ML12352A342

Attachment 2: Consistency Certification for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 License Renewal Application

ML12352A342
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/17/2012
From:	Dacimo F Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Perales C State of NY, Dept of State, State of NY, Dept of State, Div of Coastal Resources, NRC/SECY
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23900, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12352A342 (228)

Text

Attachment 2

December 17, 2012 OVERVIEW OF IPECS CONSISTENCY WITH THE NYCMP The New York State Coastal Management Program (the NYCMP)1 describes Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2 and Unit 3 (collectively, IPEC), among other energy facilities, as demonstrating the States recognition of the national interest in the coastal zone. To the extent that any NYCMP policies may be construed as applicable under these facts and circumstances,2 IPEC is consistent with the enforceable NYCMP policies. Moreover, IPEC substantially advances the goals of several NYCMP policies. IPEC provides a lower cost energy resource that operates to the benefit of New York States energy consumers, pays direct and indirect taxes to support vital governmental functions, and is a major employer in the region providing highly skilled, well-paying jobs. These substantial economic benefits to New York State and the region are expected to continue if the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) grants the 20-year renewal of operating licenses (License Renewal) for IPEC. Conversely, without IPEC, New York States energy security would be threatened, its economic competitiveness would be impaired, and its citizens would face higher energy costs and be exposed to degraded air qualitysubstantially hindering achievement of the goals of NYCMP policies 18, 41, and 43. There are compelling grounds for the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) to concur with the consistency certification for IPEC (the Consistency Certification).

I. The NYCMP Lists IPEC Among the Existing Energy Facilities That Demonstrate The States Recognition of the National Interest in the Coastal Zone A. The Importance of IPEC to New York State Helped Shape the NYCMP IPEC is given special recognition within the NYCMP. The special recognition of IPEC by the NYCMP was intentional. Over the course of IPECs existence, the New York State legislatures, and federal, regional, state, and local agencies, have taken action to authorize the construction and continued operation of IPEC. This concerted activity over more than forty years includes 1

The NYCMP is set forth in a document entitled New York State Coastal Management Program and CZM Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, with changes from 1982 to 2006, published by NYSDOS.

2 The issue of whether License Renewal requires any further review under the CZMA is a federal question pending before and to be resolved by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). See, Motion and Memorandum By Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order That It Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of IPEC Units 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses, dated July 30, 2012, USNRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286. In addition, for the reasons presented to NYSDOS by Entergys petition filed on November 7, 2012, License Renewal is exempt from review under the terms of the NYCMP itself. See, In the Matter of the Petition of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, for a Declaratory Ruling, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING, dated November 5, 2012, filed with the State of New York, Department of State (Attachment 57). Entergy reserves its rights to seek judicial review in the event that NYSDOS should fail to recognize IPEC as grandfathered under the NYCMP. Entergy also expressly reserves all rights to contest the validity and enforceability of the NYCMP, and the authority of NYSDOS to conduct federal consistency review, under both federal and state law.

1

December 17, 2012 extensive pre-construction and post-construction reviews and approvals that determined why IPEC exists, where it exists, and how IPEC operates.

IPECs successful siting and operation owes much to New York States commitments in the form of capital contributions, ownership interests and ancillary facilities, including the following noteworthy examples:

In 1959, New York State conveyed a portion of the IPEC site to Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. (ConEd) for the purpose of facilitating the construction of Indian Point Energy Center Unit 1 (IP1), and later Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2 (IP2) and Unit 3 (IP3).3 In 1964, New York State created the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority (now, the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority or NYSERDA) to, among other things, promote the peaceful use of atomic energy, including then-planned nuclear facilities such as IPEC.4 In 1974, New York State enacted legislation that recognized the critical role of IPEC in serving New York Citys energy needs, and, based on these findings, authorized the New York Power Authoritys (NYPA)5 acquisition of IP3.6 NYPAs acquisition of IP3 was effected, in part, to help assure continuity of electric power to the people in response to ConEds then-difficult economic condition, thus representing a commitment of New York State capital and a preferred regulatory structure for IPECs ownership.7 The importance of IPEC to the State of New York and its citizens when NYSDOS promulgated the NYCMP in 1982, and its consistency with the NYCMP at that time, could not have been more clear. New York, having facilitated the siting, construction, and operation of IPEC both directly and indirectly, from its inception to completion and continued operation, engrafted the continued operation of IPEC into the very fabric of the NYCMP.

3 See Department of State, Letters Patent, Recorded in Book of Patents No. 75 at Page 181 on December 14, 1959.

4 Pub. Auth. Law, §1850-a, N.Y. Sess. Law 1962 c. 210, 1964 c. 366. The entitys name was changed to NYSERDA in 1975. See N.Y. Sess. Law 1975 c. 864, Pub. Auth. Law §1852.

5 In 1974, NYPA was known as the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY).

6 See, e.g., Pub. Auth. Law §1001-a, Emergency Provisions for the Metropolitan Area of the City of New York; N.Y. Sess. Law 1974 c. 369.

7 See Governors MemorandumCon Ed Facilities Purchase, S. 10677A, Langley, Ch. 369, 1974 New York State Legislative Annual at 245.

2

December 17, 2012 B. The NYCMP Describes Continued Use of IPEC To comply with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq. (the CZMA), NYSDOS was required to establish that the NYCMP advanced adequate consideration of the national interest in the coastal zone, including by giving priority to the siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of greater than local significance. 16 U.S.C. §1455(d)(8) (As a precondition to approval of a State coastal management program, the Secretary of Commerce must find that [t]he management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in ... the siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of greater than local significance. In the case of energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the State has given consideration to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program.).8 Thus, the inherent balancing between national interest and State coastal policy in the CZMA tips toward energy facilities of greater than local interest, such as IPEC, and requires State agencies, such as NYSDOS, to establish that they are in fact advancing national interests in their State plans, such as the NYCMP.

NYSDOS responded to this CZMA requirement, in part, by listing IPEC and other existing energy facilities in the coastal zone as demonstrating the States recognition of the national interest.9 As a result, IPEC is described within the NYCMP promulgated by NYSDOS in 1982 and approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).10 8

See also, 15 C.F.R. §923.52 (detailing the requirements for establishing that the national interest in energy facilities is met in State plans and requiring state management plans to [i]ndicate how and where the consideration of the national interest is reflected in the substance of the management program); Energy and Government Facility Siting, NOAA, http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/ene_gov.html (Meeting energy needs and increasing the United States energy independence are two of the highest priority national issues of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA recognizes the importance of energy and government facilities in coastal zones[,] and directs states to have a facility siting process that considers the national interest in energy production and protecting coastal resources.) (last visited August 10, 2012); see also, Connecticut v. Dept of Commerce, No. 3:04-cv-1271, 2007 WL 2349894, at *8 (D. Conn. Aug. 17 2007) (According to the NOAA regulations, the siting of coastal dependent energy facilities inherently has economic consequences beyond the immediate locality where the facility is located, that is, involves a significant national interest.).

