revising the DSEIS to eliminate any errors and inconsistencies that may have been introduced due to the complexity of the data sets and the difficulties engendered by the need to analyze such large quantities of data.

The review covers NRC's treatment of impingement vs. entrainment impacts, impacts on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon, NRC's lines of evidence concerning impacts of IP2 and IP3, and the NRC's application of the weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach. In addition, the review documents a modification to the WOE approach that eliminates inconsistencies and errors found in the NRCs analyses and incorporates additional information concerning potential impacts of impingement and entrainment.

Finally, the review compares the WOE approach to the approach used in Entergy's Adverse Environmental Impact (AEI) report.

Revisions to the DSEIS in response to these comments would substantially change the conclusions, and in particular would reduce the impact conclusions to SMALL or SMALL to MODERATE for all but one of the fish species for which an impact conclusion is possible. Even with these revisions, a revised assessment would still be less rigorous, accurate, and scientifically defensible than the Entergy's AEI report.

i

Table of Contents E xecutive Sum m ary .............................................................................. i

1. O v erv iew ....................................................................................................................... 1

2. Unbalanced characterization of impingement and entrainment impacts .................. 2 2.1 Relative importance of impingement and entrainment ........................................ 2 2.2 History of impingement impact mitigation at IP2 and IP3 .................................. 3 2.3 Conservatism of the impingement loss estimates in the DSEIS .......................... 6

3. Overstatement of uncertainty concerning impacts on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic stu rg eo n ......................................................................................................................... 7

4. Inconsistencies and errors in NRC's lines of evidence ............................................. 9 4.1 LO E Trends A nalysis ................................................................................... 9 4.2 LOE-2 Strength-of-Connection Analysis ......................................................... 14

5. Additional comments on NRC's application of the Weight-of Evidence approach... 20 5.1 Overview of the Massachusetts WOE approach ............................................... 20 5.2 M odifications m ade by NRC ...................................................................... 22 5.3 Demonstration of an alternative WOE approach ........................................ 24 5.4 Comparison of the WOE to the AEI approach ............................................ 26 6 . Co n clu sion s ................................................................................................................. 32

7. R eferen ces ................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A: Impact of IP2 and IP3 on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River Appendix B: Impacts of population variability on the probability of trends misclassification.

Appendix C: Review of Strength of Connection Analysis Presented in 2008 NRC DSEIS for Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Appendix D: Development and Application of a Modified WOE Approach for Assessing Impacts of IP2 and IP3 Cooling Systems on the Hudson River Fish Community 11

List of Tables Table 1. Projected reductions in annual average impingement losses at IP2 and IP3 if Ristroph screens and a fish return system had been installed and had been operating from 1974 through 1990 ....................................................................... 36 Table 2. Summary of simulation analysis results regarding operating characteristics of S O C test .......................................................................................... 3 7 Table 3. Impact Summary for Hudson River RIS, using an alternative WOE ap p ro ach ...................................................................................................................... 38 List of Figures Figure 1. Monte Carlo analysis of population growth classification methods ....... 39 iii

1. Overview This report provides an in-depth review of the entrainment and impact assessment prepared by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and contractors for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

The review focuses on Section 4 of the DSEIS (Environmental Impacts of Operation) and more particularly on Appendices H and I of the DSEIS, which provide the detailed assessment summarized in Section 4.

Entergy recognizes that the NRC staff and contractors were asked to evaluate more than 30 years worth of environmental data and assessment studies, with limited resources, under very short time constraints. The comments provided here are intended to aid NRC in revising the DSEIS to eliminate any errors and inconsistencies that may have been introduced due to the complexity of the data sets and the difficulties engendered by the need to analyze such large quantities of data. Making the suggested changes would also improve the consistency of the conclusions with current understanding of the processes influencing the Hudson River fish community.

The review covers NRC's treatment of impingement vs. entrainment impacts, impacts on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon, NRC's lines of evidence concerning impacts of IP2 and IP3, and the NRC's application of the weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach. In addition, the review documents a modification to the WOE approach that eliminates inconsistencies and errors found in the NRCs analyses and incorporates additional information concerning potential impacts of impingement and entrainment.

Finally, the review compares the WOE approach to the approach used in Entergy's Adverse Environmental Impact (AEI) report (Barnthouse et al. 2008).

I

2. Unbalanced characterization of impingement and entrainment impacts On p. 4-10, lines 6-8, the DSEIS states that "Because impingement and entrainment are fundamentally linked, the NRC staff determined that the effects of each should be assessed using an integrated approach." Although Entergy agrees that an integrated approach is needed to assess the combined effects of impingement and entrainment on Hudson River fish populations, the approach to integration taken in the DSEIS mischaracterizes both the available information concerning the relative importance of impingement and entrainment and the magnitude of effort initiated by the owners of IP2 and IP3 to develop and install state-of-the-art impingement mitigation technologies. Whereas the DSEIS treats impingement and entrainment as if they are equally important from an impact perspective, available information clearly demonstrates that impingement impacts are, even under worst-case assumptions (i.e., no survival of impinged fish) relatively insignificant and that advanced screening technologies installed at IP2 and IP3 have substantially reduced even those small impacts.

The DSEIS consistently mischaracterizes the studies performed to support the development of the mitigation technologies installed at IP2 and IP3 as "pilot" studies. In fact, installation of the Ristroph screens and fish return system at IP2 and IP3 was completed only after full-scale field studies were conducted at the site to determine the optimal configuration of all system components. These studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of this system at preventing injuries and mortality to impinged fish. The impingement mortality estimates derived from these studies and published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature should be used by NRC to assess potential future impingement losses at Indian Point. Properly evaluated, impacts due to impingent should be classified as SMALL for all RIS. Support for this revised conclusion is provided in the following subsections.

2.1 Relative importance of impingement and entrainment On p. 4-8, lines 38-41, the DSEIS characterizes NYSDEC's FES for the Hudson River (NYSDEC 2003) as concluding that "...the millions of fish killed by impingement, 2

entrainment, and thermal effects at the HRSA power plants represent a significant source of mortality and stress on the Hudson River's fish community and must be taken into account when assessing the observed fish population declines." In fact, the "millions of fish" referred to in the FES and summarized in Tables 1 and 2 of the FES, are combined*

entrainment losses for the Indian Point, Roseton, and Bowline plants. These losses are almost entirely of fish eggs and larvae, not the YOY fish that are the focus of the DSEIS.

Losses of YOY and older fish due to impingement are far lower. Moreover, quantitative impact assessments developed by CHGEC et al. (1999) show that potential impacts of impingement at IP2 and IP3 are small for all RIS, even when no adjustments are made to account for the survival of impinged fish. Conflating the assessments of entrainment and impingement, as is done in the DSEIS, substantially overstates the impacts of impingement on the Hudson River fish community.

2.2 History of impingement impact mitigation at IP2 and IP3 The DSEIS accurately characterizes the methods used to monitor impingement losses at IP2 and IP3, but does not fairly characterize the efforts made at IP2 and IP3 to develop, demonstrate, and install effective technologies for minimizing impingement losses. A more complete history of these efforts is provided here.

The original IP2 CWIS had six fixed 3/8 inch standard mesh intake screens located in the CWIS bulkhead at the river's edge and six 3/8 inch standard mesh (Rex) traveling screens in recessed forebays behind the fixed screens, with one set of screens servicing each intake pump. The fixed screens at IP2 were washed by spraying the screens as they were lifted with a crane, so that the contents were collected on the accompanying traveling screens. The original IP3 CWIS had six 3/8 inch standard mesh traveling screens located in recessed forebays in the CWIS bulkhead, but no fixed screens, with one traveling screen servicing each intake pump.

As part of the 1980 Hudson River Settlement Agreement (i.e., "HRSA"), the owners of IP2 and IP3 agreed to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of installing angled screens as an impingement mitigation measure. A subsequent report (Fletcher 1984) and peer-reviewed scientific publication by Fletcher (1985) demonstrated that an angled screen installation of the size required to protect the intake structures of both IP2 3

and IP3, while allowing sufficient intake flow, would not be effective at reducing impingement mortality. Continuously rotating (Ristroph) traveling screens with fish conservation structures and a return system were recommended by Fletcher as an alternative to the angled screen system.

Ristroph modified traveling screens were evaluated for impingement mitigation at Indian Point beginning in 1985, and continuing through 1994, under the direction of Dr.

Ian Fletcher. Dr. Fletcher directed this evaluation independently under contract to the Hudson River Fishermen's Association. Normandeau Associates, Inc. (i.e.,

"Normandeau") supported Dr. Fletcher's evaluation by providing field, laboratory and analytical services under his direction while being reimbursed for the work under contract to Indian Point.

A single Ristroph traveling screen (Royce Equipment Company of Houston, Texas, Version 1) was installed in screen well slot 26 located at the north end of the IP2 CWIS on 16 January 1985 to begin an evaluation of impingement survival at Indian Point. Fish impingement survival studies were conducted daily throughout 1985 by comparing the survival of fish impinged on the Ristroph screen with the survival of fish impinged on the conventional (Rex) traveling screens simultaneously operating in screen wells 21-25 of the IP2 CWIS. The goal was to determine the improvement in survival of impinged fish if the conventional (Rex) traveling screens were all replaced with Ristroph-modified traveling screens and a state of the art fish return system at IP2 and IP3. These survival studies observed fish survival at 0, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84 and 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> after impingement (Con Edison 1985).

In 1986, additional impingement survival studies were conducted to compare Royce Version 1 and Version 2 screens using mortality observations at time 0 and after eight hours of holding time. The Version 2 screens exhibited much improved fish survival compared to the Version 1 screens (Fletcher 1986; 1992), based on the eight-hour (i.e., "latent") mortality rates used by Dr. Fletcher. Peer reviewed scientific publications by Fletcher (1986; 1990) selected eight hour estimates as the most reliable time period for quantifying survival rates of impinged fish at IP2 and IP3 without the potential confounding effects of increased control mortality due to longer holding times, and reported these rates for abundant fish species impinged at Indian Point.

4

Ristroph screen evaluations continued annually through November 1994, under the direction of Dr. Fletcher, testing the fish survival, the debris handling characteristics, and the interaction between fish survival and debris handling for various modifications to the Ristroph screen mesh panels, spray headers, spray header alignment, and fish transfer bucket system (Con Edison and NYPA 1992; Normandeau 1996). The goal of these studies was to customize the construction, installation, and operation of the Ristroph screens and fish return system for the optimum survival of impinged fish. Beginning in 1989, and continuing into 1991, full scale prototypes of the fish return sluice system for the IP2 and IP3 CWISs were built near the quarry adjacent to the Indian Point site (Con Edison and NYPA 1992). Each full scale return sluice system was tested to determine the best configuration of pipes and sluice flow to minimize the mortality of impinged fish during transfer from the Ristroph screens to the river. After the installation of the present Ristroph modified traveling screens at IP3 in 1991 and at IP2 in 1992, testing of the installed full scale sluice system continued through 1993 to determine the best configuration to minimize the recirculation and re-impingement of surviving fish that were released back into the Hudson River near the IP2 and I{3 CWISs (Normandeau 1993). Earlier studies to determine the distribution of fish near the IP2 and IP3 CWISs (Ross et al. 1987) formed the basis for these 1993 evaluations.

Following the completion of these final field-scale demonstration studies, NYSDEC, and USEPA accepted the Ristroph screens and fish return system as Best Technology Available (i.e., "BTA") for minimizing impingement at IP2 and IP3. A formal agreement that would have included verification monitoring was drafted and signed by all signatories to the HRSA except the Hudson Riverkeeper. Without the Riverkeeper signature, the agreement could not be implemented. In the absence of a formal agreement, the facility owners were under no obligation to perform a verification monitoring program, and relied on the thorough testing performed from 1985 through 1994, and documented in numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications, as the measure of the reductions in impingement mortality of the installed Ristroph screen and fish return system. Since its installation, the impingement mitigation system has been operated in the manner that was found to be optimal during the full-scale demonstration study, and the impingement mortality estimates derived from that study should still be applicable.

5

2.3 Conservatism of the impingement loss estimates in the DSEIS The published (Fletcher 1990), peer-reviewed, impingement survival estimates for the Ristroph screens and fish return system installed and operated at IP2 and IP3 are listed in the DSEIS (Table H-I on page H-2), but were not used to adjust annual total impingement mortality. The rationale provided in the DSEIS was that there was no verification monitoring or validation of the installed system. However, these survival estimates were obtained from full-scale field testing under normal operating conditions.

Application of these survival estimates to the impingement loss totals used by NRC would reduce the estimated impingement losses by factors ranging from 48% (alewife) to 91% (striped bass).

The consequences of NRC's conservative assessment approach are illustrated in Table 1. To construct this table, the mortality estimates from Fletcher (1990) for eight commonly-impinged species, as reported in Table H-1 of the DSEIS, were applied to the historical impingement data for IP2 (1974-1990) and IP3 (1976-1990) supplied to NRC in response to RFI #17. In most years between 1974 and 1990, these eight species accounted for more than 90% of all fish impinged at IP2 and IP3. Table 1 shows that if the estimated survival rates for the Ristroph screens and fish return system, currently in place at IP2 and IP3, were applied to the historical estimates of numbers of fish impinged, the overall species-weighted average reduction in impingement mortality would be 82% at both units. Assuming no changes in the species composition of impinged fish after 1990, the expected average reduction in impingement mortality for years after 1990 would, presumably, also be 82%.

These results support the conclusion that the levels of historical and future impingement mortality at IP2 and IP3 are far lower than the losses assumed by NRC in the DSEIS. Since, even without accounting for survival of impinged fish, impacts of impingement at IP2 and IP3 have historically been small, impacts during the next licensing period, with the impingement mitigation that is currently in place, should be characterized as SMALL.

6

3. Overstatement of uncertainty concerning impacts on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon In the DSEIS, impacts of impingement and entrainment on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon are classified as SMALL to LARGE (p. 4-19, lines 37-39) due to lack of data on YOY life stages. However, the DSEIS did not incorporate all available data concerning the status of shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River, and in particular failed to consider data summarized in the Biological Assessment attached as Appendix E to the DSEIS. Appendix A to this report summarizes aspects of the life histories of these two species in the Hudson River that indicate that both should have low susceptibilities to impingement and entrainment. Appendix A also identifies errors in NRC's analysis of impingement data for these two species that led to inflated estimates of the numbers impinged from 1981 to 1990.

As demonstrated in Appendix A and recognized in the DSEIS (Section 2 and Appendix E), sturgeon larvae are not susceptible to entrainment at IP2 and IP3. The susceptibility of shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon to impingement is low based on known characteristics of habitat preferences and migratory patterns. This low susceptibility to impingement is confirmed by the facts that only 31 shortnose sturgeon were impinged at IP2 or IP3 from 1975 through 1990 (approximately 2 per year, see Table A-I in Appendix A) and only 515 Atlantic sturgeon were impinged over this same period (approximately 32 per year; see Table A-1 in Appendix A). Even under the unrealistically conservative assumption that no impinged sturgeon survive, impingement of approximately two shortnose sturgeon per year is negligibly small compared to the annual "take" of 82 juvenile and adult fish authorized by NMFS Permit No. 1580 for the utilities monitoring programs. In contrast to these very low impingement counts, approximately 60,000 juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon now inhabit the Hudson River, and this population has grown by more than 400% since the startup of IP2 and IP3.

According to the criteria provided on p. H-46 of the DSEIS, impacts of IP2 and IP3 on a growing population must be characterized as SMALL, irrespective of. the 7

strength of connection of that population to IP2 and IP3. Impacts of IP2 and IP3 on a declining population must be characterized as SMALL if there is little evidence exists of a connection between that population and cooling system operations at IP2 and IP3.

Based on these criteria, impacts of IP2 and IP3 on shortnose sturgeon should be characterized as SMALL because the shortnose sturgeon is clearly growing, is not susceptible to entrainment, and has only a low susceptibility to impingement. Impacts on Atlantic sturgeon should also be characterized as SMALL, because, even though the population has declined, Atlantic sturgeon are not susceptible to entrainment at IP2 and IP3 and have only a low susceptibility to impingement.

8

4. Inconsistencies and errors in NRC's lines of evidence This section provides a detailed evaluation of the two lines of evidence used in the DSEIS: a population trends analysis (LOE-1), and a "strength-of-connection (SOC) analysis (LOE-2). The purpose of LOE-1 was to determine whether fish populations in the Hudson River were declining in abundance over the period during which IP2 and IP3 have been operating. A finding that a particular population had declined was assumed to indicate a potential adverse impact on that population. The purpose of LOE-2 was to determine whether fish belonging to each of the RIS had been entrained and impinged in proportion to their abundance in the river segment from which IP2 and IP3 withdraw cooling water. A finding that a particular RIS was being entrained or impinged at a disproportionately high rate compared to its abundance in the river was assumed to indicate a strong connection to IP2 and IP3 and, therefore, a high potential for impact.

The emphasis in these comments is on identification of inconsistencies and errors in LOE-1 and LOE-2 that would be likely to change the conclusions stated in the DSEIS.

As discussed below, some of the inconsistencies and errors identified in NRC's approach are substantial and correcting them would change the impact conclusions for many RIS.

4.1 LOE Trends Analysis In Appendices H and I, NRC conducted analyses of the fisheries abundance data sets provided by Entergy in order to determine the potential for adverse impacts of entrainment and impingement on individual species. For each data set, NRC estimated a trend and classified the result as indicating a Small, Moderate, or Large potential for adverse environmental impact. In brief, data sets with an upward or no significant trend would have Small potential, and data sets with significant declining trends would have Moderate or Large potential, however no analyses were attempted to establish causation between the trend and actual levels of impingement or entrainment mortality.

Due to the large amount of data available, NRC had to make decisions about which data sets to use and how to conduct the classification analysis. Most of those decisions appear to have a logical basis, but some of them appear to have been made 9

without exploring the potential consequences of the decision on the outcome of the analysis. The decisions that are most in need of examination are discussed below.

4.1.1 Selection of RIS species The "RIS" analyzed in the DSEIS appear to have been selected as the species whose abundance and distribution were detailed in the DEIS prepared by the generators in 1999. This is a broader list than the original "Resident Important Species" list used in impact analyses for the Hudson River facilities. The decision to expand the analysis to a broader list of species is understandable, but in some cases there is relatively little involvement of the species with IP2 and IP3 operations, for instance the two sturgeon species, bluefish, and weakfish. Expansion of the analysis to include additional species that are not typically subject to impingement and entrainment at IP2 and IP3 increases the probability of false positive instances of "large potential impact," because the impact classification is based on abundance trends rather than actual involvement with IP2 and IP3.

Bluefish is an especially obvious example of a false positive. As noted in Section 2 of the DSEIS, bluefish have never been found in entrainment collections at IP2 or IP3 and bluefish are impinged only in very low numbers. Yet, the bluefish impact score for LOE-1 is classified as "large," simply because the abundance of this species appears to have declined. Elimination of species with minimal susceptibility to IP2 and IP3 would significantly alter the conclusions from the assessment.

4.1.2 Redundant use of data The analyses NRC conducted using densities, CPUE, and abundance indices, on a riverwide and nearfield (river segment 4) basis, are not independent because the same data are involved in all the analyses. Each of these metrics is derived from the same underlying sampling data, but somewhat different calculations are done. One would expect the three indices calculated by NRC from these data to show the same general trends.

Use of the same data sets to calculate multiple trends indices presents a false impression of the amount of evidence available concerning trends in population abundance. Moreover, all of these indices are subject to sampling errors and other 10

sources of variability. Performing statistical analyses on three different trends indices derived from the same data set, instead of only one, increases the likelihood that at least one index, purely by chance, will suggest a potentially "moderate" or "large" impact.

The river Segment 4 metrics are particularly suspect, because they are based on sampling from only a small region near IP2 and IP3. Annual variations in abundance in river segment 4 would be affected by the overall abundance of a species, but also are much more sensitive to shifts in spatial distribution than the riverwide metrics would be.

When riverwide metrics are available for a species with widespread distribution in the estuary, it is difficult to understand why a metric based on spatially limited sampling would be used at all.

Elimination of redundant metrics, in particular reliance on riverwide trends metrics rather than the segment 4 trends metrics, could significantly alter the conclusions from the assessment.

4.1.3 Definition of the instability criterion NRC used the percent of observations for each trend metric falling outside +/- 1 standard deviation from the mean value for the first five years of data as an index of population instability. If more than 40% of the observations fell outside this bound, a population trend was classified as either "moderate" or "large," depending on the direction and statistical significance of the trend. However, even in the case of a population that is stable and for which there is no long-term trend in abundance, a substantial fraction of observations could still fall outside one standard deviation from the mean. The actual percentage falling outside that boundary would depend on the type and magnitude of year-to-year variability in that population, but could easily exceed 40%,

especially when the influence of sampling errors is taken into account. Defining instability in a different way, e.g., as an increase in variability between the first half and the second half of the observations, could significantly alter the conclusions from the assessment.

4.1.4 Influence of population variability on the classification procedure for LOE-1 For LOE-1, NRC developed a set of decision rules to classify fish abundance data sets into indicators of Small, Moderate, or Large Potential Impacts. The classification 11

was based on the direction and statistical significance of trends, and on the frequency of annual trends indices falling outside the pre-determined noise boundary discussed above.

NRC's classification scheme, like any classification scheme based on statistical analysis of trends data, is sensitive to variability in the underlying trends indices resulting from a combination of the natural variability of fish populations and the sampling error associated with survey data. The DSEIS provided no discussion of the potential for misclassification of abundance trends. Without such an analysis, the accuracy of the NRC's classifications cannot be assessed.

Because of natural variability, there will always be some probability of misclassifying a population. In an ideal classification scheme, probabilities of misclassification would be low, and would occur only within narrow ranges of "borderline" growth rates. There would be some probability that a population trend that should be classified as Small is actually classified as Moderate, or that a population that should be classified as Moderate is actually classified as Large, but there should be no probability that a population that should be classified as Small is actually classified as Large.

Appendix B documents an analysis that was undertaken to evaluate the reliability of NRC's trends classification scheme. NRC's scheme was applied to simulated data from populations with known rates of annual population growth ranging from a 70%

decline to a 330% increase over a 30-year period. For each population growth rate, 1000 simulated abundance time trends were simulated, with random variations applied to each annual abundance value. Each of the resulting simulated trends data sets were then analyzed and classified as Small, Moderate, or Large using NRC's scheme. The analysis was performed for two different types of variability, and two levels of random variation.

