Text

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
	ML17142A271
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	04/28/2017
From:	Vitale A; Entergy Nuclear Northeast
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	NL-17-054
	Download: ML17142A271 (86)
	v • d • e

-

~Enter~

Entergy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy_ Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel 914 254 6700 Anthony J Vitale Site Vice President NL-17-054 April 28, 2017 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk 11545 Rockville Pike, TWNF-2 F1 Rockville, MD 20852-2738

SUBJECT:

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64

REFERENCES:

1) Entergy Letter (NL-07-039), "License Renewal Application" (Apr. 23, 2007) (ML071210507)

2) Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 1) (Dec. 2010)

(ML103350405)]

Dear Sir or Madam:

This correspondence is submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Unit 3, LLC (collectively, "Entergy"), as it relates to license renewal of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 (respectively, "IP2" and "IP3"; collectively, "IPEC"). The purpose of this correspondence is to formally submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") the final State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permit (Attachment 1), and Clean Water Act ("CWA") § 401 water quality certification ("WQC"), as issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC")

(Attachment 2).

The SPDES permit and WQC are respectively dated April 24, 2017, but with effective dates of May 1, 2017. The WQC is expressly issued in furtherance of license renewal for IP2 and IP3, with an expiration date equivalent to the retirement dates for each unit, which are established in the WQC to be "no later than [the expiration date of the renewed NRC operating license]." The renewed SPDES permit is provided to NRC, because it is incorporated into and informs the WQC. In conjunction with issuance of the final SPDES permit, NYSDEC also undertook

NL-17-054 Docket 50-247 and _50'.'286 Page 2of3 completion of the associated New York State Environmental Quality Review Act {"SEQRA")

process through issuance of a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement {"SFEIS").

That SFEIS is also provided to NRC (Attachment 3), because it includes a detailed "Project History," an overview of the "New York State Water Quality Certification Program," and NYSDEC's summary of "The Final WQC."

While the SFEIS history is not repeated in full here, a brief review is in order. NYSDEC's issuance of the WQC, which arose out of Entergy's April 2009 WQC application in support of its license renewal application, "supersedes" NYSDEC Staff's April 2, 2010 Notice of Denial and concludes the administrative hearings conducted by a panel of NYSDEC Administrative Law.

Judges ("ALJs") on a consolidated basis with the then-pending SPDES permit-related administrative proceeding.

The consolidated administrative proceeding was terminated by the ALJs in response to the January 9, 2017 agreement (the "Agreement") between Entergy and NYSDEC, among other parties. Pursuant to that Agreement, NYSDEC determined that the record for the consolidated administrative proceeding, with Entergy's commitment to retire IP2 and IP3 (subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement), supported retraction of Staff's initially proposed SPDES permit modifications, as well as simultaneous issuance of the final, renewed*SPDES permit and WQC. On January 27, 2017, the ALJs officially terminated the consolidated administrative proceeding, remanding the matter to NYSDEC Staff for processing and issuance of the final SPDES permit and WQC, as well as completion of the SEQRA process. On January 27, 2017, the NYSDEC Commissioner affirmed the ALJ's Ruling and Order of Disposition in a final Decision.

Pursuant to the ALJ's and Commissioner's directives, on February 1, 2017, NYSDEC Staff made the SFEIS available for public comment, and provided the final SPDES permit and WQC for public review. Public comments were due on or before March 20, 2017, and limited comments were received. On April 24, 2017, NYSDEC issued the final renewed SPDES permit and WQC with their effectives date of May 1, 2017, as well as the SFEIS, with an accompanying NYSDEC response to public comments and associated SEQRA findings. NYSDEC's response to public comments and associated SEQRA findings are also included with attachment 3.

In sum, Entergy has received and hereby respectfully submits the final, effective WQC for continued operation of IP2 and IP3 through retirement. Entergy also advises NRC that NYSDEC's issuance of the WQC resolves related pending action before the NRC. Specifically, the WQC precipitated June 21, 2011 correspondence from Entergy advising the NRC that NYSDEC had failed to timely act on Entergy's WQC application. Entergy and New York State, among other former ASLB parties, provided additional correspondence on this matter, on which NRC had not yet reached a determination. That question, as it was pending before the NRC, should now be considered moot.

AJV/mm

NL-17-054 D_Qcket 5_0"'.247 and _5_0.:-28.~

Page 3 of 3 Attachments: 1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Discharge Permit, SPDES Number NY 0004472, Effective Date of May 1, 2017

2. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Certification - Under Section 401 - Clean Water Act, Effective Date of May 1, 2017

3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS)

Concerning the Application to Renew New York SPDES Permits for Indian Point 2 & 3 (With Accompanying NYSDEC's Response to Public Comments And Associated SEQRA Findings) cc: Mr. Daniel H. Dorman, Regional Administrator. Region I, NRC Mr. Richard V. Guzman, Senior Project Manager, NRR/DORL, NRC Ms. Bridget Frymire, New York State Department of Public Service Mr. John 8. Rhodes, President and CEO NYSERDA NRC Resident Inspector's Office

ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-17-054 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES) DISCHARGE PERMIT, SPDES NUMBER NY 0004472, EFFECTIVE DATE OF MAY 1, 2017 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3 DOCKET NO. 50-247 and 50-286

- ..... * * 'fhis permit and the authoriza~ion t~ discharge shali expire on midnight ofthe expiration date shown above and the perit\ittee shall . **

not discharge after the expiration date unless Ibis permit has been renewed, or extended p~rsuant to law. To be authorized to discharge*

beyond the expiration date, the p_ennittce shall apply for permit renewal .not less than 180 days prior.to the cxpirati9n date shown above.

. .$1?.DES P,ennit:,NY000.4472~

Page2 n1sm1111fri6N: Bureau of Water Permits Region 2 EPA Region3 RWE

.* \*

PARAMETER .MINIMUM*

e.g;,pH, TR:C; . The minimum lcvelduit must be . ~.*.*.*.*.cc** x*.m*.~edime.duma.

Tcmpcranire_D.O. rriainiained at alliiistani:s in time: UC ce* t '.a1*n*~.',*. n1:mo.*~.<

.l'.lani:vye*l1'nthstan'amt*

PARA- . EFFLUENT LIMIT METER Limit .types .are *defined below in Noi~* 1*.. The efnucrtt Fo~ **the*.* *pliqx;~s *of com~li;.nc:C ~~i:nt, the

- limit .is developed based on the more. stringent ' of ariat:Yticai method spi:cifie(J'iri ltie permit shall be used technology-based limirs; *required under the Clean Water to monitor the am:ount ofthe jJolliitBnt in the oiiitall tO Act, or New York State \vater quality standards. The limit this level, .provided lhat *the labOratory analyst has has been derived baSCd on existing assumptions and rules. complied with the specified quality iiSsurancc/quality

These assumptipns include receiving water hardness, pH control procedures in the relevant method. Monitoring and temperature; rates of this arid other discharges to 'the results that are hi\vcr than this level miist be rcponed;

.*.. receiving Stream; eti:. If assumptions or .riil~s change the butshall not be u5ciho cietci:inine compliance \Viih' the

1.irnit may, after due pr0ces5 *and modiricatioll o( this caleulirted limit This*.* PQL CW1 be neither lowi:red nor

..*. pennit; changi ... . .. . *" ' .. .... raiSed without amodificaiion orthispennit .* .

Hudson River via . *

- . ,Discharge Caria! 00 I MONITORING

. ACTION LEVEL 1-.....---.,........----+-,-.----..................---1 UN.ITS TYPEll MGD

ENFORCEABLE LIMIT MONITORrNG ACTION LEVE.L t----.. . . . . . .---__,_. . . . .,...___._...__. UNITS

. *. fyionthlyAvg. Dajlyf\-1'°'; *fy~~ I. TYPE it.

. ~ : . ......

MGD Weekly Weeki******

. . . . x.

- jo** ***. ~gtL

Weekly .*

WASTEWATER TYPE **RECEIVING EFFECTIVE EXPIRING WATER Combined tlischargc

.. HudSon River via

- - . Discharge Canal 001

ENFORCEABLE LIMIT . .* MONITORING ACTION l..E\l~L *SAMPLE SAMPLE SC UNITS FREQUENCY TYPE Monthly Avg. Daily Max; TYPE! TYPEII

Boron Monitor Monitor _mglL Weekly Grab 18 15 mg/L Mon!}lly 17

(

Unit*3**conden~e;Poii5h~rtM~~~~up * *

Hudson River ,< .. via

- - <**:**** *oi~hargecllllal

nemineralizcr and Ion. Excharige Regeneration

.. 001. > ..

COMPLIANCELIMIT MONITORING*: *...*.. ** . * .* .*. .

.*. * *

PARAMETER*

. .. .. . . . . * "'. A.CT[ON LEVEL. **. SAM~LE .* . .. S~MPLI:: ..

... ~-. -...........- ...-........-.---.-TY-<->*p'-E. .-- * . 1....TY-

..-...p-

.*.E. -.1. .-1

. *** UNITS FREQU.ENCY .*. TYPE

* . Monthly ,Avg. DailyMax; .

- Monifor GPO* * .* Wee~ly *

Instantaneous

6.o:i9.o s.u. <Monthly: *orab

Chlorine, Total Residual Monitor mg/L M0nthly Grab*'

Fluorides s.o lbs/day Semi~Aiiliual ** Grab Iron * . 4:.o*

mg/L Sepi-Ailnual .Grab Copper. LO .ng1~ .Semi~Annual Grab WASTEWATER .TYPE RECEIVING . *

EFFECTIVE . EXPIRING

.WATER OIN * *. Hudson River vi~

Discharge Canal Olli COMPLIANCE LIMIT MONITORING PARAMETER .ACTION LEVEL . SAMPLE SA.MPLE

..... UNIT.S *FREQUJ3NCY TYPE SC

Monthly Avg. Daily Max. TYPE I TYPEll Flow Rate Monitor* Monitor* GPD Weekly Instantaneous Oil&. Grease

. . l\IA 15 mg/L **weekly *orab Total Suspended Solids 30 50. mg/L .;.*,

weekly** . **'.Grab

. )

.. .: *~* *.. *' .* :

. .. . .*. Thc*tltcrmal clischargri from the Indi~ Pdint;nuclear faciliti~s shall as~lli'.e the prote6tioii arld ;' .

.** propagatiori of a,balanced, indigenoiis p()pulation of shellfish, fish~ alld'wil~lifo in ancfori the Hudson River: In .*

.. this regard, the Department has.approved and her~by'hnposes*as ~.condition theperini~e~*s requeslforarr** ** .**.*

. : acrea:ge~bas~ therirlal discharg~ mixing zone pursuan.tto 6.NYCRR Section 704.3 fofth~ term ofthis.pt!rmit 8t1d

.each rellcW.afpclJl1it Th~ water temperature at the sllrfa<:e of ttie H:uCiSon River shrul *~o(be raised more. thaii t.s . *...

is

.*degrees fa1trelthei((from July through Septembet,*when surface water temperature gre~ter thajt 8id~g~es * * * .* *.

. Fahrenheit) abcwe the surfaccftemperature that existecl before the adclition of heat of artificial origin (Se.otjon .. * > *.* .

.. 7~4.2(b){~)(iii)'ofthe State'sCriteria Governing Thenna1Discharg¢s),.except in a mi"i#g zone ofsev~nty~five . * * * *

. *{75) acres (total) from the paint of discharge.. The thermal diSchargc from the Indian Pohifnuclearfacilitiesto 'th~ *

.>.::=

Hudso~ River lliay exceed 90 degre~s Fahrenheit (6 NYC:RR SectiOn 704.2[b][5](i] oft~e State's .dritctia< .. , .

..*.* Governing Thermal Discharges) within the designated mixing.zone area, the total area: of which shfill rioiexceed *

..* *seventy~five (?~)acres (3,267,000 square fee9 on a dailyJ;llsis. * , * :, .* ** * * ' *.*** * *.*.. ' : * * * . .

s~ *. > The flow of ce>ridenser cooling water disch~rges shall be monitored and re¢orded ev¢ry eiglt( hours*

by recording the operating m<)~e of the circulating water pumps. Any changes in. the flow rate ofeach Cir¢jilatmg' ' .

. . **. * **

water pump sliatL b.e recorded, including the date and tinie; and reported .annually together with the Discliarge** ... *.* .

- ** '"~ * *. Reporting Form> Jhe pennittee shall indicate whether arifcirculating pumps were noHq operation due fo pµmp .* *

.* * .. breakdown or required pump maintenance and the period(s) (dates and times) the discharge temperature limitation* . *.* .* . *

.* was exceeded, if at .all. Methods, equipment, installatfol1; and procedures shall conform to those pre~cribed in. the <* * : .

. Water McasurcmcnfManual, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, .Q.C,: 1967 cq~ivalent apprnved by the ~YSDEC. * .* * .* . * * ' * * * . * * ** *. * *.* ***.* **.

or .

.* . . ..: ::.:.. ::":- ~: .

14.

. *.. a;* .' *.*. *.. All oil ~pills. shall be h~ndled ull~e~ the Spill P~v~ntion Contr~l~d C~mntenn~asu~e (Spec) plan. *

**. Flow illto the floor drains ~h~l not co~tain mof~,than 1S m~L:~f oil and grease h:or any.~isi~I~

, c. .. . . . Treated wastewater froijl the d~ilting opcrati~ll ~ithin the inttlke structure alld fore bay~ shall be ' *

.monitored once per* 12 hour1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months .shift on th~ sand filt¢r etlluent Grab samples shilll. be *analyzed for total *suspended .*. *.

solids and oil .and grease. An esthnate of discqarge flow rate and avisual obsetvatiort for the preseµce of any . * .

visible sheen shall be made: on, the sand filter effluent. The limitations for.this discharge eveiltare: 15mg!r,;(oil &

grease)~ 50mg/L (total suspended solids) and no visible.shcc11. , > ... . . .*

15. .* The cal.culated quantity. ofbor~rd~ the discharg~.shall be determined by using th(( analyticalr~sults .

obtaincdfr()ni sampling that is to be perfortned on internal waste streams OJB,OIC, QlD and 01t. * * * * *

. '16;.>

One flow proportioned con1posite sample of t~tal s~pended ~oUd~. (TSS) shall. be obtained from l.

one. grab s~ple takenfrom each of the internal waste streainsOJB, OIC,. 010, Oll and OIL.

17; , *. One grab sample ofoH and grease sh~ll. be obtaif1e4 from each 'ofthe internal waste streruns 0 IC, .

. 01 D, and Q1L and the s.anipl~s shall be analyzed separately. The results shall })c reported by c()mputing the. flqw- .*.

weighted average. ..* . . .. . ..* . . . . .* *. . ' , . .* . .

. *::__ ;::~:~:/ ::: . '.;" -

S~DESreonit NYOootiii

; ".:: ** * * * **:PageJ+: " ...

. /;WATER.QJfA.qf:X~P()R'flNtj f9i;QtJl~MENTS: >.*

. *.* .* *. * *.* *i:t9. . .The~e;mitiee ~h~lsubmit on an annual '~a5is to the NYSDEC at itS offic~s in White Plains iiitd .. \ .<z***. ** **.

Albany (sec addresses below) aiponth*by~month report of.9aily opefath1g data in EXCEL©)Jormat, by the 28 1h ()f:

iJanuary of the following y~ar t~atinclu~~s t1te fqUowing: * * ** * *. * * * * * ** * * * ** * *

.. \:***** <:.~:-.*. .D~itYmi~i~ti~}~~imu~~n~a~e~age statiollelectri~~ ()tttp~tshalfbed~termi~ed imcl l()~ged.* >*

. . * . b: Daily minimum; mwdmUin a~d average water use shall be directly ()r indirectly measured <>r calculated and logged. * * ** * *

. >* *. : ,; .*.*.*. c.. .* Jefu~~;~t4re ,()fthc.*int"ke *and discharge, in~luding as .caicul.ated t~ c~tahHsh confcmnity**~-~

, *. ** condilion7(b).mi~ing zorie, shall.be measured and recorded coritinuol.isiy. Daily mihhnum, maximqm al)d_**

average intake and discharge temperatures shall be fogged. * *. ** > *** *** ** * . * ** * * ' '. * * *..* * ** .*

. * .*.* d. . One copy of~ach annual reportn~ust be se~t io the NYSDEC; rn'~ision .of Water. ~ureau of Watershed Conip~iance Pf()grafus; 625 Bl'()adway;* Alb~y, New York 12233*35()6;arid a second copy must *be ,

sent to NYSDEC; Regic)llal .Water Engineer,* Region3; 100 Hillside Ave, Suite. I W; White Plains, New York '

1060372860. . .. . . **.**. . . . . . . . . . . ., .. . .. .

.. 20. Beginning l1pon the effective date of thi~ permit, the permittce shall submit to .the NYSDEC .

Offices in Albany and \\fhite PJains (sec ,addresses in condition 19~d, abqve), a copy of their Arinu11I E:ffiµ~nt*

Report submitted to th~ Nucteat Regtilatory Com111issioh (NRC). *.* . .. . . . . . .. .

. OTHER WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS:

. * .. ' '* ? ~'

21. Notwithsufuding any .other requireme~ts in this perinit; the permlttee shall al.so comJ1fWith alf

applicable Water Quality R~giilations promulgated by the Interstate Environmental Coinmi~sion (IEC). including>*.*

Sections 1.0(i) and 2.05(t) as they relate to oil and grease. . .

.

22. It is recognized that, despite the exercise of.appropriate care and maintenance measl.fres, and

.corrective mea8ures by th~.pcnnittee,. i.nflu~nt quality changes, equipment malfunction, acts of God, or Otht:r circumstances beyond the control of the perillittee may, al times, result in eftluent concentrations exceeding the permit limitations. *The pcrmiltee may conic forward fo demonstrate to the NYSDEC that such circumstances exist fo any case where effluentconcentrations exceed those set forth in this permit.' The NYSDEC, however, is *

not obligated to wait for, or solicit, such demonstrations prior to the initiation of any enforcement proceedings, nor must Haccept as valid on its race Uie statement made in. any such demonstration.

23. All che111irials lis,ted and/or refere~ced in the. permit.application are appr~ved for use. If use of new**

biocides, corrosion control chemicals or waler treatment chemicals is intended, applicatibn must be made prior to . *.

use; No use will be approved that would ~use exccedance of state water quality standards. .

<24. ~fhereshajlb~ no:net addition of PCBs *by this'facility's disc~atges to the Hudson River. *. *

- .. BIOLoGICAL REQUIREMENTS: .

,... . 25. Within 3 months ~f the Effective Date of the Permit (EDP+ 3 months), the permittee must submit to the D9partment an approvable plan for continuation of a Hudson River J3iological Monitoring Program .. .

(HRBMP) consisting ofthe Long River Survey, Beach Seine Survey and Fall Shoals Suwey performed at current (2015) levels in the tidal Huclson River (River miles 0-152). This plan will also contain a commitment and plan

by the -permittee to work with *the Department to determine a reduced monitoring effort th.at would provide the

. . .. . ' SPDES P~rmit:Nv6oo4472 >

,";~_:_:: .. ::<->::~~,.:_..:<~~>:x(:;.:~x:::: ... ._ ...... :.* ** . . ,,,,,,.,:.. , *,,,,,;,,,~'. ..~****** .....~L...:.,Page43.:*..*

.*..* dat~h~~ess~**t~.**20Mih~e*:c:ol.lecti~gthe**1ori~2t~rmf~co,rd.C>f6ida~*.t~***identify**statl1sandtr~hds *reasS~~b.I~* **** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * *

. attri~iitable to Indian1>(:,iflt's conthiue(f operations iµ the Hudson River fish community sampled. lJponfoC:eipt of

.*.Department approval~the pennittee roust conduct theHRBMP in* accordance with the approved plan iintil Uµits i .*.** *.

.. andJare retired pur$tiarino Entergy'scorrunitmentto do ~c;> .~!i set forth Condition28. The approved liRBMP in

plail,:wm become a11enforceable.iritcrim conditio11,ofth.is SPPES permit. Upon the cc:m1pl¢ti01;1 ofthe reduced*.* .

. .'. monitoring effcn1 st~~)',: the Depfiltmeht wi.U r~quirf( the linpl~rilentation of the 0agreed upon recomril~nijations *, **. * < ,

..* contain¢d in the finaf1'¢port., Withirt6.moriths ofthe f:ffective Date of the Permit (EDP+6), the pcrniittce ~ust *

submit io theDcpartmelltallof thedatf!. that has been tollected to date but has yet to be provided to the

Department for the.* fludson fonnat. .. *........

River Striped Bass .and

- - - - . .*.AthmticTonicod * *..*. Sur\reys" in an**agreed

- .* upon* electfonic_ **

.. . *::.::::~ \'.<<;**:::~: ..

' ,' .* .*.* * . . ~60; lJ~~e§~ ~therwlse bxcused bf th¥N~WYork St~te P~bHg Ser\liceCommissiori or thb l\i~w rC>rk ,

- - . Stafoindependerit :System Operator, the permittee m!Jst schedule and t8ke its annual planned refueling and .. .