9 See, e.g., NYCMP Chapter II-7 at 1. There, the NYCMP incorporates by reference the 1982 State Energy Master Plan, which in turn adopts 13 policies to reduce the States overdependence on imported petroleum specifically including continued availability of the States current inventory of licensed nuclear plants to meet future energy supply needs. New York State Energy Master Plan (March, 1982) (1982 State Energy Master Plan) Executive Summary at 5; Volume One, at 8 (The Energy Planning Board relied upon continued utilization of the five currently licensed nuclear facilities as part of the Electricity Supply Plan); Volume Two (The Energy Planning Board endorsed continued utilization of the five currently licensed nuclear facilities in the State.) See also NYCMP Chapter II-9 at 3, discussed herein. Although the 2009 State Energy Master Plan was revised to articulate the future goal of closing down IPEC, that goal was never made part of the NYCMP.

10 In a letter to Mr. George Stafford, Deputy Secretary of NYSDOS, dated November 30, 2012, NOAAs Acting Chief of Coastal Programs Division indicated that NYSDOS did not identify Indian Point as a component of the New York CMP. However, whether or not IPEC constitutes a component of the NYCMP is beside the point. In response to CZMAs policies favoring energy facilities in the coastal zone, NYSDOS did, indeed, point to the five nuclear facilities operating in New York in 1982, including IPEC, as a demonstration of New York States recognition of the national interest in energy facilities.

3

December 17, 2012 Moreover, in seeking federal approval of the NYCMP, NYSDOS specifically described the existing nuclear energy facilities, including IPEC, already located in the States coastal zone:

Many energy facilities are already situated in the States coastal area, including steam electric generating plants, transmission lines, oil storage tanks and LNG facilities. The Programs policies on energy are in accord with existing State laws and plans which address energy needs and environmental quality in a comprehensive manner.

The State has demonstrated its recognition of the national interest in energy facilities by the number and scope of facilities already located in or planned for New Yorks coastal area . . .[including]

nuclear - 5 units . . . [and] 2 nuclear - under construction . . .

NYCMP Chapter II-9, at 3 (emphasis added).

At the time this language was written, there were five (5) operating nuclear units in New Yorks coastal area including IPEC.11 The NYCMP thus affirmatively states that IPECs operations are activities within the New York Coastal Zone that make the NYCMP consistent with the national interests of promoting appropriate energy facilities within the coastal zone.

Under the NYCMP, energy production and transmission are considered to be of national interest.12 The National Energy Plan was the primary source for determining the national interest in energy facilities, specifically including the national objective to reduce dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to supply interruptions.13 The NYCMP also goes on to acknowledge that major electric and gas facilities are beneficial, for they supply the energy necessary for the operation of industries, transportation vehicles and services, and home heating, and that some major electric generation and transmission facilities are provided by the Power Authority of the State of New York [which owned and/or operated IP3 from 1976 to 2000].14 On the basis of the existing energy production facilities already located in the States coastal zone, NYSDOS predicted that the NYCMP would have no negative effects on energy use and development.15 In fact, the NYCMP embraces as one of its foundational elements the importance of adequate energy supplies for the economic development of the State.16 As 11 In addition to IP2 and IP3, the three other nuclear power plants operating within New Yorks coastal zone in 1982 were the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Nuclear Station, and the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Station. The five nuclear power plants which existed within New Yorks coastal zone in 1982 continue to operate today. The nuclear power plants under construction in 1982 were Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (which is still operating) and Shoreham.

12 NYMCP Chapter II-9 at 2.

13 Id. Chapter II-9 at 3.

14 Id. Chapter II-9 at 8.

15 Id. Chapter V at 7.

4

December 17, 2012 discussed in greater detail below, IPEC provides to New York States residents and businesses particularly the residents and businesses of Southeastern New York, including New York City a substantial supply of reliable, baseload electricity that leads to lower electric prices overall.

Thus, IPEC plays an important role in ensuring the continued adequacy of the energy supplies within New York State.

In its review of the Consistency Certification, NYSDOS should be mindful not only of the provisions of the NYCMP that embrace IPEC, but also of the national policies for the coastal zone articulated by the CZMA. The CZMA itself could not be more clear about the national priorities for fulfilling Americas energy objectives within the coastal zone by:

Achieving [t]he national objective of attaining a greater degree of energy self-sufficiency. . .17 Generating substantial amounts of baseload electricity without releasing greenhouse gases from fossil-fuels [b]ecause global warming may result in a substantial sea level rise with serious adverse effects in the coastal zone. . .18 Locating energy production plants where industrial and commercial development already exists with priority consideration being given to coastal-dependent uses . . . related to

. . . energy. . .19 Avoiding the adverse impacts of global warming attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. . .20 The CZMA recognizes that energy production, particularly baseload energy production that does not contribute significantly to climate change, is a vital need for the United States, and a proper and essential use of the coastal zone. The CZMA sets a preference for existing facilities because, among other reasons, such facilities achieve necessary energy production without the need for substantial new infrastructure that could damage coastal resources. Further, the CZMA directs 16 Id.

17 CZMA §302(j), 16 U.S.C. §1451(j) (emphasis added) underscoring the importance of energy self-sufficiency that can be accomplished in the case of IPEC without federal financial assistance.

18 CZMA §302(1), 16 U.S.C. §1451(1) underscoring the importance of electricity production that can be accomplished virtually free of emission of gases that contribute to global warming, such as through nuclear plants.

19 CMZA §303(2)(D), 16 U.S.C. §1452(2)(D). IPEC has existed at this location for more than 40 years.

Westchester County, with State approval, located the Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility adjacent to IPEC on the Hudson River. The Bowline Generating Plant is an existing waterfront industrial land use located in nearby Haverstraw. At the time IPEC was sited, Lovett Generating Station also operated at nearby Stony Point directly across the Hudson River. Thus, IPEC fulfills the national legal requirement of locating energy facilities to the maximum extent practicable . . . in or adjacent to areas where such development already exists. (CZMA

§303(2)(D)).

20 In the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508 §6202(a)(7), Congress specifically expressed concern about the global warming caused by burning fossil-fuels.

5

December 17, 2012 states to consider national energy plans, such as the Blueprint For a Secure Energy Future released by the White House in March 2011 which emphasizes the importance of the current nuclear fleet to securing Americas energy needs and the need for clean energy. 21 IPEC substantially advances these national coastal zone management policies.

II. IPEC Substantially Advances the Goals of NYCMP Policy 18 by Serving the Vital Economic, Social and Environmental Interests of the Citizens of New York NYCMP Policy 18 requires NYSDOS affirmatively to safeguard, within the constraints of existing law, the vital economic, social, and environmental interests of New York State and its citizens. Policy 18 lies at the heart of the NYCMP, and unquestionably calls for NYSDOS concurrence that IPEC is consistent with the NYCMP.