Classification probabilities for an "ideal" procedure are illustrated in figure la, and the probabilities calculated for NRC's classification procedure are illustrated in figure lb. In Figurela, the ranges of population change over which more than one classification is possible are small (-0.65 to -0.85 and -0.95 to -1.1), and there are no rates of population change for which more than two classifications are possible. As shown in Figure 1b, probabilities of misclassification are high using NRC's procedure.

There is a 20%-40% chance that a trend will be classified as Moderate for population 12

changes ranging from a 50% decline to a 330% increase. Moreover, a population that declines by 25% over 30 years has a roughly equal probability of being classified into any of the three categories.

To illustrate the potential for improvement of the classification process, a simpler set of rules was applied to the simulated data (Appendix A). This scheme produced Large, Moderate, and Small classifications that were much more distinct than those produced by NRC's rules (Figure ic). Separation of the Large and Small categories was nearly complete, and a Moderate category centered on relative change - 1, where the probability of Large and Small was very low. The zones of overlap of two categories, either Large with Moderate or Moderate with Small, are much smaller than with the classification rules used by NRC. This alternate classification is still conservative, because population that are growing, but at a relatively low rate (up to about a 120%

increase over 30 years) have a higher probability of being incorrectly classified as Moderate than of being correctly classified as Small.

Changing the classification procedure used in the DSEIS could significantly alter the conclusions.

4.1.5 Other statistical issues A number of the procedures used in NRC's statistical analysis of trends data are unclear or inadequately justified. It is unclear whether the conclusions reached by NRC would be altered by changing these procedures, however, for the sake of transparency all of them should be explained in the DSEIS.

Data set truncation: All data sets were truncated to a length of 27 years, even when additional years of data were available. Although at most five years of data were discarded, the analyses employed had no inherent need for a standardized length of the time series. No rationale was provided for this decision.

Pre- and post-1985 analyses for FSS data: NRC used a visual inspection of the pre- and post-1985 FSS data, and relative agreement with the BSS data, to determine whether the FSS data set was analyzed as a whole or as two separate time periods. The differences in patterns between the data sets analyzed as a whole (blueback herring, striped bass, white perch, hogchoker in Figure 1-12, Atlantic tomcod in Figure 1-13), and 13

those data sets analyzed in segments (alewife, American shad, bay anchovy and bluefish in Figure 1-14) are not readily apparent.

Discarding outlying data values: When NRC's regression methods were not able to converge to a solution, NRC sometimes attempted to achieve convergence by discarding data points deemed to be "outliers," even though there was no independent reason to suspect that the data point was not a valid observation of abundance. Many fish populations exhibit wide fluctuations in abundance as their natural pattern of population dynamics.

Exclusion of data on the basis of having a value that is higher or lower than the rest creates the potential to bias the analysis of potential adverse environmental impact.

Discarding the "outlier" point may help the algorithm to converge to a solution that appears to be statistically significant even though in reality a significant trend is not present.

Methodology for estimating Segmented Regression trendlines: This issue points to the choice of analytical software used to estimate the trendlines. The Prism software apparently provides little opportunity to adjust the solution algorithm by changing initial values, search methods, step sizes, or convergence criteria. If fine-tuning of the algorithm had been possible, that would have been far preferable to unjustifiably discarding data points in order to achieve convergence.

A related issue is that the trend estimates, MSE, and statistical probabilities for the segmented regression are not necessarily unique. An attempt to duplicate the analysis for the abundance index data set produced the same results as NRC achieved for some data sets, but not for others. These differences suggest that NRC's selection of either the Linear Regression, or Segmented Regression based on which method achieved the lowest MSE, may not have always been correct. It's not clear that this would have lead to different impact classifications for any of the data sets, but there is a potential for different results.

4.2 LOE-2 Strength-of-ConnectionAnalysis In Appendices H and I, NRC conducted analyses of the impingement and entrainment data sets provided by the Entergy in order to determine the strength-of-14

connection (SOC) between water withdrawals by IP2 and IP3 and the Hudson River fish community. The analysis was performed using a comparative ranking method.

Estimates of the abundance of each RIS in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 over the period 1979-1990 were calculated using a method explained on pp. 1-40 and 1-41 of the DSEIS.

These abundance values were then summed, and each RIS was assigned a rank according to its contributions to the total abundance of all RIS. Similarly, impingement losses of all RIS over this same period were estimated using a method explained on pp. 1-40 and 1-41.

These loss values were summed, and each RIS was assigned a rank according to its contribution to the total losses. Ratios of ranks were then computed, i.e., the abundance rank of each species was divided by its impingement rank. A high rank ratio was interpreted as indicating that a species was impinged at a disproportionately high rate compared to its abundance in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3. Such a species would be assigned a high SOC. On the other hand, a low rank ratio was interpreted as indicating that a species was impinged at a disproportionately low rate compared to its abundance in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3. Such a species would be assigned a low SOC.

An analogous procedure was used to assign SOC scores for entrainment. As a means of assessing indirect impacts of entrainment and impingement, food habits of the RIS were evaluated. For those RIS that feed on other RIS, the entrainment rank ratio of prey RIS was included as an additional SOC metric. The SOC scores for each metric were averaged, and the averages assigned to categories of Low, Medium, and High.

The use of relative ranks in computing the SOC scores implies that the scores for different species are not independent from each other. If one RIS is assigned a high score, another RIS must necessarily be assigned a low score, regardless of the actual impacts of entrainment or impingement on that RIS. The consequences of this lack-of-independence are summarized in section 4.2.1 below, and fully documented in Appendix C. Moreover, the rank ratios are sensitive to errors and inconsistencies in the methods used to analyze the Hudson River data sets. Errors and inconsistencies in NRC's analyses are summarized in Section 4.2.2 below, and fully documented in Appendix C.

Appendix C also documents an alternative method that eliminates all errors and inconsistencies. When the alternative method is applied to the data used in the DSEIS, 15

all IRIS receive the same SOC score ("medium"). Correction of these errors and inconsistencies would significantly change the conclusions from the assessment.

4.2.1 Lack-of-Independence Two aspects of the SOC method may lead to erroneous results. First, the scoring method relies on ranks of the 17 finfish RIS (blue crab is the 18th RIS, but was not included in the rankings). If one species has an elevated abundance in the river, with no corresponding elevation in impingement or entrainment (which should be viewed as a positive situation), then the river abundance rank (see DSEIS Table 1-30) assigned to it would be increased. However, because there are always 17 ranks, the rank for one or more other species must be decreased (even though they experienced no decline in abundance in the river) to accommodate the increase in rank for the one species.

Another aspect of the SOC method that may lead to erroneous results is that the method does not explicitly account for sampling error reflected in the data. Although the use of ranks was selected in recognition of the presence of sampling error, no statistical tests were reported that could be used to judge the possible effects of sampling error on the results.

To examine the possible effects of these two aspects of the Strength of Connection method on resulting scores, a Monte Carlo simulation analysis was conducted, using impingement as an example. The analysis generated sets of simulated data, including simulated sampling error, for all weeks of river abundance sampling from 1979 through 1990. The Monte Carlo simulation was run 300 times generating 300 simulated data sets.

The analysis started with the null hypothesis that the annual density in Segment 4, for each of the 17 finfish RIS, was identical to the corresponding annual impingement density (from DSEIS Table 1-28). To implement the analysis, the annual average density in Region 4 was set to be equal to the corresponding impingement density. The allocation of annual density among sampled weeks and between sampling programs was based on historical data, and density estimates from the two riverwide YOY sampling programs (FSS and BSS) were combined using the same assumptions and computational methods used in the DSEIS. Sampling variability was simulated using the average 16

coefficients of variation, by species and sampling program, from the actual FSS and BSS datasets For each run, Region 4 density ranks were computed using the methods described in Appendices H and I of the DSEIS. Impingement density ranks were taken directly from DSEIS Table 1-30. Strength of Connection scores were assigned based on the ratio of Rank of Impingement to Rank of Fish Density (DSEIS, Appendix H, page H-33).

Ratio < 0.5: Score=1 0.5<=Ratio<1.5: Score=2 Ratio>=1.5: Score=4 To address the possible effects of elevated densities for some species on the ranks and scores of other species, a sequence of modifications was made to the null hypothesis scenario. First, the Region 4 density for one species (chosen independently at random in each random draw of the Monte Carlo simulation) was increased by a factor of 2, but the impingement density for that species, and all other species, did not change. In five separate analyses, the same procedure was used to address the effects of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 species having elevated Region 4 density (with no change in impingement).

Under the null hypothesis, if there was no sampling error all RIS would have a rank ratio of 1.0, and all would be assigned a score of 2 (medium). Sampling error would decrease the rank ratios for some RIS and increase the rank ratios for others, so that some species could receive erroneously high or low scores. If one or more species had elevated Region 4 densities, so that the rank ratios of these species were reduced, the rank ratios of others would necessarily increase, even though their impingement densities were still exactly equal to their Region 4 densities.

The results from the Monte Carlo simulation analysis are listed in Table 2. The analysis demonstrates that, because the SOC scores for different RIS are not independent from each other, changes in abundance of one species that reduce its rank ratio and SOC score necessarily increase the rank ratio and SOC scores for other species. Under the null hypothesis, for the levels of sampling variability estimated directly from the BSS and FSS survey data, there is at least a 26% chance that one or more of 17 RIS species will be scored as having a "high" SOC, even though all 17 species should be scored as "medium." If one or more species are impinged at disproportionately low rates relative 17

to their abundance in the river, there is an even greater chance that one or more species will be erroneously assigned "high" SOC scores.

The rank-based SOC metric used in the DSEIS also has a fundamental flaw in that it is highly sensitive to rank differences of rare species and insensitive to rank differences of common species. For example, if the rarest species in the river rankings was also the rarest in the impingement rankings, the ratio of ranks would be 1.0, indicating a Medium SOC. If, however, because of sampling error or other sources of variability the rarest species in the river was only the second rarest in the impingement rankings, the ratio would be 2.0, indicating a High SOC. On the other hand, if the most abundant species in the river ranked anywhere between 9 th and 1 7 th in the impingement rankings, the ratio of ranks would be between 0.5 and 1.0, indicating a Medium SOC. If the ranks had been ordered in the opposite direction, from most abundant to least abundant, the sensitivities would be exactly the opposite. In that case, the scores would be highly sensitive to the ranks of the most abundant species, and insensitive to the ranks of the rare species. This asymmetrical sensitivity to rank differences makes this metric a questionable indicator of SOC, whichever way the ranking is done.

4.2.2 Inconsistencies and Inappropriate Use of Data According to the DSEIS, the impingement SOC analysis was based on comparisons of impingement densities and Region 4 river densities of the RIS. Similarly, the entrainment SOC analysis was based on comparisons of entrainment densities and Region 4 river densities of the RIS. For the analyses to be meaningful, the measure of impingement density should be directly comparable to the measure of Region 4 river density, and the measure of entrainment density should be directly comparable to the measure of Region 4 river density. However, as documented in Appendix C, the measures of density are not directly comparable due to inconsistencies in the methods.

Furthermore, individual measures (entrainment density, impingement density, Region 4 river density) used in the analyses are not valid metrics of density due to inappropriate uses of the data.

Tables C-2 and C-4 of Appendix C summarize key properties (i.e., types of input data, summary statistics used, years of data included, life stages included, and any 18

taxonomic substitutions) of the density metrics used in the SOC analysis. These tables also list inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of data. Major categories of inconsistencies and inappropriate uses include the treatment of input data, summary statistics used for comparisons, years of data used, life stages included, and (for entrainment) allocation of unidentified larvae to different taxonomic groups.

Appendix C documents an alternative method for computing SOC scores in which all of the inconsistencies and inappropriate uses were rectified. In the alternative analysis, metrics for impingement density, entrainment density, and river density are all expressed in comparable units and are based on the same life stages and years of data.

The key properties of the alternative method are summarized in Appenix C, Tables C-3 and C-5.

Tables C-6 through C-9 of Appendix C compare the results from application of the alternative method to the results documented in Appendix I of the DSEIS. In the DSEIS, High SOC scores for impingement were assigned to bluefish and hogchoker, and a Low SOC score was assigned to spottail shiner. In the DSEIS, a High score for entrainment was assigned to rainbow smelt and a Low score was assigned to spottail shiner. In contrast, using the alternative method, Medium scores for both entrainment and impingement were assigned to all RIS.

19

5. Additional comments on NRC's application of the Weight-of Evidence approach NRC did not use the population dynamics-based impact assessment approaches used in previous entrainment and impingement impact assessments for Hudson River power plants. Instead, in the DSEIS NRC used a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach derived from an approach originally developed by the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Work Group for use in risk assessments performed at sites contaminated with hazardous chemicals (Menzie et al. 1996). This section summarizes the key features of the original WOE approach, identifies changes made by NRC, and compares the approach used in the DSEIS to the approach used by Entergy in its AEI report (Barnthouse et al. 2008).

5.1 Overview of the Massachusetts WOE approach This section provides a brief overview of the WOE approach, which is necessary for understanding the limitations inherent in NRC's use of this approach in the DSEIS.

According to Menzie et al. (1996), the WOE approach is intended to provide a rational and transparent framework for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different types of scientific evidence used to determine whether a particular stressor has caused, or could cause, a harmful ecological effect. The approach includes evaluation of the nature of uncertainty associated with each line of evidence.

The WOE approach was designed to be consistent with the ecological risk assessment process defined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1992), Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998), and Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (USEPA 1997). These documents define the two key elements of an ecological risk assessment as being "assessment endpoints" and "measurement endpoints." Assessment endpoints are "explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be protected." The abundance of a valued fish population, the productivity of a benthic invertebrate community that serves as a prey base for fish, and the viability of an endangered or threatened species are examples of assessment endpoints. Measurement endpoints are the specific lines of evidence that are used to 20

determine whether assessment endpoints have been or could be adversely affected by a stressor. Measurement endpoints could include field data on the abundance and other characteristics of populations or communities chosen as assessment endpoints, measurements of concentrations of hazardous substances in environmental media, results from laboratory studies, mathematical modeling studies, or other kinds of relevant information. The WOE approach, in essence, is a set of procedures intended to provide consistent, logical, and transparent evaluations of the applicability, strengths, and weaknesses of the various measurement endpoints that could be used to assess the likelihood that a stressor of concern is affecting or may have affected an assessment endpoint.

The Massachusetts WOE approach includes three major components:

1. Weight assigned to each measurement endpoint, based on the degree to which they relate to the assessment endpoint, on the quality of the data, or on the manner in which they were applied,

2. Magnitude of response in each measurement endpoint, with strong or obvious responses being typically assigned greater weight than marginal or ambiguous responses, and

3. Concurrence among measurements, with more weight or confidence being attributed to findings in which there is agreement among multiple measurement endpoints and less weight or confidence being attributed to findings in which lines of evidence contradict one another.

Menzie et al. (1996) defined 11 attributes for use in evaluating the utility of individual lines of evidence, grouped into categories related to strength of association between assessment and measurement endpoints, data quality, and study design. These authors also provide a table of scaling values intended to account for the relative importance of each attribute. The relative utilities of different lines of evidence relating to a particular assessment endpoint are determined by scoring each line of evidence 21

according to the 11 attributes, multiplying each attribute score by the applicable scaling value, and then summing the adjusted scores.

The magnitude of the response for each measurement endpoint is evaluated by determining (1) whether the measurement endpoint indicates the presence or absence of harm, and (2) whether the response is low or high. Determinations of what response would indicate a presence of harm, and of what values of the response would be considered "low" or "high," involve subjective judgments and should be made prior to the assessment. Menzie et al. (1996) suggest that the weighting scores, evidence of harm determinations, and magnitude of harm determinations for each measurement endpoint should be presented in matrix form rather than being aggregated into a combined score.

With respect to concurrence, Menzie et al. (1996) developed a graphical method for displaying and comparing WOE determinations for different lines of evidence with different utility weights and magnitude determinations but did not recommend aggregation of the results into a combined score.

5.2 Modifications made by NRC In the DSEIS, NRC adopted the overall framework of the WOE approach from Menzie et al. (1996), but simplified many of the evaluation procedures. The 18 RIS identified in Table 2-4 of the DSEIS were selected as assessment endpoints for the WOE evaluation. More specifically, the WOE evaluation addressed the potential impacts of entrainment and impingement at IP on the abundance of YOY and yearling fish belonging to each RIS, either through entrainment and impingement mortality imposed on the species themselves or through entrainment and impingement of prey species. Two general lines of evidence were defined: the abundance of the RIS, as determined from analysis of population trends (LOE-1), and the "strength of connection" between the operation of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems and the aquatic resources of the Hudson River, as determined from analysis of impingement and entrainment losses (LOE-2).

Only 7 of the 11 attributes defined by Menzie et al. (1996) were used by NRC, and all 7 were given equal weight.

Determination of whether the response of a particular measure is "low" or "high" can be highly subjective, especially in the case of measures for which an objective measure of harm (e.g., a water quality criterion or a fishing mortality threshold) does not 22

exist. The NRC's guidance on determining magnitudes of environmental impacts (DSEIS, page 1-3) specifies that impacts on an environmental resource should be designated SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE depending on whether they are detectable and whether they are large enough to destabilize important attributes of that resource. In the DSEIS, magnitudes of impacts for the population line of evidence are assigned based on the slopes, statistical significance, and variance from trends analyses. Magnitudes of impact for the strength-of-connection line of evidence are assigned based on the rankings of impingement and entrainment losses of RIS species relative to rankings of abundance of RIS in river survey data. Objective measures of harm do not exist for any of these measures, consequently, the resulting magnitudes of impact are necessarily subjective and are not directly related to the definitions of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE defined in NRC guidance. For example, in LOE- 1, an impact is defined as "large" if the population trend has a slope significantly different from zero and had greater than 40% of annual abundance indices more than one standard deviation away from the mean of the first five years of observation. In LOE-2, a strength of connection for an RIS is defined as "high" if that RIS appears to be disproportionately represented in entrainment or impingement samples relative to its abundance in the river in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3.

These operational definitions are at best indirectly related to the definition of LARGE provide in NRC's guidance, i.e., "environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource."

Assignments of final NRC impact levels (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) are based on qualitative consideration of the WOE conclusions for both lines of evidence.

For example, if the conclusion from the population line of evidence is "small," then SMALL overall impact level is assigned regardless of the outcome of the strength-of-evidence analysis. If the conclusion from the population line of evidence is large, then the final impact level can be SMALL or LARGE depending on the strength-of-evidence conclusion.

The outcome of NRC's WOE approach is dependent on the subjective attribute weightings and definitions of levels of impact and, consequently, the conclusions from the assessment are subjective and sensitive to changes in weightings and definitions.

Moreover, whether the levels of impingement or entrainment mortality imposed on an 23

RIS are actually sufficient to have caused an observed level of decline, whether alternative causes could more easily explain changes observed in the RIS, or whether additional mitigation could appreciably improve the status of an RIS, cannot be addressed using NRC's WOE approach. These issues are, in contrast, addressed in the AEI approach developed by Entergy.

The above considerations do not imply that the WOE approach lacks value and should not be used, however, they imply that use of the terms SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE to characterize the conclusions conveys a much higher degree of confidence than is actually warranted. The following section demonstrates how NRC's conclusions would be different using an alternative WOE approach that is more closely aligned to the approach described by Menzie et al. (1996), corrects some errors made by NRC in interpreting the Hudson River data, and utilizes more of the available evidence concerning potential impacts of IP2 and IP3 on the Hudson River fish community.

Application of the alternative approach produces conclusions that are substantially different from the conclusions reached in the DSEIS.

5.3 Demonstrationof an alternativeWOE approach An alternative WOE approach is documented in Appendix D to this report. A summary of the key changes, together with the results obtained from application of the alternative approach, are provided here.

Key changes made include:

1. Elimination of inconsistencies and errors in NRC's strength-of-connection analysis (Section 3.2 above) and correction of errors in assumptions made concerning diets of some fish species (Appendix D)

2. Reweighting of the lines of evidence used in the population trends analysis, to account for the fact that riverwide abundance trends are more relevant measures of population status than are abundance trends in the immediate vicinity of IP2 and IP3.

3. Adjustment of the population trends WOE scores for marine species to account for the fact that many or most members of these populations never enter the Hudson and are not susceptible to entrainment or impingement at IP and IP3.

24

4. Reweighting of the lines of evidence used in the SOC analysis to account for the low impact of impingement relative to entrainment (section 2 of this report) and the high uncertainty associated with predictions concerning the importance of indirect effects (Appendix D).

5. Inclusion of the attribute scaling factors developed by Menzie et al. (1996) to accord more weight to attributes that are closely related to determination of causation.

6. Inclusion of the "availability of objective measures" attribute from Menzie et al.

(1996) to accord more weight to attributes that directly measure quantities of interest for impact assessment.

7. Modification of the impact category assignment scheme to eliminate a bias inherent in the scheme used in the DSEIS.

8. Addition of two additional lines of evidence to the SOC analysis, to more directly address direct and indirect impacts of entrainment and impingement on Hudson River fish populations.

Of these changes, the most important are the elimination of inconsistencies in LOE-2 and the inclusion of estimates of conditional mortality rates (CMRs) as additional lines of evidence. As shown in Section 4.2.2, when inconsistencies in LOE-2 analysis are eliminated, the rank-based strength-of-connection scores are equal for all RIS and provide no information concerning the impact of IP2 and IP3 on these species. The CMRs, in contrast, are empirically-based estimates of the actual mortality imposed on fish populations by entrainment and impingement, and provide objective measures of potential harm to populations that are lacking in NRC's WOE approach.

The revised WOE approach was applied to 14 of the 17 RIS fish species. For the remainder (Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, and gizzard shad) there was insufficient information to apply either the original or the revised WOE approach.

Shortnose sturgeon population studies reviewed in Appendix E to the DSEIS and discussed in Section 3 of this report clearly demonstrate that the Hudson River population of species has greatly increased in abundance since the 1970s. In addition, impingement and entrainment data summarized in Section 3 clearly demonstrate that shortnose sturgeon are rarely impinged, and either rarely or never entrained at IP2 and IP3.