.maintenance outagcJ1.fonc IPEC Wlit, which in recerit years have averaged approximately 30 unit days per year, between February 23 and August23 each y~r during the remaining operating life of the facility ...

. .Reportin~: . Th¢.*pennittJe.rri.ust giye .* the'.NYSpEC'.s Sterun. El~ctric**l1it1t*Leader**~ annual***r~port*that

provides: (a) a list 9f~nit-day outages for:e~dh ~aiendar year and (b)ihe fii1111ing average Of unit-day outages.

27. The Ristroph Jl1odified traveling *screens number 21 through. 26 and *3*1 *through 36 must ~ontinue to be operated on continuous washwhen the corresponding cooling water circulation pump is ri.lnriing.* Jhe low pressure wash no~zlcsji1stallcd at cach*of these screens must be opct;a~cd l\t4J? ,15 PSI.sci 1hat the Jis,h and

'inyert~brates are removed froJi1 the traveling screens, washed into the existing fish:retum' sluiceway. and returned '

to the. Hudson River..*The operation of the screens and fish return system must be inspected daily and the screen

wash pressures recorded in the wash operator's log. The traveling*screens and the fish return and handling system must minimize the mort~lity of fish to the mweimum extent practicable. ** **

..*. , 28. lnrcli~~c,e upon Entergy's commitment to retire Indian Point l}nits 7 and3~o later.than 2020 and 2021, respectively (subject to the terms and conditic)ris of that commitment. which include ~iecmc system reliability considemtlol1s, as set forth in the January 9, 2017 Indian Point Agreement between and among Entergy.

and NYSDEC), the outage and reporting requirements reflected in Condition 26, the traveling*screens and fish

. return and handling system reflected in Condition 27, and the flow conditions reflected in Condition 6 (which

. . employ muhi:-speed pumps), conslilute th~ continuing measures for ~esttechnology until t~rminatic:u}of

. * , . operations at Units 2 and 3. Based on its consideration of these and .other unique and spedffofactors, and the record established in 1be. combined SPDES permifand WQC proceedings, and Entergy's commitment retire to Indian Point Units 2 and 3, as set forth above in this Condition, in its best professional judgment NYSQEC has

determined that the measures as set forth in this SPDES permit represent the. best technology available for the cooling water intak~~ for Indian Point Units 2 and 3. . * ** .*

-~~.-~* *.*~~ . *.

. :.~PDE~>Petmit:NY0004472 .* *.

L::LL * ... ,,:,:: :.:>:_\;*Page 15 :;g'.*"'; -

Submit to theDepartmcntaq app!"ova~le plan for continuation .***.

ofa.Hudson River Biological MoQit~ririg ~rogram(HR.BMP)*

consisting of the Long River Survey, Seach Seine Survey and Fall Shoals S\JrVeY peif9rmed at cl}rfent(20i5) levels inJhe tidal Hudson River (River niile~ ().:1?2). *(Sec Special Condition

25) . .* .. * ' .

Month~by.:month report of daily ppei:ating data o~ e]ectrfoal . Annual output, water use, and intake and discharge temperature _

(Special Conditfon #19). , ** *

Subfuit Semi.:Annual Effluent and\Va5te Disposal Reports Semi-A:nnual

prepared for NRC (Special Conditfori#20}. * * *. *. * ** *

.*. . .i, ::

,;"'"'""""~-"*

..*.:;::.'-'"" *.*. . :::.\~~;:~::~];::~:\~~~,~~,:~*:'

The permittee shalltake~amplesand m~asuremcnts, to comply wh~the hi~ilito~irlg reqriirerrients specified iri;this.

permit, atthe location(s)shownin tJtc three figures belcl\v: * * * * * * *. *

. lilJDSCll f!IVlll

...Lt..

.......:._ TE PLAN YllTH DISCHARGE LOCATION

.. AGURE 1

....IL.

.* .. Wh.~llev~r. the poteritial for a significa~t rel~~ oftoxiC. :pawdous p~ll~tants to*. State waters *. *.*

ot

- - ** detem1ined to b~present, the peflnitteeshall identify BMPs)bat have been
    
    e~tabJishedto minimize.such ..

.*. >< ;.potentifil relea5es; Wh~re BMPs are .im1~equatc 6r: absent, appropriate *BMPs. shllll be established. Iri .* **.

**

selecting appropriate BMPs, the pennittc;e shall consider typicalirldtistry practfoes such as spill reporting .

. ..*..* procedures. risk identification and assessment, emp}()yee trairihig, inspc:~tfons all.d reeords/preyentive ' ..* '.

.**. *. ** inainte11AAce, good housekeeping, materials.:oompatibility and security. In addit!on, the pel"mittee may ....

' '** *consider structuralmeasu~s (such as secondary colltaiiunent an~ erosfori/sedimenf control deviCes 81)d *'

practices) w~ere app~opriat~. . . . . '. .. . . .. ..

- . Development oftheBMP plan shall. include sampling o(waste stream segment~f~r the pµrpose ~ftqxic ;'hot ***. ' ** ..

. * **. spot11ider.itificatioit The ~conomic achievability oreffiuent limits wilfnotbe c:onsidered until pl~tsite f ..

- - - - .><>"hot spot" sources have.been identified; contafoed,rel1loved or minimized through the iinpositioµ~fsite * * *

- - * ** specific BMPs or application ofiritemal facility treatirient techriology. *For tile. purposes of this permit. *.*.

condition a "hot sppt". is*a segment of an iildu~trial facility; including but not limited to soil; equipme,nt, material 'storage areas, sewer lines' etc:.; which contributes elevated levels of. prp~leJD. pollutants to *the

...* ..*. *wastewater: and/or stonn water collectiOii system of thaffacility~* For the purposes of this definition, ..

to or

' '. ' ... '.* problem pollutants are substances for which treatment meet a water quality. techllology requiremerif* :

' '. *. * .*. may, considering the results ofWaste stream segment 'sampling, be deemed Unf('.BSOfiable. For !he purposes .

. > of this definition, an elevated level Is a ccmccntratiort o.r mass loading of t~e pollutant inquesUon which is .

.* .*.*. * -sufficiently higher than the conc~ntration,ofthat same pollutant at;the compliwi~em~nitoring location so '

an

- >as to allow for economically justifiable removal arid/or isolation of the segment arid/or B.A.T. treatmeni * ..

. . l'.)fwastewatets emanating from the segment. ' . . .. ' ' . .

5. * * *. **

The BMP pian shall be docuritented in narrative formarid shall include any nece~~~}' ~lot plans, drawings" .

.* or ntap~. ,Other documents already prepared for the facility such as a Safety Ma,nuafor a Spill Prcv¢ntion, ** .

'l)liJ'~ *SPDES Pemifo NY0004472*\:

,.A"., ,..,*:: ..::.,x,:.:1<;,";._, ... ._>i,c:<,*'.,

.**:...*. :.*.,,:****;~.~... :*.~~*****'**::..;.:.*******Page 2Qr****;* ,,..,,......*

. C~ntr~l Efil<l'q<lunterfueasufC! (~PCC) plan may' be µsed as part ofth~ plan arid rl1~f ~e intorp(>iatc~ by * ... *.:....*.. *.

reference/l]SEPA guidan~e for development Of storm water elemenls of the BMPis*ayailabfo.irithe .. *** **

...* September }9~2 manllal "Storm Water Managem~nt for lndu~tfial *Activities/' Osi;:PA Offl¢e* ~f \Vatef * ***.

. , Publicatioh~pf\. 837-R-92-Q:Q6(availabl~froril NJ'l~,(703)487,-465Q, order nufu~er P~ 922359,~~)... A copy; . * . J* *:. . . *.* ,** * *

.* of the*. Bl\11>: (JI~ shall be :l'riaintained 'at the facility and shatl ~e. a~mlable alJt~C,rii:ed p~pa,rtmen(> **. * . . to:

.. repr~seritatives upon request. As a mirilfilum~ the planshall ipdud~ the followirig BMf>'~: < . . . .. . ... . . * '*

a. BMP c(}~itte~ > e. Inspections ~rid Records . *i. Security ' >' .

b. Repo,rii~~ofBMP ..... **. f. Preyeritiv~M~intel1atlcc ... *..*** * * .

j. S~iUpreycl)tion8Gresp9~sc

Incidents> * .> *:, * < . ...... .c< * . <+. *

c. Riskiaehf ifi~aiion & . g. G~6d)-l~u~~keeping k* Erosidn& ~edimertt~6htrol .

Assesstileilt * . .*. *:-.-.. *. :- .. .*.':***

=_::*-* *.

... :,:.**::::_::::)*:.:.

. . - ~ ' ' '

d~ Erhpl\}Y~cTraining ***

h:Jv:faterhilsC0111patibility .* ***

l *.* Man~gementpfrunoff

6. .

Tue. B~~ j~lan shall *be revieV/ed <annually :d shall* be modified when~ver: ~hanges (:) arthe tacility

materiaityincrease the potential for significant rel~ruies of toxit Qr h~dous pollutants, (b} ~9tl.la1 rclea5es . *. .

indicate th~ plan is inadequate; or (c)aJetter frqm the_ Regional W1.tter Engineer highlights inadequaCies in .the . *:* .. *

pian . : * .:*; . :*:. * * .::.-*: ... * * * * * * .: -: : :.:*

..** ' *.~** **. *... **: . *.* .. :::./: *. *..... ::.**.:;: :;;.*:::,:<::::..:::*: ,:: ..

- .::*.. . . .. :~. ,. .* ...

- - 7* '. Faclliti~s with Petroleum and/~r Chenlital Bulk Sto~age cP:BS and CBSlAreasi

Compliance inusf be maintained with all applicable regulations including those irivolvitig rdcases, .

registratipri, handling and stomge*(6NYCRR595-S99) and(6NYCRR 612..()14). Stormwatcrdischarges>*.. * /

. from handling at)d storage areas should bi;: eliniioated where practical. *

A. Spill di~2up-~ll spilled:r leakcdstibstand~~ must be removed from secondary containmehtsystems .

quickly as practical and in all cases within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months . The containment system inust be thoroughly cleaned to **

remove any* residual contamination which could cause contamination of stC>rmwater and the resulting discharge ,ofpolll1tants to waters of the State. Following spill cleanup the affected area must be completely flushed with ~lean water three times and the, water removed after each flushing f<>r prop¢r disposal fo ~non- sit~

or off-site *wastewater treatment .plant *designed *to treat such* water *arid. permitted to discharge such*

wastewater. :{\ltern~tively. the permittee may test the first batch of stormwatcr following the spill cleanup to .

determine discharge acceptability. Ifthe water contains no pollutants it may be discharged. Otherwise it must be dispose9 Of as., noted above. See Discharge Monitoring below for the Iistof parameters to be sampled *.*.

for. .: * .* * * * * **

B. Dischari~ '()peration - Stormwater must be relllovcd. before it compromises the required. ~()ntainment system capacity. Each discharge may only proceed with the prior approvaJ of the permittee ~taff person responsible for ensuring SPDES pennit compliance. Bulk storage secondacy tontainment drainage systeif!S .

must be locked in a closed.pOsition except when the operator is in the process of draining ac~umulated : ..*..

stonnwater.**Transfer area .secondary containment drainage systems must be locked Jn* a clo~~ position .*. *' **

.*during all transfers and must not be reopened unless the transfer area is clean ofcontaminants. Storniwater discharges .frorn. secpndary .containment systems. should *be avoided during periods .of. precipitation. *A logbook shall be maintained on-site noting the date, time and personnel supervising each discharge.

For each dischargc,rcql!ircd to have a sign in accordance With a), boy~; the pctrnittee shall provid~ for public .

a rcvi~w a* a repository accessible *to the public, copies of th.c Discharge Mon.itoring Reports(DMRs) asreq uired .

.*by the RECORQING, REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING REQUiREMENTS page of.

this permit. This repository shall be open to the public, at a minimum, during normal daytime business hours.

The repository may be a~ the*

business office repository

.of.the pcrmittee or at an off-premises

.location of its

- .* '."~**,'*~ .. '-~~- * * -* * ~~ ,~~EsP*~:~r=~--~-*-r

...* T~hofoe csllch t9c~tio11 shall ~e'tlie. vilh1ge, to%, city or ~ounty Clerk's pfilc~~tile 1ric#rlibrary'or otli~r 1oca~i6n .* . *. .* > < *.

< a.s*****approved*. by* the Depariment). In: f!Ccotdancc. with the .REC()RDING, !UPC)RTING A~D .. '

A.DDITIONM, 1\II()NITORING REQUIREMENTS page of your permit, each PMR shall b~'.maintain~d

9n record for a ~riod of three ye~. * *.* * * * *** * ** * **

. 3.~* * <'fh~ pennitt~e silallperio~icaUy\iitspecL~ei outfall identification sign~ in **orclett()*.ensureJh~fthey.* are

... *. . <maintained, are stlffvi'sible anci confairi infohrianon

- :-.: . .* .. :* . *. . . .* - current and .factu~lly that.is . *.. . *.... ** .. ** *.

correct.

/

. .... sPo~s Permit: N.Yooo'1412 .*

**;"",, ;., ,:*"" _,;:~,~:'.~C:L~;~:',~~ .,",;*.~.::,:,;:,:.::.,* ,. . . . ::~: . ., , _, ,_. * * , * ""*'*~- >:: ** **:~""**:*~***"'""'.."'.*:~""~~"*:*"' :: ........ _; **** ' . ' ,.,,, *** , ** """** .. '~"" M . . ,,, L:<: ' J>~g~~4.:,,

.I ....*** The pennitfoci shall also referf~ 6*NYCRRPart 750 (http://Www.dec.state;riy~us/websit~/regs/750.htm)for/*.**

additional infonnation concerning monitoringa.nd reporting requirements mid conditions~ *.*.* .*.*. > ; <. < < . .

2. ~The monitofil'lg inforpiation reqµired by this permit shall be sunuµarized,* signed*an.dreµii11ed forip~ri~4 of .*.**.*.***

.* tlireeyeats frdmjhe 4~te of the s~rttpling for subsequent insp~ctioriby thcDepartment or its ~~sig~fite4 ~g¢ptb Al~o, mo~itorin~ infi~rn~tion req~i;e~ by this permit shall. be summ~rized and reported by sub~i~i:~:***'.' .

...* ..,.*.[fil (if box.Js ~~e~ked) c~mpfoted and ~ig~~dDi~charge Monitoring ~eport (DM~) fonn~ for ~~c~ onc(l) .* .

..* . * < month reportmg period. to the l<~ca~1ons specified b~.low. *Blank.forms are. available ~tJhe Dep~mcnt'.s *

. ><Albany.office listed bel()w.Thefitstreporting period begins* on the effective date.ofthispermit and tlic

. .* *** reports \\fill .be due no lat~rth~n the .28th day ofthe inonth following the end of each reporting period. . . *. ***.

1. D (if box is checked) an atjnual report to theRegional Water .Engin~er at the addre~sp~c:ified befow.

.*.* >> The l1DJ1Uf1lreport is due* by February!* and must suriuliarfae irifortjlation for Januafy to Dece.mber of

> the prcvi9us year i!J a format acceptable tO the Department * *

0 (if box is checked) a monthly "Wastewater Facility Operation Report..." (form 92-15-7) to the:

n D<.. * ** .* . . .

Regional Water Engineer and/or

/J *.*.

County Health Department or Environmental Control Agency LJ specified below .

.. Send the original{thp . ~ *. .

sheet) *.of each DMR page to: .

Send the first £Ql!l'.. (second sheet} of each DMR page to:

.* *Departritentof Envfronmental Conscrvatic>ii .* D~paftment of Environn\enuil Conservation.

Division of\Vater< . . '< . . ..

** *

Regional Water Engineer, Region 3

Bureau of Watershed Coi.npliance.Prograriis

100 Hiilsicie Ave, Suite 1W

625 Broadway

White Plains, NY Albany, NY 12233".3506

. ' -~ . . . 10603;;28tj0

.Phone: (518) 4oi-8J77. ~ .... .

Phort~: (914) 332-1835

.:. *. . . . :" :>> ::::.;:~::>;::;:::;:::::::~:::~:-:*_.

I <<: : .****** SPDESP~rmit:NY0004472 . . . *..*.**

~.:.: **<*~.;,,, *'

.* / > ti

.: .:.*~: ".* .*.:.*:_:,~-.~.:-.: * * *..:*.:~.*.:i:.*.;~,: ,: : ~;~, .._,;, ,:'.'.,:~.;~,;,*,*: :....

C ) .>> . .* .*. .

t.: ~-~. .:.:.-:*. .. ...... "..,..........."'.*;.::c.**.,,::,:=..*.:. <<.:.:. :. . :.:.... ,: ..... :::.

' *. *:><<-:}\\(-=.'.**}> ::.-*

'.i* . .. . . . . . . ,.*_ :-.*._ *..... :>: ... :* -.. *.* .*. :: - . *. *=** . :* p'. .* *_' ' _: **2* 5.-.:. -. * . :-.:

,c.: ....~.;:,,,,,.....,.: *. ,,,,,,,, .................. ,, .. ,,:,,:.:~:;;,;,.,,,;.;;:,,.:,:.,,,,,,,,,,;,,..,,;** .... * .::..:,.,,,,:*'*':* ,age,; , .:.. ,,:,oc:** ,,,,,,, ....,.

0

.. ,.. ********:*****j*.:*** .* ***:*: Noncol11p1*i*~ce '**with***~~***~;~ti~ions.*oj*!t6is** peihl.it

.* in the attached ()eneraLQortdhions (i>arrII).

.sh~i1* .:b~ *feport~d to****t~e*:**IJ~pkhlti~Ji

.*.~ p;~~crib~d* _.* *'

. Monitorinit11ust be c~n~~ctci~**~cc.ording.to.te~t.procedures**:pproved.unde;40. Cfll.Part'**1.J§,.*unless.* ~ther . *.

~estproccdu,res*lmvebeen specified in th.is pennit/. ** ;*** * .*. ,..... .* . </

' 1f the' per¢itte~ 'lllonitof~ fuly pollut~nt more frequeritly' th~.* required bf the. p~httit, usiJg *. t~st. :

procedures' approved under 40 CFR Part 136 or as specified in this permit, the results <>f this monitOring ** *

. shall bei9~luded in the (:aJctilations and.recording.ofthe clataonthe Dis¢hE1fge ?vfonitorin~ Report~.*.*. * .**

6:** *~:::~~~{s~!J~~i:~~~tr.~trcavef"'~i~.Qf~eas~ents *5R~fal~~ailihfuO~c.#3n *

.7, - Unless otll~fu;ise s!>C~ific~,*~11 inf~rfuation rcc()rdcd otithe Discharge Monitol'irig R~port shall be based '

upon melll;ilrements and $ampling . .

carried out during the most recently ccunple~cdrepl)rting . . -: *.-: ..

- ~ *.

peri()d. *.

. . . Any laboratory test or sample ari~ly~is required.bythis perrnhJrir whi~h the*$tatecorritnlssitiner~fHeal~issues

. certificates ofapptoval purstlanti~* section five hundred twO (ff the Publicllealtn,Law shall be conducted by a .

. laboratory which has been issued a~certificate of approval. Inquiries regardinglaboratory certification shou.ld be ..

sent to the Environmental LabC>rafory Accreditation Program, New York State Health Department Center for*.* *.

.Laboratories a11d *Research, Division of Environincntal Scien~~s; The Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State PI~.

. Albany, New Ytfrk 12201. * * * .* * .** * * * ** * ** * .* * **

.i:*

. j

>> NEVV YORK: STAtE OE:PARTM~NT OF ENVIRONMENTAL .

- coNSER\/A'f10N WATEROlJAUTY CERTIFICATION-UNDER sE:ct10N

.... * . 401 ~ CLEAN WATER ACT, E:FFECJIVE DATE OF MAY 1, 2017 > <.*

ENTERGY.NUCLEAR OPERATIONS,.INC..

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3

. ** DOCKET NO. 50.,.247 and 50-286

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Facility m 3-5522-00011

.PERMIT Under the E,ivironmental Co.nservation ~flW (ECL).

Permittce: Facility:

ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LL~ INDIAN POINT 1, 2 & 3 NUCLEAR ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 3, LLC; and POWER PLANT . .

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS,INC. .

(collectively, .the "Pem1ittee," "applicant;' or "WQC holder")

.Projcd Location: in BUCHANAN in WESTCHESTER COUNTY Authorized Activity: This 40 I Water Quality Certification ("WQC" or"pennit") certifies that the operation of Units 2 and 3 at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant under renewed federal licenses to be issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC) wilf not contravene water quality standards. The federal licenses issued by the NRC authorize the operation of the respective units at the

' \

facility. This WQC is authorized to run concurrently with the NRC issued federal licenses; accounting for Entergy's commitment to retire Units 2 and 3 in 2020 and 2021, respectively (subject to the terms and conditions of that commitment).

Water Quality Certification* Under Section 401 - Clean Water Act Permit ID 3.:.5522-00011100030 Effective. Date: May I. 2017 Expiration Date: Retirement ofUnit 2 and Unit 3, but no Inter than [the expiration date of the renewed NRC ope_r~ting license]. ..*.