There are five major attributes of IPEC that make it uniquely situated to meet New Yorks electricity, air quality and climate change objectives:

Location. IPEC is located in the Southeastern New York area (including not only the New York City area, but also the Long Island area and Lower Hudson Valley, within New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) zones G, H, I, J, and K, see Figures V-1 and V-2) that represents a substantial and growing portion of the States load and that is traditionally supply-constrained due, in part, to the difficulty and cost of siting new generation and transmission infrastructure.22 Capacity. IPEC has a combined gross generating capacity of 2158 megawatts.23 Baseload operation and generation. In 2010, IPEC generation represented approximately 10 percent of the total electricity consumption in New York State and 17 percent of the total electricity consumption in the Southeastern New York 21 Blueprint For a Secure Energy Future (The White House, March 30, 2011), Attachment 52, at 3 (Every president since Richard Nixon has called for Americas independence from oil . . . And beyond our efforts to reduce our dependence on oil, we must focus on expanding cleaner sources of electricity, including renewables like wind and solar, as well as clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear power-keeping America on the cutting edge of clean energy technology so that we can build a 21st century clean energy economy and win the future.); at 36 (recognizing that a comprehensive strategy must also modernize the electric power grid and ensure the safety of our nuclear power fleet - both todays plants and tomorrows technologies). In Blueprint, President Obama recognized the importance of nuclear energy to this nation, and reaffirmed the need for nuclear power following the accident at Fukashima.

22 See, Letter of the National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) dated April 29, 2010, to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regarding Effects of the Loss of IPEC Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 Capacity and Generation on New York State Environmental, Economic and Energy Needs (NERA 2010), Attachment 35, at 4 23 See, USNRC Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generation Unit Nos. 2 and 3, dated December, 2010 (the 2010 USNRC FSEIS), Attachment 22, at 1-7 and 8-27.

6

December 17, 2012 area.24 IPEC typically generates power across all months of the year and hours of the day, with the exception of limited planned outages. As a result, due to its size and form of generation technology, IPEC generates more electrical energy than any other facility in Southeastern New York or elsewhere within the Empire State.25 Indeed, when considering the New York City area alone, instead of in combination with the Long Island area and Lower Hudson Valley, IPEC provides up to 30 percent of the New York City areas base-load electricity.26 Reactive Power. In addition to the energy and capacity it provides, IPEC is a significant source of voltage support in the Lower Hudson Valley, an essential service for operation of the local transmission and distribution system. This contribution is particularly important because of the difficulty of siting additional generation, which is a dynamic resource, within the Southeastern New York area.27 Low-emitting. IPECs core and essential nuclear generation is virtually emission free from air pollutants that contribute to global warming and various air quality issues (such as carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), mercury, or any other air pollutants). Thus, IPEC operations contribute substantially to the ability of New York State to meet key climate change and air quality goals.28 Singularly, and in any combination, these characteristics mean that New York simply cannot afford the severely negative economic, energy instability, climate change, and air quality consequences that loss of IPEC would entail and that the NYCMP was designed to avoid.29 IPEC is an important source of electricity, particularly within the New York metropolitan area, an area that has long been affected by transmission grid constraints and higher electricity costs.30 24 Id.; see also, Potential Energy and Environmental Impacts of Denying Indian Points License Renewal Application, (NERA, March, 2012) (NERA 2012), Attachment 63, at E-2 and 1.

25 NERA 2010, Attachment 35, at 4. See also, NYISO 2012 Gold Book at 33 (IPEC generated 17,016,900 megawatt hours of electricity in 2011).

26 See, The Economic Impacts of Closing and Replacing the Indian Point Energy Center, (Manhattan Institute, Center for Energy Policy and the Environment, September, 2012), (2012 Manhattan Institute), Attachment 68 at 2.

27 NERA 2010, Attachment 35, at 5.

28 NERA 2010, Attachment 35, at 4-5; NERA 2012, Attachment 63, at E-4, 25-26, 33-34, 39-40.

29 See, 2012 Manhattan Institute, Attachment 68, at Executive Summary.

30 NERA 2010, Attachment 35, at 11 (In 2008, average electricity prices in New York were more than 70 percent higher than average electricity prices in the country as a whole. On average, New York prices were about 60 percent higher than U.S. prices over the 19-year period [1990-2008].) (emphasis added). Higher energy costs will be particularly harmful to the residents and businesses of New York City and Long Island where the range of energy costs is already about 30% higher than in upstate New York. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for 7

December 17, 2012 Independent reviews of the importance of IPEC to the downstate electric grid have reached the same conclusions: IPEC helps to maintain the reliability of the electric grid, while achieving lower energy prices overall, and advancing the national objective of producing virtually carbon-free baseload generation as part of a national climate change strategy.

For example, respected energy market entities, including NYISO, repeatedly have determined that, were IPECs baseload generation to be lost, New York State could not meet the applicable reliability requirements under the assumed base case scenario.31 Disruption of IPECs continued operation can be expected to increase air emissions, adversely affect system reliability and, in a profoundly difficult economy, cause higher overall energy prices further weakening the States Meeting New York Electric Power Needs, National Research Council of the National Academies (Washington, DC, 2006) (the 2006 National Academy Report), Attachment 46, at 46 (the annual average prices in 2005 were $83 per megawatt hour (MWh) and $98/MWh, [in New York City and Long Island], respectively, compared to prices ranging from $65/MWh to $72/MWh in Zones A through F upstate).

31 NYISO, as the entity charged in New York with maintaining bulk power system reliability within the New York Control Area, and therefore an authority on the New York electric system, is required by its tariffs to perform comprehensive analyses conducted on a two-year cycle to test the robustness of the bulk power system and to identify conditions under which resource adequacy or transmission security needs may arise. NYISOs 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment (NYISO, September 18, 2012) (2012 NYISO RNA), Attachment 71, analyzes at §4.3.2 (pages 4243) the Indian Point Plant Retirement Scenario and identifies the need for emergency operation measures in the absence of IPECs generation, concluding that:

Reliability violations of transmission security and resource adequacy criteria would occur in 2016 if the Indian Point Plant were to be retired by the end of 2015 (the latter of the current license expiration dates) using the Base Case load forecast assumptions.

The Indian Point Plant has two base-load units (2060 MW) located in Zone H in Southeastern New York, an area of the State that is subject to transmission constraints that limit transfers in that area as demonstrated by the reliability violations in the Base Case and Econometric Forecast Scenario.

Southeastern New York, with the Indian Point Plant in service, currently relies on transfers to augment existing capacity, and load growth or loss of generation capacity in this area would aggravate those transfer limits.

...

Furthermore, . . . under stress conditions the voltage performance on the system without the Indian Point Plant would be degraded. In all cases, power flows replacing the Indian Point generation cause increased reactive power losses in addition to the loss of reactive output from the plant. It would be necessary to take emergency operations measures, including load relief to eliminate the transmission security violations in Southeastern New York.

For the Base Case load forecast, [Loss of load expectation] LOLE was 0.48 in 2016, a significant violation of the 0.1 days per year criterion. Beyond 2016, due to annual load growth the LOLE continues to escalate for the remainder of the Study Period reaching an LOLE of 3.63 days per year in 2022 [more than 36 times worse than the LOLE system reliability standard].

Id. at 43 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).

For many of these same reasons, the 2006 National Academy Report describes IPEC as a vital part of the system supplying electricity to the New York City region, (Id. at vii), and a key part of the electric power system. Id. at 1 (emphasis added).