25

Shortnose sturgeon feed exclusively on invertebrates, therefore, indirect effects of entrainment or impingement of sturgeon prey should.be no higher than for any other fish species that feed on invertebrates. For these reasons, shortnose sturgeon was included in the revised assessment.

An impact summary analogous to the summary provided in Table H-17 of the DSEIS is provided in Table 3 .Impacts on all RIS except Atlantic tomcod are classified as SMALL or SMALL to MODERATE. The impact on bluefish, which was classified as LARGE in the DSEIS, is classified as SMALL in Table 3.

Although these conclusions are more realistic than the conclusions drawn in the DSEIS, they are still conservative and still suffer from many of the inherent deficiencies of the WOE approach. Like any WOE approach, conclusions from the alternative WOE are sensitive to changes in subjectively defined attribute weightings and definitions of impact levels. Moreover, no estimates of actual impacts of entrainment or impingement on the abundance or reproductive capacity of potentially affected populations are provided, and the fundamental issue of causality is only indirectly addressed. The approach used in Entergy's AEI report (Barnthouse et al. 2008) does not suffer from these deficiencies and is a superior basis for environmental decision-making.

5.4 Comparison of the WOE to the AEI approach The NRC is required under NEPA to conduct an independent analysis of the potential impacts of IP2 and IP3 on the Hudson River ecosystem. The NRC cannot simply adopt the conclusions from the applicant's ER or other published assessment studies. However, where other studies contain data or analyses that are relevant, it would seem reasonable to review this information and, if possible, use it to inform the assessment. Use of all available and relevant information is especially appropriate for a WOE-based assessment, because the WOE approach was explicitly -designed to incorporate multiple, independent lines of evidence concerning the potential impacts of stressors on valued environmental resources (Menzie et al. 1996).

Entergy's ER, the utilities' draft environmental impact statement for the Hudson River (CHGEC 1999) and the NYSDEC Final Environmental Statement (NYSDEC 2003), and Entergy's AEI report (Barnthouse et al. 2008) were cited in Sections H.1.1.2 26

and H.1.1.3 of the DSEIS. However, only the conclusions of these reports were discussed. The analyses that supported the conclusions were not discussed, and none of these analyses was used in the DSEIS. Some of these analyses are relevant to the DSEIS and could provide additional lines of evidence. Arguably, some of them are more relevant and more directly related to the impacts of IP2 and IP3 than are the lines of evidence used in the DSEIS.

The AEI report (Barnthouse et al. 2008) synthesized all of the information contained in earlier assessments, and also included new data not evaluated in CHGEC (1999) and NYSDEC (2003). This report evaluated whether entrainment and impingement by the respective cooling-water intake structures IP2 and IP3 have caused an adverse environmental impact ("AEI"), using biologically-based definitions of AEI that are consistent with established definitions and standards of ecological risk assessment and fisheries management.

The approach involved three independent investigations. First, it used the extensive Hudson River fisheries data sets to determine (1) whether changes in the status of species of interest identified by DEC have occurred since IP2 and IP3 began commercial operation, (2) whether cooling-water withdrawals by IP2 and IP3 during this period could have been responsible for any such changes, or (3) whether alternative stressors including striped bass predation, zebra mussels, and harvesting are more probable cause of perceived changes. Second, it used a widely-accepted method for quantifying the impacts of harvesting on the sustainability of fish populations, termed the Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR) model, to determine whether entrainment and impingement at IP2 and IP3 could have adversely affected the sustainability of the Hudson River striped bass and American shad populations. Third, it examined long-term trends in the abundance of all Hudson River fish species for which adequate trends data sets can be developed to determine whether species with high susceptibility to entrainment at IP2 and IP3 are more likely to have declined in abundance over the past 30 years than are species with low susceptibility to entrainment.

The first investigation evaluated the strength of evidence concerning the causation of changes in Hudson River fish populations since the initiation of the utilities' riverwide monitoring program in 1974. Criteria for determining causation derived from the 27

ecological risk assessment literature (Suter 2007) provided the basis for evaluating alternative causes:

1. Co-occurrence: An effect occurs where and when its cause occurs and does not occur in the absence of its cause.

2. Sufficiency: The intensity or frequency of a cause should be adequate to produce the observed magnitude of effect.

3. Temporality: A cause must precede its effect.

4. Manipulation: Changing the cause must change its effect.

5. Coherence: The relationship between a cause and effect must be consistent with scientific knowledge and theory.

The co-occurrence criterion is similar to the strength-of-association criterion used in the NRC's WOE approach. The sufficiency and temporality criteria are superficially similar to the stressor-response correlation and temporal representativeness attributes of the NRC's WOE approach, but are stronger. The sufficiency criterion demands not only that there should be a relationship between the intensity of a stressor and the magnitude of a response, but that that the intensity of the stressor in question must be high enough to have reasonably caused the observed response. The temporality criterion demands not only that the measurements of the stressor and the response should have occurred over the same time period, but that the stressor should have appeared or increased in intensity prior to the occurrence of the response. In the AEI report these criteria were applied in a consistent manner to four stressors that could plausibly be affecting Hudson River fish populations.

The second investigation used the SSBPR model (Goodyear 1993) to evaluate the impacts of IP2 and IP3 on the two RIS fish species managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC): striped bass and American shad. The SSBPR model is the most widely used approach for establishing biological reference points for use in protecting fish populations from overharvesting (Rosenberg et al. 1994). In the ADI report, the SSBPR model was used to compare the impact of IP2 and IP3 to the impact of fishing at the rates established in ASMFC management plans for these populations, and also compared the combined effects of IP2, IP3, and harvesting to 28

biological reference points for these populations documented in ASMFC stock assessments.

The third investigation used data on long-term trends of all species included in the riverwide survey data base to test hypotheses concerning impacts of cooling-water withdrawals on the Hudson River fish community. If entrainment at IP2 and IP3 were having an adverse impact on the Hudson River fish community, then species with high susceptibility to entrainment would be more likely to have declined in abundance over the past 30 years than would species with low susceptibility. Among those species that declined in abundance, the magnitude of the decline should have been greater for species with high susceptibility than for species with low susceptibility. Among species that increased in abundance, the magnitude of the increase should have been lower for species with high susceptibility than for species with low susceptibility.

All three investigations focused directly on the magnitude of the impact IP2 and IP3 on the Hudson River fish community, using objective hypothesis tests and quantitative relationships between causes (e.g.,, entrainment) and effects (e.g., decline in abundance or exceedence of a biological threshold).

Two key types of evidence used in the AEI report, but not in NRC's WOE approach, are especially relevant and important: CMRs and fisheries management agency stock assessments.

CMRs are estimates of the direct impacts of entrainment and impingement on YOY fish populations, expressed as the fraction by which the abundance of YOY fish would be reduced because of entrainment or impingement. These estimates are empirically-based and account for natural mortality, for the durations of susceptible life stages, for the differential impact of entraining or impinging fish at different ages, for the riverwide distributions of susceptible life stages, and for the location and withdrawal rates of IP2 and IP3. The CMR metric allows impingement and entrainment impacts to be expressed in the same units, so that they can be compared and combined. Both the methods used to calculate CMRs and results of applications to Hudson River fish populations have been documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Boreman et al. 1981, Boreman and Goodyear 1988, Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988). CMR-based 29

analyses provided the technical basis for the Hudson River Settlement Agreement (Barnthouse et al. 1984, Barnthouse et al. 1988).

The DSEIS states that the CMR was not used in the DSEIS because it is "model-dependent" and "...a source of controversy." Neither of these statements is true. Life stage durations and natural mortality rates are the only parameters of CMR models that are not estimated directly from site-specific field data. Controversies concerning CMR estimates relate to the use of the CMR as a measure of the potential long-term impacts of entrainment and impingement, not as a measure of short-term impacts on YOY fish (Barnthouse et al. 2008, Section 2.3). The CMR is a direct measure of the mortality imposed on RIS by entrainment or impingement. Although not suitable as a predictor of long-term impacts, the CMR provides a direct measure of the strength-of-connection of IP2 and IP3 to RIS populations. A low CMR is clear evidence that there is little or no connection, and a high CMR is clear evidence of a high connection. The CMR is, therefore, a much stronger indicator of potential impacts of entrainment or impingement than is the rank-based method used in the DSEIS.

The DSEIS relies on commercial and recreational landings estimates as measures of coastwide population abundance for harvested species. However, for the most important of these species, including American shad, Atlantic menhaden, striped bass, and bluefish, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the National Marine Fisheries Service have performed quantitative stock assessments that include estimates of annual recruitment, spawning stock size, and fishing mortality (ASMFC 1989, 2001, 2002). Landings estimates are at best an indirect measure of abundance, because (1) they are not estimates of absolute population size, and (2) landings are influenced by socioeconomic factors unrelated to population size. The stock assessments, in contrast, provide population estimates that can be compared directly to loss estimates, and fishing mortality estimates that can be compared directly to entrainment and impingement mortality (as estimated using CMRs).

CMRs and stock assessment outputs could be used as lines of evidence in the WOE approach. Inclusion of these lines of evidence would provide better support for the conclusions from the assessment, however, the limitations relating to subjectivity, lack of quantitative impact estimates, and inadequate consideration of causality would remain.

30

The quantitative, hypothesis-linked approach used in the AEI report is more scientifically rigorous and defensible, and provide a stronger foundation for environmental decision-making.

31

6. Conclusions This review identified inconsistencies and errors in NRC's analyses of entrainment and impingement impacts that should be corrected in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Assessment. In addition, the review identified fundamental deficiencies in NRC's use of the weight-of-evidence approach as the conceptual framework for the assessment. NRC's assessment could be significantly improved through proper recognition of the relative impacts of impingement and entrainment, correction of errors in data analysis, adjustment of weighting factors, and inclusion of additional lines of evidence.

Making these changes would significantly alter the conclusions of the DSEIS.

1. Impacts of impingement would be clearly distinguished from impacts of entrainment, and would be characterized as SMALL for all species.

2. Impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon would be characterized as SMALL.

3. Impacts of impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on all other RIS except Atlantic tomcod would be characterized as SMALL or SMALL to MODERATE.

Even with the above changes, a revised assessment would still suffer from many of the inherent deficiencies of the WOE approach, which was developed for application to hazardous waste sites, not to power plant cooling systems. The approach taken in the AEI report (Barnthouse et al. 2008) is more rigorous, accurate, and scientifically defensible than the WOE approach used in the DSEIS.

32

7. References Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 1989. Fishery management plan for the bluefish fishery. Fisheries Management Report No. 14 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

ASMFC 2001. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic menhaden. Fisheries Management Report No. 37 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

ASMFC 2002. Amendment 4 to the Insterstate Fishery Management Plan for weakfish.

Fishery Management Report no. 39 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

Barnthouse, L.W., and W. Van Winkle. 1988. Analysis of impingement impacts on Hudson River fish populations. American FisheriesSociety Monograph 4:182-190.

Barnthouse, L.W., J.Boreman, S.W. Christensen, C.P. Goodyear, W. Van Winkle, and D.S. Vaughan. 1984. Population biology in the courtroom: the Hudson River controversy. Bioscience 34:14-19.

Barnthouse, L.W., J. Boreman, T.S. Englert, W.L. Kirk, and E.G. Horn. 1988. Hudson River settlement agreement: technical rationale and cost considerations. American FisheriesSociety Monograph 4:267-273.

Barnthouse, L. W., D. G. Heimbuch, W. Van Winkle, and J. R. Young. 2008.

Entrainment and impingement at IP2 and IP3: A biological assessment. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Boreman, J., C. P. Goodyear, and S. W. Christensen. 1981. An empirical methodology for estimating entrainment losses at power plants sited on estuaries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:253-260.

Boreman, J., and C. P. Goodyear. 1988. Estimates of entrainment mortality for striped bass and other fish species in the Hudson River estuary. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:152-160.

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; New York Power Authority; and Southern Energy New York (DEIS).

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.

Con Ed. 1985. Biological evaluation of a Ristroph screen at Indian Point Unit 2. A report prepared for the Office of Environmental affairs of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. June 1985.

Con Ed and NYPA. 1992. Supplement I. Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Ristroph screen fish return system prototype evaluation and siting study. November 1992.

33

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. (EA) 1991. Final Hudson River ecological study in the area of Indian Point 1990 annual report. A report prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and New York Power Authority. EA Report No. 11867.01. October 1991.

Fletcher, R. I. 1984. A survey and analysis of fish conservation devices for water-pumping facilities having high volumetric rates. HRF Report # 1984-1. Prepared for the Hudson River Foundation.

Fletcher, R. I. 1985. Risk analysis for fish diversion experiments: pumped intake systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114: 652-694.

Fletcher, R. I. 1986. On the reconfiguration and empirical evaluation of a prototype screening device at Indian Point Nuclear Unit 2. Final report to Hudson River Fishermen's Association. 1 December 1986.

Fletcher, R. I. 1990. Flow dynamics and fish recovery experiments: water intake systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 393-415.

Fletcher, R. I. 1992. The failure and rehabilitation of a fish-conserving device. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 678-679.

Goodyear, C.P. 1993. Spawning stock biomass per recruit in fisheries management:

foundation and current use p. 67-81. In: S. J. Smith, J. J. Hunt and D. Rivard [ed.]

Risk evaluation and biological reference points for fisheries management.

Canadian Special Pubilication in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 120 Mattson, M. T., J. B. Waxman, and D. A. Watcon. 1988. Reliability of impingement sampling designs: an example from Indian Point Station. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 161-169.

Menzie, C., M. H. Henning, J. Cura, K. Finkelstein, J. Gentile, J. Maughan, D. Mitchell, S. Petron, B. Potocki, S. Svirsky, and P. Tyler. 1996. Special report of the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Workgroup: A weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating ecological risks. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2:277-304.

Normandeau 1993. Winter-time recirculation of white perch from two potential discharge sites for the Indian Point Unit No. 2 Fish Return System. Attachment A. A report prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. as a supplement to Con Ed and NYPA 1992. February 1993.

Normandeau 1996. Evaluation of durability, debris retention, and cleanability of fine mesh panels on a Ristroph-modified through-flow traveling water intake screen at Indian Point Unit No. 2. A report prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Central Hudson Gas &

Electric Corporation, and New York Power Authority. February 1996.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003. Final Environmental Statement concerning the Application to Renew New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permnits for the Roseton 1 & 2, 34

Bowline 1 & 2, and Indian Point 2 & 3 steam electric generating stations, Orange, Rockland, and Westchester Counties. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Rosenberg, A., P. Mace, G. Thompson, G. Darcy, W. Clark, J. Collie, W. Gabriel, A. MacCall, R.

Methot, J. Powers, V. Restrepo, T. Wainwright, L. Botsford, J. Hoenig, and K. Stokes.

1994. Scientific review of definitions of over-fishing in U.S. fishery management plans.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS/F-SPO-17. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

Ross, Q.E., D.J. Dunning, W.A. Karp, and W.R. Ross. 1987. Fish abundance and distribution in the vicinity of the Indian Point Power Plant. Final report March 24, 1987.

Suter, G. W. II. 2007. EcologicalRisk Assessment, 2 nd Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Framework for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

USEPA 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. EPA 540-R-97-006.

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, NJ.

USEPA 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

35

Table 1. Projected reductions in annual average impingement losses at IP2 and IP3 if Ristroph screens and a fish return system had been installed and had been operating from 1974 through 1990, based on impingement mortality estimates from Fletcher (1990).

Annual Average Annual Average losses Losses - with Mitigation Taxon, Ristroph IP2 IP3 IP2 IP3 Screens 1974- 1976- 1974- 1976-Percent 1990 1990 1990 1990 Mortalitya Alewife 62.0% 11,474 10,936 7,114 6,780 American shad 35.0% 22,112 9,571 7,739 3,350 Atlantic tomcod 17.0% 276,567 109,014 47,016 18,532 Bay anchovy 23.0% 190,510 50,440 43,817 11,601 Blueback herring 26.0% 220,289 64,305 57,275 16,719 Hogchoker 13.0% 40,303 17,533 5,239 2,279 Striped bass 9.0% 31,506 14,897 2,836 1,341 Weakfish 12.0% 25,698 6,419 3,084 770 White perch 14.0% 838,972 332,175 117,456 46,504 Total 1,657,432 615,290 291,577 107,878

% Reduction with mitigation 82% 82%

aMortality values from DSEIS Table H-1.

36

Table 2. Summary of simulation analysis results regarding operating characteristics of SOC test.

Number of Estimated Probability Species with Increased Region 1 Species 2 Species 3 Species At Least 4 Abundance Receives a Receive a Receive a One (with No Change Score of 4 Score of 4 Score of 4 Species in Impingement) Receives a Score of 4 0 (null hypothesis) 21.7 4.7 26.3%

1 29.7 5.7 35.3%

2 35.7 7.7 43.3%

3 38.7 7.7 0.7 47.7%

4 40.7 10.3 1.0 52.0%

5 41.7 12.0 0.7 54.3%

37

Table 3. Impact Summary for Hudson River RIS, using an alternative WOE approach.

Species Impacts of IP2 and Population 3 Cooling Systems Line of Strength of Connection on Aquatic Evidence Line of Evidence Resources Bluefish Small Low to Medium Small White perch Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Moderate to Hogchoker Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Rainbow smelt Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Striped bass Small Medium Small Atlantic Moderate to tomcod Large Medium to High Moderate to Large Small to Bay anchovy Moderate Medium to High Small to Moderate Alewife Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Blueback Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate herring American shad Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Spottail shiner Moderate to Low to Medium Small to Moderate Large White catfish Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Weakfish Small Medium Small Shortnose sturgeon Small Low Small 38

Figure 1. Monte Carlo analysis of population growth classification methods. (a) hypothetical example of nearly ideal scheme. Misclassification probabilities are low for most population growth rates (b) NRC's classification scheme.

Misclassification probabilities are high for most population growth rates. (c)

An alternative scheme that is closer to the ideal.

Near Ideal Assignment (a) 1.0) 0.8 S0.6Large Moderate 0.4 I 0.2 o.0 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 30-year Relative Change in Population Normal Variation (b) 1 .0 1 * ..... . . ... ... . . . . .

0.8

- 0.60.4

'U Moderate 0.

02 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 30-year Relative Change in Population Normal Variation (C) 1.0 0.8

-- 0.6

'Ub 2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 30-year Relative Change in Population 39

Appendix A Impacts of IP2 and IP3 on Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon in the Hudson River I

Introduction This appendix summarizes published information on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River and corrects errors in NRC's analysis of impingement data for these species. Much of this information was discussed in Appendix E to the DSEIS (Biological Assesment), however, it was not used in the impact assessment documented in Appendices H and I of the DSEIS.

Life History of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson River From late fall to early spring, adult shortnose sturgeon concentrate in a few overwintering areas (Dovel et al. 1992, Geoghegan et al. 1992, Bain 1997). Spawning adults concentrate in deep, channel habitats considerably upstream from Indian Point (i.e., "IP")

Unit 2 and IP Unit 3 near Kingston (RM 94) and another group of juveniles and adults that will not be in reproductive condition the following spring concentrate in brackish water downstream between RM 33-38 in Haverstraw Bay (Bain 1997). In the spring, these non reproductive fish migrate upstream and disperse throughout the tidal portion of the river in deep, channel habitats. When water temperatures reach approximately 8°C, typically in early to mid-April, reproductively active adults begin a rapid migration from their overwintering areas near Kingston upstream in the channel to spawning grounds from Coxsackie (RM 125) to the Federal Dam in Troy (RM 151) and thus are not exposed to water withdrawal at IP2 and IP3 located at RM 42. Spawning typically occurs in the upstream spawning grounds until water temperatures reach 15oC (late April through May) after which adults disperse down throughout their broad summer range in deep channel habitats from approximately RM 27 to RM 112. The deep channel waters and the turbulent spawning reach just downriver of the Federal Dam in Troy are beyond the influence of water withdrawal at IP2 or IP3.

Shortnose sturgeon eggs adhere to solid objects on the river bottom and newly hatched embryos remain on the bottom near their upriver spawning grounds and are therefore not typically exposed to entrainment at IP2 or IP3. Larvae gradually disperse downstream and occur in deep water, channel areas with strong currents (Bain 1997) and are therefore not likely to be entrained along the shoreline at IP2 and IP3 because they generally avoid shoreline habitats where the CWIS is located. Figure 1 demonstrates that early life stages of shortnose sturgeon, those most susceptible to entrainment and impingement, are rarely 2

observed in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3, and primarily occur upriver. Only one larval shortnose sturgeon and one unidentified larval sturgeon (probably an Atlantic sturgeon) were observed in the Indian Point nearfield region among 11,051 Long River Ichthyoplankton Survey samples collected there from 1979 through 2006 (Table 1), and this species has never been observed in entrainment collections at Indian Point.

Age 1 and older shortnose sturgeon are distributed throughout the river in the summer, however their relatively large size and strong swimming ability, and pronounced preference for deep, channel areas considerably reduces their exposure risk to impingement at IP 2 and IP3. Furthermore, the complex migration patterns described above demonstrate that shortnose sturgeon are transient seasonal residents in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3, passing through this portion of the Hudson River only during the late spring through early fall as juveniles and adults disperse from upstream habitat to the lower tidal portions of the River.

Mark-recapture population estimates performed for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) indicate a late 1990s shortnose sturgeon population of about 60,000 fish with adults comprising more than 90% of the population (Bain et al. 2007). Compared to population estimates in the late 1970s, the Hudson River population has increased by more than 400% (Bain et al. 2007). Secor and Woodland (2005) also confirmed the recovery of the shortnose sturgeon population in the Hudson River during the late 1990's, and suggest that this recovery was driven by strong recruitment of juveniles during the period from 1986 through 1992, 8 to 12 years following recovery of the spawning and nursery habitat in the Albany Pool of the upper Hudson River to normoxia. Independent data analyzed by Secor and Woodland (2005) from a mark-recapture program and catch per unit effort (density) data from the utilities monitoring program referred to as the Hudson River Fall Juvenile Fish Survey (I.e., "HRFJS") were analyzed for the period 1985 through 2003. Secor and Woodland (2005) confirmed the usefulness of the HRFJS as an index of shortnose sturgeon abundance in the Hudson River ecosystem by finding a significant (p = 0.01) positive correlation (r, = 0.58) with mark-recapture estimates lagged by six years.