By acceptance of this permit, the pcrmittcc agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the ECL, all applicable l"egulations, and all conditions ~ncludcd as part of this permit.

Chief Permit Administrator NYSDEC Headquarters 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 Authori:z;ed Signature: Dal~ ~ffl-Ulf7.

Page 1of6

NE~ ~O~K ST~f~ h~~A~T~;~.;,(}~ EN~l~()~~~~TAL~6~S-ERVATION *.

m 3-ss22i0001t ** * * ,<

. . .,. ,...........:.,. ""* *'* '"* '*' * * '*'*'"'"""'""" i? L,. ,,, ... * ,,,,, , ::./.;..~ .. , ,* * * *

. **'i:.* :>:/??-!<~:*::;~

- t *. **

Radioiogicafn~terminatioq~ The WQc holders {iri requited to operate the 11ldianP.oint

.*.. * ~.* Nuclear Power. P18:Jlt consis,tent.with NRC req\}irements. and1irnitaii0ris relating to* ra~i<)logical .

.. . .

releases. *Thi~ 11pproval certifjes that the WQC:: *holders are curre11tly in compliance witlfwatcr *. *. .*.'.* *.* ..**

. qu,ality standards r~lat~ngto)he radiological releases.fromJndian Poinftp theJJ:udsonJljy¢r, . . *..*.* .*...

.....**'based on the facts and circµfil~tances in the r~eord to date/but.that futiire radiological releases to ..*.

.**.

theHudsorilUvel'~ if any, 1baimaterially ~ifferfrom those addressed iil the record mafbe * *

.subject to sepiirate action by:NYSDEC to th~.c:xtent auth()rized by applicable law.

- * * .* 5. *. Cov~ra~c,u~der 40.lWQC*. ThisW~Ccovers norn1al operation of the.facili~. *.Itdo~s

<< not cover ongo@f maintenance activitie~ tlJ.at result in 9ischarges jnto \Vaters of the Ugited .. *

- - *.*

Staies that triggedhe requirement to obtafo Section 404 ()f the CleaJ1 Water Act individ~at.

permits by the; U.S.' Army Corps of Engit1eef5 9t the Department of Environmental ..... *. .

Conservation~ Any proposed work on the shoreline must be consistent with the appropriate .

. < .federal and Department of Environmental Conservation. permits, \Vhich may include permits ....

<, <*r~deral pursuant toArtide i5; Protectfon ofWaters, Arti~le 34,Ce>astalErosfon, or Secti.on 40lofthe

Clean Water Act:' > , < , * ** ** *. * *. * ** * ** ** * *.**. *** ** .*

. l .~ Water Quality. Certification. The Department of Envirorimental Conseniatioh (the *

) Qepartment;')hereby certifies that th¢ subject license renewalsfcfr th<; Indian PointNuclear:,

. ,Plant wiH not.contravene effluent limitations ofother limitations standards under Sections or .

.*. )01, 302, 303, 306 and 307 ofthe Clean Watc~Act of 1977 (PL 95.:217), provided~at all of the conditions listed herein are met. This WQC super:sedes the Department's April 10, 2010 Notice of Denial.. . .

.2; opa'a~Dg ~~on!ance '" wltJ. SPD~S Permit. The WQC hQlder is autho\ited to operate its cooling water intake.structureandfo discharge in accordance with effluent *.*.

limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, other provisions and conditions set forth in

- this WQC, which expresslyincorporates, amorig other'permits, theSPDES permit issued with this WQC, incl~ding Early .R,etirement, and any subsequent, conforming SPDES permit for the

. Jridian Po inf Nuclear Power Plant issued during the term* of ~is WQC In compliance with 'fitle 8

" of Article 17 of the Environmental Consen1aifon Law ofNew York State and the Clean Water

Act, as amended, (33 U .S.C; §1251 et seq.); pur~uantto NYGRR Title 6, Chapter X, State .

Pollutant Discharg~ Elimination System ("SPDES") Permits Part 750-l.2(a) and 750-2; *

~.

- Page 3of&

. *, . . ', '* ... . . . ... ... . :-*,:: .)/>)>::::. :': .* .

. .* : :.:: . . :* ~.:: ::..:: '. ::::::~ .:>.*.* .'.:.*-* '.'*.:..* *.. ::: :,:.- :: :' .. * .. *. *:...

.* . i NE"' Yo~I< si'A~kD: tr~R;~E~T OF ENVl~~NMENTAL CONSER~ATION ..

- .**.*** facilitylDt5522-0~*~*~*1* <*** .**;; . ,'.~<.......... ***** :, <::,_.::\ .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . ..

... , .; .;.,*.*:.;,_-....;;.~""'""""~~.;._...;......;,_;..;.....;.......,._;;..;,_;...*...**...;*. ,. * * *......._. .;,_.....;..;..~...;......;,_~...;.....~~.;,_~.;,_~""'"""'=-.......'-'=........,,.,,

. .. *. ~acility :lp$pcCtiQn by The DepaqmeptThc permitted site orfacility, incl~ding relevant*

' . r~cords, i~ stibje,qfto i~spectio~ tt,t reasgnable hours and. intervals by tql auihti~iz(ld *. :**.*.****** * * . *** * * .* * . .

..*..\ l"cprescntatiye'ofthe Department ()fEnviroJlll1ental *con~ervation to, dctcrinine whether.:the>. *'. *

penpittees are complying with this permit artd the ECL. Stich reprc:sentative may oroerthe worksuspended pursuant toECL 71-0301 and SAPA 40.1(3). The WQC holdershall '

provide a person to a~compari}' the Depar:tment of Envirotjill~ntal Ccmser'Jatipn 's.. ./ ..

rcpre~¢n¥1tiye <:}uring aninsp¢9tion tq t.Jte facility, when req4ested by the Department gr *'*'

' otherWise r¢quircd 01' authorized bylaw~ . . . .. . . . .. . '

i"i '.*.,":,

... A copy*~;t~i~ WQC;* includi~g ~H reierenced maps,. d;awings *and s~eCial conditions, ~ust * .

beavailab1e for inspection bythe Oepartment of Environrncrital Co.nservation at all ti01es atthcJaciHty. Failure tO pr6duce a C()p)' of)he WQC uppn requc~t by a Departme11t) .

. represen#l~i'v~ is a violaticm this auihoritation.* *' *..* . ..... ' . of .*. ' .' . *.. *. *

2.

Relationship of this Per~itto Other J)cpartmcnt Orders and Determinations Unless

. expressly provided for by the Department~ issuance ofthisWQC does ncit modify, ,...

supersep~ 9rrcscind any or;ger or deterrnination previou~ly issued bythe Department or ariy of the t~i:nls, conctitioris.o.J*. requirel!tents contained !n sl1ch* order or determination.. *** ..

3*..* Applications for Permit Renewals, Modifications or Transfers Consistent with applicable law, the Pennittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for renewal, modification *()r transfer of this WQC~ Such application must include anf

. *fomis or'supplemeritalJ11fonnation th~Departmeijtrequires, consistent with applicabl~

law. Any renewal, modification or t(ansfer granted by the Department musfbe in Writing.

SubmissiOn of applications for permit renewal, modification or transfer are to be

submitted to: '

- Chief Permit Administrator

. NYSDEC HEADQUARTERS

. 625 BROADWAY** '

. *~ .. . .

ALBANY. NY 12233 .

4.. Submission. of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal* application at

least . 30 days before permit *expiration for the foJlowing **permit authorizations: Water Quality Certification. * * * * .* t"

5. Permit Modifications, Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The

Department reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this WQC, consistent with applicable law. Pursuant to applicable law, the grounds for modificatfon,"

suspension or revocation ma:y include: * **

a) materially false or inaccurate statements in: the permit application or s~pportirig papers;:

b) failure by the permittee 'to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit during

.~ . : . .

its-term; .***.*

. Page4of6

. *~~I!~~~~;&1t::,~J;~fmo:;~tLcoNs=.*::.~.

- .. *. ** * *:, -/~;;:~;::>S:-t*:/;):::/-* ... *= **.: .

iii** .4;:... ! ~: . . .

<r.*;>' d., ** :.

***~). ~x~~~cling .th~ ~9()J; rif" t~e ~t()jci~t asde~~rib~d, in t4~ petmit applicatiol1 'ot hercinf > *. .. '. .

-. . ~

' ' '*.' d) 'h~wly *cliscovcrcd rnatcrihl irirol1llatfon 6r an1ateri~l change in el1vir~nn1ental ' *' ' .**. .* **.* * * .*.

coriditfons, relevant technology or applic~ble law or regulations sirice the issuance o( *** *

'. the existing p~rmit; .* ,' ' ' ' ' ', ' ' ' ' ' ' ' /_ > ' .* :**.. .

e) m£ltf2rialnohcompliartce With previousl)ris~ued permit conditions~ pr~ers ofthe ** *.* < :- .*.*.'

.. ** commissioner, £\DY provi~ioµs ofthcEnvironmcntal ConservationL~wor.regulatlops<'* ..*..

> of the Department t~l~t~d tc:rt~e permitted a~tivify~, *. * < : * * \ . : ; > *'*. ********:>'.:*.:*****.**

~~-~~-,~~

transfer should be submitted prior to actµ:al transfer of ownership; *

NOTIFIC;\.'llON OF OTHER PERMI'ITEEOBLIGA1'IONS '

lte~ ~=*.P.~J"mit~e~ Accepts Legal Responsibility an~ Agr~cs to Jnde111njfic:ation .. *.'

. *<* E~ceptirlg state or federal *agencies, the Pertnittee expressly agrees to i~dehtnify and' hold

' ', ltarinless the Department c)f Environmental' Conservation; its representatives, employees and .*'

authorized agents, for all ch.Urns, suits, action and1damage$, to the extent attributable fo*the * .*

Pennittee's acts or omissions i.n connectfon with the Perinittee's undertaking of activities in connection with, or operation and maintenance of, the facility or facilities authorized 'by this WQC whether or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.This* '

indemnification does not extend to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to the Department's own negligent intentional acts or omissions, or to any . or

claims, suits, or actions.11aming the Department and arising under Arti,cle78 of the New york**

.::*. .> Civil ,Prnctice Laws ~nd Rul'3s, any citizen suit or civil rights provision (lnderfed~ral or state laws; *r or otherwise under ..

applicable law. ' ' ', '

Item B: Permittee's ContractQrs to Comply with Perm.it .

The P~rmittec is rcsponsiblefor informing independent contractors, empioyccs, ~gents and assigns oftheiuesponsibility to comply with this WQC, including all special conditfons, while**

acting as the. Permittee' s agent with respect to the permitted activities, and* such person shall be subject to the same sanctions.for violations of the Environmental Conservation I..aw as those******

prescribed for the Permittee. * * * .*

.Item (]: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Requli:ed Permits *..

Th~ permittcc is respo~sib;e frir obtaining any other permits, approvals,lancls, easements .and **

rights-of-way* that may be required. to carry out the activities that are authorized by this WQC ...

Page S of 6

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AL CONSERVATION Facility ID J..5522~00011

. . Item D: N~ Right to Trespass orlntcrfefc with Ripari~n Rights

.This WQC does not convey to the Permittcc any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights, title, or interestin real or personal property .held or ve~ted in a person .

not a p~y to the permit. .* . . . . .* '

Page 6 of 6

ATTACHMENT 3 TO NL-17-054 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SFEIS) CONCERNING THE APPLICATION TO RENEW NEW YORK SPDES PERMITS FOR INDIAN POINT 2 & 3 *

(With Accompanying NYSDEC's Response to Public Comments And Associated SEQRA Findings)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3

. DOCKET NO. 50-247 and 50-286

> i '*

.** * * ** * * ** *'th~ SPDES. ~erjn~f~as the ~~bject bf a Final ~h~ironment~l)1I1Pact Statem~~t dated:**********.**

.. <June 2~. 2(}Q3. (tlie~'FEIS~~)Y 'fhe FEis ¢*9nfompiat~~ Supplemental EISs for each of the t~ee \

18

- *..**.*.. **..* *... *********:rer!:"d~~e§tf>~sa:~1ic/~~~:~f!1W~f :t.f~e~ee~fJ~a*~~~~ir~isi~~~:r ~~;*.F~ *.* and .~* * * * * .*.* * ..

administrative adjudfoatpfYproceeding \l,iithrespect tbfhe SPDES p¢rmit andNYSDEC S(aff's *.* **.*.* **

0

- .* .. *. April 201 Onotfoe of denial of Entcrgy's WQC appli¢atioll,:to which NYSDEC Staff, Entergy,

.. <. * . .*. *¥nd nUl}l~rt>~~ intcrvcnol'k~rid aITiici'y,r~l"~parties .. Nystmc Staffand Entergy*h~ve llow agreed /

.** ..* *.*.*.**to settle theAispute betwee11 them am:lto issuance ofa fi11al SPDE~ pel'lllit and*~ final W,QC.** * * . .

.> lfl.is Suppl~foental FinaJ*EltvironmeritalJmpact Statem¢~t(the "Sf'EIS';) provides,*forptirposes':**.

.* qf public review and coml11erit'under th¢ State Envii:c:111inental Quallty Review Act ("SEQR"), a/ ; .

of summary facts pertinen(to the fmatSPDES penriifandJinat WQC, including fact5 concerning . *. . *

.*. the significant ~dverse environinerital ilnp~cts of pOtell,#al cooling water intake ;slructur(3 <* :** . .

("CWIS") t~chnologies f"oflndian Point~pnsidered difririg the adjudicatory proceeding..**** *

.*.:: .. -:. . . : *. =. .

..* . . r This:SFEIS ddes iil'.>t r~peat all C>t~u: infonnatiori preyiousJy set forth in the FEIS c)r the ** .

<Dcccmberf999Draft Envi.forimci:itid Impa~t StatemeritC~DEIS") thatproceeded the FEIS; > *.* . ***.*. *

rather; those earlier doclll11ents are app¢ndcd hereto as*Exhibits A and B. The pl,irpose Qfthi~ ....:**..*..* .

- - - . SFEJS is .tc{supplen:ient the e~rlier anf,llysis to reflec.t mater~al new illformation deveklp~d since * **

the FEIS ;.vas published, imd thereby ic{explain NY~DEC's decisiori to issue the* final SPpES

...*permit, with*ihe particufal"nie>dificati9n~found there1r1,and the final WQC.

- .**.. . Tp~stfufaure of F~~IS. is asfoUows. Fir~t, the SFEI~ provides an overview oftije .

this

. history ofthe adjudicatory :pr0c~eding, Particularly the hi~to:rY:ofthis SPDES perffiit where ~e >

.* FEIS *left. off in 7003, and .the *WQC application. Second, ~t provides an overview ofthe Federal to and New York law appli<;able the proposed actiorC *rhird, it describes the evidence .. * .*.

concerning the ~ilric;nls C\VIS altemati~es considereciduringthe adjudicatory proceeding, as *.. *

NYSDECsought fo exerds~ its *best professional judgment h1 selecting a "best tecfo1ology ... * .

available"("BTA.")Jor Indian Point's CWISJor purposes of Section 3ltl(b) of the Federal Clean **

Water Act; 6 NYCRR § 704.S;:and Cominissfoner Policy 52 ("CP~52"). This seciion of the*

.SPEIS focuses on evidence concerning the feasibility ofthe BTA alternatives that were ..* .

as

' considered, '\vt:ll. as their significant ad~erse environmental impacts for purposes of SEQR. ..

Lastly, the . . ,

SEEIS. explains Entcrgy's commitment to retire Indian

. . .. ,- ~*.**. . .*' .

Point. . Units 2 and 3 fo 2oio

. '* . *: .: . . **.*** :. .\:: : *. . . . ......... . . .. ..

1 Jhe WQC Application was stibmi~tcd to NYSDEC in April 2009 nndJhus post-dates the 2003 FEIS.

2

'"""*""~.,:;;.:; .. :.*,.,*,, "*"'** ***v*::<~i..~.:*;.~:~'"'~~;""-""~"-""~* :<;._,*,< **** ;*. **v***=******v'"v***=**v;"'": ..*. : * **<'**=******:;;.;: ..**** ~,.¥ .. ::".:::~:.: .. ,,::h:<"::,,:.::<:::::::::::-t<<:-"'"-"<:.,;:..;<:<<*0-J:o'.'.,>;.OO;:o;*... * ...: * : .*:;: *** :~v~~,::.~***:.v*--' ,.,:-.:.-.L:."::.:.;,;,.:,..::"-'**"'-~:*

an~202l, rcspc~ti.vely (subject*fo~c~enri~~rld conditions ~fEnrergy's c6mmitmentto ~o so..**

\\lhichaf¢ set forth llerein) ("~arlyRetire~ent)~andthe implications of tll~t co111n1itment o~ :

NYSDEC' sJ3TAdeterininati~11* . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

- - - - **** .*ciJ.nclud¢4 .D1tj~at~1;:*:*~.

.:*** * * * ** * * * * : tll~tJhe folloWing expt11ined *.herei11**and.;r~fl~cited*

SPQgSpennit ~011dillons represent BTA forlndian. Point ill ligllt9f *. *.*. .

in the. final.SPDE~ p~~tt,**NYSQ~C.**h~*******:************ ****

.*. *.*. Ent~rgy'~ COnunjtment to *E~rly Ret,il"ement: ' an Early Retirement commitmeilt (Conditic>n28), .. > .*. *.*.

.*. ~ togelh~(witJl the scheduling <>flndiiul Point's anri~al plalllled refueling and lliaint¢mmce Ot1#ige's / . .*

.*. ** betweenfebruary 23 and Aug\Jst 23 each year(Condition 26), flow liinitatioris (Condition 6)and

.*..*. con~inut?d operation of IndiEln Pofot~s existing suite ()f cooling 'Mlter intake Structure *. *** ** ** *..*.*: / *...*.*

technologies (Condition 27), arid c()nti11ued intensive Hudson River monitoring{Conditioll is):*** *

.Jn reaching this determination, NYSDEC also took account ofthe adverse envh:onmental / ' ** *.

im{laClS, and the significant social, economic, and other impa~ts, of alternative BTA pr()p9sai:~.

.* NYSDEChereby solicits public comment on this SFEIS. Comments*are due45.days from the date of publication of ihe SFEIS (which shall Ile no later than February 2, 20171 of *....* .. .'

. F9bruary 9, 2017af1er a.concurrence extension), which works out to Marcli.:io, 2011(March27, 2017,)f the conclll'rcnce period extended).* is .* . * ** **.. : :

P~()POSED ACTlON .

.*. *.*:* > ...*. ).he actib~ b~f~re N4sIJEC is the. deci.sio'1 ~h~~~rto renew Indiall Point'*s* SPO~S *.* . * * *

. : , perinitand .issue Indian Point~ WQC, wh.ich wol1ld allowJndian Point to discharge pollutwits, of including wa5te heat, to the waters the' Hudson River. The SPDES permit wowd alscfallow .

to

. .**.

Indian Point to continue withdraw water from the Hudson River for use as cooling water. .

- - ~ased_ on the record of a I3.;year long adjudicatory proceeding, and Entergy's commitment to* .

.Early Retirement, NYSDEC has decided to issue the final SPDES pennit ~d the final WQC in

. . the f.orm accompanying this SFEIS as.Exhibits c and D, respectively. A map showing Indian . "*<*

PQint's l()cation on the Hudson Riv~r app¢ars below as Figure I; *

- ,/.

flgurU ..l l'llljod LocadGll ...,,

~ .... fJl_C4tllff Wlogral'BIUaaan, T..,.olCGl1fllldl

'l'leslcllHIH C..Unly, NT

(\TRC .......0*.25====::::ioiu.,..._~-.....,~-"""-*-"""~---_._~R-*-*~__.

C o Figure 1: Location of Indian Point 4

. - : . . ::~ : . : *_. . . ,j *, . . . . .. *. *. . . .

,.:.:.:.:. ::::.,.:>;~,,,~,,;::~.* . ,*~;,*:*;;:.:.;******: . . .. . '**"' ...:. .:. . . :,; ..:: :;. . ~;>~;,* ..~:;;.<:~,.;;,;,;. **'"'""'""::::..;:-;;:::::::.~""*" . :::.,,~:,;"""~~--~*,_,.;~.:.:.:- .. .'.: \ . :. :~.: . ~. <~,;,,,..: .. *. * ...:-* ~

.*:.;;*;;:*;:<:;::x .*.. ,..::;::,:: ... .. :;,:: ..* - ... :: .......... ;:.. ,:*.,

...** . ' < {.\~!.< PRO~ HIS'i'l>~v < **.* >*** ' <:< ;',' . . *..

.

A bistorfritihis proj~ct prior to the FEIS js set forth in the FEIS .* f~is SFE~S repe~t:/: *.

- certain ofthat e¥1ier }tl~tdryTor context, but focuses on the post-FEIS history: The public is

directed. to .fue .fEIS fof~ fuqr~. fulsome despription ()fthe pr~'-F~IS.histoiy *.. *> . *. * ** *

.* ..*/.\:**. :::-:: . .* ... *:/:: .."::,*;.:::-::*.:.: :: . . . . .* .. . . . .. . .*,..* ......'. **. ' ..... ..