8

December 17, 2012 economic productivity and competitiveness.32 Indeed, because metropolitan New York plays a critical role in our nations economic health, any disruption to its power supply represents a potential national security risk, one that the United States National Academy of Sciences already has determined cannot be allowed without in-place power system reinforcements.33 Notwithstanding the aspirations expressed in New Yorks 2009 State Energy Plan,34 IPEC remains an important component of New York States ability to meet its obligations to:

(a) ensure the welfare and prosperity of its citizenry;35 32 2012 Manhattan Institute, Attachment 68, at Executive Summary (The effects of these higher electricity costs absorbed by customers would ripple through the New York economy, leading to estimated reductions in output of

$1.8 billion--$2.7 billion per year over the 15-year period 2016-30. The resulting loss of jobs in the state could range from 26,000 to 40,000 per year, depending on the alternative chosen to replace IPEC.), and at 19 (Closing IPEC . . . would impose the equivalent of a tax on consumers and producers that would, as tax increases do, reduce economic growth.).

33 See, 2006 National Academy Report, Attachment 46 at 1, 5-6. See also, Indian Point Energy Center Retirement Analysis (Prepared by Charles River Associates for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) dated August 2, 2011) (the 2011 NYCDEP Analysis), Attachment 48 at 12 (IPECs retirement without new generation or transmission system additions will compromise the reliability of the electricity grid.).

As recently as October, 2012, the New York Energy Highway Task Force pointed out New Yorks lack of, and need for, a Replacement Contingency Plan before New York even can plan to begin to address the serious reliability public and private costs, environmental consequences and other system impacts, that would accompany any attempt to replace IPEC. See, New York Energy Highway Blueprint, issued by the New York Energy Highway Task Force (October, 2012) (2012 NY Energy Highway Blueprint), Attachment 69, at 42, 48-49.

34 The New York State 2009 Energy Plan, published by the State Energy Planning Board and its Energy Coordinating Working Group in December 2009 (the 2009 New York State Energy Plan) envisions a future New York energy system without IPEC. Nonetheless, the 2009 New York State Energy Plan itself identifies the five key policy objectives for New York States energy planning, each of which require that IPEC remain part of New Yorks energy system: (1) Maintain Reliability: Assure that New York has reliable energy and transportation systems; (2) Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: Support energy and transportation systems that enable the State to significantly reduce GHG emissions, both to do the States part in responding to the dangers posed by climate change and to position the State to compete in a national and global carbon-constrained economy; (3)

Stabilize Energy Costs and Improve Economic Competitiveness: Address affordability concerns of residents and businesses caused by rising energy bills; and improve the States economic competitiveness; (4) Reduce Public Health and Environmental Risks: Reduce health and environmental risks associated with the production and use of energy across all sectors; and (5) Improve Energy Independence: Improve the States energy independence and fuel diversity by developing in-state energy supply resources. New York State Energy Plan, Chapter 1, New Yorks Energy Policy at 2. Although the 2009 New York State Energy Plan was revised to express aspirations about a future New York energy system without IPEC (provided that reliability requirements are first addressed), those aspirations were not made part of the NYCMP.

35 In addition to being a lower cost energy resource, IPEC also plays an important role in the overall economy of New York State. A study conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), in cooperation with Entergy, entitled Economic Benefits of IPEC Center, dated April 2004 (the NEI Economic Impact Study), Attachment 36, determined that in 2002, IPEC operations led to an increase in gross regional product (that is, the output of goods and services) of: (i) $763.3 million in Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess counties; (ii) $811.7 million for the New York State economy; and (iii) $1.5 billion for the United States economy. These estimates do not account for the benefits to the economy that result from lower electricity prices. IPEC made $287.7 million in annual purchases, and paid $49.7 million in annual state and local taxes (including 87.6% of total tax revenues in the 9

December 17, 2012 (b) provide basic public services;36 (c) protect the economic engine that metropolitan New York represents for the State and the nation;37 (d) preserve jobs;38 village of Buchanan and 93% of the total tax revenues of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District). NEI Economic Impact Study at 5. Entergy provides to NYPA, under Value Sharing Agreements related to Entergys nuclear fleet in New York State, up to $72 million in annual revenue sharing until 2014. NYPA 2010 Financial Report, at 59. IPEC also pays about $1 million each year to NYSERDA to lease IPECs discharge canal structure.

In addition, Entergy pays another approximately $1.5 million each year to NYSERDA. Although those funds are earmarked to establish a low-level radioactive waste storage facility, they have been diverted for other purposes.

Entergy participates in a wide range of corporate giving programs that address a variety of community issues. In 2011, Entergy made contributions to charities and non-profits in New York of approximately $2,000,000. See,Section V, A.1.c.ii of this Consistency Certification. According to the 2011 NYCDEP Analysis:

IPECs retirement may have far-reaching ancillary economic impacts. IPEC is a major employer in the region, . . . with many more jobs created through indirect and induced economic activity. . . [T]he ancillary economic impacts [of retiring IPEC] may be substantial.

Id. at 11 (emphasis added).

36 Basic public services provided by IPEC include: (i) Required Voltage Support. New York State Energy Plan, Energy Infrastructure Issue Brief at 22 (IPEC provides 900 MVAR of reactive power capability needed to support lower Hudson Valley voltages, which in turn enable transfers into New York City and Long Island that could not otherwise occur.) and (ii) System Reliability. Id. (The complete shutdown of the Indian Point units without adequate replacement infrastructure would have material adverse effects on the electrical system . . . [with]

the probability of 41 outages in a 10-year period.)

37 Economic Competitiveness/ Electricity Costs. [E]nergy costs are a primary concern for New York in its ability to retain and attract business and create jobs in a competitive global economy. . . The importance of the States economic development and energy programs is underscored by the recent economic downturn in the State and around the world. The turmoil in financial markets, steep declines in manufacturing output, business investment and start-ups, and the steady increase in jobless rates have posed historic economic challenges for the nation and the State. New York State Energy Plan, Energy Costs and Economic Development Issue Brief at 1. IPECs closure would cost the energy consumers of New York State about $1.5 billion additional dollars each year. 2011 NYCDEP Analysis, Attachment 48 at 11.

38 Preserving Jobs. Energy costs are a substantial expense for commercial and industrial customers that can impact decisions on location, expansion and the creation of jobs. New York State Energy Plan, Energy Costs and Economic Development Issue Brief, at 11. See, 2012 Manhattan Institute, Attachment 68, at Executive Summary (The effects of these higher electricity costs absorbed by customers would ripple through the New York economy, leading to estimated reductions in output of $1.8 billion--$2.7 billion per year over the 15-year period 2016-30. The resulting loss of jobs in the state could range from 26,000 to 40,000 per year, depending on the alternative chosen to replace IPEC.) Even without considering the broader indirect economic consequences of closing IPEC, IPEC standing alone is a major employer in the region. During normal operation of IPEC, the workforce consists of approximately 1100 employees. During scheduled refueling outages, which typically last about 30 days, an additional 950 workers are on site. 2010 USNRC FSEIS, Attachment 22, at 2-111. IPEC provides well-paying jobs to highly skilled union workers including Mill Wrights, Iron Workers, Teamsters, Boilermakers, Carpenters, Electricians, Engineers, Insulators, Painters, Divers, and Steam Fitters during these refueling and maintenance outages. IPEC paid $211.1 million in direct and indirect compensation from plant accounts in 2004. NEI Economic Impact Study at 5. See also,Section V.A.1. b.iv of this Consistency Certification. At a time when State 10

December 17, 2012 (e) forestall the predicted effects of global warming;39 (f) avoid the adverse public health effects of increased air pollution;40 and (g) prevent the causes of acid rain.41 Nuclear energy is a component of the national plan to fight global warming and achieve energy independence.42 Likewise, a succession of New York Governors has identified climate change, and the resulting sea level rise and ecological disruption, as the most serious environmental unemployment figures are at record levels and jobs are scarce, IPEC License Renewal will maintain a substantial number of jobs.