The Hudson River supports by far the largest population of shortnose sturgeon throughout its range, and the current population has expanded from the 1970's through the 1990's (Bain et al. 2007). Based on the index of abundance developed by Secor and 3

Woodland (2005) from 1985 through 2003 from the HRFJS,- this abundance index was calculated for the most recent four years (2004 through 2007), and confirmed the shortnose sturgeon population has remained stable at recovered levels since the 1992 through 1996 period of peak abundance (Figure 2). Although the shortnose sturgeon currently is listed as a federally endangered species, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

("NOAA") has concluded that a shortnose sturgeon population composed of 10,000 spawning adults is large enough to be at a low risk of extinction and adequate for delisting under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (NOAA 1996). Following the criteria used by NOAA for shortnose sturgeon, the total and spawning population estimates in the Hudson River exceed the safe level established by NOAA by more than 500%, clearly indicating that this population merits designation as "recovered" and qualifies for delisting from the U.S.

Endangered Species Act protection (Bain et al. 2007).

Life History of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Hudson River Atlantic sturgeon is currently under consideration to determine whether listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act is warranted. It is not presently listed as endangered, threatened, or a species of special concern by New York.

Atlantic sturgeon are anadromous; spawning occurs in freshwater, but adults reside for many years in marine waters outside the Hudson River. Spawning females enter the Hudson River in mid-May and migrate along deep channel areas directly to freshwater spawning grounds upriver near Hyde Park (RM 81) and Catskill (RM 113, Bain 1997). Females return to marine waters quickly after spawning. Atlantic sturgeon are unlikely to spawn in the Indian Point region because Atlantic sturgeon eggs, embryos and larvae are intolerant of saline conditions and some significant length of river habitat is needed downstream of a spawning site to accommodate dispersal of embryos and larvae (Bain 1997). This observation is supported by empirical data obtained from the Longitudinal River Surveys (Figure 3) which demonstrates that Atlantic sturgeon eggs, larvae and young of the year rarely occur below the West Point region (RM 47) which is consistent with their limited salinity tolerance. In fact, only one young of the year Atlantic sturgeon and one unidentified larval sturgeon (probably an Atlantic sturgeon) were observed in the Indian Point nearfield region among 11,051 Long 4

River Ichthyoplankton Survey samples collected there from 1979 through 2006 (Table 1),

and this species has never been observed in entrainment collections at Indian Point.

Spawning male Atlantic sturgeon enter the Hudson River starting in April and some may remain as long as November. During their upstream migration, male sturgeon reside in channel areas in water greater than 25 ft (Dovel and Berggren 1983, Bain 1997). Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon are distributed over much of the Hudson River from July through September and they use deep channel habitats as in other life intervals (Bain 1997). The largest numbers of juveniles appears to be located from RM 39 to 87 (Bain 1997) thus there is some overlap with the Indian Point region at the downriver extent of their range. Figure 2 demonstrates that some Atlantic sturgeon juveniles occur from the Tappan Zee (RM 24) to the Indian Point (RM 46) regions, however the greatest numbers occur from the West Point (RM 47) region upriver to Saugerties (RM 106). In the fall, juveniles overwinter in brackish water between RM 12-46, however they remain in deep, channel areas and the majority of the population is therefore not expected to be exposed to impingement at IP2 or IP3.

Although published mark-recapture population estimates are not presently available for the Atlantic sturgeon population during the period of its life when it inhabits the Hudson River estuary, the index of abundance developed by Secor and Woodland (2005) from 1985 through 2003 from the HRFJS for shortnose sturgeon was calculated for the Atlantic sturgeon caught during the period 1985 through 2007 (Figure 4). This Atlantic sturgeon abundance index reveals that, after a period of comparatively high abundance during 1985 through 1989, abundance of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River estuary has remained stable at lower levels during the period 1990 through 2007.

Impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon at Indian Point, 1975 through 1990 Shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon impingement at Indian Point was described in the DSEIS in Section 4.6.1. Table 4-11 (page 4-52) of the DSEIS reports the annual total number of shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 for each year of sampling, 1975-1990. Several facts should be noted to clarify and correct the content of Table 4-11. First, a "-" (i.e., "dash") symbol represents "zero catch", and not the more ambiguous "not indicated in sample", except for 1975 at IP3, which was not in operation 5

until 1976. The field Standard Operating Procedures used to collect and process impingement samples at IP2 and IP3 specifically required that all fish collected in each sample be separated from the debris, taken to the laboratory, identified to species, counted, measured and weighed. Each shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon collected was identified, weighed, measured for total length, and its status at the time of collection (alive or dead) was recorded on a separate "Sturgeon Log" along with a written comment describing its final disposition. All alive Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon observed in each IP2 or IP3 impingement sample were released into the river after processing. Dead sturgeon were frozen and retained for delivery to the resource agencies if requested. Second, impingement sampling provided a total census of all fish impinged at IP2 and IP3 for each day of CWIS operation in each year beginning in 1974 (Unit 2) or 1976 (Unit 3) and continuing through 1980 (EA 1990). Beginning in 1981, and continuing through 1990, impingement abundance at IP2 and IP3 was determined based on a stratified random design (Mattson et al. 1988; EA 1990), resulting in the collection of impingement samples from 110 randomly selected days in each year at Unit 2 and Unit 3. Therefore, the number of shortnose sturgeon reported in Table 4-11 from 1975 through 1980 represent a total census of all sturgeon impinged. The much larger numbers of shortnose sturgeon impinged in years from 1981 through 1990 represent extrapolated numbers expanded from an actual catch among the 110 days sampled upward to represent yearly estimates. At IP2, the 176 shortnose sturgeon reported as being impinged in 1984 (DSEIS Table 4-11) was derived from just one fish impinged actually impinged in one scheduled sampling date (1999 DEIS Table V-36). One impinged shortnose sturgeon at IP3 in 1984 was expanded to represent an annual total of 154 fish. Similarly, the large numbers of shortnose sturgeon reported as impinged in 1987 (IP2 and IP3) and 1988 (IP3) were each represented by just one fish impinged among 110 days sampled. The stratified random sampling design was not effective in extrapolating relatively rare events like the impingement of one shortnose sturgeon among 110 days of sampling into accurate annual estimates, and the impingement data shown in Table 4-11 of the DSEIS for years after 1980 should be considered as gross overestimates. The possibility of extrapolation error from relatively rare events was anticipated for Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon in the Indian Point Standard Operating Procedures for Impingement sampling and required a total census of both species of sturgeon from both sample day and from non-sample days, making the 6

correct number of sturgeon impinged during the period 1981 through 1990 equal to the actual number enumerated in each year as presented in Table VI-35 (Atlantic sturgeon) and Table VI-36 (shortnose sturgeon) of the DEIS (1999). Table 4-11 of the DSEIS was corrected using the data from Tables VI-35 and VI-36 of the DEIS and is reproduced below as Table A-1. The resulting corrections reduced the number of shortnose sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 (combined) during the period 1975 through 1990 from 724 to 31. Similarly, the resulting corrections reduced the number of Atlantic sturgeon impinged at IP2 and IP3 (combined) during the period 1975 through 1990 from 3,935 to 515.

Conclusions The life history information summarized in this appendix demonstrates that, because of their spawning behavior and habitat preferences, both sturgeon species should have a low susceptibility- to entrainment and impingement at IP2 and IP3. In fact, as acknowledged in Section 2 of the DSEIS, no sturgeon larvae have ever been collected in entrainment samples at IP2 or IP3. The abundance of the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population has increased by 400% since IP2 and IP3, a fact that has been demonstrated in published scientific literature and was acknowledged by NRC in Appendix E to the DSEIS. The impingement data for shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon, after correction of errors in NRC's analysis, support this inference and demonstrate that rates of impingement of sturgeon at IP2 and IP3 are very low, even under the very conservative assumption that no impinged sturgeon survive.

7

Table A-I. Table 4-11 (corrected) Impingement data for Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon at IP2 and IP3.

IP2 IP3 Shortnose Atlantic Shortnose Atlantic Grand Study Year Sturgeon Sturgeon IP2 Total Sturgeon Sturgeon IP3 Total Total 1975 1 118 119 NS* NS NS 119 1976 2 8 10 0 8 8 18 1977 6 44 50 1 153 154 204 1978 2 16 18 3 21 24 42 1979 2 32 34 2 38 40 74 1980 0 9 9 1 10 11 20 1981 0 3 3 0 5 5 8 1982 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1983 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 1984 0 3 4 1 5 6 10 1985 0 8 8 0 17 17 25 1986 0 2 2 0 4 4 6 1987 2 2 4 1 2 6 1988 3 1 4 0 1 5 1989 0 0 0 0 1 1990 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 Grand Total ( 20 250 270 11 265 276 1 546

• NS = not sampled, unit not in operation 8

Shortnose Sturgeon 1990-1999 1979-1989 2000-2006 120 p 120 120 t00 =Ad['1 100 9M 80 )4 P80 o80 60 ~60 ~60

• 40t40 E. 40j E4 40 z

20, 20 20 E=-70=I1 01 BT YK TZ CH IP WPC PK HP KGSGCS AL - 1 1 1 1 - S AL 0 BT YK TZ CH IP WPCW PK HP KG SG CS AL 1979-1989 1990-1999 2000-2006 30 _E 30 E 30 E %,

820 8 220 220

• 10 to10 10 z z 0 0 0--1o1 BT YK TZ CH IP WPCWPK HP KG SG CS AL BTYKTZCH IP WPCWPK HPKGSGCSAL BT YKTZ CH IP WPCWPK HP KG SG CS AL Figure 1. Number of shortnose sturgeon caught in the Hudson River by decade (1979-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2006) in each of 13 geographic regions sampled between the Battery (BT) at New York City and Albany (AL) by the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (171,357 total samples). Note that the Indian Point region where IP2 and IP3 are located is labeled "IP", and is represented by 16,948 samples collected and examined for shortnose sturgeon from 1979 through 2006.

9

Shortnose sturgeon 4.5 4.0 0 3.5 0

I 0

t-4 3.0 2.5 2.0 0

-4 1.5

'CI 1,0 T.. ... . . . . .... .. T" .. ..T . ..*

0.0 LCl CIA M

• Ln .. r-- 00 M' 0 -1 C'.J cc UIN '.0 in cc X. cCN C0 C0 oN Cf o t, on ', N) ' a' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a' ~

a'a'a'a'a 1. a', a', 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f  : catch per unit of effort (CPUE) index for shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson

%,il River esuarv buvscd on density data obtained from the utilities Fall Juvenile Fish Survey (Tucker trawl and beam trawl samples combined), 1985 through 2007.

10

Atlantic Sturgeon 1979-1989 1990-1999 2000-2006 300 300' 300 250 25C 250

~20C &200 P200 15C 150 150

. 0C 5C rL ý M---'I'l '-

a-- a-a----

BT YK TZ CH I1 WPCWPK HP KG SG CS AL z00 50

-- II..--.-

BT YK TZ CH IP WPCW PK HP KG SG CS AL M111M.-M.

, 100 z

50

-- iII.

BT YK TZ CH IP WPCWPK HP KG SG CS AL 1979-1989 1990-1999 2000-2006 30 0920 I1Ii

&20 1W0 910~

z 0

BT YKTZ CH IP WPCW PK HP KG SG CS AL BT YK TZ CH IP WPCW PK HP KG SG CS AL BT YK TZ CH IP WPCW PK HP KG SG CS AL Figure 3. Number of Atlantic sturgeon caught in the Hudson River by decade (1979-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2006) in each of 13 geographic regions sampled between the Battery (BT) at di New York City and Albany (AL) by the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (171,357 total samples). Note that the Indian Point region where IP2 and IP3 are located is labeled "IP", and is represented by 16,948 samples collected and0 examined for Atlantic sturgeon from 1979 through 2006.

11

Atlantic sturgeon 8,0

- 7.0 E

o0 6.0 0

5.0 S4.0

-, 3.0 0

S O-0.0 1 . .....

U) W, NI 00 a) 0 -4rH 'NJ 0 Tt LO Q0 Ný 0 a) (0 V1rH 'NJ j CO Ln tW N Figure 4. Annual catch per unit of effort (CPUE) index for Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River estuary based on density data obtained from the utilities Fall Juvenile Fish Survey (Tucker trawl and beam trawl samples combined), 1985 through 2007.

12

REFERENCES Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: common and divergent life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:347-358.

Bain, M.B., Haley, N., Peterson, D.L., Arend, K.K., Mills, K.E. and P.J. Sullivan. 2007.

Recovery of a US endangered fish. PLoS ONE 2(1): e168.

doi: 10. 137 1/journal.pone.0000168 Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; New York Power Authority; and Southern Energy New York (DSEIS). 1999. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for State Pollutant F',icharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 and 3,

.Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations. December 1999.

Dovel, W.L., and Berggren, T.J. 1983. Atlantic sturgeon of the Hudson Estuary, New York. New York Fish and Game Journal 30(2):142-172.

Pekovitch, A.W. and T.J. Berggren. 1992. Biology of the shortnose

eon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) in the Hudson River estuary, New York. Pp.

187-216. In: C.L.

Geoghegan, P., Mattson, M.T., and R.G. Keppel. 1992. Distribution of the shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River Estuary, 1984-1988. Pages 217-227 in C.L. Smith, ed. Estuarine research in the 1980's. Hudson River Environmental Society seventh symposium on Hudson River ecology. State University of New York Press, Albany.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Status review of shortnose sturgeon in the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers. Gloucester (Massachusetts): Northeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Secor, D. H. and R.J. Woodland. 2005. Recovery and status of shortnose sturgeon inthe Hudson River. Final Report to Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, Inc. August 2005. 108 pages.

13

Appendix B Influence of Population Variability on the Probability of Trend Misclassification

The NRC needed a methodology for classifying available abundance data sets for the potential for adverse environmental impact. The methodology they devised, described on pages H-32 and H-33 of the DSEIS, is based on simple linear regression, segmented regression, and percentage of observations lying outside a +/- one standard deviation band around the mean of the first 5 observations (Table B-i):

Table B-I NRC decision rules for classifying abundance data sets to Small, Moderate, or Large Potential Impact.

Classification Characteristics Small Potential Slope not significantly different from 0

<= 40% of observations outside +/- SD Slope not significantly different from 0

> 40% of observations outside +/- SD Moderate Potential or Slope significantly different from 0

<= 40% of observations outside +/- SD Large Potential Slope significantly different from 0

> 40% of observations outside +/- SD Although some aspects of the methodology, a-level (probability of Type I error) for test of significance, whether the test was one-sided or two sided, or whether a significant positive slope would be classified differently than a significant negative slope, were unclear in the written description, these details were clarified during a conference call with NRC staff and consultants.

Although their classification process seems for the most part logical, in that it considers both population trend and variability, there is no indication that NRC has evaluated its performance when applied to simulated data with known population parameters. Similar to statistical significance testing, an impact classification procedure is subject to two types of errors that must be considered, and minimized to the extent possible. One type of error is to identify a potential impact when in actuality none exists, i.e. to classify a data set as indicating Moderate or Large Potential when the true potential is Small. The second type of error is failure to identify a potential impact when one in fact 2

does exist, i.e. to classify a data set as Small Potential when it actually has Moderate or Large Potential.

The NRC provided no discussion of these types of errors, which may exist in any classification scheme, or the relative degree of protection the classification process provides against each type. In designing a classification process, it is not possible to simultaneously minimize both error types, so tradeoffs are inevitable, even if they are not explicitly considered. We cannot determine which type of error NRC considers more serious, and presumably tried harder to avoid.

To evaluate the NRC classification process for LOE-1, a Monte Carlo simulation analysis was conducted. Annual rates of population change r ranging from -0.04 to +0.04 were selected for evaluation. Each rate was used to describe a trend of expected abundance over 30 years (Figure B-i). The trends ranged from a decrease to 30 percent of initial abundance to an increase to 330 percent of initial abundance over 30 years. This range in population abundance trends would likely encompass Small, Moderate and Large Potential Impacts.

350 ._.....

300 -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 0 .04

-0.03 250 - --- 0.02 200 --- -- --- --- --- -- 0.01 150*-------------- ------ *-OO

-a- -0.02 10O01. - - -- -. -3 -- * -0.02 0--0--

50 --

- - -0.04 0 r "r 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Year Figure B-1 Expected simulated population abundance (Noer) change over 30 years. Values in legend are the annual instantaneous growth rate r.

In each year of the simulation, an observed abundance level Nt was randomly generated:

N, = Noert +

2

where N, = abundance level at time t No = initial abundance level = 100 r = population growth rate cyt = standard deviation of abundance at time t; = 6Noe"t 6 = level of variability in abundance; = 0.10 or 0.25

• t independent Normal(0, 1) random variate Because fishery abundance data are often log-normally distributed, a second set of abundances was generated to simulate log-normal variation of abundance around its expected value. The same annual values of s, were used for both sets. For the log-normal data, the simulation parameters were adjusted to maintain the same overall mean and variance (Law and Kelton 1982).

Once the four 30-year data sets, normal and log-normal variation each at 6 = 0.10 and 0.25, were generated, the annual abundances were transformed by subtracting the initial abundance (100) and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the entire series. Then a simple linear regression and a 2-segment linear regression were fit to the data, and the proportion of data points lying outside +/- 1 standard deviation (of the whole data set) band around the mean of the first 5 years was determined. Because some of the data sets in Appendix I of the DSEIS were fit with a 3-year moving average prior to analysis, a 3-year moving average was fit to each data set and the linear regression and variability analysis was repeated on the averaged data.

Based on the results of the regression and variability analysis, the data sets were classified by the NRC process into Small, Moderate, and Large potential impact categories (Table B-l). A two-sided test with, a = 0.05 was used to test significance of the slopes.

Significant positive slopes, if no significant negative slope for the segmented regression, were classified as Small. This process was repeated 1000 times for each value of population growth rate.

3

Ideally, a classification process would be able to delineate distinct classes based on true values of population parameters. An ideal classification process would have large ranges of population change where only one of the classes is possible, and small ranges where probabilities for two classes overlap (Figure B-2). The nearly ideal hypothetical classification depicted has uncertainty in classification only when 30-year relative change in the population is near 0.75 or 1.05. In each case the uncertainty is only between two of the three classes.

The NRC process, for a population with normal variation in annual abundance and 6 = 0.25, departs substantially from the ideal (Figure B-3). The delineation between the Large and Small categories of potential impact was relatively distinct, with overlap of the categories occurring only in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 relative change in population size.

However, the probability that a population could be classified as Moderate potential impact was between 0.2 and 0.4 for population change ranging from 0.5 to 3.3, i.e. a population that had declined to 50% of its original abundance and a population that had grown to more then 3 times its original abundance have essentially the same probability of being classified as Moderate potential impact. The probability that a population would be classified as having a Large potential impact was also non-trivial for populations that had declined relatively little: 0.32 for a trend resulting in 0.7 of initial abundance, 0.12 for a trend resulting in 0.9 of initial abundance, and 0.03 for a population with unchanged abundance. The 0.6 to 0.9 range in population change is a zone in which discrimination is highly uncertain as the probabilities of the Large potential impact category range from 0.53 to 0.11; probabilities of the Moderate category range from 0.33 to 0.37; and probabilities of the Small category range from 0.14 to 0.65.

4

Near Ideal assignment 1.0 0.8 0.6 2 0.4 a.

0.2 0.0 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 30-year Relative Change in Population Figure B-2 Hypothetical example of a nearly ideal classification into Small, Moderate, and Large Potential Impact categories. The ranges of population change over which more than one classification is possible are small (-0.65 to -0.85 and -0.95 to -1.1), and there is no range where more than two classifications are possible. Probabilities for the three classifications always sum to unity.

Normal Variation 1.0 0.8

'E 0.6 -4Large MU -a--Moderate 2 0.4 Small S -' - - - -

I . 0 .2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 30-year Relative Change in Population Figure B-3 Classification under NRC decision rules of simulated population abundance data with normal variation around the expected value, 6 = 0.25. Probabilities for the three classifications always sum to unity.

If population variation is lognormal rather than normal, the operating characteristics of the NRC classification are essentially the same (Figure B-4), although 5

between relative population change from about 1.2 to 2.5 the probability of a population being classified as Moderate impact declines slightly below 0.2.

Smoothing the data series with a 3-year moving average prior to analysis resulted in the classification process being even less able to distinguish Moderate from Small impact. Populations that increased in abundance (population change greater than 1.0) had nearly equal likelihood of being classified Small or Moderate (Figure B-5).

Log-Normal Variation 1.0 0.8 A 0.6 20.4 -

0.2 A 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 30-year Relative Change in Population Figure B-4 Classification under NRC decision rules of simulated population abundance data with log-normal variation around the expected value, 6 = 0.25. Probabilities for the three classifications always sum to unity.

Simulation results for less variable population abundances, 5 = 0.10, were also qualitatively similar although the probability of a Moderate classification began to drop below 0.2 at population changes above 2.5 (Figure B-6).

6

Normal Variation - MA3 1.0 - Large 0.8-- Moderate

-iSmall S0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ,

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 30-year Relative Change in Population Figure B-5 Classification under NRC decision rules of simulated population abundance data with normal variation around the expected value, 8 = 0.25, after applying a 3-year moving average.

Probabilities for the three classifications always sum to unity.

Normal Variation 1.0 0.8 -

~0.6 -.- ag o Moderate 20.4- -Small (L

0.2 0.0 ,-

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 30-year Relative Change in Population Figure B-6 Classification under NRC decision rules of simulated population abundance data with normal variation around the expected value, 8 = 0.10. Probabilities for the three classifications always sum to unity.

It is not possible to eliminate classification errors in an analysis such as the one NRC conducted, and it may be very difficult to develop a classification process that provides the desired degree of protection against both types of errors. However, a 7

simulation analysis such as this can aid in evaluating alternative decision rules and can at least quantify classification probabilities so that appropriate consideration of errors can be made. As an example of an alternative scheme, the simulated data were also classified by a simple rule based only on the significance of the estimated slope of the linear regression:

Small Potential - slope > 0 and p < 0.10 Large Potential - slope < 0 and p < 0.10 Moderate Potential - otherwise This rule resulted in nearly complete separation of the Large and Small categories, and a Moderate category centered on relative change = 1, where the probability of Large and Small was very low (Figure B-7). The zones of overlap of two categories, either Large with Moderate or Moderate with Small, are much smaller than with the classification rules used by NRC. This classification scheme may or may not be preferable for NRC's purpose, but it illustrates that different sets of rules can produce very different classifications for the same data, and that no classification scheme should be used without first testing its performance on data with known characteristics.