. *. ' .Th~ prcclcccssdril'ifr'ihteresi of Eiltcfoy:~ppli¢ifiµ I 992Jor renewal Of.the SPDES permit for Indian Point/ Indiah Point is located on the easf side of the Hudson River in the Village of

Buchanan,. We~tChester County, New York. the New York SPDES. pennifprogram is afederaUy" >***

approved, state-administete4.Program goveroing the discharge ofp0Hutants (inpiuding, as relevant, ..

to *the electric': s~ctor, merinal disphargcst .into. Sta~.~ slirface and groµncl; waters..*. . Conditi()'9$ *. . .

a

,** *cC>ntai11edin . SPPES*pcrmit govern the discharges of pem1it h~lders~ )NewYork_.also. uses i.ts:**

..** SPDES progra01 to. enforce the cooling waforJiitake strueture requirepl¢Qt~ ofSection 3 l 6(b) qf the Clean Water Act, 33 lt~.c. § 1365, Eirid 6 NYCRR § 704.S: NYSDEC also issues WQGs

. ** *. pilrsuant io authority granted to states by §40 I. of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 *U;~.c. §1341 ),

. **.*.employing the.regulations promulgated. .at 6 NYCRR

§ 608.9 and*Parts 700 ~704. **: .*:

.**. ; '.*.*~ 199.~, to~ pu~~*s~s of SEQR, Entergy' s *predecessor (together witlf the then'."owricl"s,Of.

certain other Hudson River power plants,* known ru; t,he "H'udson River Facilities") produ¢ed a

- - joint DEIS in support of their respective applications. for SPDES permit reriewals for the Hudson

River Facilities~< * ** * *- ** * *.* .*. * *

. :fr 6n J'"1: 13, 2003, NYsoEC StaffaC~!lPtcd and notiC:ed For public comment thC f'~I~Tor **

the Hudson RiVcr Facilities, including Indian Point. ** * * ** * * *** *

- ** :. ~On November 12, 2003, DepartmentStaff proposed various moc:lif.icatfons to the ~xi~~i~g

. SPDESpennit.f'or Jndian Point, *including new conditions to impleinentc.losed cycle.coplillg as

~Bl'A *to. minimize adyerse environmental impacts from the Indian Point's CWI.S. Departfyetjt S~aff's BTA dctcrinination involved certaincoriditions related to Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission *

. * ("NRC") issuance of license renewal determinations for the Stations, feasibility and SEQR assessments for the proposed BTA technology, as* well as Entergy' s right to propose an alternative .

BTA. Various entities, inchiclirig Entergy, challenged Department St~ff' s proposed SPDES perlllit,

.* . ~lld various third parties.moved to intervene a5 parties. or ~ici. .* * * * * * * .*

.....

A. publklegislati~~ hearing and issues confe~ence were held \\Tith respect to the draft,.

SPDES permit. An issues ruling, admitting intervening parties and* setting certain issues for

adjudication, was issued on February 3, 2006. In an interim deCision, dated August 13, 2008 (the

. "Interim Ueci~icm"), ihe -Qeputy Commissioner rule~ on interlocutory appeals and advan9ed various issues .to adjudicationJn the SPDES permit proceeding. See Matter ofEntergy Indian P<iint

2, LLC, Interim Decision ofthe A.ssistant Commissioner, 2008 N.Y. Env.LEXIS 52 (Augusfl3, 2008). Among other things, the Interim Decision directed the parties to proccedJo hearings the. on

. issue of the site-specific BTA the Stations.

for * * *

.* . . *On April* 30, 2007, Entergy. entities filecl .with NRC the federal license 20~year *renewal

.*.. applications for Indian Point. On April 6, 2009, Department Staff received a joint application for afcderal Clean Water Act (CWA") Section 401 WQC on behalf Entergy. Entergy submitted of

the joint application for a Section 401 WQC to NYSDEC as part of Entergy's Jicense renewal

... .. .. * * * , * *.

Thri ~ac~gmutid and procedµtaf ll,iStl)ry\vitll resp~~ttb th~ ~~newal. and fu6difi~atiorl <)f ( ...

.* *. the. SPDES.peMi,it are setforth iri greater.detail)n the*F~bi-tJ.aryi3,2Q06 ruling*tj~proposcd i~s~¢s.

. * *for adjudication and petition_s fofparly staius~.2006N. Y. Eriv. LpXIS 3; the Interim DeCisicjJJ.{ <***.

- - * * ** -~~~:~~{;;:i;lf~~J~J.t~;fs1H}3ah~

-**- oitt~ges, .2Ql 5J'~;Y. Env.

0 1~~~~t~~j[~d~f1~~~~~~~~8a~rp~:rn~~~\ri!i~~a :*

LE){IS 4; The b~ckgrouJ.'lq and(>I,"ricedllnll history With i:espcct t9~

to -.

.* .* ScCti()D 40{WQC proceeding arc setforth i11 greater detaU iRthe WQC Issues RuUng, 20 I0 * ;::

N.Y. Eiw. t~X~S-86 (December 13;.2010). -, *' * ,

-. * - .*. * *.

Parties t{) tlie adjudiCatory pro~eeding tiavcincludticl the_maild~tory parties Deplui~ent (

Staff and Entergy;in~el'Venors (Rivcrkecper; Inc.; Scenic Hudson; Natural Resources Defense *

'C<)uncH, .Inc;; County of Westchester; Town of Cortland; African AmeriCan Environmentalist*.....*

Association; RiChard Brodsky); and amici (Ci.ty.ofNew )'"ork;)ndependent Powel'. Producers.of .

New York; and.Central Hudson Gas & Electric" (CHG&E));. By ~etter dated ~line 26, 20 t 4, ...

CHG~E withdrewfrom the proceeding. : - . - .. -* .. . .......*. - . ..

'*. '.; .* *.Hearings have been he.Id t~* consider Entergy's propose~ BTA (cylindrical ~edge ;i~~ ;.*, *, .

*.'screen~)~ NYSDEC St~ff's proposed BTA (closed ~ycle cooling ajld .summertime outages of'42. >

.. . and 62 days at eac~ unit) and Riverkeeper'.s prop()sed BTA (surnm~rtiJ11e outages '.ofl 18 ~ay.~ at : ..

.. *.each uµit), as well as radiological issues and the issue of best usages, as advanced to.adjudicatior1*.**-.

_in the iss9cs rul.ing on the. Section 401 )VQC application. SEQR is~ue~ relating to each* of th~i: ** .* * **

BTA alteri;i11dves were also the subjectof hearings.* The hearings on these topic:s ~egan on ' .*. <

.....* *. October 17, 2011, and fifty~eight hearing days have since taken place.. The transcript in the * *.*

' proceeding is 16,423 pages long, and 1,500 exhibits'have'bee1.1 proposed to be adlltitted into.

.. evidence. * * * * ** * * * * * * *. * **.

- .On January XX, 2017, NYSDEC _Staff i~fonned the *ALJ~ that it and Entergy had agreed . * .* * .

. to a settl~ment, purst.lantto which NYSDEC would issue the final SPIJES permit and grant *.* *

. j FWPCA Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No; 92-soo, 86 Stat. 816.' .

.* 4 See CWA § 402; 33 U.S.C. § 1342. .,

.7

""**'**vv*"'""""">,***

.*.*.**.. , : thb use. oiih~'t&cidi~iri~*~~t&t*-*ror ex~~le~ .r~creati4~a1,***industrial,'or*piiol1c ----*---*-

Water - and on local conditigns, such asthe size and 11(,w of the receiving wa~er, turbidity' and other fact()l'S ~ique to the segment. . . . . .. ..

*

y ** > .. 'techriology~b~s~d f!filuent stand~rds, on th~ ot~er lumd, dq,not focus on the

me

*<<.qualities of receiving .y/~ter, ,buton thejreatl11ent a ptjUutant re~ives prfor to its,/ . ( >

.. disqharge. t~¢hnology'..basecl standards define and mandate a.level ofeffluetit quality' '

that is achfo'\l~ble using pollution control technology so that a pollutant's capacity to .*

.***degrade th,e Water s¢gmeni into ;.vhiCh it is diseharged is lessened. Of the two,:

technology-based* efflue11t standards dominate the c.v.;A*s. ~cgulatory system..*..*.. * *.

. . Bmh e>t)hese standard~ are implemented andenforced through the NPD~S p¢J'lllH

program, administered by the USEPA. tJndcr§ 402 the CWA, a discharger inri~L > *. of * .. _*_.**

. , **.obtain .an NP DES permit* from EPA or from a state that has an EPA~approved pfograrl1.~ * *

., * >The technology~based and. watel'. quality based standard~ are 'Written irito the permits 1m4 **

4

*. < are tailored to m~efthe particularperrnitt¢e's.situaiiort, ~uch as the pollutanl.:pro4.uctrjg: *.* *

><operation; t~e type al)d arri61lnt ofpollutarits be discharged and the condition:hf th~ . *...

rcccivingWaier.; .* .*

to Tll~.2WAmandated development of water quality standards for .water bodies8rid ...

efflucn~ limitations based on those standards, and h~etforth the mechanism for .*. *. .* . .* / .

.. *., *** ,. * ** ; inci:>l'.Poratfogwater quality standard~ illto NPDES permits.. *Stat~~ were requifed t() a49pt

*. . / classifications ofw~ter bo~ies accordirtg to their best uses. They were also required to* *

.. develop standards.for various pollutants that wo.uld establish inrueimum levels of.****... * *. *.

pollutantsi11watcr bodies that would be allowable so that the water bodies could retain*.*

their best t1se~. 7 These standards are then. in tum, incol'.Poraied into the NPDES pe~mit as .*** * .*

effluent!imhations, along with any other relevannechnology".based effluent li1llita,ti,ons~ ,,

.*.*... . ;* .* *. . . .** I .. , , . . **. . .**. *.* ..

. .*. ' NPDES pe~its may also contain other conditions a ,pe~ittce must meet, s~chas

requirements for monitori~g and-reporting effluent discharges. 8 Discharge without a .*..

. permit or in violation of its conditions inay subject the discharger to an enforcement . .

a~tion by i.h~ federal or state government, which in tum may resu}t in civil and criminal .

.penalties.9 A noncqmplying discharger may also b~ subjectto enforcement by prl v~te .*....*.*

.individuals ,or groups under the Act's citizen suit provision. 10 In suin, the NP DES permit.

program is the focal pofrit of the CWA's regulatory system, and compliance with an .* **

NPDES 'perlllit's conditions is deemed to be compliance with almost all of the Act's

. regulatory p~ovisions. 1 1 * * * * *. * .*

. 6 CWA § 402(a) and (b), 33 U.S.C. § i342(a) and (b).

'_ 7 CWA § 303, 31U.S.C.§1313. *.*

1 40 c.F.R. §§ 122.41 to 122.50 (p~rmi~ conditions).

... *.. ,9*.*. .*. *: :*** *. :*. :. .* ..:* *:::*. . ' .

. CWA. § 309, 33 U.S.C.. § 1319 . *.

0 cwA § so5,33 u.s;c. § 1365; ..

11 . . . . '

CWA § 40~(k), 33 U.S.C"§ 1342(k).

t*;.***.

/*. **<*; >.* / : ; . : . [>> ..... (,.*** '

- < .... ;: i . ,,. . \'."*. . * . * , .

.:,* ... ::::::.:.:.~~"-.:".:.~~;,,~i<;,.;:- .. <=~*'"'""u:i<.;.,,:~;0Ki:~"'" / <. .:.* :~.* . .*:.*.'~ * ' * :.*. ~*.:,_**. .: ~.* *.

. ;: : .:: ~,- .*( ..

.*.!*********************************************** .............. *."* .~:,;:.*:

/;~;,;;;.:; .*...*..

> .,.;;;;:;,;,.:;:;ixo;:".:.:.o.:,,<:::

... . ; *.:) :;;,,,.. , .. , :.,....... ***:** .. """:.:.. ; :;~",ij)!~J:!'

. . .:::::::.:~,;_,,,,,:::.> *.* . ~;;,~:~,~~~~,;,,~;-~i,;~:.:::x

...* . "'".'.:.:.::::.;:.> . *, .* *. . :::::;.,,;;<:>::::: : :*:.;:.:o: :::;;;;;_,::.~:.;_;,,:,;:i';""****'.

- :.> cWA ~ 316(~) and eoolingW~t~r Intake str~cturcs .

, .*..*. . § 3l6(b) of t~e C~Apfovide~ that any poi~t soQrce"dischargc stalt~d .. * . ..

. . -.:established p~rsuant tQ §§ 30Jor306 oftheCWA.must require that the focation~d~si8n, .

. .. * ...*. constructiorl,anclcapacity ofQWJS reflect tlle'1b~st 'technology available(STA) for

rijin'i~izing ~clvers~.envircuirncllt~limpacts. *** * * * .. ** * * * .* * * * *

...*. >*.*. *...* .* *** EP~ h~ defined a "t()Ming water infa~c ~trtJctu~e~' ~the total phy~fcal structure*** **. *

. and. any associated constructed waterways used to withdraw water from waters ofthe l);S;~ extending from tile poin~ atwhieh water is withdrawn from waters oftheU.S. up to :

. > *iµid focludiitith~ intake pugips.. EPA has d~fined "cooling ~atcr" a8 wa1er iiseci for.. .*. *

-**. C,ontact or non~c()ntact coolihg,including waleI' used fcir eq\lipmerit cotJling, evaporative *,

' cooling tower makehp, and dilution of effiuent heat content.12 .The .intended use of . . .

cooling water is to ab~orb w~ste heat from production .processes or auxiliary operations.

. .(

. .*. . *. *'. * . CWA§ ~ 16(b) adgres5es the adverse ellvironmental illlpact caused by the intake o,fcoolillg wate(not discharges into water/:jficspitc this sp~cial focus; the requfrecients .

'of§ 316(b) aredC>seJY.linkedto several of the qore elemeqts C>fthe NPDES pem1it * .

program establishedundcr §402 of the CWA to control discharges of pollutfillts into. **

navigable waters. For example, § 316(b) applies to point sources (facilities) that *

. .withdraw water from the w~ters of the U~s: for cooling tlifough a CWIS a[l~ are .subject.*

tCl,an NJ>DE~*peµii~t. Conditions implementing,§316(b}arc included inNPD~S permits on a case*by-case, sitc-spcCific basis.- * ***.* *.* .* .** * ** ** * *

.. * ~ ..*** .The majority of impacts to aquatic organisms and habitat associated. with intak~

.s~ructures is closely linked to water withd~Wals from the various waters in whieh the ..

.. . intakes are located. *The withdrawal of substaritial quantities ()f cooling water affects, *.*

. /*large numbers ofBquatic organisms arinually, including phytoplankton (tiny, fre~flciating

. *. photosynthetic organisms suspended in the Water CQJUmn),:ZClOp)anktOO (small aquatic.

animals, including fish eggs and larvae, that consume phytoplankton and other zooplanktori); fish, crustaceans" shellfish, and many other fonns of aquatic Iife. 13 Aquatic organisms drawn into CWIS are either impinged on components of the CWIS or .

entrained irithe cooling watersystem itself, *. * .* * * **

Impingement takes place when organisms are trapped against intake screens by

. the force of the water passing through the cooling water intake structure. This can re~ult

.. in starvation and exhaustion (organisms are trapped against an intake screen or other

.*

barrier at the entraJ}Ce to the ~Ooling water intake Structure)i asphyxiation (organisms are

- pressed against ail intake screen other barrier at th~ entrance to the cooling water .. or intake structure by velocity forces which prevent proper gill movement, ororganisms are 12 National Pollutant Discharge Eiimhiation Syste~~Final Regulations To Establish Requirements for Cooling Water l,ntakc Siructurcs at Existing Facilities and Amend Requirements al Phase I Facilitic~, 79 fed. Reg. 483()0, *

. 48431 (Aug. IS; 2014}.. *. * . . . ... .. . ...

13 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System~fir~posed Regulations lo Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase 11 Existing 1-*acilities; Proposed Rule, 67 Fed. Reg. 17122, 1736 (Apr. 9, 2002) * .

("316(b) Proposed Rule").

9

. . SPDES Permitting Pr~gr~m Plirsuantioauthoritygranted by Congr~ss in CWA § 402,lJ~~PA autho~t~

has

)0 allow States to Carrf O~t specified permitting functions, Which would otherwise ~e *. *..

. *perfonned by 'uS~PA 0 fof..discharges into both inter~ate and intriiState wat~rs. N~w * *

<:. York ~iate receive<;I USEPA approval of such authoritjin the fonn of a Memorandum of in

Agreement between thestat~ al)d USEPA bctober 1975. The Memorandum * * '

- . established the basis for.the SPDES permit program in New York.State in lieu of a *.

. federally administered program. . . . . . '.. *. *. .* . . .. ..

. ... . . . Originally enacted in 1'973, Article 17; Title 8 ofthe Enyironmerital Conservation

* . .* Law (EC{;) .authorizes NYSDEC to adrninister the SPDEs* pe~it:Hng program,, thaF *.* .

'. . ~

IO

.a.: :-*. *

. :. . *. ****Oertera.lly; thellnaI dis¢harges t0 the wat~rs of the State*rlt~st in~efW~tet quali.tY ** * .***** **.*

' ' 'stahd81'.ds' to ,asimre th¢ pr,qtectipn 'and 'pr,opagaiioh of a bruaricecl, indigenous population '

of~heUfi,sb, fish, fili4}Vilq)ife ill atjd on the bC>9y of w~t~r. 19 Inaddition, tJ!ermal criteria

/appiy to all waters ()fllie State-receivfog thermal'disc~arges.3QThese criteria maybe **.*

. m~difiedupon application'of ~'permittee to NYSDEC ifNYSDEC fln,ds them to be * . . . .. ..

.**. l11111eccssarily restrictive and ,that 111odificatiori would still* as~ure the protection and > ** .* ****** * * .* >. .

.* proRagatiC>n Qf a balanced, i11~igenous popuJationof shellfish~<fish; and wildlife in*arido11 * * .. *.***.** *

>1thc bod)rof water int() which the discharge is fobe made. 21 The discharge of heat as a ..*...

..* .* ...***poUutant;a"thennal_di&chargc,,,*is addressed.in NYSDEC'sregutatiolls~t o.NYCRR.

Paq704.* . . . .. .. ..

.*. .. . In' making a fuodific~tion tiithermal criteria, NYSOEC typically jmposes a **

.. "lllhdng zone" Which JimitS th~ physical extent Within which ~eatel'.f Water Can exceed. ,

. .*speCific app~icabIC criteria:22 .Ootside of the mixing zone,* thermal criteria must be met to .

. . * . *

lµiSUre C()rrijlliance with water quaiity standards. ,Temperature limitations are established

.

and imposed on*a case.;by-casehasis for each facilify subject to Part 704 jurisdiction. .

**.* * .. NYS has adopted thefedetal CWA § 316(h) B'fArequirement for'GWIS as pah of:

.NYSDEC's thennardischarge criteria at6 NYC:RR~§ 704.S. ** *

. i ..*.

17

~'Pollutarit'.; is d.efined as any "dredged:spoil, solid wast~. inCi~erator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge. *. *

, munitions, chemfoal, wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock,

* * .... sand and industrial, municipal, and agricultural w8$tc discharged into water." ECL § 17-0105(17). * ,

. *nECL§l,7...0801; . . *. . . . .. . . .. *

. ~? 6 NVCRR.§ 704.-l(a). *. ~. *

. . :io NYCRR § 71)4.2. * .

..

21. 6NYCRR § 704.4.

' 21" ' ' ' '. '*".,* '.

6 NYCRR § 704.3.

11

.* .*.... **..** * .*. 3. That the discharge is. cb~sistenp\fith currentlyapplfctible effi~ent arid :water ***

and

. . >qllality ~ian~ards and)ijriitatioJ1s; other legally appHeable ~quirements~ 36 .

.. '. . ....., ;~: ': ',* . ' .* . . . *:;:." .-, ** ... *

... . *. ** .* NYSDEC also has auth6rity to inQdify SPDES. permits for a numb~r of reasons, .

iOCluding significant changes in a discharger~s operations or new infonnation, such as the, promulgation of11ew*standards by either the State or USEPA. 37 Pennits ean also be *

. :~: ,:>*:.:

- - 32 6N.YCRR§750~J.9**

33 . 6NvcRR § 7so~ i:9 * . .

...* 34 6NVCRR§1so:1'.1cd> *

.:.~iNvciffi § 624.4(bXS>. Cc>

. 16 6,NvcRR

§7so~L .*

16'

i 6N: YCRR § 7so~t. ts 7

.* .. 13

. . . . Iri ~¢hain instances; fµl. *adJud.i¢atory hearing 111h:Y also be he1d, where evidence ~ **. .*. .*.

and sworllJ~sdmony is presentedbefo~e an Adrniriistrativc Law Judge ("AU). Any ** . *

- interested i>.ilh:Y: as*wcU as the app~icant, may requesfan adjudicatory hearing:With .* *..*...*.*. .

r~spi;:cf t0 aq:y aspect of a draft SPDE$ permit so 1<~iig as the request ismade duri11g* the .* * *** .