39 Reduction of Greenhouse Gas. The central challenge for New York energy planners is enabling a transition to an energy system with very low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in time to do the States part to prevent the most severe impacts of climate change while maintaining the States reliable energy systems and economic competitiveness. New York State Energy Plan, Climate Change Issue Brief, at 1. Climate change is one of the most significant energy-related, environmental matters facing the State, the nation and the world. New York State Energy Plan, Environmental Impact and Regulation Issue Brief at 1.

40 Increased Health Threats from Air Pollution. [Without IPEC] CO2 emissions would increase by as much as nine percent (3.6 million tons); CO2 allowance prices would increase between 52 and 100 percent. . . . Id. Combustion of carbon-based fuels is responsible for a large fraction of the emissions or formation of many pollutants. Human exposure to some of these air pollutants has been associated with respiratory or cardiovascular health impacts and increased mortality in the United States and elsewhere. Twenty-nine counties in New York are not in attainment of the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone and ten counties are not in attainment of the standard for fine particulates, putting residents at an increased risk for respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease. New York State Energy Plan, Health, Energy Production and Energy Use Issue Brief, at 1. In a study done in the Bronx. . ., it was found that on days when air pollution, particulate matter levels, nitrogen oxide levels, and sulfur dioxide levels were at their highest, the severity of asthma symptoms doubled among the studied individuals. . . . Low income communities and communities of color may have greater exposure to air pollutants due to a greater presence of air emissions sources in these communities, and residents of these communities exhibit some health outcomes at greater rates. Id. at 10.

41 Reduction of Acid Rain. New Yorks environment suffers from the effects of acid rain and nitrogen deposition caused in part by emissions from the electric and industrial sectors. Power plants in the eastern United States and Canada are the largest source of the emissions that cause acid rain. . . .The Adirondacks are [..] among the most acid deposition sensitive areas in North America. In addition, the Catskill Mountains and Alleghany and Hudson Highlands have experienced adverse environmental impacts from acid rain. Nitrogen deposition contributes to eutrophication of water bodies, including the Long Island Sound, and in soils, increases plant vulnerability to pathogens and alters plant species composition. New York State Energy Plan, Environmental Impact and Regulation of Energy Systems Issue Brief at 22.

42 See, Blueprint For a Secure Energy Future (The White House, March 30, 2011), Attachment 52, at 3 (Every president since Richard Nixon has called for Americas independence from oil. . . . And beyond our efforts to reduce our dependence on oil, we must focus on expanding cleaner sources of electricity, including renewables like wind and solar, as well as clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear power-keeping America on the cutting edge of clean energy technology so that we can build a 21st century clean energy economy and win the future.)

11

December 17, 2012 challenge of our times.43 IPEC is an important component of the nations commitment to fight global warming, and of New Yorks contribution to that effort.

Beyond climate change, IPEC substantially reduces air pollution and acid rain impacts within the New York City metropolitan area and New York State generally that would otherwise result from the burning of some combination of fossil fuel-fired facilities to meet the electricity needs of Southeastern New York.44 Loss of baseload generation at IPEC would not only be wholly inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the NYCMP, it would also risk denying environmental justice to those whose health and financial well-being would be harmed by IPECs closure.45 43 In 2005, then New York State Governor George Pataki recognized both the serious potential risks that climate change poses to aquatic ecosystems and coastal areas and the need to reduce emissions of CO 2 associated with fossil fuel-fired electric generating stations. In 2007, then-Governor Spitzer stated: Global warming is the most significant environmental problem of our generation, and by helping lead this regional program, we can reduce emissions from power plants - one of the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the Northeast. (Press Release, Governor Spitzer Unveils Cutting-Edge Global Warming Regulations, October 24, 2007). In 2008, Governor Paterson said that: Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time, and that by coming together with nine other states, New York is showing that we can take our own bold action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (Press Release, Governor Paterson Rings in New Era to Combat Climate Change, September 25, 2008).

44 2011 NYCDEP Analysis, Attachment 48 at 13 ([B]oth [New York] City and [New York] State would see approximately a 15% increase in carbon emissions under most conventional replacement scenarios, with roughly a 7-8% increase in NOx emissions.)

45 Environmental justice must be a concern of NYSDOS when it considers whether to concur with this Consistency Certification. Hazel Dukes, the President of the New York State National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Conference, explained the environmental justice implications if IPECs generation were lost:

I write today to give voice to the voiceless in this debate. To say in one loud voice, that no decision can be achieved without taking the health and economic well-being of all of the communities Indian Point serves, into consideration.

Social justice organizations such as the NAACP have a special interest in working to combat climate change and drastically reduce air pollution from nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SOx), and carbon dioxide (CO 2).

The debate over relicensing has taken place without input from communities of color which are under siege by dirty air, not to mention the health effects that come along with poor air quality. The debate over relicensing has raged on without input from communities of color who can ill-afford higher electricity bills. The debate over relicensing has taken place without reassurance that the dirty-air power plants, built to replace Indian Point, will not once again end up in our neighborhoods . . . .

There are too many cases of childhood asthma in our neighborhoods, and too many families and senior citizens forced to choose between heating their home and buying groceries. There are too many small business owners who cannot withstand blackouts, and too many unemployed citizens . . . .

We at the NAACP New York State Conference recognize that the Indian Point nuclear power plants avoid millions of tons of pollution every year while 12

December 17, 2012 Prior efforts to provide the required power to metropolitan New York have come with adverse public health impacts, such as increased childhood asthma.46 The furor over the installation of emergency generation in and around Manhattan underscores how, placed in a bind, New York has had to improvise with the installation of less environmentally efficient facilities to the disadvantage of the communities where those facilities were located. Moreover, the ongoing operating levels of a substantial portion of New Yorks existing energy supply remains vulnerable as the result of pending changes in environmental regulation.47 In plaNYCA Greener, Greater New York (City of New York, April 2011) (the 2011 NYC Plan), Attachment 47, New York Citys heavy reliance on IPEC is described. New Yorks electricity system faces significant reliability challenges and [p]rincipal among these is the potential closure of IPEC, which could lead to major system disruptions in the absence of a viable replacement plan. Id. at 116. According to the 2011 NYC Plan:

New York Citys ability to import electricity is limited by under-sized and congested transmission lines, and opportunities to expand in-city generation are limited. Periods of peak summer demand put significant stress on utility infrastructure and cause the activation of the dirtiest in-city plants. As a result, each summer we must brace for the possibility of neighborhood-level blackouts and increased air pollution.

Id.

Leaving older and dirtier power plants in place is simply too costly for New Yorkers health and pocketbooks. Id. at 112. Given the public safety imperatives and the reliability requirements of providing adequate power supplies to New York City, existing, less efficient power plants in the New York City area have continued to operate. Without IPEC, emergency actions to provide providing us with 2,000 megawatts of electricity for our schools, mass transit, hospitals, and government institutions.