Normal Variation 1.0 0.8 0.6 LI

.0 0 0.4 a-0.

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 30-year Relative Change in Population Figure B-7 Classification of simulated population abundance data with normal variation around the expected value, 6 = 0.25, under rules based on significant positive or negative slopes, each considered significant if p < 0.10. Probabilities for the three classifications always sum to unity.

8

References Law, A. M. and W. D. Kelton. 1982. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York.

9

Appendix C Review of Strength of Connection Analysis Presented in 2008 NRC DSEIS for Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant

Introduction The objective of this report was to provide a technical review of key elements of the Strength of Connection (SOC) method used for impingement and entrainment in the DSEIS.

As reported in the DSEIS, the SOC analysis was based on comparisons of ranks assigned to the RIS:

"The analysis of effects of impingement was based on the concordance of ranked proportions of the number of YOY and yearling fish of each species impinged in relation to the sum of all fish impinged and the ranked proportions of each species abundance in the river near IP2 and IP3 relative to the total abundance of the l8 RIS. Likewise, the effects of entrainment were based on the concordance of ranked proportions of the estimated number entrained for all life stages for a given species in relation to the abundance of all fish entrained and the ranked proportion of each species abundance in the river near IP2 and IP3 relative to the total abundance of the RIS." (DSEIS, Appendix I, page 1-40)

The following section of this report addresses possible unintended consequences of using ranks for comparing in-river fish densities to impingement (or entrainment) densities.

In the last section of this report, methodological details of the implementation of the SOC assessment are reviewed for possible inconsistencies or inappropriate uses of the Hudson River data.

Operating Characteristics of SOC Method Ranks of fish densities were used to compare impingement and entrainment to the abundance of RIS in the river region (Region 4) adjacent to IPEC. The purpose for comparing the ranks was to determine whether some species were more vulnerable to impingement or entrainment than would be expected under the null hypothesis that fish were impinged or entrained in proportion to their abundance in Region 4:

"The null hypothesis was that the proportional representation of RIS obtained from the fishery studies should be equal to the proportional 1

representation evident from the impingement and entrainment samples." (DSEIS, Appendix H, page H-37)

Species that were underrepresented in impingement or entrainment (in comparison to abundance in Region 4) were assigned a lower score for SOC, and species that were overrepresented were assigned a higher SOC score:

"Low Strength of Connection: The ratio of ranked proportions of impinged or entrained RIS or RIS prey relative to total impingement or entrainment and the ranked proportion of the population size in the river relative to the total RIS abundance is less than 0.5. The species is considered underrepresented in the cooling system impingement or entrainment samples, and thus, there is minimal evidence to suggest the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems are affecting the RIS. Measurements satisfying this description were assigned a result score of 1.

Medium Strength of Connection: The ratio of ranked proportions of impinged or entrained RIS or RIS prey relative to total impingement or entrainment and the ranked proportion of the population size in the river relative to the total RIS abundance is greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than 1.5. The species is considered proportionally represented in the cooling system impingement or entrainment samples, and thus, there is some evidence to suggest the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems are affecting aquatic resources. Measurements satisfying this description were assigned a result score of 2.

High Strength of Connection: The ratio of ranked proportions of impinged or entrained RIS or RIS prey relative to total impingement or entrainment and the ranked proportion of the population size in the river relative to the total RIS abundance is greater than or equal to 1.5.

The species is considered overrepresented in the cooling system impingement or entrainment samples, and thus, there is strong evidence to suggest the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems are affecting the RIS. Measurements satisfying this description were assigned a result score of 4." (DSEIS, Appendix H, page H-33)

Two aspects of the SOC method may lead to erroneous results. The scoring method relies on ranks of the 17 finfish RIS (blue crab is the 18th RIS, but was not included in the rankings). If one species has an elevated abundance in Region 4, with no corresponding elevation in impingement or entrainment (which should be viewed as a positive situation),

then the Region 4 density rank (see DSEIS Table 1-30) assigned to it would be increased.

However, because there are always 17 ranks, the rank for one or more other species must be 2

decreased (even though they experienced no decline in abundance in Region 4) to accommodate the increase in rank for the one species.

Another aspect of the SOC method that may lead to erroneous results is that the method does not explicitly account for sampling error reflected in the data. Although the use of ranks was selected in recognition of the presence of sampling error:

"Because of the error and bias in estimation of each of these parameters, only the ranks of each 17 ratio were considered a reliable measure of connection." (DSEIS, Appendix I, page 1-41)

No statistical tests were reported that could be used to judge the possible effects of sampling error on the results.

To examine the possible effects of these two aspects of the Strength of Connection method on resulting scores, a Monte Carlo simulation analysis was conducted (using impingement as an example). The simulation analysis generated sets of simulated data for all weeks of FSS and BSS sampling from 1979 through 1990. The Monte Carlo simulation was run 300 times generating 300 simulated data sets.

The analysis started with the null hypothesis that the annual density in Region 4, for each of the 17 finfish RIS, was identical to the corresponding annual impingement density (from DSEIS Table 1-28). The allocation of annual density among sampled weeks and between the two sampling programs (FSS and BSS) was based on historical densities from the FSS and BSS datasets. As was done in the DSEIS, the FSS density and BSS catch per haul were assumed to be additive for this analysis. The annual average density in Region 4 was set to be equal to the corresponding impingement density:

E(AsY,w,i H 0 ) = IMpV, X PFSS,y,i x QFSS,v,w,i E(ABssV,,w,i H 0 ) = IMPy,i X (1 - Pgssy,i )x OBssY,w,i where:

E(AFss,y,Wi [H.) = expected density of species, i, in the FSS sampling strata of Region 4 during week, w, of year, y, under the null hypothesis, 3

E(ABssywi I H0 ) = expected density of species, i, in the BSS sampling stratum of Region 4 during week, w, of year, y, under the null hypothesis, IMpv, = annual impingement density (from DSEIS Table 1-28) of species, i, in year, y, FSS',y= proportion of the annual Region 4 density of species, i, in year, y, that occurred in the FSS sampling strata (and not in the BSS sampling stratum),

QFSSVWj = proportion of the annual Region 4 FSS Density of species, i, in year, y, that occurred during week, w, and QBssv,w,i = proportion of the annual Region 4 BSS Density of species, i, in year, y, that occurred during week, w.

Some species were not collected in all years by both sampling programs. In those cases average values of the proportion of total density by week (Q) and program (P) were based on average values. For species that were not reported collected by a sampling program in a particular year, average values of P and Q for that species from other years of collection were used. For species that were not collected by a sampling program in any year, average values of P and Q from all other species were used.

Sampling variability was simulated using the average coefficients of variation, by species and sampling program, from the actual FSS and BSS datasets:

0r FSS,V,w,i = CVFssi x E(AFss,,w,, IHo) a BSSV..... = CV~ss,, x E(ABssYWj Ho) where:

Urss, IVIWi = standard error of the estimate of mean density of species, i, in the FSS strata of Region 4 during week, w, in year, y, 0rBSS,.V.. = standard error of the estimate of mean density of species, i, in the BSS stratum of Region 4 during week, w, in year, y, CVFss i = average coefficient of variation for historical estimates of mean density of species, i, in the FSS strata of Region 4, and C VBSS, = average coefficient of variation for historical estimates of mean density of species, i, in the BSS stratum of Region 4.

The simulation analysis assumed that sampling variability, at the level of weekly average catch rates, could be approximated by a normal probability distribution:

4

ABSS'Y'li = E(ABssYvWj IHO) + 6 BSS"Iv"wj 6BSS,y,wjiS'l ýN 0 1 and AFSS,Y,.,,i = E(AFSS,y,w I Ho) + 8 FSS,v,w,i 6FSX,y,wji N OOFSS,y,w,,i) where:

AFSS1Y,""i = simulated estimate of FSS density of species, i, during week, w, in year y, ABSSIYIWi = simulated estimate of BSS density of species, i, during week, w, in yeary, EFSS,y,wi = simulated error term for FSS density of species, i, during week, w, in year y, 6BSS,y,wj = simulated error term for BSS density of species, i, during week, w, in year y, Based on the simulated FSS and BSS density estimates, Region 4 density ranks were computed using the methods described in Appendices H and I of the DSEIS, based on 75 percentiles of weekly densities from the BSS and FSS. Impingement density ranks were taken directly from DSEIS Table 1-30. Strength of Connection scores were assigned based on the ratio of Rank of Impingement to Rank of Fish Density (DSEIS, Appendix H, page H-33):

Ratio < 0.5 Score=l 0.5<=Ratio<l.5 Score=2 Ratio>=l.5 Score=4 To address the possible effects of elevated densities for some species on the ranks and scores of other species, a sequence of modifications were made to the null hypothesis scenario. First, the Region 4 density for one species (chosen independently at random in each random draw of the Monte Carlo simulation) was increased by a factor of 2, but the impingement density for that species, and all other species, did not change. In five separate 5

analyses, the same procedure was used to address the effects of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 species having elevated Region 4 density (with no change in impingement).

The results from the Monte Carlo simulation analysis are listed in Table C-1. Even under the null hypothesis (the density of each species in Region 4 was identical to the impingement density) there is a 26% chance that at least one species would erroneously be assigned a score of 4. As the number of species with elevated abundance in Region 4 increased (and no change in impingement), the probability of having species erroneously assigned scores of 4 also increased.

Inconsistencies and Inappropriate Use of Data in SOC Test According to the DSEIS, the impingement SOC analysis was based on comparisons of impingement densities and Region 4 river densities of the RIS. Similarly, the entrainment SOC analysis reportedly was based on comparisons of entrainment densities and Region 4 river densities of the RIS. For the analyses to be meaningful, the measure of impingement density should be directly comparable to the measure of Region 4 river density, and the measure of entrainment density should be directly comparable to the measure of Region 4 river density. As noted below the measures of density are not directly comparable due to inconsistencies in the methods. Furthermore, individual measures (entrainment density, impingement density, Region 4 river density) used in the analyses are not valid metrics of density due to inappropriate uses of the data.

The following paragraphs summarize the methods used in the DSEIS to produce an overall density estimate for each of the 17 finfish RIS for river abundance in Region 4, for impingement, and for entrainment. Standardizing the final species-specific density measures for Region 4 and for impingement to the sum (over all species) of the final species-specific density measures does not affect the ranks of the species. Therefore, that step for Region 4 density and impingement density was not addressed in this assessment.

River Density in Region 4 In the DSEIS, the ranks for river density in Region 4 were based on a combination of weekly density measures from the Fall Shoals Survey (FSS) and Beach Seine Survey (BSS):

6

"An estimate of the population abundance (Si) for a given species in the vicinity of IP2 and 1P3 was estimated as the maximum over all years (1979-1990) of the annual 75th percentile of weekly density measures from all habitats. Thus, Si for each species was the maximum annual sum of the FSS and BSS 75th percentile of weekly densities from the river segment near IP2 and IP3 (Table 1-27)."

(DSEIS, Appendix I, page 1-40).

That formulation can be represented algebraically as:

Si = MAX years {(Q75wecks,y (CPHBSS,y,w,i )+ Q 7 5 ~ek,, (DENFssSy,w,i))

5 where:

MAXyears is the maximum of annual values (of the term within brackets), over the years, y=1979 -1 9 9 0, Q75weeks,y is the 75th percentile of the weekly values (of the term within parentheses) for species, i, over weeks, w, within year, Y,

CPHBss,y,w,i is the average catch per haul of young-of-year (YOY) fish of species, i, collected during week, w, in year, y, by the beach seine survey (BSS), and DENFss,,,wi is the average density (number per 1000 in 3 ) of young-of-year (YOY) fish of species, i, collected during week, w, in year, y, by the fall shoals survey (FSS).

Impingement Density The ranks for impingement density in the DSEIS were based on a combination of seasonal estimates of numbers of fish impinged and on the seasonal number of impingement samples:

"The density of each species impinged (Impi) was estimated by the 75th percentile of the annual (1975-1990) density impinged at IP2.

IP2 typically had 2.8 times more fish impinged than IP3. The annual density impinged was the sum of the seasonal (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December) densities calculated as the estimated number impinged divided by the number of samples taken (Table 1-28)." (DSEIS, Appendix I, page 1-41)

That formulation can be represented algebraically as:

JMPs = Q75y 7

where:

Q75years is the 75th percentile of the annual values (of the term within brackets) over the years, y=19 7 5-19 9 0,

!*,yi is the total number (all ages combined) of species, i, impinged at IP2 during season, s, in year, y, and nz~sy is the number of impingement samples taken at IP2 during season, s, in year, y.

Entrainment Density The ranks for entrainment density in the DSEIS were based on a combination of seasonal estimates of numbers of fish entrained and on the seasonal number of entrainment samples:

"The density of each species entrained for a given season and year (1981-1987) was calculated as the mean number entrained divided by the number of samples taken (Table 1-29). Density estimates were based on the combined entrainment from IP2 and IP3. The estimate of E/ was the maximum over years of the ratio of the density of an individual species entrained to the total RIS density."

which algebraically can be represented as:

z-Oy.....ij XVy',s ..

I nE,yv,s,w ERIS gcXgons, pcars J

where:

AfMIseasons, years is the maximum of season- and year-specific values (of the term within brackets) over the years, y=1 9 8 1, 1983-1987, and over seasons, s=2 and 3 in all years, and s=l in 1986 only,

.. is the mean entrainment density (number per 1000 mi3 ) of all D-Y,,W lifestages of species, i, at IP2 and IP3 during week, w, in season, s, in year, y, Vyss is the cooling water volume of IP2 and IP3 during week, w, in season, s, in year, y, and n,E~y,,,w is the number of entrainment samples taken at IP2 and IP3 during week, w, in season, s, in year, y.

8

Inconsistencies and Inappropriate Use of Data Two sets of comparisons (based on ranks) were made in the SOC analysis:

1) Impingement density vs. river density in Region 4, and

2) Entrainment density vs. river density in Region 4.

Both sets of comparisons were made based on the three density metrics described above. For the co:iiparisons to be valid, the metrics being compared should be consistent, i.e., comparý ýapples to apples". However, as can be seen from the descriptions,

--s exist between the metric of impingement density and the metric of river

.ensii,, and between the metric of entrainment density and the metric of river density. The years inchlded in the metrics differ, the lifestages differ, and the units of measure differ.

z metric for river density is based on an inappropriate use of the BSS catr,, per haul and FSS density data, which are treated as if they were additive measures of abundance. In fact, they are not additive measures: the BSS catch per haul data represent the average number of fish collected within a 450 m2 area of the shorezone stratum of the river, and the FSS density data represent the average number of fish collected within 1000 m 3 of water in the bottom, channel and shoal strata of the river. Another inappropriate use of the data occurred with entrainment data. Some entrained larvae could not be taxonomically identified to species. To address that data limitation, the DSEIS SOC analysis inappropriately assigned entrainment of "herring family" to alewife, to blueback herring, and to American shad; it also inappropriately assigned striped bass results to white perch as well as striped bass.

Also, the entrainment density metric had internal inconsistencies: 1) the seasons of entrainment vulnerability varied among species (e.g., Atlantic tomcod and rainbow smelt spawn early in the year), 2) not all seasons were sampled in all years (season 1, January-March, was only sampled in 1986), 3) the densities in each season were standardized to the sum of densities over all species (giving season 1 spawners very high values in season 1 because the other species were not present), and 4) the overall metric for each species (the maximum over all seasons and years) was determined independently for each species.

Furthermore, the entrainment and impingement density metrics (each computed as the ratio of number of organisms divided number of samples - rather than being divided by water 9

withdrawal volume) were confounded by inter-annual variability in sampling effort that was independent of withdrawal volume.

Tables C-2 and C-4 summarize key properties (i.e., types of input data, summary statistics used, years of data included, life stages included, and any taxonomic substitutions) of the density metrics used in the SOC analysis. These tables also list inconsistencies or inappropriate uses of data.

To ascertain the possible effects of the inconsistencies in the DSEIS SOC methods, all identified inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of data were rectified. Based on those corrections, an alternative method was constructed for the impingement SOC analysis (Table C-3) and for the entrainment SOC analysis (Table C-5). The entrainment and impingement SOC analyses were re-run using the alternative methods with the same input datasets as used in the DSEIS analyses.

The results from the DSEIS SOC analysis for impingement are listed in Table C-6, and the results from the DSEIS SOC analysis for entrainment are listed in Table C-8. The results from the alternative SOC analysis for impingement are listed in Table C-7, and the results from the alternative SOC analysis for entrainment are listed in Table C-9. Rectifying all identified inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of data resulted in all RIS receiving a SOC score or 2 for impingement and a SOC score of 2 for entrainment. Therefore, it appears that the SOC scores of 4 for some of the RIS in the DSEIS analyses were due to methodological inconsistencies and inappropriate uses of data. The data indicate that all species are impinged and entrained roughly in proportion to their relative abundance in Region 4 (the null hypothesis).

10

Table C-1. Summary of simulation analysis results regarding operating characteristics of SOC test.

Number of Estimated Probability Species with Increased Region 1 Species 2 Species 3 Species At Least 4 Abundance Receives a Receive a Receive a One (with No Change Score of 4 Score of 4 Score of 4 Species in Impingement) Receives a Score of 4 0 (null hypothesis) 21.7 4.7 26.3%

1 29.7 5.7 35.3%

2 35.7 7.7 43.3%

3 38.7 7.7 0.7 47.7%

4 40.7 10.3 1.0 52.0%

5 41.7 12.0 0.7 54.3%

11

Table C-2. DSEIS method used to compute taxon-specific estimates of impingement and Region 4 river densities for SOC analysis.

Propertv of Method Impintement Densitv Re2ion 4 River Density Consistency Input Data Variables # of fish impinged at Unit 2 BSS average # of fish per seine Between haul Measures of

1. of impingement samples at Impingement Unit 2 FSS average # of fish per 1000 and River m3 Densities Frequency Per week of sampling Per week of sampling Summary Seasonal Ratio of: N/A Statistics (Year-specific) 1) Total # of fish impinged, over

2) Average # of impingement samples per week Annual Sum of season-specific ratios Sum of:

1) 75th percentile of week-specific BSS values (# of fish per 450 m2), and

2) 75th percentile of week-specific FSS values (# of fish per 1000 m3)

Overall 75th Percentile of annual sums Maximum of annual sums No statistic used for ranking species Units of # of fish impinged divided by # # of fish per unspecified (and No statistic of impingement samples species-specific) extent of river used for habitat ranking soecies Years of 1975-1990 1979-1990 No Data Life All ages collected Juveniles only No Stages 12

Table C-3. Alternative method (inconsistencies and inappropriate use of data rectified) for computing taxon-specific estimates of impingement and Region 4 river densities for SOC analysis.

Prouerty of Method Imuingement Density Region 4 River Densitv Consistency Input Data Variables # of fish impinged at Units 2 BSS standing crop (# of fish) Between and 3 Measures of FSS standing crop (# of fish) Impingement Volume of cooling water and River withdrawn by Units 2 and 3 Region 4 river volume Densities Frequency Per week of sampling Per week of sampling Summary Seasonal N/A Sum of:

Statistics (Year-specific) 1) Average weekly BSS standing crop (# of fish)

2) Average weekly FSS standing crop (# of fish)

Annual Ratio of: Ratio of:

I) Total # of fish impinged at 1) Average of seasonal Units 2 and 3 over all weeks of standing crop estimates for sampling, over Region 4, over

2) Sum of volume of cooling 2) Region 4 river volume water withdrawn by Units 2 and 3 over all weeks of sampling Overall 75th percentile of annual ratios 75th percentile of annual ratios Yes statistic used for ranking species Units of # of fish per 106 m3 # of fish per 10' m3 Yes statistic used for ranking species Years of 1979-1990 1979-1990 Yes Data Life All ages collected All ages collected Yes Stages 13

Table C-4. DSEIS method used to compute taxon-specific estimates of entrainment and Region 4 river densities for SOC analysis.

ProDertv of Method Entrainment Density Reeion 4 River Density Consistency Input Data Variables Mean density # of organisms BSS average # of fish per Between entrained at Units 2 and 3 seine haul Measures of Impingement

1. of entrainment samples FSS average # of fish per 1000 and River m3 Densities Frequency Per week of sampling Per week of sampling Summary Seasonal Ratio of: N/A Statistics (Year-specific) 1) Average seasonal entrainment density for a single taxon, over

2) Average seasonal entrainment density for all RIS combined Annual N/A Sum of:

1) 75th percentile of week-specific BSS values (# of fish per 450 m2), and

2) 75th percentile of week-specific FSS values (# of fish per 1000 m3)

Overall Maximum of all year-specific Maximum of annual sums No statistic seasonal ratios used for ranking (note: the January-March species season was only sampled in 1986)

Units of proportion of seasonal total # of fish per unspecified (and No statistic (over all RIS) entrainment species-specific) extent of used for density river habitat ranking species Years of 1981, and 1983-1987 1979-1990 No Data Life Stages Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles Juveniles only No Taxonomic Herring family results were No substitutions were made No Substitutions used for Alewife, American Shad, and Blueback Herring Striped Bass results were used for White Perch and Striped Bass 14

Table C-5. Alternative method (inconsistencies and inappropriate use of data rectified) for computing taxon-specific estimates of entrainment and Region 4 river densities for SOC analysis.