. ',' *public c.~lltri:icitt period. At SIJCh ahearing~ parties,pa,ve'all opporturiity to contest issues .

thcAl..Jhllsdetennineq to be adjudicabfo. See 6 NYCRR§ 62L8(b)and (d). *** *

... L~gisl~~~~ ~indings ~lld Com~~ssioller's Po\Vers **

.*.* . . . . i~ ~"~~ting legislation t~ prese&~ ~d pr~tecuhe water re5burces anc1-wi'lii1ire of the State.of:New York,*the NYS-Legislature maCI~findings offlict arid vested the* *** * .

Col11missioricrofE,iviron1nenta.l Conservation wiihhr~ad powers arid authotjty germane

~!1:~~~:*~~ion of elec:tricity genera~ing facility operations that use and impact $4~11.

- 1't1el..~gislaturehas found:

.: ** . . < :.:. *,' .* :*'.. " .' " *. . . . > . '\ ' . ' >" ".**' *.* * . '

.**. * ,; The State ofNewYork owns allfis,h, game, wildlife,~shellfish, crustacea .*.* * * *

, .* ***arid .protected* insects in the. state, except those legally acquired and held ir(priv~te

14

')

o~~t~hi~. AnY p~f~bll ~h() kil~s, takes po~~ci~~es s*~cij fish,* game, wildlife> .

)*:'.:*****

i::'_'_::***: *. . *'*. .\ ) .* .* or or

. shellfish, crustacea protected insects thereby consents that title thereto shall

remaih in. the ~t11te for the purpose of regulating and controlling their use and.

. dispqsition.39 .* *** * * * * * ** * *

.*, .\ '. .Th~, gerieritlptirpose powers aifecthig fi~h and wildlife; grarite~ tothe * .

bt

. department by the Fish andWildlife Law, is to vest in the department~ to the ' .* ..

. extent of the powers so granted, the efficient management of the fish and wildlife.

resources of the state. Such resources shall be de~med to include all animal and

... vegetable life and the soil, w~ter and atmosph~ric e~viro~entthereof, oWI1edby

.* the stat9 ()t ofwhi~Kit 111ay. obtain manage111ent~ ~9 the, ~xtent they cons~itute t~e * *.

.*. habitat offish and wildlife as defined in' . § 1l*O- IOJ .. : ;4° Ne:w York sui:te has been generously ertclpwed With water resources which have. contrilluted SJ1d continued to contribute greatly to .the position of. .*. *. * . .

pr~~llline1u:e attruri~c:I by :New Yo~kin populatiotj;:agriculture~ ~£nmer~e. trade, i#~usfrY ~rid ()1.ltdocjfrecrealion.41 ' ,~. *

.*. ;.*. :*::*.**):.::-.*: *' .

.*. -All *fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, Crustacea and protected insects in the state, except those 'legally acquired and held in private ownership.are owned by

. t~c state and '1eld for the use and enjoyment of the people of the state, and the state l1a5 ~ respo~sibHlty to preserve, protect 11@conscr\re sue~ tcrrestriaj an4 *...

aquatic resources from liestniction and damage ~d to promote their natural .

propagation.42 * *** ** * * ** * ** *

. *. Itis in the besPnt~~ests of this state thatprovi~ion be made. for the .*. . .

regulation and sup~,rvisfon of activities that .d~plete, defile, damage or otl1¢rwise .*

advcrsely;affectJhe'waters ofihe state and .lancfresourccs

~ . . .. *. **, . ' : *....

assodated.the)'ewith.43

*The NYSDEC Co~missioner has the power to: *

.* Promote an~ co~rdinate managementofwater,Jand, fish, wildlife and air.

resour~es to*assuretheir protection,.enhancemen~. provision, 11llo~ation, and.**..

balanced utilizatfonconsistent with the environmental policy of the state and talce into account the cu(J1ulative impact upon aU such resources in malcing any .

detennination in c:onriection With any license~ ()rder, permit, certification or other simil¥ action or promulgating any rule, regulation, standard or criterion;44

39 ECL §*l 1*0105. . ' .

40 ECL § ll-0303(1); see also, ECL §s 11~0303(2) and 11-0305.

- . 41 ECL § 15"0103(2).

. .** *. ~2 ECL § I5-0lb3(8).

43 ECL § 15-0i03(13).

44 ECL § 3-0301(l)(b).

15

.. . Provide for the protection an~l management ~fmarine and coastal. . .. .

resou~7~.~d of wetlands; estuaries,.~d shoielines.46 * *

l'#~ York St~W ¢oastal Management Program .

>' ..... . ') ' .* *. ' . ' ' '.*** . .** .... ..

.:: . . The NYS Coastal ManagementProgram was developed under authority of New

<>***.*. YorkStateExt(cutiveLaw 910-22 and.19NYCRRPart.600. The operative ~ecti.ons of* i>>* . *.

<< the Executive Law provide)) points of.policy thath~v¢ ~e~n detailed i11 a single set ,of\ </. * **

. . ( i.44 deCision~making criteria]ri'the (:!oastalManagemenf Prognunand final envirorirnental *.* .

. *. *...... ' impact statement. NYSDEC,.as a state agency, must find that all direct~nd funding . * .

actions, and any permitting actions that are the subjecfofan EIS under SEQR, are ... *.

- * ****. ***consistentwiththc Coa5ialManagement Program.47Jn addition, SEQRregulations*.. **.*.*

' / provide that, for WlY state agency acticm in ~coastal area, a draft EIS ll\USt cont1.1in ari *.*. * *

. ~ .' .. .*.** \. 'i.denrification of the applica~l.e coastal r¢sources/waterfr()nt.revitalizatiC>n policies arid**~

..**..*.*.** . .***. discussion ofthe effects 9fth~ proposed action on such policies;48 Renewal of Indiiln*. *..

\/Point's SPDES permit will not result inany new effects on coastal zon,e policies.'.*.....

...* * *. .Sta~l'law also r~quir¢s that state agencies provide timely notice to local . . .

.,...* governments whenever *all identified acifon will. occul:.within an area *covered by .an. *.

' ) ( approved local W~lerfrortt r~vitalization program (LWRP). The NYS Secretary ofState' is rcquirerl'foeonfer with state ageneies and local govcrtllnchts when.notified by afocal

. .*.** ' government that a proposed _state agency actfon may conflict with the policies and *** *

< purposes of its approved L\VllP, and ma,y modify the proposed action to be consistent

< with. the loc~)plan. 49 . >' ** * *. * - * *

. *. ,:: *i .. The ~onsistenc)' provisions of the NeVI York State Coastal Mallagem~nt .Prog~am .*. *

.. . enable NYSDEC to consider the full range of coastal policies prior to undertaking and * .

approving a specific action, including corppletion of a ~oastal assessineqt form as in this** . **

case.

< +* H~dson River Estuary ~~hagcmcnt Program :

In 1987, ECL § 11-0306 was amended in orderto establish a Hudson River estuarine district including the tid~I waters ~f the Hudson River, including the tidid

. > o waters ofitstributaries,'and wetlands from the federal lock and.dam at.Troy to the *. ** *,.

*, Vetrazano-Narrows."50 This section also directed NYSDEC to establish a Hudson River 4

. ' EC.L § 3-0301(l)(c).,

46 -ECL § 3-03QICl)Ce).

f~ NVCRR 617.9(e); 19 NYCRR 600.4(a) 48 6NYCRR617.14(d)(l0). *

- * ** 4 9_Executive Law 915-a.

.'°- ECL § 11,.0306(1 ).

16

\

- - - .* ...--.:.,.,,,_.,,_,:,.::::::::.*:.,: .. c:.:.*.*. . ...* ..;.:,;;, __ ,::<0~<<'.:: .:*. ::::::.::: ..... >. ** <::>>:: .* ;:::;~ *'""'"'"""""' ",,~~":::'.";0 ..

.* .**. O'fhe legislature further. finds that the Hudson River estuary is ot)tatewide

. artd riaticmal ln:ipQrlancc a~ a habitat for fo~ripe~. anadromoµs, catadrQrn(lU~, ...** *...

'; riV~rl~~ arid fre.shwate.r fish Species aild thafids the 01lly1najor estullfy()n:the .

east C()asl fo stil(retain strong populations of its historical spaWlling stric~S; .Such .

... spcCiesare of vital importance to the ceology and the economy of the state and ti) ..* . '

th.e recreationalan4 C()mmercial nee.ds of the people ()f,the New York state an4 ...... .

..neighporing sia~ei *A IacK e>f sufficie9t and reliable research and doc~IIi~~fation *

:* . . ::.* these h~s :res:µit~d *iI(ieCUriing . CllSpU~es* *ar(*th~ .~oveµichi~,- -~lre*!:qyCl~.-~lic(h~~i.tRi'~ *or:*

spe()ies; *. * .:o. * * * *... * .* * ** * * *. *

. . . The l~gislature further flndsthat the H:~dson River'estuary possesses *~

fishery ofo\ltstanding comn:fercial ail.d rec.reational value, and the ei;:on()mic

.... poienti!ll of the Hudson River estµary's fishery is ai pfosenfuruierdeveloped..

.* . .

Impropef management and use* ofthe Hudson River 'estiia..Y *wm depri\I~ present .*.

and future . -. . .*<:

generations of*. the. benefit.and enjoyment' of :

this valuable: .* resource - .

..* <The legislarure further find~th~t th& protection ofestuarin~sp~ci~s*

throughout .their life hisfory; the protection of their spawnitlg I,11bitat, nursery habital;'\\tintering*h,abitat and fe~diilg and foraging habitat; and the prc>tettion, enhancement, and restoration of the state'~ natural resources upon which these.

. species and their habitat depend teqQires aspecific prqgqun for the proper

management of the Hudson Riverest,uary.

. * * .* . / It ls hereby declared to be the.policy of the stateJo preserve,pi'otect arid,

. where possible, restore and enhance the natural reso1.1rces, the species, the habitat

..* and the commercial and recreational vaiues of the Hudson River estuary.

Hudson River Valley Greenway Program *..

Art!c;le 44 of the ECL was aincndcdin 1991 to establish aHudson River Valley .

GreenwayColl1munities Council (Greenway Council) to assist Hudson River V~Hcy *

'communities in the lO counties of Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Coh.imhia, .

Rennselaer, Albany, Green, Ulster, Orange, and Rockland in th~if plans for development..*

Article44 was enactedas companjon legislation to the Hudson River estuary *. * *.* . * * * .... *

management program discussed earlier. 56 The statute authorizes.the Greenway Council to

. provide and support cooperative planning to .establish a voluntary regional ¢oinpact .*

among Hudson Valley localities to protect the valley's natural .and cultural resources and promote regional planning.. The ECL also provides that, upon compact effectiveness; state agency actions for which an EIS is being prepared under SEQR, including .

. Department actions, must be assessed in light of the Greenway C()mpacl and applicable rules* and regulations, and that the Greenway Council *should review* and commen(in *

" ECL § i 1*0306

\

At present,Irtdian Point's existing CWIS employs a "once-through;, cooli~g syst~m, i.e., Hudson ...

. River water is withdrawn by tlte CWIS; circulated past the condenser coils to absilrb waste heat

from the operation oflndian Point's t\yo operating reactor units, and discharge~fback to the* .

Hudson River at a higher temperature than at the intake. . .

19

.*=:::::::::::>\:::.:}~. : . .

/.> * *. . .

/.. ..*. .*.*..

x}*** *.. *. i/.)J... .. . >* < .* __... *

.* . '*'**** .* ~.. ******** ,....:~~~-*_,;,; -;;;,;~~~G0:~~:-=:~,;,.:-;-:,"***'*'~'~*--*"'.'"':...::~.~~'*"'"~( .. :.:...;:......,..., ' . :*,,,._;~:.:;;:~::,_,~~;...:. , . '* . :...;.:"" ""***"*.'""""'.'*"""'"'"'*'*'*'*" * ..... ,:.:.::;::;.. ,.;,:.>:>>.::::.....,; ... :... :.* .

' ' '. </ ' bf Ristfupfrfu()dified tr~velihg screen~ "'ith a16\\i' ptessure spray wash sysl~~ th~t!\viiShes /' ' ' .'

, impil1ge<:l fi~liand other larger aquatic orgj:inisms off tl)e scr~ens separately from debris tha(is ...**.* . ... *.*.

> ** removed using a high pressµre spray; a fish handling and return syst~m that conveys the fish all<), * . ***.

*. ***.* * .*

other or~a11isJris washed off th~ screens backinlo the Hudson River; and variabl~*speed PUJ11PS ,/ *

. * ;:./: .*.* !hat aUq~l11dia11 Point tC>µi?repre~isely adJust the volume of Wfiter ',Yithdravmfrg~th~.Jiµ~ort ***.**

..* / <*. . River, as ~()111pared to single-spec~ .pumpst, whi~h allowsfot a i:cduction in the volijme of 90C>JiI1g >' *) .** *.*. '.

.*..*?: . water withdrawn and corresponding reductions in impingement and entrainment. J)cspite these **.***.. . *.

. feafores,the operation oflndian Point's CWiS results in smaller aquatic _organisms(eggs 8gd .* .* *. **

. larvae) being entrained within the circulating cooling water, while some larger orgi:misms a,re <

. impinged oo intake sc,reetj~> ** * * ** * * * * ** *

Ba5eclo11infqrrnation i~ the,)99~ DEIS, the 2o{)j FEIS, and the other lnforrnafroti:obtaitiJd'ah~

analyses ccinducted since tho~c documents were prepared; including in connection with'.** . * <

adjudicatory proc,eeding, NYSDEC has con.sideredJhree priijlary poten~ial teclmologie~ qr

operatiqnal measures as alternatives to once~through cooling, to mitigate theadverse * .*. .

of envitol}Illental impact In(Iii:m Point's CWIS. for purposes. of CWA .§ 3l6(b) 8J)d *6 'NYCRR.

.*. . § 704.5. Specifically; th~se mitigation ¢C8.suics are: (1) closed-cycle cooling'('~CCC"); (2) cylin(Irical wedgewire screens ("CWWS"); ~d (3) *flow reductions achieved_, via annual fish- **

prpte~tion outages ("FPO")~ Each of.these alternatives is discussed and evaluated separatelf

. bel~w. *Alternatives discussc(Iin the 2003 FEIS, but that were not the.subject ofextensive* . **..

.consideration during the adjudicatory proceeding because they were readilydeterlµinedto be. .

inf~asil1le or inefficacious al'l~dian Poinbirc riofdiscussed herein; the public is directed fo th~*:

*; FEIS, and to the fact sheet *fortlte _final SPQES permit, for a discus!sioh of such ~lteritatives. *** * *

.Instead of these mitigation alternatives, as the next seetion of the SfEIS discusses, giveIJ, the .. .

specific and unique facts of this action, NYSDEC has detennined. that the BTAfor lndiaJ) Point, as rcfle~ted in the final SPDES .pennit, is as follo\\fS! an Early Retirement cohtmitmen~ * : - * *. *

(Condition 28), togeth~r with the scheduling of Iiidian PoinCs annhal planned. refueling and *.*.

maintenance outages between February i3 and August 23 each year (Condi!ion 26), flow .* .*

limitations (Condition 6) and continued operation of Indian Point's existing suite of cooling water intake structure tec}mologies (Condition 27); and col)tinued intensive Hudson River ***. . *. ..*.

monitoring(Condition f-5) .. This determination includes finding that Early RetireiTient will allow ..

Indiari .Point UnitS 2 arid 3 to operate in compliance with State water quality Standards, allg:Ytittg ..*

NYSDEC to issue a finalWQC~ . .. ** * * * **

Altcr~~tivcs ASscssmcnt This a~Sessment is based bn an of the inforination gathered and proceedings described in th~ ' .* ** ..

. Project History, abo~e. In addition, and pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617. lS(a)t this assessment is .

.. based in relevant part on th,e NRC's December 2010 Final "Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3" to NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal ofNuclear Plants, which goes by the reference NUREG 14,37, Supplement 38, Volumes l'."3~ as jt has been supplemented through this date (collectively, the "2010 NRC FSEIS"). J~c.

. multi-voh.nrie 201 ONRC :FSEJS contemplates con.tinucd operation of Indian Point through_ and .

beyond the 2020, employing the cooling water intake structure technologies and related * .*.* ..*. ***** * .* ..

measures required in the renewed SPDES permit. See 6 NYCRR § 617. lS(a) ("When a draft and** .* .*

final EIS for an action has been duly prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 20

l***i**;:******:.**** *;. . * *. 1969, ~ ~ge:rici)'\h!J.S '116 6bti~~iiol1 to pf~pa~e* an aCICifoortal Eis u~defthis* Part, pr9Vid¢d tliatihc <

::- ,: *.*~ <* ..

. .. / _f'.ederal EIS .i~ ~ufficientto friake findings under section 617.11. this Pait'~) .. The 2()I Q}JR¢ .*.... *. . of

< FSEIS is available online from the NRG; ** * ** ** * ; * * .. . . . ..

. =-_-*:*~;~):..:.:: ... :".: ..

.**J10$ed-Cy~le**~oolink**. * * ..****. *.::* .,.-*,::,*:... ::.:":i.::.*:*.*:::.::_:i. :*.:::***

. **. / *Qlosed-cycfo coo'utig l'e~irculat~s cooling water in a close~ systerhthat subst~l'itiallytecluces thf: >

' *.**.* .* . ~ccd for wiihdrawing cooling water frmn the River. ' By 'reducing the aajount of Riv¢(waterth~t **. .***'

IPEC needs to withdra\v in order to operate, CCC in tum would result in red~ctions foJhe .* * .* * *

.. >, number ofimpinged oqmtrained aquatic organisms at Indian Po.int. The benefit of hybrid

' .... \. ' coo!ing towers. for lllini.iflizing cnvironntental i1Dp~ctsJs 'substantial, if such towers ~an be'*'

.*.* < operated thfoughol!t the ~llt.I1liriment s.eason,,with a 97% reductiofr in fish mort8.Jity *iri th~t

< <instance (J\SAAJ1alysis ruid Communication 2003). , * *

- .*. . ** *.* ~nalysis s~~we~ that the construction ~fhybrid.cooling towers is generallyfo~sible(En~rcon **.*.

.*. . Services 7003), but .faqes substantial site-specific challenges (E11ercon Services 401. O;. Tetra T~c::h

* ** **** ; .2013) and Would req4ire prior revic"'. and appr?val from the ~uclear Regrilafol-y 1Coll1mission . /

- * -C~RC")/which issues Entergy's operating licenses;. More specifically, the evidence in the *.**. ***** .* .*

record suggests that there 111ay not be sufficient space within theJndian .Point site* boundary. in.*

*. . which to locate cooling towers of a sufficient size given the volume oflndian Poini's Circulatiµg water flow (Enen;on Sel'.Vices 2010; Tetra Tech 2013). *Additfonally, siting conflicts exist .. * * * *

<betweent~e current con,figuration of1he lndianPoiµt station BJ1d. the most 11~elyproposed .

location for cociHrig towers.such that cooling tower construction would require relc~cating ** .* .*

_* numerous existing structures including: the Algonquin natural gas pipeline owned by Spectra

.. Energy; overhead transmission lines; the utilitytunnel and monitoring house; the primarywatel" storage tankarea, boric acid storage tanks, and the Unit 3 waste storage tank; the radioactiv~ * .*.**..*

machine S,ntjp; the Unit loutage support building; hurnerousfayer!) of security fe11cing; and. the/

independellfspentfuel.storage installation ('.'ISFSI") (Tetra Tech2013). Cooling tower. .*.. **

constructfon also would require at .least four years of blasting in proximity to operating nuclear .

.*

reactor units, which is* uncertain to be permitted by NRC and/or local municipal auth,orities *

(Tetra Tech ~013; ~nercon Services 2010);. Even if these construction~related feasibility

', .*. ' *challenges could be overcome, evidence suggests that, due to increa5ed pressure and water

. temperatures, opei'aiion ofCCC at Indian Point y/t>uld .exceed the operational.limits 0fthe* .

facility's condenser, ~using operational pmblems at the Stations (Enercon Services'2() 13).

.* ,The length of time required to design, permit and construct closed-cycle cooling technology at the facility would likely be atJeast 9.5 years and would involve costs potentially in excess.of$]** * *

billion (Encrcon 2010; Tetra Tech 2013). The construction and operation of cooling towers on **.

.the Indian Point site pot~ntially would result in adverse environmental and other,SEQR impacts/ .

Construction and operation of cooling towers has the potential to create nuclear safety for the *. *.

Indian Point site, including as a result of salt deposition, fogging, and iCing, which may result in

electrical arcing and/or compromise perimeter security (Enercon Services 2013). The -* .

- . ', : ponstruction 8I\d/or OPCl'a~ioh C()oling towers potentially may result in exceedancesoflocal noise

. *< t¢strictions, adverse hnpacts oilvisual or scenic resources* in the Lower Hudsori Valley region .