Letter of Hazel Dukes, President, NAACP New York State Conference, to Andrew Stuyvenberg, Environmental Project Manager, dated January 21, 2009, Attachment 70.

46 See, e.g., New York State Energy Plan, Environmental Impact and Regulation Issue Brief at 1, 10.

47 See, Power Trends 2012, State of the Grid (2012 NYISO Power Trends), Attachment 67, at 43 (The array of proposed regulations is estimated to potentially impact more than half of the installed generating capacity in New York State, with effects ranging from retrofitting pollution controls to reduced use or retirement.); Power Trends 2011 (NYISO, May 2011) (2011 NYISO Power Trends), Attachment 49, at 41 (The array of proposed regulations is estimated to impact 23,957 megawatts of capacity, more than half the installed generating capacity in New York State. ); 2012 NY Energy Highway Blueprint Attachment 69, at 42 (More than 40 percent of New Yorks existing power generating capacity is over 40 years old and more than 20 percent is over 50 years old.

Recent and pending environmental regulations . . . coupled with low natural gas prices could lead to accelerated retirements of some of these older facilities. The potential retirement of power plants creates uncertainties for the future of the States power supply. (citations omitted)).

13

December 17, 2012 additional energy to New York City residents, and the attendant public health risks, could become more serious and more frequent.

The 2011 NYC Plan makes New York Citys support for IPEC abundantly clear:

1. IPEC is the cornerstone of New York Citys electricity system, that supplies up to 30% of our power virtually carbon free, and its removal could threaten the reliability, increase prices, and jeopardize our [greenhouse gas] reduction efforts.

Id. at 105.

2. Closing Indian Point without a viable and relatively clean replacement option would jeopardize reliability, significantly increase prices, worsen local air quality, and make it very challenging to achieve our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2030. For these reasons we will support the continued safe operation of Indian Point. Id. at 112.

3. Retiring Indian Point without replacing at least a portion of its capacity could lead to power system instability. Replacement costs would exceed $2 billion and New Yorkers would also pay at least $1.5 billion in higher energy costs [per year]

over the next decade, and electricity consumers could see their bills increase by 15%. Local air pollution would increase and our efforts to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions 30% by 2030 would be unachievable because we would most likely shift to electricity generated by more carbon-intensive sources. Id. at 117.

The business realities of running the nations largest city, and the human health and security effects of undermining that citys electric supply, deserve the highest deference.

Because IPEC License Renewal will help to protect public safety and maintain the reliability of the electric supply to New York State, IPEC License Renewal substantially advances the goals of the NYCMP Policy 18. IPEC supplies energy in an area of high demand and at a location on the transmission grid that relies on IPEC to sustain reliable operations. IPECs 2,158 megawatts of gross generating capacity48 helps to reduce overall electricity costs, which would be significantly higher if the electricity were produced by other means.49 Without IPEC, New York Citys electricity system would become more vulnerable to supply disruption and blackouts.50 III. IPEC Substantially Advances the Goals of NYCMP Policy 41 by Promoting Clean Air and Assisting In the Fight Against Global Warming NYCMP Policy 41 calls for NYSDOS to ensure maintenance of national and state ambient air quality standards that protect the public health and reduce global warming. Without IPEC 48 NYISO recently found that IPEC was able to provide delivery of 2060 megawatts of electricity to New Yorks electrical system. See, 2012 NYISO Power Trends, Attachment 67 at 42.

49 Manhattan Institute 2012, at Executive Summary.

50 2012 NYISO RNA, Attachment 71 at 43.

14

December 17, 2012 operations, electrical energy would have to be produced predominantly by some combination of facilities burning fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. Such alternatives to production of energy at IPEC brings large quantities of air pollutants caused by the combustion of fossil fuels, contributing unnecessarily to increased global warming and threats to public health caused by air emissions. According to the 2011 NYCDEP Analysis, under most conventional replacement scenarios, retirement of IPEC would increase carbon emissions in New York City and New York State by approximately 15%, and increase NOx emissions roughly by 7-8%.51 IV. IPEC Substantially Advances the Goals of NYCMP Policy 43 by Helping to Fulfill New Yorks Commitment to Fight the Causes of Acid Rain NYCMP Policy 43 requires New York State to reduce the precursors to acid rain, which are of particular interest to New York State given the history of acidification of Adirondack Park lakes.

Prevention of acid rain is necessary to enhance the continued viability of coastal fisheries, wildlife, agricultural, scenic, and water resources in furtherance of the NYCMP.

Acid rain is formed when sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides combine with moisture in the atmosphere to produce sulfuric acid and nitric acid. The combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, wood, etc.) is the basic cause of acid rain. In the United States, approximately two thirds of all SO2 and a quarter of all NOx come from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels.

Without IPEC, 2,158 MW of baseload gross generating capacity would have to be obtained from alternative sources, predominantly some combination of fossil-fuel burning plants to produce electrical power.52 As a result, there would be a dramatic increase in NOx and SO2 emissions.53 V. IPEC Is Consistent With All Other Applicable and Enforceable Policies of the NYCMP As demonstrated above, IPEC License Renewal substantially advances the economic goals of NYCMP Policy 18, New Yorks efforts to prevent global warming and preserve air quality under NYCMP Policy 41, and New Yorks fight against acid rain under NYCMP Policy 43. If and to the extent applicable, IPEC License Renewal also is consistent with all other policies of the NYCMP:

Many NYCMP policies are inapplicable by their own terms, such as policies # 3 (major ports), # 4 (small harbors), # 6 (expedited permitting), # 15 (beach 51 2011 NYCDEP Analysis, Attachment 48 at 13.

52 See, NERA 2012, Attachment 63, at E-1 (concluding that IPEC baseload generation would be replaced primarily by fossil-fuel generation from existing natural gas and coal facilities.)

53 See, NERA 2012, Attachment 63, at 40 (projecting that, without IPEC, national CO2 emissions would increase by 13,500,000 metric tons annually on average over the period 2016-2025, national SO 2 emissions would increase by 6,400 tons annually on average over this period, and national NOx emissions would increase by 3,300 tons annually on average over this period.).

15

December 17, 2012 nourishment), # 16 (funding for flooding and erosion protection), # 26 (agricultural resources), # 27 (siting of major energy facilities) , # 28 (ice management), # 29 (energy development of OCS and Lake Erie), # 31 (local waterfront plans), # 32 (innovative sanitary systems), # 34 (vessel discharges),

and # 42 (State reclassification of land).

Many NYCMP policies do not apply because Entergy is not proposing to undertake new construction activities or adopt new operating procedures. These include policies # 11 (flood and erosion control for new construction), # 12 (flood and erosion control for new activities), # 13 (construction of flooding and erosion control structures), # 14 (construction of flooding and erosion control structures),

1. 19 (water recreation access), # 20 (access to publically owned foreshore), # 21 (water enhanced recreation), # 22 (water recreation where appropriate), # 23 (historic, architectural, and archeological resources), # 24 (scenic resources of Statewide significance), # 25 (other scenic resources), and # 44 (wetlands protection).