Property of Method Entrainment Density Region 4 River Density Consistency Input Data Variables # of organisms entrained by LRS standing crop (# of fish) Between Units 2 and 3 Measures of Region 4 river volume Impingement Volume of cooling water and River withdrawn by Units 2 and 3 Densities Frequency Per week of sampling Per week of sampling Summary Seasonal Sum of weekly estimates of Average of weekly standing Statistics (Year number of organisms entrained crop estimates specific) by Units 2 and 3 Sum of weekly cooling water withdrawal volumes for Units 2 and 3

+ +

Annual Ratio of: Ratio of:

1) Annual total # of organisms 1) Average of seasonal entrained by Units 2 and 3, standing crop estimates for over Region 4, over

2) Annual total volume of 2) Region 4 river volume cooling water withdrawn by Units 2 and 3 Overall 75th percentile of annual ratios 75th percentile of annual ratios Yes statistic used for ranking species Units of # of organisms per 106 m3 # of organisms per 106 m3 Yes statistic used for ranking species Years of 1981, and 1983-1987 1981, and 1983-1987 Yes Data Life Stages Eggs, Larvae and Juveniles Eggs, Larvae and Juveniles Yes Taxonomic Alewife, Blueback Herring, Alewife, Blueback Herring, Yes Substitutions and unidentified Alosids and unidentified Alosids treated collectively as River treated collectively as River Herring Herring Unidentified Morone spp Unidentified Morone spp allocated to Striped Bass and allocated to Striped Bass and White Perch White Perch 15

Draft 2/14/09 Table C-6. Copy of DSEIS analysis results for Strength of Connection (SOC) for impingement from Tables 1-30 and H-16.

Species DSEIS DSEIS DSEIS DSEIS DSEIS Ratio DSEIS SOC Measure of Impingement Measure of Region 4 of Score for Impingement Density Rank Region 4 River Impingement Impingement Density (from (from Table I- River Density Rank to River (from Table Table 1-30) 30) Density Rank (from Rank (from H-16)

(from Table Table 1-30) Table 1-30) 1-30)

ALEWIFE 279 7 6.94 10 0.70 2 BAY ANCHOVY 4475 15 391.41 17 0.88 2 AMERICAN SHAD 426 8 23.27 15 0.83 2 BLUEFISH 669 10 1.66 6 1.67 4 HOGCHOKER 3890 13 4.27 8 1.63 4 ATLANTIC MENHADEN 150 5 0.00 1 BLUEBACK HERRING 4251 14 38.43 16 0.88 2 RAINBOW SMELT 440 9 3.12 7 1.29 2 SHORTNOSE STURGEON 0 1 0.00 1 SPOTTAIL SHINER 94 3 5.80 9 0.33 1 ATLANTIC STURGEON 4 2 0.00 1 STRIPED BASS 1146 11 15.24 13 0.85 2 ATLANTIC TOMCOD 13690 16 11.94 12 1.33 2 WHITE CATFISH 182 6 0.03 5 1.20 2 WHITE PERCH 25599 17 22.56 14 1.21 2 WEAKFISH 1330 12 11.11 11 1.09 2 GIZZARD SHAD 127 4 0.00 1 16

Draft 2/14/09 Table C-7. Results from alternative analysis of impingement and Region 4 river densities Species Measure of Impingement Measure of Region 4 Ratio of SOC Score for Impingement Density Rank Region 4 River Impingement Impingement Density River Density Rank to Density Rank Density Rank ALEWIFE 8.6 7 665 8 0.88 2 BAY ANCHOVY 142.9 15 179,550 17 0.88 2 AMERICAN SHAD 24.0 10 978 10 1.00 2 BLUEFISH 12.1 9 310 7 1.29 2 HOGCHOKER 47.4 13 46,835 16 0.81 2 ATLANTIC MENHADEN 2.3 3 0 1 BLUEBACK HERRING 68.6 14 13,285 15 0.93 2 RAINBOW SMELT 11.3 8 927 9 0.89 2 SHORTNOSE STURGEON < 0.1 1 0 1 SPOTTAIL SHINER 3.8 4 143 6 0.67 2 ATLANTIC STURGEON 0.3 2 5 4 0.50 2 STRIPED BASS 46.1 12 1,763 11 1.09 2' ATLANTIC TOMCOD 250.0 16 3,494 13 1.23 2 WHITE CATFISH 4.5 5 123 5 1.00 2 WHITE PERCH 995.6 17 3,609 14 1.21 2 WEAKFISH 36.6 11 2,304 12 0.92 2 GIZZARD SHAD 8.3 6 0 1 1 17

Draft 2/14/09 Table C-8. Copy of DSEIS analysis results for Strength of Connection (SOC) for entrainment from Tables 1-31, 1-30, and H-16.

Species DSEIS DSEIS DSEIS DSEIS DSEIS Ratio DSEIS SOC Measure of Entrainment Measure of Region 4 of Score for Entrainment Density Rank Region 4 River Entrainment Entrainment Density (from (from Table I- River Density Rank to River (from Table Table 1-31) 31) Density Rank (from Rank (from H-16)

(from Table Table 1-30) Table 1-30) 1-30)

ALEWIFE 40.28 13 6.94 10 1.3 2 BAY ANCHOVY 99.10 17 391.41 17 1.0 2 AMERICAN SHAD 40.28 13 23-27 15 0.9 2 BLUEFISH 0.01 5 1.66 6 0.8 2 HOGCHOKER 0.61 8 4.27 8 1.0 2 ATLANTIC MENHADEN 0.32 7 0.00 1 BLUEBACK HERRING 40.28 13 38.43 16 0.8 2 RAINBOW SMELT 63.72 16 3.12 7 2.3 4 SHORTNOSE STURGEON 0.00 1 0.00 1 SPOTTAIL SHINER 0.00 4 5.80 9 0.4 1 ATLANTIC STURGEON 0.00 1 0.00 1 STRIPED BASS 37.94 11 15.24 13 0.8 2 ATLANTIC TOMCOD 33.47 10 11.94 12 0.8 2 WHITE CATFISH 0.10 6 0.03 5 1.2 2 WHITE PERCH 37.94 11 22.56 14 0.8 2 WEAKFISH 2.20 9 11.11 11 0.8 2 GIZZARD SHAD 0.00 1 0.00 1 18

Draft 2/14/09 Table C-9. Results from alternative analysis of entrainment and Region 4 river densities Species Measure of Entrainment Measure of Region 4 Ratio of SOC Score for Entrainment Density Rank Region 4 River Entrainment Entrainment Density River Density Rank to Density Rank Density Rank BAY ANCHOVY 730,827 16 495,271 16 1.00 2 AMERICAN SHAD 4,037 9 8,137 11 0.82 2 BLUEFISH 14 5 161 7 0.71 2 HOGCHOKER 2,449 8 200 8 1.00 2 ATLANTIC MENHADEN 177 7 0 1 RAINBOW SMELT 10,773 12 4,813 10 1.20 2 SHORTNOSE STURGEON 0 1 0 1 SPOTTAIL SHINER 8 4 2 6 0.67 2 ATLANTIC STURGEON 0 1 0 1 STRIPED BASS 66,607 14 218,162 13 1.08 2 ATLANTIC TOMCOD 9,904 11 63,546 12 0.92 2 WHITE CATFISH 14 6 2 5 1.20 2 WHITE PERCH 61,793 13 220,041 14 0.93 2 WEAKFISH 8,647 10 479 9 1.11 2 RIVER HERRING 503,500 15 295,753 15 1.00 2 GIZZARD SHAD 0 1 0 1 19

Appendix D Development and Application of a Modified WOE Approach for Assessing Impacts of IP2 and IP3 Cooling Systems on the Hudson River Fish Community

Introduction The Weight-of-Evidence (WOE) approach used in the DSEIS was originally developed for applications (contaminated site assessments) that differ in many important ways from power plant cooling system assessments. This appendix describes a modified version of the WOE approach documented in Appendix H of the DSEIS, that more accurately characterizes the potential impacts of entrainment and impingement at IP on RIS fish populations.

Documentation of changes to WOE approach Key changes made include:

1. Elimination of inconsistencies in the trends analysis and in analysis of diet preferences for some RIS.

2. Reweighting of the lines of evidence used in the population trends analysis, to account for the fact that riverwide abundance trends are more relevant measures of population status than are abundance trends in the immediate vicinity of IP2 and IP3.

3. Adjustment of the population trends WOE scores for marine species to account for the fact that many or most members of these populations never enter the Hudson and are not susceptible to entrainment or impingement at IP and IP3.

4. Reweighting of the lines of evidence used in the SOC analysis to account for the low impact of impingement relative to entrainment (section 2 of this report) and the high uncertainty associated with predictions concerning the importance of indirect effects (section 4.3 of this report).

5. Inclusion of the attribute scaling factors developed by Menzie et al. (1996) to accord more weight to attributes that are closely related to determination of causation.

6. Inclusion of the "availability of objective measures" attribute from Menzie et al.

(1996) to accord more weight to attributes that directly measure quantities of interest for impact assessment.

I

7. Modification of the impact category assignment scheme to eliminate a bias inherent in the scheme used in the DSEIS.

8. Addition of two additional lines of evidence to the SOC analysis, to more directly address direct and indirect impacts of entrainment and impingement on Hudson River fish populations.

Each of these changes is documented below.

Elimination of inconsistencies As discussed in section 4, the method NRC used to calculate SOC scores contained several significant errors and inconsistences. These scores were recalculated using a corrected method. In addition, assignments of prey species to some RIS in the DSEIS conflict with published information. These assignments were corrected.

Reweighting of the lines of evidence used in the population trends analysis The attribute weighting scheme used in the DSEIS to evaluate the use and utility of the three long-term trends measures assigns highest weights to river Segment 4 trends (Appendix H, Table H-9). The rationale for this weighting (Page H-30, lines 32-34) was that measurements made close to IP2 and IP3 are the most directly relevant to the assessment. However, all of the RIS addressed in the DSEIS are highly mobile and most conduct extensive seasonal migrations within the Hudson. Moreover, distributions of fish in the immediate vicinity of IP2 and IP3 are affected by shifts in environmental characteristics (e.g., salinity) that are unrelated to changes in abundance. Any impacts of IP2 and IP3 on RIS populations are likely to be spread across the entire riverwide populations, not localized in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3, Therefore, riverwide population trends are more relevant to the impact assessment than are river segment trends. To account for this, the weightings in Table H-9 for river segment trends and riverwide trends were reversed. Entergy agrees that coastal RIS trends are less relevant than either riverwide trends or river segment trends, so this line of evidence continues to receive the lowest weight.

2

Adjustment of the population trends WOE scores for marine species Bluefish, weakfish, and Atlantic menhaden are marine species that spawn offshore and migrate into estuaries such as the Hudson River as juveniles. These species are managed by the ASMFC as single coastwide populations (ASMFC 1989, 2001, 2002), and utilize the Delaware River, Chesapeake Bay, and many other coastal estuaries in addition to the Hudson. Such species have a much lower exposure to IP2 and IP3 than do anadromous and estuarine species for which all members of the population are susceptible to IP2 and IP3 for at least some portion of their life cycles. To account for this reduced susceptibility, the population trends WOE scores for marine species are multiplied by 0.5.

Reweighting of the lines of evidence used in the SOC analysis to account for the low impact of impingement relative to entrainment and the high uncertainty associated with predictions concerning the importance of indirect effects In the SOC analysis the DSEIS weights the use and utility of impingement losses equal to, and for some attributes higher than, the weights used for entrainment losses.

The rationale for this weighting is that the focus of the assessment is on the abundance of YOY fish, not early life stages of fish. However, since previous assessments have consistently shown that impingement impacts are small relative to entrainment impacts, impingement losses should be accorded a low, rather than a high, weight relative to entrainment losses.

In addition, the attribute weighting scheme used in the DSEIS to evaluate the use and utility of the entrainment and impingement data assigns highest weights to losses of prey caused by entrainment and impingement (Appendix H, Table H-10). The rationale for this weighting (Page H-30, line 39 to Page H-31, Line 1) is that "...the loss of a food base for YOY predators has a greater impact on more individuals than the direct loss of single individuals." However, as demonstrated in Attachment 1 to this appendix, the studies cited by the NRC staff to support the importance of food web-related effects do not support the conclusions drawn by NRC. Moreover, diet studies of Hudson River predators such as bluefish, striped bass, and white perch show that these species feed on a wide variety of prey and can easily switch from one prey species to another in response to changes in prey abundance. To account for this, the weightings in Table H-9 for RIS 3

prey impingement and entrainment were reduced so that this line of evidence now has a lower, rather than a higher, aggregate weighting than direct impingement and entrainment losses.

Inclusion of the attribute scaling factors developed by Menzie et al. (1996)

Table 1 of Menzie et al. (1996) lists scaling factors to be applied to the individual attributes used to score different lines of evidence. Although these factors were defined subjectively through a survey of ecological risk assessment practitioners, they reflect a rough consensus among practitioners concerning the relative importance of different attributes. For example, the attribute with the highest weighting according to Menzie et al. (1996) is "degree of association" between the measure of impact being evaluated and the valued environmental component it is intended to address. Menzie et al. (1996) accorded lower weights to attributes related to the details of study design. Because degree of association and other related attributes (e.g., correlation of stressor to response) are key aspects of causality determination, they should receive higher weights than other attributes. To account for this, the attribute weightings provided in Table 1 of Menzie et al. (1996) were used to weight the attributes included in the DSEIS WOE approach.

Inclusion of the "availability of objective measures" attribute from Menzie et al.

(1996)

The WOE approach of Menzie et al. (1996) includes an attribute identified as "availability of an objective measure for judging environmental harm." This attribute relates to the ability to judge measurements against well-accepted standards criteria, or objective measures indicative of harm to biological resources. Examples provided in the text include water quality criteria, sediment quality criteria, biological indices, and toxicity or exposure thresholds recognized by the scientific or regulatory communities as measures of environmental harm. Measures of population abundance or mortality would also be examples of such "objective measures." This attribute was not used in the DSEIS, but it is included in this revised WOE approach.

Modification of the impact category assignment scheme The impact category definitions used in the DSEIS are listed on Page H-34, lines 13-18. In this scheme, WOE scores of 2.0 are assigned to the category "Moderate-Large" 4

and scores greater than 2 are assigned to the category "large." For the population trends LOE, this means that if, for some species, all of the trends analyses were assigned a score of 2 (Moderate impact), then the final WOE score for that species (from the equation on page H-34, line 17) would be 2.0, and that species would be assigned to the impact category "Moderate-Large." With respect to the SOC line evidence, if the rank order of proportions of impinged and entrained species relative to total impingement and entrainment were exactly the same as rank order of abundance of species relative to total abundance in the river, then all species would receive SOC scores of 2 for RIS entrainment, RIS impingement, prey entrainment, and prey impingement. The final WOE scores for all species would be 2.0, and all would be assigned to the impact category "Medium-High."

The lowest possible score for any attribute in the WOE approach used in the DSEIS is 1, and the highest is 4. The value 2 is below the midpoint of the range of possible scores (2.5) and, in the case of the SOC line evidence, is the value that would be assigned to all RIS if all are entrained and impinged in proportion to their abundance in the river. Categorizing the WOE score of 2.0 as "Moderate-Large" or "Medium-High,"

and categorizing all higher scores as High" or "Large," clearly biases the conclusions of the assessment toward higher impact categories. It appears more reasonable, -and still conservative, to classify lines of evidence with a score of 2.0 as "Moderate," and to categorize higher and lower scores according to their deviation from the value of 2.0.

The following classification scheme is used in the revised approach:

• Small (low) impact: WOE score <1.5

• Small-moderate (low-medium) impact: WOE score > 1.5 but less than 2.0

• Moderate (medium) impact: WOE score = 2.0

• Moderate-large (medium-high) impact: WOE score >2.0 but <2.5

• Large (high) impact: WOE score > 2.5.

Addition of two additional lines of evidence to the SOC analysis As noted in section 4.2 of the comment report, all four of the components of the SOC (LOE-2) analysis are based on rankings of relative susceptibility of populations to entrainment and impingement. Rank orders of RIS within entrainment and impingement collections are compared to rank orders in the river. A score of 1 is assigned if a species 5

appears to be underrepresented in entrainment or impingement samples, a score of 4 is assigned if a species appears overrepresented in entrainment or impingement samples, and a score of 2 is assigned if a species appears to be proportionally represented in entrainment or impingement samples. In addition to being subject to the biases and inconsistencies discussed in section 4.2 of the comment report, the ranking scheme used in the DSEIS has no direct connection to the absolute magnitude of impacts of entrainment or impingement on any species. The actual magnitude of impingement or entrainment-related impacts on any species depends not on its representation relative to other species in entrainment and impingement collections, but on whether the entrainment and impingement losses significantly affect the ability of the population to sustain itself and perform its normal ecological functions.

As discussed in section 5 of the comment report, the conditional mortality rate (CMR) provides a direct measure of the mortality imposed on fish populations by entrainment or impingement, expressed as the fraction by which the abundance of YOY fish is reduced because of entrainment or impingement. Since YOY and yearling fish are identified on p. H-27 (lines 5-6) as the primary focus for the DSEIS, the CMR is clearly a relevant metric for use in the assessment. Moreover, the CMR is well-documented in peer-reviewed scientific literature (Barnthouse et al. 1984, Boreman et al. 1981, Boreman and Goodyear 1988, Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988). Although insufficient as a stand-alone indicator of potential long-term impacts because it does not account for biological compensation (AEI report, Section 2.3) the CMR can be used for comparative purposes, to roughly classify populations with low, medium, or high strength of connection to IP2 and IP3.

CMRs for many of the RIS, for the years 1974-1997, are provided in Section V of CHGE et al. (1999) and summarized in Table D-1. This table includes annual and long-term average Indian Point-specific CMRs for both entrainment and impingement. These estimates are consistent with all previous assessments of the impacts of IP2 and IP3 on fish populations in demonstrating that impingement impacts are consistently lower than entrainment impacts. In the revised assessment approach, combined CMRs for impingement and entrainment are used to quantify the strength of connection of IP2 and IP3 to fish populations of the Hudson River. A low strength of connection (score =1) 6

was assigned if the long-term combined average CMR for impingement and entrainment (IP2 and IP3 combined) over the period 1974-1997 was less than 0.05. A medium strength of connection (score=2) was assigned if the long-term combined average CMR for impingement and entrainment (IP2 and IP3 combined) was greater than 0.05 but less than 0.1. A high strength of connection (score = 4) was assigned if the long-term combined average CMR for entrainment and impingement (IP2 and IP3 combined) was equal to or greater than 0.1.

These classification criteria are very conservative. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the AEI report (Barmthouse et al. 2008), rates of fishing mortality allowed by the ASMFC and other fisheries management agencies have far greater impacts on the reproductive capacity of fish populations than would be caused by a CMR of 0.1. Moreover, as discussed in Section 2.2 of the AEI report, adult female fish belonging to species that utilize unstable environments like the Hudson River typically spawn 100,000 to 1,000,000 eggs or more per year. Of these, only a very small fraction of 1 % will to survive to become 1-year-old fish. In the case of striped bass, for example, Secor and Houde (1995) estimated that more than 99.99% of young striped bass die within 60 days following spawning. The loss of an additional 10% would likely be impossible to detect through monitoring.

CMRs for prey species can be used in a similar way to evaluate the strength of connection between !P2 and IP3 and prey RIS. CHGEC (1999) contains CMR values for most of the prey species addressed in the DSEIS, including striped bass, white perch, American shad, blueback herring, alewife, Atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, 'and spottail shiner. These values were used to assign SOC scores that account for the potential impacts of IP2 and IP3 on prey species. RIS fish species that feed primarily on invertebrates were assigned a low strength of connection (score=l) for prey impacts.

Species that feed primarily on fish were assigned a low strength of connection (score=l) if less than 1/3 of RIS on which they are known to prey had CMR values greater than 0.05, a medium strength of connection (score=2) if betweenl/3 and 2/3 of the RIS on which they are know to prey had CMR values greater than 0.05, and a high strength of connection (score=4) if more than 2/3 of the RIS on which they are known to prey had CMR values greater than 0.05. This approach is conservative, because the cut-off value 7

used 0.05, implies only that the prey species in question had at least a medium strength-of-connection to IP2 and IP3, not that IP2 and IP3 had any actual impact on the abundance of these species.

Application of Revised Approach to RIS The revised use and utility scores for the attributes used to evaluate the RIS population trends LOE (LOE-1) are listed in Table D-2. As discussed above, differences between the revised weighting approach and the original approach used in the DSEIS result from reweighting of the three trends indices to give higher weight to the riverwide trends data, use of the attribute scaling factors from Menzie et al. (1996), and inclusion of an additional attribute, availability of an objective measure for judging environmental harm. The reweighting simply reversed the attribute utility scores for the riverwide and river segment trends. Because population abundance relates directly to the status of the a population and because objective measures of harm (e.g., abundance thresholds requiring management action) can at least in principle be defined for all three trends measures, all were given the same high score (3) for this attribute.

The use of the attribute scaling factors from Menzie et al. (1996) required a change in the method used to calculate the overall utility score for each measure. To preserve the original 1-3 range of utility scores used in the DSEIS, the following procedure was used. First, the score for each attribute was multiplied by the applicable attribute scaling factor. Next, the scaled attribute scores were averaged. Rescaling to the original 1-3 range was then performed by multiplying each attribute average by a rescaling factor equal to the number of attributes evaluated (8) divided by the sum of the scaling factors (4.5) from Menzie et al. (1996).

The revised use and utility scores for the attributes used to evaluate the measures included in the strength-of-connection LOE (LOE-2) are listed in Table D-3. As discussed above, differences between the revised weighting approach and the original weighting approach used in the DSEIS result from inclusion of the "objective measure" attribute, use of the attribute scaling factors from Menzie et al. (1996), reductions in the relative weights given to prey entrainment and impingement, and inclusion of the RIS CMR and prey CMR as additional measures of SOC. The RIS CMR and prey CMR measures were assigned the maximum score (3) because these measures are directly 8

related to the direct (RIS CMR) and indirect (prey CMR) impacts of IP2 and IP3 on Hudson River aquatic communities. The RIS and RIS prey entrainment and impingement measures receive low scores for this attribute because they relate only to relative susceptibility, and not to actual impacts of IP2 and IP3 on RIS populations or prey populations. Weightings for most attributes were reduced to the minimum possible value for RIS impingement and prey impingement, because of the low impact of impingement, relative to entrainment, found in all previous impact assessments for IP2 and IP3. Rescaling of the overall utility score for each measure was performed using the procedure described above for the population trends LOE.

Except where noted, the species-specific scores for each attribute are unchanged from the values used in the DSEIS. Although the impact conclusions reached for each species apply formally to impingement and entrainment combined, it should be recognized that, except for white perch, the conclusions should apply to entrainment alone. As shown in Table D-1, for all other species impingement makes a negligible contribution to overall CWIS mortality at IP2 and IP3.