(TRC 2013), and adverse Impacts to the, habitat of threatened or endangered speCies located in the vicinity of the lndianPpfot site, including-the 'bald eagle and the Indiana bat (TRC2013).

..The nearly year-long construction outage necessary to construct CQolingtowers at Indian Point, 21, .*

.. '

CW\vS ~ot~ntiltlly' wo~ld give rise to other adverse impacts, hriW~~er~ that N\"~DEC has < . ' . *. *. *.* .

' considered as part ofits*analysis. These adverse impacts include the potential fodhe * *. * .* > .*.** . .*

. 'construction arid/or oper~tion of CWWSto result in ~ 1ong~tenn fossof more thart five acres of *. *.

. . .....* Hudson River benthic habitat, and the potential thatconstructie>h a:nd/or operation of CWWS *** .*. *

. . . . .. . *. Atlantic sturgeon. * .* .* ..*. *. . . . .* .

as

. . . .* '* *.**.*.*may negatively impact .threatened or endangered species, su~h Hudson Rivefshtirtnose and

*.* 'f

. . . Annual FPO~ arc anothel"n1eans of redu6irig cooling water withdrawitls, andtherefore a~hi¢ving

*.*.reductions in entrainment and impingem~nt of aquatic organisms.. For exampJ~,'the .2003 draft . . .

SPDES perinit. called for.seasonal outages ,of 42 unit-:days on an interim basis between February:

. * >*n :23 and Aµgust 23 *.based. Qil evidence that peak entrainment occllrs during those months.* Puring.* . *. * *

- *.*. *>_**the adj\ldicatqry proceeding relating to renewal of Illdian Point's SJ>DES pcrmJt, pr(>posals fo~ *

dual~uiiit FPOs of 42; 62, and 118 days.. per year (mainly in the:sumlner period between May .10 . **

22

.* * .to the extent that anI1ualFPOs are combined with.asirtgle~uriit CCC retrofit,.most()fthe same* *

.*:potential adverse impact~ associated ~iih a CCC retrofit proj~ct, as.discussed abo~e~ are likelf th

.. *. . ._:;btfJ>rCs_~-~~ .as**w~.U~.- ;:; *:* * ** * * ***** :. :<~ * *** - * * * --

T~E FINAL srnEs+ERl\1rr >

. . . Based :uponall of:the available irtformati()ri, includin{pvith respect.to ~nvironmentalJillJJaCtS, .*. .

< and in light of Entetgy's #>mmitmenftu Early Retirement, NYSDEC has detenn.irted that CCC,.

.** CWWS; and F,POs are not BTA for !PE(;; rather, th¢ fi1;1al SPDES permit reflects Eritergy's * :, .

commitment to. Ear(Y Reti~ement, together with the othe,r fish protection conditions set. forth the final SPDES penni(as BTA. .. . . . .*. . ..* .*.*. *. . .. . . . .

in . ~*

-:* .....** . *.;* ~-.: . . ~;

. * .*. Sp~ificaH;; the final Slll)ES permitcontai~s the follOwing biologi~a.l conditions~ .*..

. 25. . Wi(hin 3 months ()fthe Effective Date*ofthe Permit.(EDP+ 3); the

perm.ittee must submit to the Department an appfovable plan:for c9ntinuation t)fa *

.Hudson.Riv~r Biologicai Monitoring Program (HRBM~)<=onsisting of the Long .*

23

. . In *reliance upon Entergy's commitment to retire Indian Poin"tUnits

2 an~.3 no later than 2020.and 2021, respec~iyely (subject to the tenns and conditions of that commitment, which include electric system reliability*. '

considerations; as set forth in the January 5, 2017 Indian Point Agreement . *.. ** .

betwc(!n and among Entergy and NYSDEC, the outage and reporting ' **. *. . ..

requirements reflected in Condition 26, the traveling screens and fish return and *

handling system reflected in Condition 27, and the flow conditions. reflecteci.Jn .*

24

..*.. * (a) NYS and,the AG shall each have.the right under this. Agreementand (b) .

Riverkeeper shall have the right pursuant to this Agre~ment arid Appendix I, .' **

respectively;*to seek enforcement of the provisions ()f Subp~graphs (b)(i) and,

(b)(ii) of this Paragraph 1! . * ** * . *. .. . *. * . . *. *

Notwithstanding the. foregoing provisio~~ o( this S,ubparagraph 1;b, the

. restrictions in Subparagraphs (b)(i)arid (bj(ii) and the rights' conferred in

.Subparagraph (b)(iii) are expre~ly subject to any order.. issued by the* . .*

25

./*****:***,.

THE ~I~AL WQC The'. Final WQC r~quires compliance by Entetgy ~ith the termsof the Fin~l SPDES .....

Perinit; inch1ding EarlyReiirement In particular, in additionfo WQC general co.nditions, the *.*

Fi~al WQCcontains th~following specific conditiol)s: * ** * .* * * * .* *. *

)'.: .* *'*W~terQliality Certifl~atiori. 'TheDe~a,tment ofEnvirotjmelltal .** .**

C()nserVatiori(the "Department")hereby'certifies that the subject license renewals

for the Indian Point Nuclear Plant will not contravene effluent limitations or other

. **.. limitation~ or stiindards under Sections 3()1 ~302, 303, 306 and 307 the Clean. of

)Vafot Act 6fl9,77 (PL 95-217), provided that all. of tqe conditions Ji.sted herein

, . ~ meL Thi~*. .*. ;* .* * ... * '

\VQC sµpersedes the beparlntc;fot's April l 0, 2010 Notic~ of Denial.

i

Operatirig:i~ Accordance with SPDES -Peimit. The WQC holder is authorized to operate its c0oling water intak~ structure and to discharge in* * .** . * >

a¢cordance with effluent limitations,~ monitoring and reporting requirements, other. ' > .*. * *

.* prc)yisicms and tfrmditioris set.forth in this WQC, which expres~ly incorporates, .

among. other permits, the. SPDES permit. issued with this WQC, iitqluding Early Retirement; and any subsequent, confonning SPDES pennifforthe IndianPoint Nuclear Power Plant issued during the tenn ofthis.WQC in compliance with Title

8 of Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation law of New York State and

.*.

tll~ Clean W~tel'Act, as amended, (33 U .s.c. § 1251 et seq:), pursuant to

NYCRR°Title (i, Chapter X, State Pollutant Discharge Elimifiation System

("SPDES") Penriits Part 750-1.2(a)and 750'.'2. . .

.:*,~,.

.'\

.~ ..

'26

- ...*.... * ... *. *.Hoffrnan,F .Q.2ois:Estimate~t'H~althlmpactsAttributabletoPermanent:M~d~tory< ... *

-Summertime

'.: ." ~ . *. ; .

Outages fC>tP¢rsonnel at .Indian Point IJriit 2 and lndhlif Point Unit 3.}tine 2015.

. . Hoov~r & Keith, Jnc. 2014. Acolistic Asses5111¢ntof the Prbposed Cooling to.wers for : * * . .

*.*. <<::Iosed Cycle Cooling: F~bruary 2014..*.**** * .*.* * * * ** ** * *

. . .. *., NERA ~cono~I9 b~nsulting. 20) 3 A. Benefits and Cosis ~fC~lindrical ~~dgewire

* *.* .**. Screens at Indian Point Energy Center. (NERA Environmental Consulting, March. 2013.

. * * ** * **... .N~RA Econol11ic Consulting. 201JB. "W~olty bisproportiollaie" Assessnients*of .

. Cyli11drical Wedgewire Screens and Cooling Towers.at IPEC. December 2013. * ** *

. . ..... *. **.*** NERA~coficnr1ic Cons~lting 2015.EconomiCAnalysis of l>eiment Mandatory

§ummertiih~Outages atIPEC.June 2015.' , * .* * *. ,

New Y~rk Departril~llt of E~virofurte~tal Cons~t"Vation St~ff. ~O 13. Offer of Proof on

. * <J:lcririancnt For~cd Outages/Seasonal Protective Outages. Novembcr~013.

27

,,_;: :.***:: .*.... """'i**;::.:** :.:~:.::*** ::~~;

.*.*.****.*.*****ti*.********:.*. N~~:~dr~*Ind~perld~ntS~~1~ffii:ppdfafor. 20141N'\'1.sd ;6i4:*ReHabllit§N~~d~ ').*

AssessrnenfS~ptembcr 2014. ** * * * * ** * * * ** * *

.. . . S~at~iga.Asso9iate$~ 2009Andian Pqint Encrgf Center Gl<>s~~~Cyd~ Gooli~g. **

Convei'sipn feasibility St11dy:'VisualAssessm~ntJ~ne 2009. * >: : * * * *

. .Talis~art lntcrn~tional. 2015. Evaluation of Regulatory Jmplicationsof Pennanent *.

' Mandatory Summertime Outages at Indian Point2 and Indian Pqint3~ June 2015. * * *

. / :I'~~~~ .'I'~~h. 20 l ~.* .Indi~ .Point Cfosed~Cycle c~()Ji~g Systelll Retrbtit J;:valu.~tion. Ju~e '..

2013. *:

"".*:=::= : ;" . .... *.. * ...... .* .* .. * . . . .. . . .. .***: :*'. . .

.**Tetra Tech. 2014, IPEC ClearSky Retrofit: Planning Schedule.March2014; * .*

T~C .E:nvironmental Corp. 2P09. Cooling Tower JmpacfAnalysis for the IngianJ>Oint .*

EncrgyCeriter; Septeni~er2009.> * * * ** * *** * * * * < <

TRCEnvironmental Corp. 2013A; Environmental Report, New York s'fate . . .

Environmcn,tal Quality Review Act, in Support of the Draft SEIS for a State Pollutanl Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)Permit (No'. NY~0004472). March 2013. * *

. TRC Environmental Coq):, et *al.20I3B. New York State Environmental Quality Review Act: Entergy Response Document To the Tetra Tech Report and the.Powers Engineering Report

.* In Support of the Draft SEIS for a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPOES) Permit (No. NY-0004472). December 2013. * * *

TRC Environmental Corp. 2015: *Entergy .SlipplementalEnvirorunental Re~oli: *.

PermanenHvfandatoiy Summertime Outages. August 2015.

28 :

DEC'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATIONS AND SFEIS FOR ENTERGY INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 AND 3 On February 1, 2017, the Department of Environmental Conservation ("Department" or "DEC") publicly noticed in its Environmental Notice Bulletin ("ENB") a Combined Notice of Complete Applications of a final renewed State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

("SPDES") permit and final federal Clean Water Act ("CWA") §401 Water Quality Certificate

("WQC"), as well as a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement ("SFEIS"), for the continued operation of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 and 3 located in Buchanan, New York. The Department did not receive any requests to extend the length of the original 45-day public comment period and, consequently, the public comment period ended on March 20, 2017.

The Department received four separate written comments on the SFEIS from: (I) New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance ("AREA"); (2) Safe, Healthy, Affordable, Reliable Electricity ("SHARE-NY"); (3) Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Entergy"); and (4) the County of Westchester.

By way of background, the SFEIS here had its genesis in the 1990s in connection with DEC's initial decision to undertake a State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")

review on a consolidated basis of the then-:pending SPDES permit renewal requests for multiple units of three Hudson River power plant owners, i.e., the then-owners oflndian Point (Consolidated Edison Corp. of New York and the New York Power Authority), Bowline Point Steam Electric Generating Station Units 1 and 2, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Station (collectively, the "Owners"). The SEQRA "action" before DEC was the decision whether to renew SPDES permits to continue to allow the three facilities to discharge waste heat, a pollutant, to the Hudson River as a result of the withdrawal of surface water via their respective cooling water intake. structures. In 1992, DEC issued a positive declaration pursuant to SEQRA, precipitating the EIS process. 1 In June 1993, the Owners submitted a preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"), which DEC staff concluded required additional analysis. That additional analysis was conducted from 1993 to 1999, in an exterisive series of "workshops" that were open to the public.

A revised DEIS, reflecting these years of ongoing workshops, was issued for public comment in March 2000. In addition, in May 2000, DEC also held two public legislative hearings on the DEIS where written comments and public statements were received. The DEIS assessed the aquatic resources potentially impacted by continued operation of the three facilities, evaluated alternative technologies and management strategies to mitigate those impacts, and proposed a preferred action intended to minimize those respective impacts consistent with 1

- See Final Environmental Impact Statement by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as*

Lead Agency Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits For the Roseton 1 & 2, Bowline _1 & 2 and Indian Point 2 & 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland and Westchester Counties, Accepted: June 25, 2003 (the "2003 FEIS"), at 10.

federal and state law. 2 On June 25, 2003, DEC issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement

("2003 FEIS") for the Hudson River facilities. 3 Like the 2000 revised DEIS, multiple parties filed comments on the 2003 FEIS.4 On November 12, 2003, DEC staff released for public review and comment a Draft SPDES permit for Indian Point Units 2 and 3. 5 In the Draft SPDES permit, DEC staff proposed modifications to the existing SPDES permit for Indian Point. Among other conditions, the 2003 Draft SPDES permit required the facility to take generation outages, reduce intake flows, and install a closed-cycle cooling ("CCC") system as best technology available ("BTA") to reduce significant adverse impacts to.aquatic resources, all of which would affect Indian Point's ability to operate (including lengthy Unit shut-downs to construct cooling towers). The proposed new condition to implement CCC was contingent upon the event that Indian Point obtained a 20-year renewed license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") and the CCC retrofit was demonstrated to be technically feasible, among other factors.

Entergy challenged DEC staffs proposed Draft SPDES permit, which precipitated an administrative proceeding before the Department. Entergy and DEC staff were mandatory parties. A Riverkeeper, Inc. consortium (consisting of Riverkeeper, Inc., NRDC,-and Scenic Hudson, collectively, "Riverkeeper"), then-Legislator Richard Brodsky, in his personal capacity, and the African American Environmentalist Association ("AAEA") also sought and were granted full party status in the SPDES permit proceeding. In February 2006, the DEC Administrative Law Judges ("ALJs") issued a ruling setting certain issues for adjudicati<:.m. In August 2008, the Assistant Commissioner issued an Interim Decision narrowing the issues for adjudication; the primary issue was whether CCC was BTA at Indian Point. 6 On April 30, 2007, as contemplated by the 2003 draft SPDES permit, Entergy filed 20-year federal license renewal applications ("LRAs") for Indian Point with NRC. In connection with these LRAs, Entergy also filed with DEC a joint application for a §401 WQC. On April 2, 2010, DEC issued a Notice of Denial of the WQC application, precipitating another DEC administrative proceeding with various parties and amici (or observing parties withcno formal party status or rights). Again, DEC staff and Entergy were mandatory parties. Riverkeeper, Mr.

Brodsky, the County of Westchester, and the Town of Cortlandt also filed for party status. In

December 2010, the ALJs in the §401 WQC proceeding issued a ruling setting out the separate 2

Entergy acquired Indian Point Units 2 and 3 from Consolidated Edison and the New York Power Authority i.n 2001 and 2002, thus, the pending SPDES permit renewal application for the facilities was transferred to Entergy.

3 The 2003 FEIS was issued as a result, and in settlement of, litigation. See Order in Brodsky, et. al. v. DEC _and Entergy (Albany County Sup. Ct. - Index No. 7136-02) (T. Keegan, J.S.C., May 14, 2003); see also Decision and Order in Entergy Nuclear Indian Point v. DEC (Albany County Sup. Ct. - Index No. 6747-03) (T. Keegan, J.S.C.,

March 3, 2004).

4 See 2003 FEIS at 47.

5 The 2003 Draft SPDES permit was also issued as a result, and in settlement of, litigation. See Order in Brodsky, et. al. v. DEC and Entergy (Albany County Sup. Ct. - Index No. 7136-02) (T. Keegan, J.S.C., May 14, 2003).

6 See In the Matter ofEntergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 & 3, DEC Nos. 3-5522-00011/00004, 3-5522-00011/00030, and 3-5522-00011/00031, Interim Decision of the Assistant Commissioner (Aug. 13, 2008).

2

WQC-related issues for adjudication. The primary issue was whether Indian Point's continued operation would be consistent with New York State water quality standards and criteria designed to preserve and protect the "best usages" of the surface waters' of the Hudson River. 7 Contemporaneously with DEC's consolidated SPDES permit/§401" WQC proceedings, NRC undertook a parallel assessment of license renewal for Indian Point, including a "no action alternative" or premature retirement scenario, under the National Environmental Policy Act

("NEPA"). 8 NRC's final supplemental environmental impact statement (the "2010 PSEIS") was subject to public comment, finally issued in 2010 and has been subsequently supplemented with additional public process. Notably, the 2010 SPEIS has been incorporated by DEC into the SEQRA record for Indian Point consistent with applicable regulations. See 6 NYCRR

§617.15(c).

In January 2017, DEC staff, Entergy, Riverkeeper, and other parties entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all disputed issues in the SPDES and WQC proceedings. 9 As part of that agreement, DEC staff withdrew its proposed modifications to the 2003 Draft SPDES permit requiring the installation of CCC and issued a final SPDES permit on substantially the same terms as the prior SPDES permit. As discussed further in these responses to comments, once DEC staff withdrew its proposed modification, the "action" in question became a standard renewal oflndian Point's previous-SPDES permit and, therefore, a Type II action under DEC's SEQ RA regulations. Noneth~less, the SPEIS was completed to ensure that the public was advised of the resolution, particularly given the length of the previous SEQRA process and ma.gnitude of the administrative record supporting that process. Indeed, one expert environmental analyst acknowledged that DEC's comprehensive review of the draft SPDES permit and administrative record developed in connection with Indian Point was the largest he had ever seen in his professional career. 10 Comments of NY AREA: support DEC's issuance of a renewed SPDES permit and §401 WQC for the continued operation oflndian Point Units 2.and 3.

Response: DEC agrees.

7 See In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 & 3, DEC Nos. 3-5522-00011/00004, 3-5522-00011/00030, and 3-5522-00011/00031, Ruling on Proposed Issues for Adjudication and Petitions for Party Status (Dec. 13, 2010) [2010 N.Y. Env. LEXIS 86] (the "2010 WQC Issues Ruling"). Although the SPDES and WQC proceedings were advanced on a consolidated, joint-record basis, no change in party status resulted.

8 NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 3 8, regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Dec. 2010).

9

" *** administrative efficiency warrants using the adjudicatory proceeding to develop the draft SEIS" [SFEIS]. In the Matter ofEntergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 & 3, DEC Nos. 3-5522-00011/00004, 3-5522-00011/00030, and 3-5522-00011/00031, Interim Decision of the Assistant Commissioner (Aug. 13, 2008) at 40.

10 See, In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 & 3, DEC Nos. 3-5522-00011/00004, 3-5522-00011/00030, and 3-5522-00011/00031, Cross-Examination Testimony of Marc J. Lawlor (Senior Project Manager, TRC Environmental Corp.) at 11743:1 - 11744:17 (Apr. 25, 2014).

3

Comments of SHARE-NY: strongly support DEC's renewal oflndian Point's SPDES permit and §401 WQC to keep the Units operating until they are shut down at the agreed upon time.

Response: DEC agrees.

Comments of Entergy: the comprehensive scope and level of detailed information contained in the administrative record developed in DEC's combined SPDES permit and §401 WQC adjudicatory proceedings, and used to produce the SPEIS overwhelmingly supports DEC's issuance of a final SPDES permit and final §401WQC for Indian Point's continued operation.

Response: DEC agrees.

Comments of Westchester Countv: the County of Westchester's comments primarily addressed four topics, noted in greater detail, below.

Comment: "The Department's SEQRA process for Entergy's SPDES permit renewal and WQC application is predicated on the determination that it is a Type I action with a potential for adverse environmental impact.... Even ifthe Department somehow construes the early retirement and closure of IPEC as a separate, Type II action, it must still show that the action must 'in no case have significant adverse effect on the environment based on the criteria contained in' [6 NYCRR §617.7]."