Some NYCMP policies are potentially relevant within the context of a future possible State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit decision by NYSDEC - separate and apart from USNRC License Renewal. 54 These issues lie within the jurisdiction and control of NYSDEC. Policies falling into this category include # 7 (fish and wildlife habitat), # 8 (fish and wildlife resources), # 9 (recreational value of fish & wildlife), # 10 (commercial fishing),

1. 30 (prevention of pollution), # 33 (best management practices for stormwater),

1. 35 (dredge disposal), # 36 (oil shipping and storage), # 37 (best management practices for nutrient runoff), # 38 (protection of public water supplies), and # 40 (thermal discharges). Entergy will continue to operate in compliance with the NYCMP policies pursuant to its existing SPDES Permit. When NYSDEC reissues the SPDES permit for IPEC, NYSDEC will exercise its authority and responsibility to protect water quality and water resources under State law, and within that context will make any required consistency findings.

54 No change of water quality impacts is proposed as part of License Renewal. Existing operations are currently authorized by an existing SPDES permit issued by the NYSDEC in compliance with the NYCMP. Prior to any final determination by NYSDEC to require physical modifications, or changes of operations at IPEC, NYSDEC will itself address the consistency of such modifications or changes with the NYCMP. State agencies, such as NYSDEC, retain authority to make their own consistency certifications, with the advice of NYSDOS which shall make recommendations to such agencies with respect to achievement of such policies Exec. L. Art. 42, §919(2); see also, 19 NYCRR §600.4(a) (fulfilling SEQRAs environmental impact statement requirements constitutes a determination of consistency as required by Executive Law article 42).

In all events, any requirement [under] the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, [and] the Clean Air Act, as amended, . . . established by the Federal Government or by any state or local government pursuant to such Acts . . . shall be incorporated in any program developed pursuant to [the CZMA] and shall be the water pollution control and air pollution control requirements applicable to [the state coastal zone management program.]

16 U.S.C. §1456(f); 15 C.F.R. §923.45. Thus, under the CZMA, the current NYSDEC permits authorizing operation of IPEC demonstrate that IPECs operations comply with the water pollution control and air pollution control requirements of the NYCMP.

16

December 17, 2012 Some NYCMP policies, while aimed at new development, may benefit from a review of IPECs contributions to maritime economy, its water-dependency, and its compliance with State law with respect to its existing operations. These policies include # 1 (waterfront redevelopment), # 2 (water dependent use of the shorefront), # 5 (develop where adequate infrastructure exists), # 17 (non-structural measures to prevent flooding and erosion), and # 39 (transport and management of solid and hazardous waste).

As requested by NYSDOS, the inapplicability and/or consistency of each of the 44 policies of the NYCMP are addressed in this Consistency Certification.

VI. NYSDOS Should Be Guided By Its Own Precedents, Each of Which Confirm That Existing Nuclear Facilities Are Consistent With the NYCMP The federal CZMA regulations that govern the NYSDOS federal consistency review were adopted with the express purpose of ensuring uniform application of a States management program policies. 65 Fed. Reg. 77124 at 77129 (December 8, 2000). NYSDOS is required to uniformly and comprehensively apply the enforceable policies of the States management program. 15 C.F.R. §930.6(a). Uniformity is required to ensure that States are not applying policies differently, or in a discriminatory way, among various entities for the same type of project for similar purposes, e.g., holding a Federal agency to a higher standard than a local government or private citizen. 65 Fed. Reg. at 77128 (December 8, 2000). Accordingly, NYSDOS should be guided by its own precedents in reviewing similar existing facilities.

NYSDOS already has evaluated CZMA Consistency Certifications submitted in support of license renewal applications for three other nuclear power plants located in New York States coastal zone, including one other multi-unit installation (Nine Mile Point), and in each case specifically determined that the renewal of their USNRC operating licenses was consistent with the NYCMP.55 These prior nuclear power plant license renewal Consistency Certifications did not address the inapplicable NYCMP policies. These Consistency Certifications simply indicate that most NYCMP policies were not included in the discussion of consistency because there are no plans to construct new buildings or structures. . . . (See, e.g., Federal Consistency Assessment Form for Ginna, Attachment 31). NYSDOS concurred with this conclusion.

Indeed, NYSDOS CZMA review of other existing nuclear power plants located in the coastal zone is enough to demonstrate that continued operation of existing nuclear generating facilities within the coastal zone is consistent with the NYCMP. NYSDOS even went as far as deciding 55 NYSDOS review of the Consistency Certifications submitted by: (i) Rochester Gas & Electric for the continued operation of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), Attachment 31; (ii) Constellation Energy for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Constellation), Attachment 32; and (iii) James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Attachment 33, was not extensive.

17

December 17, 2012 that the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Stations did not require individual consistency certification because Nine Mile had the benefit of general consistency concurrence.56 VII. IPEC License Renewal Satisfies the Standard for NYSDOS Concurrence In evaluating whether to concur with Entergys Consistency Certification, NYSDOS should apply the same regulatory standards that other New York State agencies apply when making a consistency determination.57 The New York Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act, Article 42 of the New York State Executive Law (WRCRA), provides authority for a New York coastal program that includes coastal policies, coastal boundaries, and state consistency requirements (N.Y.

Executive Law Art. 42 §910 et. seq.). Policies and Procedures, 19 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 600, describes the regulatory framework for WRCRA implementation.

These authorities, which are incorporated into the NYCMP as State Means for Implementing the Polic[ies],58 provide New York States only explanation of what it means for an action to be consistent with coastal policies. Specifically, 19 NYCRR §600.4(b) provides that where a determination is made pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act that state agency actions will not have a significant effect on the environment, the action is consistent with the NYCMP as long as it does not substantially hinder the achievement of any coastal policies.

Moreover, section 600.4(b) further explains that even those state actions that will substantially hinder the achievement of one or more coastal policies are likewise consistent with the NYCMP if:

(i) there are no reasonable alternatives, (ii) adverse effects have been minimized, (iii) one or more other coastal policies will be advanced, and 56 See Correspondence from Jeff Zappieri, NYSDOS, to Timothy J. OConnor, Constellation Energy (July 18, 2006) . A General Concurrence under the NYCMP is based upon a determination that, among other things: (a) the activity is compatible with community character in design, size, and materials; (b) the activity involves reconstruction, replacement, maintenance or repair of lawful structures, in-kind and in-place; (c) other than the exercise of littoral rights, the activity is entirely on property owned or otherwise authorized for use; (d) the activity would not significantly impair the rights and interests of the public regarding the use of public lands or waters; and (e) the activity does not disrupt existing lawful water-dependent uses. NYCMP Chapter II-9 at 13 and 14.

57 See NYCMP Chapter II-6, at 3. NYSDOS is required to uniformly and comprehensively apply the enforceable policies of the States management program. 15 C.F.R. §930.6(a). The uniformity principle ensure[s] that States are not applying policies differently, or in a discriminatory way, among various entities for the same type of project for similar purposes, e.g. holding a Federal agency to a higher standard than a local government or private citizen.

65 Fed. Reg. 77124, at 77128 (Dec. 8, 2000).

58 NYCMP Chapter II-6 at 5.

18

December 17, 2012 (iv) the action will result in an overriding regional or statewide public benefit.59 Thus, under the States only regulatory explanation of the term, the consistency of IPEC with the NYCMP is evident. IPECs continued operations do not hinder, let alone substantially hinder, the achievement of any coastal policies. Moreover, even if IPECs continued operations would substantially hinder the achievement of one or more coastal policies, IPEC is consistent with the NYCMP because:

(i) As explained in Section VIII below, for CZMA purposes, there are no reasonable alternatives to IPECs continued productive operation because billions of public and private investment dollars have already been expended to establish IPEC as it exists today.