The revised WOE approach was applied to 14 of the 17 RIS fish species. For the remainder (Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sturgeon, and gizzard shad) there was insufficient information to apply either the original or the revised WOE approach.

Shortnose sturgeon populations studies reviewed in Appendix E to the DSEIS and discussed in Section 3 of the comment report clearly demonstrate that the Hudson River population of species has greatly increased in abundance since the 1970s. In addition, impingement and entrainment data summarized in Section 3 clearly demonstrate that shortnose sturgeon are rarely impinged, and either rarely or never entrained at IP2 and IP3. Shortnose sturgeon feed exclusively on invertebrates, therefore, indirect effects of entrainment or impingement of sturgeon prey should be no higher than for any other fish species that feed on invertebrates. For these reasons, shortnose sturgeon was included in the revised assessment.

All of these applications should be considered conservative, screening-level assessments because they are qualitative and do not employ the rigorous hypothesis-testing criteria used in the AEI Report (Barnthouse et al. 2008). Declines in population abundance, together with CMR values above the conservative threshold (0.1) used in the 9

revised WOE scheme are assumed to provide strong evidence that IP2 and IP3 have adversely affected a population. As in the case of Atlantic tomcod (below), application of the more rigorous approach used in the AEJ report could demonstrate that any observed declines are more strongly associated with other stressors.

The following subsections provide summaries of the application to six of these species. Results for all 14 are listed in Tables D-4 through D-6.

Bluefish Results for the population line of evidence are provided in Table D-4. The unadjusted score for LOE-1 is 2.5, the same value documented in the DSEIS. However, because bluefish is a marine species, this score is multiplied by 0.5, resulting in an adjusted WOE score of 1.2 (Small) for this LOE.

Results for LOE-2 are provided in Table D-5. Scores for this line of evidence are substantially lower than the scores documented in the DSEIS. As discussed in section 4.2, after correction of errors, all RIS received scores of 2 for entrainment and impingement. The DEIS did not provide CMRs for bluefish, however, a comparison of total bluefish impingement losses to the coastwide abundance of bluefish (Attachment 2.

to this appendix) shows average annual impingement of bluefish amounts to less than 0.01% of coastwide abundance. As noted in Section 2 of the DSEIS, bluefish are rarely entrained at IP2 and IP3. Therefore, bluefish received a score of 1 for the RIS CMR measure. Published studies of the diets of bluefish in the Hudson River (Juanes et al.

1993, Buckel and Conover 1997) show that this predator consumes a wide variety of prey species present in brackish reaches of the Hudson. Eight of the RIS addressed in the DSEIS (alewife, American shad, blueback herring, bay anchovy, spottail shiner, striped bass, white perch, and Atlantic tomcod) , have been found in stomachs of bluefish collected from the Hudson (Juanes et al. 1993, Buckel and Conover 1997). CMRs for all of these species are available and are listed in Table 3. Of these eight species, four have CMR values greater than 0.05. Therefore bluefish was assigned a score of 2 for the prey CMR measure. The overall WOE score for the LOE-2 of evidence is 1.7 (Low to Medium).

10

Impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on bluefish are summarized in Table D-6. Because the population line of evidence is categorized as Small and the SOC evidence is categorized as Low to Medium, the final integrated impact is categorized as SMALL.

White perch Results for LOE-1 are provided in Table D-4. The unadjusted score for the LOE-1 is 3.0, slightly higher than the value documented in the DSEIS. Because white perch is an estuarine species, no adjustment is made to this score and the final value for this LOE is 3.0 (Large).

Scores for LOE-2 are provided in Table D-5. These scores are substantially lower than the scores documented in the DSEIS. As discussed in section 4.2 of the comment report, after correction of errors, all RIS received scores of 2 for entrainment and impingement. Table D-1 provides white perch CMRs for the years 1974 through 1997.

The average CMR for IP2 and IP3, for entrainment and impingement combined, was 0.066. Therefore, white perch received a score of 2 for the RIS CMR measure. Bath and O'Connor (1985) showed that, contrary to the diet assumption made in the DSEIS, white perch in the Hudson River consume fish eggs, but otherwise feed primarily on invertebrates. Therefore, white perch received a score of 1 for the prey CMR measure.

The final WOE value for this LOE is 1.8 (Low to Medium).

Impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on white perch are summarized in Table D-6. Because the population line of evidence is categorized as Large and the SOC line of evidence is categorized as Low to Medium, the final integrated impact is categorized as SMALL to MODERATE.

Hogchoker Results for LOE-l are provided in Table D-4. The unadjusted score for the LOE-1 is 2.1, slightly lower than the value documented in the DSEIS. Because hogchoker is an estuarine species, no adjustment is made to this score and the final value for this LOE is 2.1 (Moderate to Large).

Results for LOE-2 are provided in Table D-5. Scores for this line of evidence are substantially lower than the scores documented in the DSEIS. As discussed in section 4.2 11

of the comment report, after correction of errors, all RIS received scores of 2 for entrainment and impingement. The DEIS did not provide CMRs for hogchoker.

However, Attachment 2 to this appendix compares hogchoker entrainment and impingement, expressed as equivalent abundance of age 1 fish, to the total number of hogchoker present in the river, also expressed as equivalent age 1 fish. This analysis shows that annual average entrainment and impingement losses for hogchoker are less than 1% of the annual average abundance of hogchoker in the Hudson River. Therefore, hogchoker was assigned a score of 1 for the RIS CMR measure. As noted in the DSEIS, hogchokers feed on benthic invertebrates, therefore, hogchoker received a score of 1 for the prey CMR measure. The final WOE value for this LOE is 1.5 (Low to Medium).

Impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on hogchoker are summarized in Table D-6. Because the population line of evidence is categorized as Moderate to Large and the SOC line of evidence is categorized as Low to Medium, the final integrated impact is categorized as SMALL to MODERATE.

Rainbow smelt Results forLOE-1 are provided in Table D-4. The unadjusted score for the LOE-l is 2.7, slightly lower than the value documented in the DSEIS. Because rainbow smelt is an anadromous species, no adjustment is made to this score and the final value for this LOE is 2.7 (Large).

Results for LOE-2 are provided in Table D-5. Scores for this line of evidence are substantially lower than the scores documented in the DSEIS. As discussed in section 4.2 of the comment report, after correction of errors, all RIS received scores of 2 for entrainment and impingement. The DEIS did not provide CMRs for rainbow smelt, so this measure is not scored. As noted in the DSEIS, rainbow smelt feed on invertebrates, therefore, rainbow smelt received a score of 1 for the prey CMR measure. The final WOE value for this LOE is 1.7 (Low to Medium).

Impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on rainbow smelt are summarized in Table D-6. Because the population line of evidence is categorized as Large and the SOC line of evidence is categorized as Low to Medium, the final integrated impact is categorized as SMALL to MODERATE.

12

Striped bass Results for LOE-1 are provided in Table D-4. The unadjusted score for the LOE-1 is 1.0, the same value documented in the DSEIS. Because striped bass is an anadromous species, no adjustment is made to this score and the final value for this LOE is 1.0 (Small).

Scores for the LOE-2 are provided in Table D-5. These scores are substantially lower than the scores documented in the DSEIS. As discussed in section 4.2 of the comment report, after correction of errors, all RIS received scores 2 for entrainment and impingement. Table D-1 provides striped bass CMRs for the years 1974 through 1997.

The average CMR for IP2 and IP3, for entrainment and impingement combined, was 0.080. Therefore, striped bass received a score of 2 for the RIS CMR measure. Striped bass like bluefish, are piscivorous. Striped bass feed on a variety of prey species, including blueback herring, alewife, American shad, Atlantic tomcod, white perch, and spottail shiner (Gardinier and Hoff 1982). Of these seven RIS prey species, three had long-term average CMRs greater than 0.05. Therefore, striped bass was assigned a score of 2 for the prey CMR measure. The overall WOE score for the SOC line of evidence is 2.0 (Medium).

Impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on striped bass are summarized in Table D-6. Because the population line of evidence is categorized as Small and the SOC line of evidence is categorized as Medium, the final integrated impact is categorized as SMALL.

Atlantic tomcod Results for LOE-I are provided in Table D-4. The unadjusted score for the LOE-1 is 2.2, slightly larger than the value documented in the DSEIS. Because Atlantic tomcod is an estuarine species, no adjustment is made to this score and the final value for this LOE is 2.2 (Moderate to Large).

Scores for LOE-2 are provided in Table D-5. These scores are substantially lower than the scores documented in the DSEIS. As discussed in section 4.2 of the comment report, after correction of errors, all RIS species received scores of 2 for entrainment and impingement. Table D-1 provides Atlantic tomcod CMRs for the years 1974 through 1997. The average CMR for IP2 and IP3, for entrainment and impingement combined, 13

was 0.127. Therefore, Atlantic tomcod received a score of 4 for the RIS CMR measure.

Atlantic tomcod feed on invertebrates, therefore they were assigned a score of 1 for the prey CMR measure. The overall WOE score for the SOC line of evidence is 2.4 (Medium to High).

Impacts of the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems on Atlantic tomcod are summarized in Table D-6. Because LOE-1 is categorized as Moderate to Large and LOE-2 is categorized as Medium to High, the final integrated impact is categorized as MODERATE to LARGE. It should be noted that the Atlantic tomcod assessment included in the AEI report considered all of the lines of evidence used here, as well as lines of evidence relating to other potential causes of the recent decline in abundance of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River. The AEI report found that striped bass predation is a more likely cause of the decline than are entrainment and impingement at IP2 and IP3.

References Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 1989. Fishery management plan for the bluefish fishery. Fisheries Management Report No. 14 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

ASMFC 2001. Amendment I to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic menhaden. Fisheries Management Report No. 37 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

ASMFC 2002. Amendment 4 to the Insterstate Fishery Management Plan for weakfish.

Fishery Management Report no. 39 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

Barnthouse, L.W., and W. Van Winkle. 1988. Analysis of impingement impacts on Hudson River fish populations. American FisheriesSociety Monograph 4:182-190.

Barnthouse, L.W., J.Boreman, S.W. Christensen, C.P. Goodyear, W. Van Winkle, and D.S. Vaughan. 1984. Population biology in the courtroom: the Hudson River controversy. Bioscience 34:14-19.

Barnthouse, L. W., D. G. Heimbuch, W. Van Winkle, and J. R. Young. 2008.

Entrainment and impingement at IP2 and IP3: A biological assessment. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Bath, D. W., and J. M. O'Connor. 1985. Food preferences of white perch in the Hudson River estuary. New York Fish and Game Journal 32:63-70.

14

Boreman, J., C. P. Goodyear, and S. W. Christensen. 1981. An empirical methodology for estimating entrainment losses at power plants sited on estuaries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110:253-260.

Boreman, J., and C. P. Goodyear. 1988. Estimates of entrainment mortality for striped bass and other fish species in the Hudson River estuary. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:152-160.

Buckel, J.A., and D. 0. Conover. 1997. Movements, feeding period, and daily ration of piscivorous young-of-the-year bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix in the Hudson River estuary. Fishery Bulletin 95:665-679.

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; New York Power Authority; and Southern Energy New York (DSEIS). 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.

Gardinier, M. and T.B. Hoff. 1982. Diet of striped bass in the Hudson River estuary.

New York Fish and Game Journal. Vol. 29, No. 2. p152-165.

Menzie, C., M. H. Henning, J. Cura, K. Finkelstein, J. Gentile, J. Maughan, D. Mitchell, S. Petron, B. Potocki, S. Svirsky, and P. Tyler. 1996. Special report of the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Workgroup: A weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating ecological risks. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2:277-304.

Juanes, F., R. E. Marks, K. A. McKown, and D. 0. Conover. 1993. Predation by age-0 bluefish on age-0 anadromous fishes in the Hudson River estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:348-356.

Secor, D.H., and E.D. Houde. 1995. Temperature effects on the timing of striped bass egg production, larval viability, and recruitment potential in the Patuxent River (Chesapeake Bay). Estuaries 18:527-544.

15

Table D-1. Average (1974-1997) CMR for RIS fish species (From CHGEC 1999)

Source table CMR Species in CHGE Impingement Entrainment Combined (1999)

Striped bass V-18 0.002 0.078 0.080 white perch V-20 0.017 0.049 0.066 Atlantic tomcod V-22 0.006 0.120 0.126 American shad V-26 0.000 0.006 0.006 Blueback herring V-28 0.002 0.012 0.014 alewife V-30 0.001 0.012 0.013 bay anchovy V-32 0.001 0.104 0.104 Spottail shiner V-42 0.001 0.022 0.023 16

Table D-2. Use and utility scores for RIS trends measures.

Adjusted river Adjusted Adjusted River Attribute segment riverwide coastal Use and Utility segment Riverwide Coastal scaling trends trends trends Attribute trends trends trends factor score score score Strength of 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 Association Stressor- 1 2 1 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.7 specificity Site-specificity 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 Sensitivity of 2 2 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 measurement Spatial 2 3 1 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.4 representativeness Temporal 3 3 3 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 representativeness Correlation of 1 2 1 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.7 stressor to response Availability of 3 3 3 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 objective measure Average adjusted 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.7 utility score rescaling factor 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 Overall utility 1.7 2.5 1.3 Score 17

Table D-3. Use and utility scores for SOC measures.

RIS RIS RIS CMR RIS Prey RIS Prey Prey CMR "tiuasicd Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted

M79 Adjusted, Impinged Entrained (combined) impinged EntrainedI (combhil RIS RIS RIS Prey RIS Prey Prey CMR

!u iiged Entrained CMR impinged Entrained Strength of 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3,0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Association Stressor-specificity 2 2 3 2 2 0.7 1.4 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 Site-specificity 2 2 3 2 2 0.5 1 1 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sensitivity of 2 1 3 2 1 0.5 1 0.5 1,5 1.0 0.5 1.0 measurement Spatial 3 3 3 2 2 0.4 1.2 1.2 1E2 0.8 0.8 0.8 representativeness Temporal 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0,6 0.4 0.2 0.4 representativeness Correlation of I I 3 I I 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.1 0.7 0.7 1.4 stressor to response 5 _

Availability of I I 3 I 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1L5 0.5 0.5 1.5 obiective measure Average adjusted 0.56 0.90 0.81 1.69 0.85 0.76 1.19 utility score Rescaling factor 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 Overall utility score 1.6 I

1.4 3.0 1.5 II 1.4 2.1 18

Table D-4. Weight of Evidence Results for the Population Trend Line of Evidence (LOE-I_

River Segment Riverwide Coastal Adjusted Assessment Assesment Assessment WOE WOE Impact Measurement Score Score Score Score Score Conclusion Utility score 1.7 2.5 1.3 Bluefish 3 2.3 2 2.5 1.2 Small White perch 3 4 1 3.0 3.0 Large Moderate Hogchoker 2.7 1.7 N/A 2.1 2.1 to Large Rainbow smelt 3 2.5 N/A 2.7 2.7 Large Striped bass 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 Small Atlantic Moderate tomcod 1.8 2.5 N/A 2.2 2.2 to Large Small to Bay anchovy 2 1.7 N/A 1.8 1.8 moderate Alewife 4 1.7 2 2.5 2.5 Large Blueback 2 3.3 2 2.6 2.6 Large herring American 4 3 4 3.5 3.5 Large shad Spottail shiner 4 1 N/A 2.2 2.2 Moderate to Large White catfish 1 4 N/A 2.8 2.8 Large Weakfish 1 1.5 2 1.5 0.7 Small Shortnose sturgeon unknown I N/A 1.0 1.0 Small 19

Table D-5. Weight of Evidence for the Strength-of-Connection Line of Evidence Impingement Entrainment WOE Strength of Measurement RIS Prey RIS Prey CMR Prey CMR Score Connection Utility score 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 3.0 2.1 Low to Bluefish 2 2 2 2 1 2 1.7 Medium Low to White perch 2 1 2 1 2 1 1.8 Medium Low to Hogchoker 2 1 2 1 1 1 1.7 Medium Rainbow Low to smelt 2 1 2 1 unknown 1 1.7 Medium Striped bass 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.0 Medium Atlantic Medium to tomcod 2 1 2 1 4 1 2.4 High Medium to Bay anchovy 2 1 2 1 4 1 2.4 High Alewife 2 1 2 1 1 1 1.5 Low to Medium Blueback 2 1 2 1 1 1 1.5 Low to herring medium American 2 1 2 1 1 1 1.5 Low to shad Medium Spottail shiner 2 1 2 1 1 1 1.5 Low to Medium White catfish 2 1 2 1 unknown 1 1.7 Low to Medium Weakfish 2 2 2 2 unknown 2 2.0 Medium Shortnose unknown 1 unknown I unknown 1 1.0 low sturgeon 20

Table D-6. Impingement and Entrainment Impact Summary for Hudson River RIS Species Impacts of IP2 and Population 3 Cooling Systems Line of Strength of Connection on Aquatic Evidence Line of Evidence Resources Bluefish Small Low to Medium Small White perch Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Moderate to Hogchoker Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Rainbow smelt Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Striped bass Small Medium Small Atlantic Moderate to tomcod Large Medium to High Moderate to Large Small to Bay anchovy Moderate Medium to High Small to Moderate Alewife Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Blueback Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate herring '

American shad Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Spottail shiner Moderate to Low to Medium Small to Moderate Large White catfish Large Low to Medium Small to Moderate Weakfish Small Medium Small Shortnose sturgeon Small Low Small 21

Attachment 1: Interpretation of food web studies The strength-of-connection line of evidence (LOE-2) includes measures relating to the entrainment and impingement of prey species. The intent of these measures is to account for the impact of entrainment and impingement of prey species on the abundance of predators. The prey entrainment loss measure is assigned the highest weight of all the measures included in the SOC line of evidence. The rationale for this weighting is provided on page H-30, lines 37-40 and page H-31, lines 1-9. Entrainment losses are said to have higher "stressor-specificity" than other measures of SOC, because "...the loss of a food base for YOY predators has a greater impact on more individuals than the direct loss of single individuals," and "... alterations to lower levels of complex food web relationships result in measurable impacts at higher trophic levels." This claim is supported by citations to Ulanowicz (1996) and Frank et al. (2007).

Neither of the cited papers supports the assertion made concerning indirect effects in the DSEIS. The paper by Ulanowicz (1996) illustrates the use of a mathematical technique called network analysis to characterize the impact of elevated temperatures on carbon flows in a Florida tidal marsh creek. The results of the authors' analysis relate to the effect of elevated temperatures on trophic efficiency and carbon recycling, not to indirect effect of mortality imposed on lower trophic-level organisms. It is important to note that the field study relied on by Ulanowicz (1996) was never documented in a peer-reviewed paper, "...due to disagreements among the primary authors" (p. 359).

The paper by Frank et al. (2007) is a review of studies investigating the trophic structure of North Atlantic marine ecosystems, focusing on the relative importance of "bottom-up" and "top-down" control. In "bottom-up" control, the abundance of higher trophic levels is controlled by the abundance of lower trophic levels such as phytoplankton, zooplankton, and small fish. Higher trophic levels such as predatory fish, on the other hand, have no influence on the abundance of lower trophic levels. The indirect impact of entrainment cited in the DSEIS would be an example of bottom-up control. In "top-down" control, the abundance of predators controls the abundance of lower trophic levels. Changes in abundance of prey species have no influence on the I

abundance of predators. If top-down control occurred in the Hudson River, then entrainment of prey species would have no effect on the abundance of predators. Frank et al. (2007) show that both bottom-up and top-down control occur in North Atlantic marine ecosystems, with top-down control being prevalent in arctic regions and regions where predators have been overharvested, and bottom-up control being prevalent in warm regions and regions not affected by overharvesting. No inferences are made concerning the trophic structure of estuarine systems such as the Hudson River.

The volume (Polis and Winemiller 1996) containing the paper by Ulanowicz (1996) also contains 36 other papers on the structure and function of food webs. The synthesis paper by Abrams et al. (1996) is especially relevant to the DSEIS. Abrams et al. (1996) focused on the role of indirect effects in food webs. They discussed methods for determining the magnitude of indirect effects, and summarized published studies concerning the relative magnitudes of direct and indirect effects. Some studies have found indirect effects to be less important than direct effects, but others have found the opposite result. Abrams et al. (1996) described a variety of types of indirect effects that have been observed in various ecosystems, and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches for studying and quantifying indirect effects. However, these authors were able to provide no general conclusions concerning the importance of indirect effects.

It is reasonable to conclude from the above-cited papers that uncertainty concerning the potential indirect effects of prey entrainment on predator abundance is very high. Such indirect effects might occur under some circumstances, but might not occur under other circumstances. Whether the abundance of a predator species would be affected by the losses of potential prey organisms would depend on a variety of factors, including the relative abundance of predators and prey and the ability of a predator to switch to other prey species. Prey entrainment might be important in years in which the abundance of YOY predators is high, but unimportant in years in which the abundance of predators is low.

The literature reviewed above supports a conclusion that indirect effects of prey entrainment on predator abundance are possible, but not certain. It is reasonable to include prey entrainment as a line of evidence for the DSEIS, but because of the very 2

high uncertainty concerning the importance of prey entrainment this measure should be assigned a lower weight than direct entrainment or impingement losses of RIS.

References Abrams, P., B. A. Menge, G. G. Mittelbach, D. Spiller, and P. Yodzis. 1996. The role of indirect effects in food webs. pp. 358-68 in Polis, G. A., and K. 0. Winemiller, Polis, G. A., and K. 0. Winemiller (eds.) Food Webs: Integrationof Patterns and Dynamics. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Frank, K. T., B. Petrie, and N. Shackell. 2007. The ups and downs of trophic control in continental shelf ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22:236-242.

Polis, G. A., and K. 0. Winemiller. 1996. Food Webs: Integrationof Patternsand Dynamics. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Ulanowicz. R. E. 1996. Trophic flow networks as indicators of ecosystem stress. Pp.

358-68 in Polis, G. A., and K. 0. Winemiller, Polis, G. A., and K. 0. Winemiller (eds.) Food Webs.- Integrationof Patternsand Dynamics. Chapman and Hall, New York.