Response: The issuance of any renewed permit on substantially the same terms as the prior permit is a Type II action under the Department's SEQRA regulations. See 6 NYCRR

§617 .5(c)(26). Actions or classes of actions classified as Type II are not subject to further review under SEQR. See 6 NYCRR §617.5(a). Here, DEC is issuing a final SPDES permit with no material change in the terms of the previous SPDES permit for Indian Point. The following table summarizes the material terms of the final SPDES permit and notes its antecedent in the prior SPDES permit:

Summary of Condition. Previous SPDES Current SPDES Permit Reference Permit Reference Discharges. through Outfall 001 Page 8, footnote a Special Condition 1 shall occur through subsurface ports Maximum thermal discharge Page 2, Conditions 1 and 2 Special Conditions 3 and 4 limitations Maintaining head differential under Page 8, footnote b Special Condition 5 certain thermal conditions or electrical output conditions Cooling water flow maintained at Page 11, Additional Requirement 7 Special Condition 6 minimum necessary for efficient (incorporating Hudson River operations Settlement Agreement ("HRSA"),

which included flow minimization requirement) 4

Compliance with 6 NYCRR Part Page 11, Additional Requirement 7 Special Condition 7 704 for thermal discharges (incorporating HRSA in satisfaction of New York State Criteria Governing Thermal Discharges (6 NYCRR Part 704)

Monitoring of condenser cooling Page 9, footnote o Special Condition 8 water discharge flow Continuous chlorination of service Page 8, footnote c Special Condition 9 water system and chlorination of condenser cooling system Continuous monitoring of Total Page 9, footnote q Special Condition 10 Residual Chlorine (TRC)

Grab samples for TRC monitoring Page 9, footnote r Special Condition 11 Conditions Related to Sub-Outfalls Pages 3 through 6 . Special Conditions 12 through 18 Reporting Requirements Page 10, Additional Requirement 3 Special Conditions 19 and 20 and 9 Compliance with Interstate Page 11, Additional Requirement 5 Special Condition 21 Sanitation Commission Water Quality Regulations Force majeure Page 11, Additional Requirement 6

Special Condition 22 Approval of use of designated Page 11, Additional Condition 8 Special Condition 23 chemicals No discharge (i.e., net addition) of Page 10, Additional Requirement 1 Special Condition 24 PCBs to the Hudson River Hudson River Biological Page 10, Additional Requireme,nt 4 Special Condition 25 Monitoring Program Annual outages Page 11, Additional Requirement 7 Spedal Condition 26 (incorporating Hudson River Settlement Agreement ("HRSA"),

which included annual outage requirement)

Operation of modified Ristroph Page 11, Additional Requirement 7 Special Condition 27 traveling screens and fish handling (incorporating Agreement for and return systems for impingement Installation of Modified Ristroph Screens at Indian Point Units 2 & 3 implementing Section 2.F of the HRSA)

Best Management Practices Page 12A through 12C Page 18 through 20 As the table above demonstrates, the final SPDES permit falls within the definition of a Type II action listed in 6 NYCRR §617 .5(c)(26) and, therefore, is not subject to review under SEQ RA. However, in light of the unique circumstances of the Indian Point facility- including the many decades of DEC oversight and lengthy adjudicatory proceedings administered by DEC, as well as the public interest and history surrounding this facility - the Department prepared and publicly noticed an SFEIS to advise the public of the actions described in that document.

5

Lastly, the comment that each individual Type II action must "in no case have significant adverse effect on the environment based on the criteria contained in [6 NYCRR §617.7]" relates to the formulation of lists of Type II actions by agencies and the standards that a particular class of actions must meet before being added to an agency's Type II list. See 6 NYCRR §617 .5(b).

Permit renewals of the type involved here have already been determined by DEC to have no potentially significant adverse impact on the environment based on the criteria of 6 NYCRR

§617.7(c) and, accordingly, have long appeared on DEC's list of Type II actions, which are not subject to SEQ RA review. Village of Hudson Falls v. NYSDEC, 158 A.D.2d 24 (3d Dept. 1990),

afj"d 77 N.Y.2d 983 (1991). Once DEC concludes, as it has here, that the final SPDES permit represents a renewal of the prior SPDES permit "where there will be no material change in permit conditions or the scope of permitted activities," no additional review under SEQRA is required. Id., and 6 NYCRR §617.5(c)(26).

Comment: The Department failed to provide any rationale or basis for its conclusion that Indian Point's early retirement is BTA. The Department's decisions to condition the SPDES permit and WQC upon early retirement were, therefore, arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence.

Response: This comment reflects both a misunderstanding of the proper scope of comments on the SPEIS, and conflates the BTA and SEQRA processes in an inappropriate manner. First,

comment opportunities on the SPEIS arose out of one of the most extensive SEQ RA processes in New York history. As discussed above, between 1992 and 2003, DEC provided extensive ,

opportunities for public involvement in the SEQRA ramifications ofrenewing Indian Point's.

SPDES permit, focused on the BTA determination in a draft permit. These public opportunities involved public workshops, a DEIS, and an FEIS. DEC ALJs also oversaw public legislative hearings which allowed members of the public to provide comments on the DEIS without having to make written filings. The NRC conducted a parallel NEPA review with its separate public comment opportunities, all of which were incorporated into the SEQRA record. The NRC specifically analyzed the significant adverse impacts of Indian Point's retirement in the 2010 FSEIS which demonstrated that early retirement will result in significant reductions in impingement and entrainment mortality as compared with other alternatives.

Further, the Department held 58 days of administrative hearings on the 2003 Draft SPDES permit (and §401 WQC), during which those who elected to be parties, were given the opportunity to present BTA proposals and/or evidence supporting or opposing other parties' BTA proposals. 11 The resulting robust record, upon which DEC made its BTA determination and which has been incorporated into the SEQRA record underpinning the SPEIS, is correspondingly extensive and voluminous, and contains substantial evidence regarding the efficacy and potential impacts of alternative BTA proposals, including cessation of electricity generation at Indian Point. Parties that actively participated in the adjudicatory proceeding are well aware of the vast evidentiary record supporting DEC's BTA decision and the SPEIS. The 58 hearing days involved written and oral testimony of 55 witnesses, many experts in their respective fields of aquatic ecosystems, engineering, air quality, and electric-system considerations. The transcript of those hearings is more than 16,400 pages long and rely on 11 SFEIS at 2.

r 6

1,500 exhibits admitted into evidence. All of this marshalled evidence informs the SEQRA record and underpins the SPEIS.

Second, the SPEIS adequately summarizes DEC's SEQRA review of the SPDES permit (which includes the BTA determination). An SPEIS is neither intended, nor required, to contain all of the detail supporting DEC's BTA determination; to the contrary the SPEIS is to accessibly summarize DEC's determination in a manner that allows the public to readily understand what has transpired. Specifically, the SEQ RA regulations provide that the level of detail in an EIS (or SPEIS) should not be too great, so that the document is accessible to the public. "Highly technical material should be summarized" (6 NYCRR §617.9[b][2]), which is the case here.

"EISs must be analytical and not encyclopedic." 6 NYCRR §617 .9(b)(1 ).

Likewise, the comment is incorrect when it asserts that DEC did not explain its conclusion that Entergy's commitment to an early retirement oflndian Point could be considered by DEC in its BTA determination,~' as a flow reduction mechanism. That explanation is provided in detail at page_s 19-23 of the SPEIS, which further directs the public to the SPDES permit Fact Sheet, which discusses the BTA determination at pages 10-14, for additional detail.

In short, the SPEIS and the SPDES permit Fact Sheet draw from numerous sources identified at pages 20-21 and 27-28 in the SPEIS, and at page 15 in the Fact Sheet, for the conclusion that Entergy's commitment to early retirement is BTA. The SPEIS and Fact Sheet were.based on information obtained by DEC staffs active participation in 58 days of adjudicatory hearings and 1,500 exhibits admitted into evidence. The transcript of those hearings was more than 16,400 pages long, and active parties to the proceedings addressed all of the evidenc~ related to BTA selection in hundreds of pages of post-hearing briefs. 12 Obviously, that entire body of information could not readily be set forth in the SPEIS and there is no requirement that it be~ See 6 NYCRR §617 .9(b)(1) and (2). Furthermore, the BTA determination in this case is not the same as the SEQRA determination. BTA is focused on the general and site-specific availability of a proposed technology and its efficacy in minimizing impingement and entrainment mortality from a cooling water intake structure ("CWIS"), as well as a comparison of its costs to its benefits (the "wholly disproportionate test").13 While SEQRA considerations, including mitigation, may cause DEC to set aside a BTA determination and select a different technology as BTA, SEQRA considerations do not enter into the BTA calculus itself. 14 Thus, the Department's actual BTA determination involves consideration of far fewer factors than the County of Westchester has presumed in its written comment.

The SPEIS and SPDES permit Fact Sheet present more than enough information to explain DEC's acknowledgement ofthe early retirement oflndian Point as BTA, on a site-specific basis, as well as DEC's decision that this BTA selection survives SEQRA review. As described in the SPEIS, DEC considered a range of technologies as BTA, including CCC, fish 12 SFEIS at 6.

13 CP-52: Best Technology Available (BTA) for Cooling Water Intake Structures (July 10, 2011 ).

14 In the Matter ofEntergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 & 3, DEC Nos. 3-5522-00011/00004, 3-5522-00011/00030, and 3-5522-00011/00031, Interim Decision of the Assistant Commissioner at 20 (Aug. 13, 2008)

("Once the BTA determination is made, the proposed BTA technology must then be reviewed in accordance with SEQ RA.").

7

protection outages ("FPOs") and cylindrical wedgewire screens ("CWWS"). 15 The SPEIS explains why DEC determined that, upon consideration of the record and in light ofEntergy's decision and commitment to retire early, early retirement is BTA. In short, and as the SPEIS makes clear, each of the other BTA alternatives possessed relevant feasibility, efficacy, cost, and SEQ RA concerns that are not presented by early retirement, or that are academic in light of Entergy's decision to proceed with early retirement.

While early retirement per se was not formally considered during the adjudicatory proceedings because it was not proposed at that time, the administrative record contains ample evidence (e.g., concerning the implication of year-long CCC construction outages) by which

. DEC's BTA test was applied to early retirement. Entergy, in its comments on the SPEIS, also included a comparative analysis of early retirement and other BTA options that the Department previously considered. 16 That analysis concludes that early retirement will result in greater reductions in impingement and entrainment mortality (extrapolating from reductions in water usage) than other BTA alternatives. Because Entergy selected early retirement.,.... a corporate business decision - its cost to Entergy in comparison to the other alternatives is not a consideration under the wholly disproportionate test. Nor does early retirement present the feasibility challenges of other BTA alternatives - there is no doubt that Entergy can voluntarily retire Indian Point, as it retired Vermont Yankee and plans to retire its Pilgrim and Palisades facilities, and as it gave consideration to retiring James A. FitzPatrick. 17 Indeed, because Entergy is seeking a shortened federal operating license from the NRC, Entergy must retire Indian Point on the early retirement dates (including as they are subject to extension to 2024 and 2025 for electric system purposes) set forth in the SPDES permit and §401 WQC. For BTA purposes, and in DEC's judgment, these factors make the selection of early retirement as BTA, as part of a universal settlement of disputes with Entergy, an inherently reasonable proposition. With respect to the SEQRA impacts of early retirement, early_retirement will avoid the mixed signals to the electric generation market that caused expert witnesses in the adjudicatory hearings to be concerned that replacement generation, including new renewable resources, would not enter the market in response to a CCC construction outage or FPOs. 18 The NRC previously analyzed the NEPA impacts of Indian Point retirement in its 2010 FSEIS, which DEC's SPEIS has incorporated by reference, in relevant part, as appropriate. See 6 NYCRR

§617.15(c).

In summary, and as reflected in the SPEIS and SPDES permit Fact Sheet, the SPEIS appropriately represents a sufficient summary to an extensive SEQRA record, one in which DEC 15 SFEIS at 19-23. In the SFEIS, DEC did not discuss in detail alternatives that it had previously determined were infeasible at Indian Point. Those infeasible alternatives included relocation of the intake structure, fish handling and return systems, Ristroph modified traveling screens, variable- or multi-speed pumps, flow reductions, and aquatic microfiltration barriers. DEC addressed those alternatives in the permit Fact Sheet. See Fact Sheet at 10-14.

16 Entergy Comments on SFEIS at 29.

17 Aaron Larson, Entergy Announ~es Closure ofFitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, PowerMag (Nov. 2, 2015),

available at http://www.powermag.com/entergy-announces-closure-of-fitzpatrick-nuclear-power-plant/.

18 NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal ofNuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 at 8-23 to 8-24 (Dec. 2010).

8

properly determined that Entergy's commitment to early retirement, together with the other conditions set forth in the final SPDES permit, is BTA. 19 Comment: The SPEIS does not consider the economic and social impacts oflndian Point's early retirement, and it contains virtually no analysis on how early retirement will affect local communities.

Response: This comment does not correctly characterize the SEQRA process or the scope of the SPEIS. First, SEQRA evaluates reasonably foreseeable potential significant adverse environmental,, including socio-economic, impacts of proposed projects or actions for which an applicant has applied for necessary authorizations or permits. Here, Entergy's project or action with respect to its renewed SPDES permit must include its election to )JUrsue early retirement of Indian Point, including shortening the term of 20-year NRC-issued operating licenses that were the premise of the 2003 Draft SPDES permit. This decision by Entergy, which as mentioned also has retired or sold off, or announced plans to retire, its other merchant nuclear generating facilities is a matter entirely outside the control of DEC. Under these circumstances, where an applicant voluntarily decides to limit the scope of its own project- i.e., the operation oflndian Point - there is no basis for comparing the environmental, economic and social factors resulting from early retirement to those that hypothetically would exist if Entergy had not limited its o,wn project. Moreover, the Department is without authority to allow Entergy to operate past the term of any NRC-issued renewed operating licenses. Thus, such alternative is not reasonable under the circumstances here.

Second, the shutdown of an operating nuclear power plant (or indeed the closure of any facility) is not a circumstance that the CWA or the SPDES permitting and WQC programs*

administered by the Department, even address. The New York State Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") authorizes DEC to administer the SPDES permit program, which governs the discharge of pollutants into the waters ofthe State by a given facility .20 In accordance with CWA §401, applicants for a Federal license or permit for activities are required to apply for and obtain' a WQC from the Department indicating that the proposed activity will not violate water quality standards. Under this program, the Department has only the authority to grant, or not, a WQC (with or without relevant conditions) for a particular facility. See 6 NYCRR §608.9.

Thus, the objective of the SPDES permitting and WQC programs, and the jurisdictional limits of the Department under these programs, are to regulate the discharge of pollutants proposed by an applicant by establishing pollutant-specific limits and other requirements intended to assure that water quality standards in the receiving water body are achieved. The SPDES permitting and WQC programs do not give DEC the authority to compel Entergy t<;>

continue to operate if it has made a decision to cease operating, even if that decision is memorialized in a settlement agreement with DEC and other parties.

19 SFEIS at 23; SPDES permit Fact Sheet at 14.

20 See ECL §17-0801. The discharge must also meet all applicable requirements of the ECL and the implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Parts 700, et seq. and 750, et seq.

9

Third, Entergy has throughout the adjudicatory proceedings challenged the authority of DEC to impose any actual operational conditions on Indian Point given the Atomic Energy Act

("AEA"), 21 where Congress gave the NRC exclusive jurisdiction over the "operation" of nuclear power plants.22 Without conceding the point, just as Entergy argued that DEC cannot force Indian Point not to operate (e.g., to take FPOs), it is likely that Entergy would argue that DEC cannot force Indian Point to operate. Bearing in mind the risk that a court of competent jurisdiction could rule that any State order requiring Entergy to operate is preempted by the AEA, DEC rationally concluded there is no reasonable basis to perform a SEQ RA_ analysis comparing the impacts of Indian Point operating past the early retirement dates selected by Entergy versus not operating.

Nevertheless, DEC di_d analyze and weigh the economic and social effects oflndian P~int's early retirement in its SEQRA analysis. Consistent with 6 NYCRR §617.15, and as reflected in the SPEIS *and SPDES permit Fact Sheet, DEC considered evidence in the 2010 NRC FSEIS, including as summarized in Section 8, specifically Volume I, Tables 8-1 at p. 8-19 and 8-2 at p. 8-21. The 2010 NRC FSEIS summarizes, at the requisite level of detail, analyses of the potential significant adverse impacts of the early retirement of Indian Point Units 2 and 3, including with respectto potential impacts on electric-system reliability, reactive power, and electricity affordability, as well as community character considerations as a result of employment, taxation, payment in lieu of taxation ("PILOT"), traffic and property valuation considerations. Increased property values after early retirement are expected to offset, in part; taxation and PILOT payment reductions from early retirement. Employment reductions after early retirement will occur, but are phased and spread throughout the region. Also, Entergy's commitments in connection with early retirement include transition planning for the cessation of electric-generating operations and retention of employees within the Entergy system, further mitigating these potential impacts. Finally, as discussed in a related context above, Entergy could always elect to shut down Indian Point at any time, subject to relevant electric-system reliability considerations, with the result that closure of the facilities is outside the scope of SEQR analysis. Thus, operation of Indian Point through the anticipated retirement dates does not implicate any significant impacts that have not been explored and is included in DEC's administrative record and, ultimately, by reference into the SPEIS.

Comment: The SPEIS does not discuss the effects of Indian Point's early retirement on criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Response: This comment is mistaken, as DEC's administrative record contains extensive information on, and analysis of, electricity system and air quality implications of replacement of Indian Point. The comment does not correctly consider the fact that, as. noted above with respect to social and economic impacts, the SPEIS incorporated by reference the NRC's 2010 FSEIS, which analyzed the potential air quality impacts of a full retirement ("no action alternative")

scenario. Extensive expert testimony in DEC's administrative adjudicatory proceedings analyzed the implications of various Indian Point outage periods both to the electric system, and in criteria air pollutant and carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. Specifically, various experts 21 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011 et seq.

22 See, e.g., Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conserv. & Dev. Commn., 461 U.S. 190, 212 (1983).

10

provided and evaluated different possible scenarios, offering reasonable bounding analytics on what replacement power sources and emissions offset ranges may be for annual CCC construction outages and annual FPOs ..

Electricity sector modeling under various Indian Point outage scenarios was specifically performed. This modeling provided, among other things, projections of air emissions from potential replacement sources of energy. The evidence demonstrated that the current, proposed power generation projects in New York include many renewables (primarily wind), 23 which

. . generally have fewer criteria and C02 emissions as compared with existing fossil fuel facilities.

In addition, there is no foreseeable expectation that air emissions sources that may be brought on line to provide power following early retirement will not comply with all applicable federal and State legal emissions standards, criteria and requirements.

For criteria pollutants, this includes federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards

("NAAQS"), which are designed to be protective of human health, as well as compliance with New York State's Title V permit program and other applicable regulatory and permitting requirements. For CQ2 emissions, New York's commitment to reducing C02 emissions is ensured by compliance with the ongoing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI") C02 emissions cap, which is established in New York through DEC regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 242. As noted in the administrative record, DEC previously assumed and analyzed the retirement oflndian Point facilities by 2015 as part of its rulemaking in 2013to change 6 NYCRR Part 242.24 Therefore, any C02 emissions from replacement sources of energy following Indian Point's eady retirement were already accounted for by DEC in promulgating changes to 6 NYCRR Part 242 to set the current RGGI C02 emissions cap. Finally, due to the nature of the RGGI program, any C02 emissions from affected, replacement power.plants would have to be offset by other facilities for the region to remain in compliance with the RGGI C02 emissions cap.

In sum, this administrative record is more than sufficient to inform DEC's assessment of Indian Point's early retirement for SEQRA purposes, particularly given the range ofreplacement scenarios evaluated which directly impacts electricity system and air emissions calculations.

This is all the more the case since the specific quantity of emissions, if any, directly caused by electric generation replacing Indian Point following early retirement remains speculative at this

juncture because, as the comment acknowledged, "[w]e do not yet know what resource mix will replace Indian Point's 2,000 MW ofbaseload generation capacity."25 SEQRA requires a reviewing agency only to analyze reasonably foreseeable impacts, and DEC has done so. 26 23 See NYISO, 2015 Load and Capacity Data "Gold Book" at Table IV-I (Apr. 2015).

24 ICF International, RGGI Reference Case Assumptions at 21 (Sept. 12, 2011), available at https://www .rggi.org/docs/RGGI_Reference_Case_Assumptions_091211. pdf.

25 County of Westchester Comments on SFEIS at 9.

26 DEC SEQRA Handbook at 5, 82 and 83.

EDMS#598850vl 11

SEQRA FINDINGS Introduction and Executive Summary.

In its November 12, 2003 draft SPDES permit and accompanying Fact Sheet, the New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("Department" or "DEC") preliminarily identified closed-cycle cooling as the best technology available ("BTA") for the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, consisting of operating Units 2 (which obtains incidental support from Unit 1) and 3, for purposes of complying with the Department's entrainment reduction goals under Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act and 6 NYCRR § 704.5, as later supplemented by Commissioner Policy CP-52 (July 10, 2011 ), contingent on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC")'s issuance of20-year license renewal determinations, and subject to comprehensive review of that technology, and any other alternative technologies or operational plans, on a site-specific feasibility basis and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA").

The major documents relating to NRC's license renewal for the Indian Point Nuclear Plant are maintained by NRC at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/

indian-point.html.

On June 23, 2003, the Department accepted and noticed for public comment a proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for certain Hudson River Facilities, including Indian Point (the "2003 FEIS"). Pursuant to the August 13, 2008 Interim Decision of the.

Assistant Commissioner, DEC staff were directed to develop a supplemental, Indian Point-specific SEQRA review to amplify the 2003 FEIS to address the site-specific BTA technology proposed in the draft SPDES permit, with the Assistant Commissioner specifically referencing the then-proposed closed-cycle cooling ("CCC") and either alternatives that Entergy was authorized to submit. See Interim Decision, p. 38.

As detailed in the SPDES permit and accompanying Fact Sheet, and'in recognition of Entergy's commitment to retire Indian Point Units 2 and 3 no later than 2020 and 2021, respectively (subject to the terms and conditions of that commitment, including with respect to electric-system reliability) (the "Retirement Dates" and "Early Retirement"), DEC has .

determined that pursuant to the record of this proceeding and under the unique and specific factors of this case, Early Retirement constitutes BTA for Indian Point Units 2 and 3. For the

\

reasons described in the 2017 SPEIS and set forth below, CCC does not constitute BTA in this instance.

As discussed below, DEC is issuing a renewed SPDES permit that includes the Early Retirement commitment (Condition 28), together with the scheduling of Indian Point's planned refueling and maintenance outages between February 23 and August 23 each year (Condition 26), flow limitations (Condition 6) and continued operation of the existing suite of cooling water intake structure technologies (Condition 27), as well as continued intensive Hudson River monitoring (Condition 25; collectively, for SEQ RA purposes, the "Early Retirement Alternative"), all based on terms and conditions substantially similar to Indian Point's existing SPDES permit, as evaluated in the 2003 FEIS and 2017 SFEIS. E11:tergy's commitment to Early Retirement also allowed DEC to determine that continued operation oflndian Point Units 2 and 3 consistent with the provisions for Early Retirement will comply with applicable State water

quality standards and criteria, and to issue a CWA §401 WQC.

DEC also relies, pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.15(a) and (c), in relevant part on NRC's December 2010 Final "Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3" to NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, which is referenced as NUREG 1437, Supplement 38, Volumes 1-3, as it has been supplemented

through this date (collectively, the "2010 NRC FSEIS"). The multi-volume 2010 NRC FSEIS contemplates continued operation of Indian Point through and beyond the Retirement Dates, employing the cooling water intake stmcture technologies and related measures required in the renewed SPDES permit. See 6 NYC RR § 617 .15( a) ["When a draft arid final EIS for an action has been duly prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, an agency has no obligation to prepare an additional EIS under this Part, provided that the Federal EIS is sufficient to make findings under section 617.11 of this Part."].

DEC further relies on the extensive record of the combined SPDES permit and §401 WQC administrative proceedings (Matter ofEntergy Indian Point Units 2 and 3) that began ip November 2003, and comprise overl6,400 pages of transcripts consisting of the sworn testimony of more than 54 witnesses, including DEC staff and leading national experts, and include 1,500 proposed technical and scientific exhibits (collectively, the "Administrative Record"). DEC finds this Administrative Record to be a thoroughly robust and comprehensive,

.technically supported record for SEQRA purposes and SPDES permit renewal. -

The 2003 FEIS, the 2010 NRC FSEIS, and the substantial compilation of information gathered since 2003 informing DEC's final SPDES permit in the Administrative Record underscore that a "hard look" has been undertaken with respect to the environmental consequences of this SEQRA action. While the Department's ultimate issuance of a SPDES permit on substantially the same terms as the prior permit renders this matter comparable to a "Type II" action, under the uriique circumstances of this permit application DEC nonetheless elected to prepare and complete supplemental SEQRA findings to support issuance of the SPDES permit and 2017 SFEIS, and supplement .the 2003 FEIS.

The Administrative Record, inasmuch as it incorporates various studies and reports of the New York Independent System OperatOr (NYISO") and New York State Public Service Commission ("PSC"), including but not limited to iterations of the NYISO Reliability Needs Assessment and Comprehensive Reliability Plan, and documents from the PSC's Indian Point Reliability Contingency Plan docket (such as the order establishing that docket, and the PSC environmental impact statement for that docket), as well as documents from DEC and other governmental documents pertaining to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, document the contribution of Indian Point to New York State's bulk electric system, particularly in the short- .

to-medium term. This contribution is measured in terms of electric system reliability, wholesale and capacity market pricing, and reductions in emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The Administrative Record also identifies that any potential impacts to reliability and capacity in the medium-to-long term are expected to be avoided or mitigated given responsive measures taken on the basis of planning on the part of the NYISO and the PSC, and the SPDES permit's and §401 WQC's recognition of the option for temporary continued operation oflndian Point in order to preserve system reliability and capacity if necessary mitigation is not forthcoming. For these reasons, the Administrative Record demonstrates that Early *Retirement will satisfy electric generating capacity needs and other electric system. needs in a manner consistent with the recent State Energy Plan.

2

SEQRA Proposed Action, Impacts, Facts and Conclusions Disclosed in the SFEIS and Alternatives.

The SEQRA action in question is the pending 1992 application ofEntergy's predecessors to renew the 1987 SPDES permit for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 in accordance with applicable regulations pertaining .to SPDES permitting, as well as Entergy's 2009 application.to obtain a federal CWA §401 WQC relating to a license renewal application made to NRC, and DEC's

determination of coastal consistency for continued operation of Units 2 and 3. The SEQRA action produced a draft EIS in December 1999 (submitted by Entergy's predecessors at Indian Point and two other Hudson River electric generating facility operators) that DEC staff accepted in March 2000. The Department subsequently issued a notice of complete application for the pending SPDES permit application in its Environmental Notice Bulletin and in local newspapers.

As noted above;* the Department issued a FEIS in 2003 which consisted of the original DEIS submitted by the facilities' operators; comments received on the DEIS (1999); the Department's responses to those comments; plus expanded discussions of the regulatory setting and alternatives for mitigation of impacts from the continued operation of the facilities.

The summary of the SEQRA action with respect to Indian Point's BTA is as follows:

For purposes of impingement minimization and SEQRA, DEC determined that Entergy's existing suite of screening and fish return technoiogies, in conjunction with Indian Point's operational practices of flow minimization and scheduled outages, and as supplemented by the Early Retirement Alternative, constitutes BTA on a site-specific basis.

For purposes of entrainment minimization and to complete a review of entrainment impacts under SEQRA, DEC considered a wide range of different potential BTA technologies on a site-specific basis at Indian Point, with concerted exploration and analysis of the following two BTA technologies and options:

Closed-cycle cooling ("CCC"): multiple reports submitted by Entergy from, among others, Enercon Services, Inc. ("Enercon") examined the site-specific feasibility of retrofitting Indian Point with round hybrid cooling towers, as well as the significant adverse environmental impacts of constrncting and operating this technology at Indian Point. Enercon's analysis was supplemented with a report from DEC staffs contractor Tetra Tech, Inc. ("TetraTech"), which examined the feasibility and significant adverse environmental impacts of n::trofitting Indian Point with Clear-Sky© linear cooling towers, in addition to round hybrid towers. The NRC also completed an evaluation of CCC in its 2010 FSEIS.

Cylindrical wedgewire screens ("CWWS"): multiple reports submitted by Entergy from, among others, Enercon examined the ~he-specific feasibility and significant adverse environmental impacts of constructing and operating this technology at Indian Point.

In addition to these technologies, DEC also considered operational measures consisting of annual fish protection outages ("FPOs"). Multiple reports submitted by, among others, Enercon and the Department regarding the feasibility of requiring annual FPOs (of 42, 62 or 118 days) at Indian Point each spring and summer at both Units, or at one Unit with the second Unit 3

converting to CCC, as well as the significant adverse environmental impacts of implementing

tht'.se various regimes at Indfan Point, Also consistent with SEQRA, the Department considered the Early Retirement Alternative summarized above.

Based upon all of the record evidence submitted, and Entergy's commitment to retire

.Indian Point Units 2 and 3 in 2020 and 2021, respectively (subject.to the terms and conditions of that commitment, which include consideration of electric system reliability), DEC determined that CCC is not BTA given the substantial, site-specific challenges, the length of time that would be required to complete and bring into service a retrofit from the existing once-through cooling system to~ CCC system at both Units, and given the limited life span (if any) of Indian Point.

Units 2 and 3 after implementation of a CCC system. The length of time required to design, permit and construct CCC technology at the facility :would likely be at least 9.5 years and would involve significant costs.

DEC determined that CWWS is not BTA based upon the length of time that would.be

required to retrofit from the existing cooling water intake structure to CWWS and the costs associated with constructing and operating CWWS on several acres of the bed of the Hudson River for a limited period of time.

Finally, DEC determined that dual-Unit summertime FPOs are not BTA based upon the length of time that would be required to implement such outages and the costs associated with such outages, including .in terms of electric-system reliability.

Instead, DEC has determined that the Early Retirement Alternative, consisting of the more limited outage requirements reflected in Condition 26 of the SPDES permit, the traveling screens and fish return and handling system reflected in Condition 27 of the SPDES permit, and the flow reductions reflected in Condition 6 of the SPDES permit, together with the commitment to Early Retirement in Condition 28 of the SPDES permit, constitute continuing measures for BTA until retirement of Units 2 and 3. Based on its consideration of these and other factors, and the Administrative Record, DEC has determined that the measures set forth in the final SPDES permit represent BTA for the cooling water intakes for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 through the Retirement Dates.

In reaching this decision, DEC considered the following evidence with respect to the SEQRA impacts of CCC: .

Construction and Installation of CCC represents potentially significant nuclear safety challenges for Indian Point, as well as potentially significant disruption to Indian Point's existing operations, including with respect to blasting, salt deposition, fogging, icing, and flooding.

e Dual- and single-Unit CCC, including as implemented with corresponding single-Unit.annual FPOs, could have potentially significant adverse impacts on scenic resources

, in the lower Hudson River Valley region.

4

Nearly year-long outages necessary for CCC construction could result in impacts to electric system reliability, increased wholesale and capacity market costs for consumers, and increased air emissions, including from fossil-fueled replacement generation facilities which might be proximate to environmental justice communities.*

Dual- and single-Unit CCC (as implemented with corresponding annual FPOs),

could have potentially significant adverse impacts on community character, including by resulting in operational noise levels in violation of Village of Buchanan zoning requirements.

DEC also considered the following record evidence with respect to the SEQRA impacts ofCWWS:

Construction and operation of CWWS, including as implemented with an air-burst cleaning system, would represent a long-term loss of in excess of five acres of Hudson River bottomlands.

Construction and operation of CWWS.could negatively impact rare, threatened, or endangered species, such as short-nose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon.

DEC further considered the following record evidence with respect to the SEQRA impacts of dual- and single-Unit summertime FPOs:.

Annual FPOs (of 42, 62 or 118 days), could result in impacts to electric system relia~ility, increased wholesale and capacity market costs for consumers, and increased air emissions, including from fossil-fueled replacement generation facilities which might be proximate to environmental justice communities.

Annual FPOs could potentially have significant, adverse impacts on local traffic patterns, including the regional highway systems.

Finally, DEC considered the following record evidence with respect to the SEQRA impacts of the Early Retirement Alternative:

Early Retirement on the dates indicated would provide time for mitigative*

measures to avoid adverse impacts on New York's bulk electric system reliability.

Construction of CCC, construction of CWWS, and shifting to annual FPOs at Indian Point each would take many years to design, implement and achieve. This extended and uncertain period of time, together with Entergy's commitment to Early Retirement, provides the basis for determining that the Early Retirement Alternative will provide greater environmental benefits (reductions in impingement and entrainment) than the other alternatives, with reduced adverse environmental impacts in comparison to the other alternatives.

Consistent with 6 NYCRR §617.15, DEC considered evidence in the 2010 NRC FSEIS, including as summarized in Section 8, specifically Volume!, Tables 8-1 at p. 8-19 and 8-2 at p.

5

8-21, that the adverse environmental (including socio-economic) impacts of CCC range from small to large, with most categories of impacts reflecting potentially moderate or large impacts (i.e., above the significance threshold), whereas the adverse impacts of Early Retirement, as evaluated in the "no action alternative," are almost entirely small or non-significant.

In addition to DEC's analysis, the 2010 NRC FSEIS summarizes, at the requisite level of detail, analyses of the potential significant adverse impacts of the Early Retirement oflndian Point Units 2 and 3, including with respect to potential impacts on electric-system reliability, reactive power, and electricity affordability, as well as community character consideraJions as a result of employment, taxation, payment in lieu of taxation ("PILOT"), traffic and property valuation considerations. Estimated increased property values after the Retirement Dates are expected to offset, in part, taxation and PILOT payment reductions at the Retirement Dates.

In conjunction with Entergy's commitment to the Early Retirement Alternative, DEC concludes that Entergy's proposal to conduct outages described in Condition 26 of the SPDES permit, as well as Entergy's continued operation of the variable speed pumps, flow limitations, Ristroph modified traveling screens and fish handling and return systems, constitutes BTA.

Condition 26 requires Entergy to schedule Indian Point's annual refueling and maintenance outages at Indian Point during a time of the year (February 23 through August 23) when there more likely will be significant quantities of organisms at risk of entrainment in the vicinity of Indian Point.

Taking into account Early Retirement, Condition 26 is comparable to conditions in the prior 1987 SPDES permit and consistent with the 2003 FEIS. Condition 26 allows planned outages to take place before the summer peak load period, which typically occurs between June and August in any given year. Condition 26 also acknowledges the importance of New York's electric system reliability. Condition 26 also does not require outages to take place during most of the summer ozone season. Thus, Condition 26 is both consistent with the 2003 FEIS and does not result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

In addition, Condition 26 does not implicate any significant impacts to New York's electric system reliability because Indian Point Units 2 and 3's contribution to system reliability will be maintained while the Units continue to operate. The SPDES permit is thus consistent with the recent State Energy Plan published in 2015 (http://energyplan.ny.gov/Plans/2015).

Entergy's acceptance of the SPDES permit as a condition incorporated by reference into the §401 WQC, among other things, allows DEC to conclude thaHndian Point Units 2 and 3 will be operated in compliance with applicable State water quality standards and criteria until Early Retirement.

Balancing Social, Economic and Other Essential Considerations.

The challenges to implementing CCC, CWWS, and FPOs render them uncertain to be achieved, Assuming they were implemented, the long implementation timelines of CCC, CWWS, and FPOs render the entrainment reduction benefits of these technologies contingent

and unlikely to be experienced from issuance of a disputed final SPDES permit until after the*

Retirement Dates. This means that the subsequent operating periods, if any, for these entrainment-reduction strategies could be negligible, if anything at all, and if so thereby rendering implementation costs a wasted expense. Early Retirement, on the other hand, will provide certain reductions in impingement and entrainment following the Retirement Dates, without additional implementation costs beyond those that Indian Point's owner would eventually bear upon retirement in the normal course.

While the benefits of CCC, CWWS, and FPOs are ascertainable, the significant adverse impacts of CCC, CWWS, and FPOs, as summarized above, are substantial and in many instances not readily avoidable or mitigated. Early Retirement, on the other hand, reduces or eliminates those significant adverse impacts, particularly given the lead time before Early Retirement occurs and.the allowance for electric system reliability concerns.

With regard to social, economic, and other essential consid~rations, employment reductions at Indian Point after the Retirement Dates will occur, but are phased and spread throughout the region. Also, Entergy' s commitments in connection with the Retirement Dates include tr_ansition planning for the cessation of electric-generating operations and retention of employees within Entergy's system, further mitigating these potenti_al impacts. Finally, Entergy could unilaterally elect to shut down Indian Point at any time, subject to relevant electric-system reliability considerations, with the result that voluntary closure of facilities is typically outside the scope of SEQRA review. Thus, operation oflndian Point through the Retirement Dates does not implicate any significant impacts that were not explored in the 20JO NRC SFEIS and DEC's Administrative Record.

Thus, on balance, the Early Retirement Alternative minimizes entrainment at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 with the fewest and least severe impacts to the-larger environment. The choice of the Early Retirement Alternative factors and balances social, economic, and other essential considerations of Early Retirement as set out above.

Legal Requirements.

Issuance of these findings supports DEC's issuance of the Indian Point final SPDES permit and final §401 WQC, which both reflect a determination that CCC is not BTA in light of Entergy's commitment to the Early Retirement Alternative, and.a determination that the Early Retirement Alternative is consistent with the policies and requirements embodied in SEQRA, specifically Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") §§3-0301(l)(b), (2)(m) and 8-0113, and the rules thereunder at 6 NYCRR Part 617; the federal CWA, specifically §§316(b) and 401, 33 U .S.C. § l 365(b), and related regulations; the ECL, specifically Article 17, and related regulations including 6 NYCRR §608.9 and Parts 700 - 704, including §704.5; and Commissioner's Policy CP-52.

The Department has made the requisite New York State coastal consistency findings, as reflected in its Coastal Assessment Form, consistent with ECL Article 42 and 19 NYCRR Part 600. The Administrative Record contains extensive testimony and evidence on consistency.

7

Tfo~*ndpattni.ent has toilsidered the.'relevailtenviro11.ment~finipacts, facts ai~d . :* * * *.

conclusions d!~closedin the 2003 .FEIS, the 2010 NRC FSElS, the SPDES pennit'Fact Sheet, the 2017. SPEIS; as 'well as the comprehensive entirety of the Administrative Record, weighed and

balanced relevant environmen_tal itnpact's with social, ec.onomic and other cortsideratioils, arid**

hereby ce11ifie$_ that, from am()11g the reasonable altethativesavailabfo, the cmtent actioI1:.fa'the ..

one that avoid{ or minimizes Mverse environmental impacts to the maximurri ¢xtent prapticable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized tot]je max1murn extent practicable by in,corpon1ting as conditions to the decisio11 those mitigative measures that were identilied as pfacficable.* * * ** * * * ** *** " **

'* .~ . ' .

New y ork St~t¢ Depattment ~fEnviforirt:lental Cotisel'vation By:

Title:

Deputy Chief Date: ApriJ 24, 2017

8

Major Supporting Documents.

The primary analyses supporting these findings are summarized in the following publicly available environmental impact statements and rely on the references therein:

June 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement.

December 2010 Final "Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3,"

to NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, and goes by the reference NUREG 1437, Supplement 38, Volumes 1-3.

In addition, these SEQ RA Findings rely on the Administrative Record, including all testimony and exhibits, developed in the SPDES and WQC administrative proceedings, with specific reference to the following documents:

Barnthouse, et al. 2008. Entrainment and Impingement at IP2 and IP3: A Biological Impact Assessment. January 2008.

Charles River Associates. 2011. Indian Point Energy Center Retirement Analysis. August 2011.

Enercon Services, Inc. 2010. Evaluation of Alternative Intake Technologies at Indian Point Units 2 and 3. February 2010.

Enercon Services, Inc. 2010. Engineering Feasibility and Costs of Conversion oflndian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water System. February 2010.

Enercon Services, Inc. 2012. Technical Design Report for Indian Point Units 2 and 3:

Implementation of Cylindrical Wedge Wire Screens. April2012.

Hoffman, F .0. 2015. Estimate of Health Impacts Attributable to Permanent Mandatory Summertime Outages for Personnel at Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3. June 2015.

Hoover & Keith, Inc. 2014. Acoustic Assessment of the Proposed Cooling Towers for Closed Cycle Cooling. February 2014.

NERA Economic Consulting. 20 13 A. Benefits and Costs of Cylindrical Wedgewire Screens at Indian Point Energy Center (NERA Environmental Consulting. March 2013.

NERA Economic Consulting. 2013B. "Wholly Disproportionate" Assessments of Cylindrical Wedgewire Screens and Cooling Towers at IPEC. December 2013.

NERA Economic Consulting 2015. Economic Analysis of Permanent Mandatory

.Summertime Outages at IPEC. June 2015.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Staff. 2013. Offer of Proof on Permanent Forced Outages/Seasonal Protective Outages. November 2013.

9

New York Independent System Operator. 2014. NYISO 2014 Reliability Needs Assessment. September 2014.

New York Independent System Operator. 2015. NYISO 2015 Comprehensive Reliability Plan. July 2015.

Nieder, William. 2015. Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2 and Unit 3 BTA Analysis Step Four of the BTA Procedure: The Wholly Disproportionate Test. Amended Wholly Disproportionate Test Repc;>rt With Outages. June 2015.

Saratoga AssoCiates. 2009. Indian Point Energy Center Closed-Cycle Cooling Conversion Feasibility Study: Visual Assessment. June 2009.

Talisman International. 2015. Evaluation of Regulatory Implications of Permanent Mandatory Summertime Outages at Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3. June 2015.

Tetra Tech. 2013. Indian Point Closed-Cycle Cooling System Retrofit Evaluation. June 2013.

, Tetra Tech. 2014. IPEC ClearSky Retrofit: Planning Schedule. March 2014.

TRC Environmental Corp. 2009. Cooling Tower Impact Analysis for the Indian Point Energy Center. September 2009.

TRC Environmental Corp. 2013A. Environmental Report, New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, in Support of the Draft SEIS for a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit (No. NY-0004472). March 2013.

TRC Environmental Corp., et al. 2013B. New York State Environmental Quality Review Act: Entergy Response Document to the Tetra Tech Report and the Powers Engineering Report In Support of the Draft SEIS for a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit (No. NY-0004472). December 2013.

TRC Environmental Corp. 2015. Entergy Supplemental Environmental Report:

Permanent Mandatory Summertime Outages. August 2015.

EDMS#600563vl 10

NL-17-054, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

REFERENCES:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Title:

Navigation menu

NL-17-054, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Text

SUBJECT:

REFERENCES:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Title:

Navigation menu

Search