3

Comparison of Impingement Mortality and Entrainment oflHogchoker and Bluefish atIndian Point Nuclear Power Plant toCorresponding Population Abundances Introduction The objective of the this report is to compare the magnitude of historical losses of hogchoker and bluefish, due to impingement mortality and entrainment at Indian Point nuclear power plant, to historical levels of population abundance of the hogchoker and bluefish stocks found in the Hudson River. For hogchoker, riverwide abundance estimates, from the Fall Juvenile Survey (FJS) and Beach Seine Survey (BSS) were used as the measures of population abundance. For bluefish, which is believed to be and is managed as a single coastal stock on the Atlantic coast (NEFSC 2006), estimates of abundance of the Atlantic coast stock were used as the measures of population abundance.

Impingement Mortality Annual estimates of YOY impingement mortality (i.e., the number of fish that die from impingement) were computed for bluefish and hogchoker for 1980 through 1989.

Although impingement sampling was also conducted in 1979 and 1990, ages of bluefish and hogchoker were not reported in those two years. The datasets used for this analysis were contained in two data files prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. at the request of the NRC: "Imp 19751980.csv" and "Imp 19811990.csv".

For each species, the annual impingement mortality was estimated as the product of the estimated annual number impinged times the impingement mortality rate:

IMk = IkR where IMk = annual impingement mortality (# fish per year)

Ik = annual number impinged 4

R = species-specific impingement mortality rate (the proportion of impinged fish that die from impingement)

For hogchoker, an impingement mortality rate of 2.6% (Fletcher 1990, Table 4, 8 hr tests) was used. Bluefish were not included in the impingement mortality study (Fletcher 1990) at Indian Point. However, bluefish impingement mortality was studied at Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant (Horwitz 1987), and was estimated to be 50%. In the absence of an estimate from Indian Point, the estimate from Calvert Cliffs is used for this analysis.

Species-specific annual estimates of the number of young-of-year (YOY) fish impinged were computed as the sum of reported seasonal estimates:

4 Ik =Zk I, s=l where Iks = reported number impinged during season, s, in year, k.

season 1: January-March season 2: April-June season 3: July-September season 4: October-December The standard error of the estimated annual impingement mortality was computed as the square root of the estimated variance:

se(JMk )= ,vdi m where 4

vfr(iMk = R (se(i, ))2 s=I and se(Ik,s )= the reported standard error of the estimated number impinged during season, s, in year, k.

5

Species-specific estimates of annual impingement mortality were also computed for the total (all ages combined) number of fish impinged. In several years and seasons, impinged yearling (age-i) bluefish and hogchoker were not reported separately.

Therefore, separate analyses for yearling bluefish and hogchoker were not conducted.

Based on years and seasons in which yearling bluefish and hogchoker were reported, the percentage of total numbers impinged that were YOY or age-I could be determined. For bluefish, 97.7 % of all fish impinged (1980-1989) were YOY or age-1. For hogchoker, 31.3% of all fish impinged were YOY or age-1.

Entrainment For each year with entrainment sampling (1981 and 1983 - 1987) species- and lifestage-specific annual estimates of the number of bluefish and hogchoker entrained were computed based on reported weekly entrainment densities and cooling water withdrawal rates. The dataset used for this analysis was contained in one data file prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc. at the request of the NRC: "EntDensity.csv".

Estimates of mean entrainment densities were reported for weeks 18 through 32 in all years of entrainment sampling. In addition, estimates of mean entrainment densities were reported for weeks 2 through 17 in 1986; however, no bluefish or hogchoker were reported entrained during those weeks. Accordingly, year and lifestage-specific estimates of the number of bluefish and hoghoker entrained, Lj,k, were computed as the sum of weekly estimates (weeks 18 through 32):

32 Ljk = ZL,k,w w=18 where Lj,k, = DJk,,V(f 2 ,k,w + f 3 ,k,wX60 x 24 x 7) and Lj kW = estimated entrainment losses for lifestage,j, during week, w, of year k, 6

Dj,k,w = reported mean entrainment density (#/im 3) for lifestage,j, during week, w, of year k, and fuk,w = average cooling water withdrawal rate (m3/min) for unit, u, during week, w, of year, k.

For each year, k, the number of organisms in each lifestage, j, lost due to entrainment, Ljk, was translated into the equivalent number of age-i fish, EqAgeljk, based on the method described by USEPA (2006):

EqAgelj,k = Lj,k Sj, where Sj 1 = cumulative survival from lifestagej until age 1 JUma,

= s;flsi i=j+l and Si = survival fraction from lifestage i to lifestage i+],

Jmax = the lifestage immediately prior to age 1, and S* = S1 adjusted to account for the expected time period from the beginning of lifestagej, to the date of entrainment

= 2Se- ln(1+Sj)

The total number of age-I equivalents derived from losses at all stages in year k, EqAgelk ,was computed as the sum over all entrained lifestages:

EqAgelk =

• EqAgel,,k

/ Jinfi 7

The standard error of the estimate of number of age-I equivalents was computed as the square roof of the estimated variance:

se(EqAgelk )= jv'r(EqAgek) where vdr(EqAgelj)= I var(EqAgeli,k)

J=Jmnin 32 vdr(EqAgeljk* )= (SI )I

• vdr(Ljk,w) w,=l 8 vfir(Lj,kWw)= {se(Dj k,.XF2,k,w + F3 k,, X60 x 24 x 7)}2 and se(-Diko,)- reported standard error of the estimate of mean entrainment density (#/m 3 ) for lifestage,j, in week, w, of year, k, Estimates of lifestage-specific survival fractions (S1) required for the equivalent age-I analysis were from USEPA (2006) Appendix C 1, Tables C I-13 and-C 1-19.

Hogehoker Riverwide Abundance Average riverwide abundance of YOY fish was estimated from reported region-and week-specific estimates of standing crop (see, e.g., EA 1991) from the Fall Juvenile Survey (FJS) and the Beach Seine Survey (BSS). Standing crop estimates represent the number of fish, by species and lifestage, based on the average density (# fish! unit volume for FJS, and # fish/ unit area for BSS) observed in samples and on the total volume or area of each region. Separate estimates were computed for YOY fish and for all ages combined. For bluefish 99.7% of all fish collected (1980-1989) by the FJS and BSS were YOY or age-1. For hogchoker, 99.5% of all fish collected were YOY or age-1.

8

Annual estimates of average riverwide abundance were computed as an average of season-specific abundance estimates from seasons 3 and 4 (the seasons consistently sampled by the FJS and BSS):

1 4 Ak=--ZAks 2 s=3 Ak,s = AFJSk,s + ABSSks AFJS,k,s 1 1_

Z AFJS k,w 1

nFJS,k,s 'G FJS,k,s ABSSks - ABss,k,w nBSS,k,s WGWBSS~k,,

where wFJSk,s = the set of weeks sampled by the FJS during season, s, in year, k, WBSSks = the set of weeks sampled by the BSS during season, s, in year, k, lFeJS, k,s = the number of weeks sampled by the FJS during season, s, in year, k, nBSSk,s = the number of weeks sampled by the BSS during season, s, in year, k, and 12 AFJsk,w = Z AFJS,k,w,r r=I 12 ABss,k,w = Z ABss,k,w,r 9

AFJsk,w,r = the reported FJS standing crop estimate for river region, r, in week, w, of year, k, in the channel, bottom and shoal strata, and ABSS,k.w,r = the reported BSS standing crop estimate for river region, r, in week, w, of year, k, in the shorezone stratum.

The standard error of the estimate of annual average abundance was computed as the square root of the estimated variance:

se(Ak)=Vf~Pri 14 vir(Ak)= i2 (vfir(AI,k,, )+ v.r(A,,,,s ))

2 (=3 (Cochran (1977), equation (10. 15)):

El FJS,k, s vd.r(AFJS,k, )= SD 2FJS,k,s n FJS,k,s wVEWFJSk,,

vdr(AFSkW): 1-2 (se(AFjsk, r))

SBSS,k ,s vdr(ABSS,k, SDFJSk,s + n_. var(AEBSS, k,,

EIBSS,k,s FIBss,k,s WEWBss~k, n BSS,k,s vir(ASSk,,,,)= E (se(Assk,.,,. ))2 where 10

SFJSk s = the standard deviation of the FJS weekly abundance estimates within season, s, in year, k, SD2SSks = the standard deviation of the BSS weekly abundance estimates within season, s, in year, k, se(AFJsk.w,r) = reported standard error for the FJS standing crop estimate for river region, r, in week, w, of year, k, in the channel, bottom and shoal strata, and se(ABss~kw...) = reported standard error for the BSS standing crop estimate for river region, r, in week, w, of year, k, in the shorezone stratum.

Bluefish Coastwide Abundance The Atlantic bluefish stock is believed to be a single population and is managed as a single stock (NEFSC 2006, page 53). Accordingly, the coastwide population of bluefish provides the appropriate context for evaluating impingement and entrainment losses.

Annual population abundance estimates for age&O and age-i bluefish were listed in the 41st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (41st SAW) Assessment Report (NEFSC 2006). Also listed were annual estimates of fishing mortality rates which, together with the annual population abundance estimates, allow annual estimates of fishing mortality of age-0 and age-i bluefish to be calculated using standard methods from fishery science (Ricker 1975):

Ck= Nk Fk (I _ e-(A+F, M+Fk where Ck = fishing mortality (# fish per year) in year, k, Nk = population abundance at the beginning of year, k, M = natural mortality rate (assumed to be M=0.2, NEFSC (2006) page 69) 11

Fk = fishing mortality rate.

The NEFSC (2006) reported results from applying two stock assessment models:

ADAPT and ASAP (which was selected as the preferred model). The estimates of population abundance (1982-1990) are reproduced in Table 1, and the estimates of fishing mortality rates are reproduced in Table 2.

Comparisons of Losses to Population Abundance To put impingement mortality and entrainment into the context of population abundance, estimates of average annual impingement mortality and entrainment were expressed in terms of percentages of average annual population abundance, P. The same general formula was used for all estimates:

P_10Ox-=-

Y X

where

= the average annual measure of impingement mortality or entrainment, n k

= the average annual measure of population abundance, n k and Yk = year-specific estimate of impingement mortality or entrainment (IMk or EqAgelk) for year, k, Xk = year-specific estimate of population abundance (Ak or NkA)in year, k, and n = the number of years included in the avearges.

12

For hogchoker, riverwide abundance estimates were used to represent population abundance, and separate estimates were made for YOY and for all ages collected. For bluefish, coastwide abundance was used to represent population abundance, and separate estimates were made for YOY and for all ages collected. However, because over 97% of all bluefish collected were YOY or age-i, the category of all ages collected can be interpreted as YOY and age-i bluefish. The following combinations of measures of impingement mortality or entrainment and population abundance were included in the analysis:

Species Lifestage 7 Years Hogchoker YOY IMk Ak 1980-1989 All ages IMk Ak 1980-1989 YOY EqAgelk Ak 1981, 1983-1987 Bluefish YOY IMk Nk 1982-1989 YOY and Age- I IMk Nk 1982-1989 The estimated annual average number of bluefish entrained, expressed in terms of equivalent age-i fish, was 0.01. Therefore, comparisons of bluefish entrainment to coastwide abundance were not tabulated. In addition to the combinations listed above, bluefish impingement mortality was expressed in terms of percentages of average annual fishing mortality, Ck, (1982-1989).

Approximate lower and upper 95% confidence limits for the estimates of average annual impingement mortality and entrainment, expressed as percentages of average annual population abundance, were computed as:

LCL - P- (.96 x se(P))

UCL -P+ (.96 x se(p))

where 13

LCL and UCL = lower confidence limit and upper confidence limit, respectively, and se(P) = var(nP)

The variance of estimated percentage was computed (Kendall and Stuart 1977, equation (10.17)) as:

vir(i) - (1i00oF vir(f) +

where vir(f)-= vdr(Y )

nk vfir(X) = '2 vfir(Xk) nk Year specific variance estimates for bluefish population abundance estimates were not reported in the 41st SAW Assessment Report (NEFSC 2006); therefore,, the annual bluefish abundance estimates were treated as constants and the corresponding variances were set to zero.

Results and Discussion Hogchoker The average annual impingement mortality of YOY hogchoker was estimated to be 0.0069% (+/- 0.0022%) of the average riverwide abundance of YOY hogchoker (Table 3). For all ages collected, the average impingement mortality of hogchoker was estimated to be 0.0048% (+/- 0.0008%) of the riverwide abundance. As noted above, these estimates include the effect of impingement survival, which was estimated to be 97.4% (from Fletcher 1990) for hogchoker. Studies of impingement survival at Salem nuclear power plant (PSEG 2006) and Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant (Horwitz 1987) found impingement survival for hogchoker to exceed 99%, confirming high impingement survival for hogchoker. Nevertheless, if impingement survival were assumed to be zero, 14

the average annual impingement mortality would be less than 0.3% of the riverwide population for YOY, and less than 0.2% of the riverwide population for all ages combined.

The average annual entrainment of hogchoker, expressed in terms of the equivalent number of age-I fish, was estimated to be 0.1731% (+/-0.0757%) of the average riverwide abundance of YOY hogchoker (Table 4). It should be noted that the average age of YOY hogchoker collected by the FSJ and BSS is younger than age-1; and therefore, the average YOY abundance is not directly comparable to the number of equivalent age-1 fish (computed using the USEPA method). The estimated number of equivalent age-i fish can be adjusted to represent the equivalent number of fish in the middle of the juvenile (YOY) lifestage by dividing the estimated number of equivalent age-1 fish by the survival fraction for the period from the middle of the juvenile lifestage to the end of the juvenile lifestage:

EqYOY - EqAgel e 2 Using this adjustment and the juvenile mortality rate reported by USEPA (2006) for hogchoker (Mj,,1 =2.31), the average annual entrainment losses expressed in terms of the number of equivalent YOY hogchoker would be 7,271. That is equivalent to 0.55% of the average riverwide abundance of YOY hogchoker.

The riverwide abundance estimates used in the analysis for hogchoker assume 100% gear efficiencies for the FJS and BSS sampling gears. However, it is likely that the gear efficiencies are substantially less than 100% for hogchoker because the gear types used in the FJS and BSS were not selected to collect bottom dwelling flat fish. The assumption of 100% gear efficiency is likely to cause the estimates of impingement mortality and entrainment, expressed as a percentage of riverwide abundance, to be biased high. Also, the entrainment loss estimates do not account for possible entrainment survival, which has been documented with field experiments at Indian Point for several other species, but not for hogchoker. If a portion of entrained hogchokers survived, the 15

assumption of zero entrainment survival would introduce additional bias towards overestimating the percentage.

Bluefish For bluefish, the average annual impingement mortality of YOY fish was estimated to be between 0.0134% and 0.0142% (depending on which stock assessment model was used) of the average population abundance of age-0 bluefish, (Table 5). The average annual impingement mortality of YOY and age-1 bluefish combined was estimated to be between 0.0078% and 0.0080% (depending on which stock assessment model was used) of the corresponding coastwide population abundance.

The coastwide population estimates from NEFSC (2006) represent the abundance on January 1 st of each year, which is the end of the period of YOY impingement and the end of the period of yearling (age-i) impingement (based on the convention used by Indian Point for assigning ages to fish). Therefore, these comparisons of impingement mortality to coastwide population abundance likely overestimate the percentages lost due to impingement.

The average annual impingement mortality of YOY bluefish was estimated to be between 0.1053% and 0.1508% (depending on which stock assessment model was used) of the average annual fishing mortality of YOY bluefish (Table 6). For YOY and age-1 bluefish combined, the average annual impingement mortality was estimated to be between 0.0470% and 0.0498% (depending on which stock assessment model was used) of the average annual fishing mortality of YOY and age- I bluefish.

For bluefish, the estimated annual average number entrained, expressed in terms of equivalent age-i fish, was 0.01. Because this estimate was almost zero, it was not formally compared to coastwide population abundance estimates.

The impingement mortality of 50% for bluefish used in this analysis was based on results from an impingement survival study conducted at Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant (Horwitz 1987). That study reported examining 24 bluefish, 12 of which survived impingement on traveling screens with a fish return system. If the impingement survival rate for bluefish were assumed to be zero, the estimates of impingement mortality would double. Specifically, the estimated average annual impingement mortality of YOY fish 16

would increase to about 0.028% of the average population abundance of age-0 bluefish; and the estimated average annual impingement mortality of YOY and age-1 bluefish combined would increase to about 0.016% of the corresponding coastwide population abundance. Again assuming zero impingement survival for bluefish, the estimated average annual impingement mortality of YOY bluefish would increase to between 0.2%

and 0.3% (depending on which stock assessment model was used) of the average annual fishing mortality of YOY bluefish; and the estimated average annual impingement mortality for YOY and age-1 bluefish combined would increase to about 0.10 % of the average annual fishing mortality of YOY and age- 1 bluefish.

References Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques (3rd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons, NY. 428 p.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 1991. 1989 Year Class Report for the Hudson River estuary monitoring program. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Horwitz, R.J. 1987. Impingement studies. In: Heck, K.L. (Ed.), Ecological studies in the middle reach of Chesapeake Bay. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 254-269.

Kendall, M. and A. Stuart. 1977. The advanced theory of statistics; Volume I distribution theory (4th Ed.). MacMillan Publishing Co., NY. 472 p.

NEFSC. 2006. 41 st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (41 st SAW). 41 st SAW assessment report. US. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref Doc.

05-14; 237 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.

PSEG. 2006. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No.

NJ0005622 February, 2006.

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 191: 382 p.

USEPA. 2006. Regional Benefits Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Phase III Existing Facilities Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4303T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460. EPA-821-R-04-007. June 2006.

17

Table 1. Bluefish population abundance estimates for January 1 of each year (in 1000's) from NEFSC (2006).

ADAPT model (1) ASAP model (2)

Year AgeO Agel AgeO Agel 1982 51,171 44,730 61,381 50,364 1983 49,712 31,862 48,325 45,730 1984 60,939 36,388 52,904 35,618 1985 36,564 43,458 31,079 39,437 1986 23,121 25,719 23,235 23,281 1987 23,321 14,279 16,488 16,455 1988 32,968 16,281 22,043 11,561 1989 45,852 25,451 50,783 15,729 1990 34,854 34,412 23,044 36,951 (1) from Table 20, NEFSC (2006)

(2) from Table 24, NEFSC (2006)

Table 2. Bluefish fishing mortality rate estimates from NEFSC (2006).

ADAPT model "' ASAP model (2)

Year AgeO Agel AgeO Agel 1982 0.274 0.274 0.094 0.279 1983 0.112 0.307 0.105 0.311 1984 0.138 0.230 0.094 0.277 1985 0.152 0.179 0.089 0.263 1986 0.282 0.420 0.145 0.429 1987 0.159 0.536 0.155 0.458 1988 0.059 0.150 0.137 0.406 1989 0.087 0.281 0.118 0.349 1990 0.090 0.261 0.108 0.320 (1) from Table 19, NEFSC (2006)

(2) from Table 23, NEFSC (2006) 18

Table 3. Hogchoker impingement mortality in comparison to riverwide abundance.

Lifestage Average Average Average Approximate Approximate Annual Annual Annual Lower 95% Upper 95%

Riverwide Impingement Impingement Confidence Confidence Abundance Mortality Mortality as Limit for Limit for (Standard (Standard Percentage Average Average Error in Error in of Riverwide Annual Annual Parentheses) Parentheses) Abundance Impingement Impingement Mortality as Mortality as Percentage Percentage of Riverwide of Riverwide Abundance Abundance YOY 1,429,515 99 0.0069% 0.0047% 0.0091%

(20,363) (16)

YOY and 32,539,155 1,570 0.0048% 0.0040% 0.0056%

older (268,634) (133)

(Based on data from 1980-1989)

Table 4. Hogchoker entrainment in comparison to riverwide abundance.

Lifestage Average Average Average Approximate Approximate Annual Annual Annual Lower 95% Upper 95%

Riverwide Entrainment Entrainment Confidence Confidence Abundance Expressed in (Equivalent Limit for Limit for (Std. Error) Terms of Age-1 Fish) Average Average Equivalent as Annual Annual Age-1 Fish Percentage Entrainment Entrainment (Std. Error) of Riverwide (Equivalent (Equivalent Abundance Age-1 Fish) Age-1 Fish) as as Percentage Percentage of Riverwide of Riverwide Abundance Abundance YOY 1,322,947 2,291 0.1731% 0.0974% 0.2489%

(24,155) (509)

(Based on data from 1981, 1983-1987) 19

Table 5. Bluefish impingement mortality in comparison to coastwide abundance.

Lifestage Average Average Average Approximate Approximate Annual Annual Annual Lower 95% Upper 95%

Coastwide Impingement Impingement Confidence Confidence Abundance Mortality Mortality as Limit for Limit for (NEFSC (Standard Percentage Average Average Stock Error in of Coastwide Annual Annual Assessment Parentheses) Abundance Impingement Impingement Model) Mortality as Mortality as Percentage Percentage of Coastwide of Coastwide Abundance Abundance YOY 40,456,000 5,426 0.0134% 0.0117% 0.0151%

(ADAPT) (345)

YOY 38,279,750 5,426 0.0142% 0.0124% 0.0159%

(ASAP) (345)

YOY and 70,227,000 5,470 0.0078% 0.0068% 0.0088%

Age 1 (ADAPT) (345)

YOY and 68,051,625 5,470 0.0080% 0.0070% 0.0090%

Age I (ASAP) (345)

(Based on data from 1982-1989) 20

Table 6. Bluefish impingement mortality in comparison to coastwide fishing mortality.

Lifestage Average Average Average Approximate Approximate Annual Annual Annual Lower 95% Upper 95%

Coastwide Impingement Impingement Confidence Confidence Landings Mortality Mortality as Limit for Limit for (NEFSC (Standard Percentage Average Average Stock Error in of Coastwide Annual Annual Assessment Parentheses) Landings Impingement Impingement Model) Mortality as Mortality as Percentage Percentage of Coastwide of Coastwide Landings Landings YOY 5,155,014 5,426 0.1053% 0.0921% 0.1184%

(ADAPT) (345)

YOY 3,597,566 5,426 0.1508% 0.1320% 0.1696%

(ASAP) (345)

YOY and 11,644,528 5,470 0.0470% 0.0412% 0.0528%

Age 1 (ADAPT) (345)

YOY and 10,988,666 5,470 0.0498% 0.0436% 0.0559%

Age 1 (ASAP) (345) 1 1 1 (Based on data from 1982-1989) 21