(ii) NYSDEC, through its existing permit authorizations, has addressed the environmental aspects of IPEC operations and assured that any adverse effects of continued operation are minimized.60 (iii) IPEC substantially advances the purposes of multiple coastal policies including, without limitation, the economic goals of Policy 18, the fight against global warming under Policy 41, and the fight against acid rain under Policy 43.

(iv) Among other things, New York City has identified IPEC as necessary for its energy security, and IPEC advances the statewide interests protected by Policy

18. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that IPEC will result in statewide and regional public benefits.

Thus, under the States regulatory definition of consistency, there can be no doubt that the continued operation of IPEC meets or exceeds the standard for NYSDOS concurrence.

VIII. For Purposes of CZMA Review, There Are No Reasonable Alternatives to IPEC License Renewal When determining whether to concur with Entergys Consistency Certification, NYSDOS should consider only alternatives to License Renewal that are reasonable, available, and would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable polices of the

[state coastal] management program. 15 C.F.R. §930.121(c).61 Availability refers to the ability of the proponenthere Entergyto implement an alternative that achieves the primary or 59 19 NYCRR §600.4(b).

60 Future permit decisions by NYSDEC are not part of IPEC License Renewal.

61 See also, Decision and Findings by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce in the Consistency Appeal of Millennium Pipeline Company, L.P., from an Objection by the State of New York, at 23 (Dec. 12. 2003) (hereinafter Millennium); Decision and Findings in the Consistency Appeal of the Virginia Electric Power Company, at 38 (May 19, 1994) (hereinafter (VEPCO).

19

December 17, 2012 essential purpose of the project.62 To be available, an alternative must not only satisfy the primary or essential purpose of the project, there must not be financial, technical or legal barriers to implementing the alternative and the proponent must have the resources available to implement the alternative.63 Where an alternative must be implemented by another partythat is, where the project proponent lacks the legal authority to implement the alternative and has no means of compelling the other party to do soit has been held unavailable.64 Entergy is a merchant operator of a privately-owned nuclear power plant. As the private owner of IPEC, Entergy has the legal right, and the legal obligation to its stockholders, to preserve and maintain the value of Entergys investment in IPEC.

Entergys private ownership of IPEC did not come about by accidentprivate ownership and operation of power production facilities was a deliberate policy choice made by New York State in order to, among other things, promote competition among power producers and ultimately reduce the cost of electricity to energy consumers. In 1996, the New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) prepared a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement in NYPSC Case 94-E-0952 addressing the environmental, social and economic impacts of a policy supporting increased competition in electric markets. After New York implemented its retail competition policy, Entergy became one of a group of private merchant energy providers whose purchase, operation, and maintenance of power plants such as IPEC was approved by the NYPSC. Under New York law, Entergy is responsible for the ownership, use, and operation of IPEC. As a merchant generator, Entergy bears the full economic consequences of its decisions relating to the operation of IPEC. Therefore, under New York law, Entergy has the right, obligation, and essential purpose to maintain the highest and best use and value of IPEC as a nuclear power plant.

In contrast to the typical CZMA consistency reviews that often take place in connection with proposed facilities and uses that do not already exist, and involve public agencies or authorities with many available options to shape and implement a project, here the reasonableness and availability of alternatives is limited by the simple fact that IPEC already exists and is owned by Entergy. Alternative methods to replace 2,158 megawatts of gross generation capacity, and annual generation of more than 17,000,000 megawatt hours65 of reliable, affordable, baseload power, virtually emission free, for New Yorks consumers, from energy sources other than IPEC, would destroy the value of IPEC and fail to fulfill Entergys essential purpose for License Renewal. While publically-owned and regulated power plants at one time could pass stranded costs along to captive energy consumers, those choices are not available to private owners of merchant power production facilities. In a system of private ownership of power production facilities, corporations like Entergy have an obligation to maximize the value of their assets for 62 Millennium at 24; VEPCO at 38.

63 VEPCO at 38.

64 Decision and Findings by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce in the Consistency Appeal of Islander East Pipeline Company, L.L.C. from an Objection by the State of Connecticut, at 41 (May 5, 2004), citing VEPCO at 45.

65 NYISO 2012 Gold Book at 33 (IPEC generated 17,016,900 megawatt hours of electricity in 2011).

20

December 17, 2012 the benefit of their stockholders, thus curtailing what might otherwise be considered reasonable or available alternatives to License Renewal under the CZMA.

IX. Conclusion This Consistency Certification provides overwhelming evidence that IPEC License Renewal meets and exceeds the requirements for NYSDOS concurrence.

21

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Federal Consistency Assessment Form An applicant, seeking a permit, license, waiver, certification or similar type of approval from a federal agency which is subject to the New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP), shall complete this assessment form for any proposed activity that will occur within and/or directly affect the States Coastal Area. This form is intended to assist an applicant in certifying that the proposed activity is consistent with New York States CMP as required by U.S. Department of Commerce regulations (15 CFR 930.57). It should be completed at the time when the federal application is prepared. The Department of State will use the completed form and 1

accompanying information in its review of the applicants certification of consistency.

A. APPLICANT (please print)

1. Name: Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy)

2. Address: Indian Point Energy Center, 450 Broadway, Buchanan, NY, 10511

3. Telephone: Area Code: ( 914 ) 254-2055 B. PROPOSED ACTIVITY

1. Brief description of activity:

Entergy is applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) to renew the operating licenses of Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3 (collectively, IPEC) for an additional 20 years of plant operation (License Renewal). No change of existing coastal facilities, activities, or effects is proposed.

2. Purpose of activity:

Entergys purpose and need is to produce and/or sell from IPEC for an additional 20 years up to 2158 MW of baseload electrical power to the energy consumers of New York State, and thus to maintain the highest and best use and value of IPEC as a nuclear power plant.

1 The issue of whether License Renewal requires any further review under the Coastal Zone Management Act is a federal question pending before and to be resolved by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB). See, Motion and Memorandum By Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order That It Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of IPEC Units 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses, dated July 30, 2012, USNRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286. In addition, for the reasons presented to the Department of State in Entergys petition filed on November 7, 2012, License Renewal is exempt from review under the terms of the CMP itself. See, In the Matter of the Petition of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, for a Declaratory Ruling, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING, dated November 5, 2012, filed with the State of New York, Department of State (Attachment 57 to the Consistency Certification). Entergy reserves its right to seek judicial review in the event the Department of State should fail to recognize that IPEC is grandfathered under the CMP. Entergy also expressly reserves all rights to contest the validity and enforceability of the CMP, and the authority of the Department of State to conduct federal consistency review, under both federal and state law.

1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

3. Location of activity:

Westchester Buchanan 450 Broadway County City, Town, or Village Street or Site Description

4. Type of federal permit/license required: Renewal of USNRC Operating Licenses

5. Federal application number, if known: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

6. If a state permit/license was issued or is required for the proposed activity, identify the state agency and provide the application or permit number, if known:

Unless waived, a water quality certificate from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is required for License Renewal. Existing state permits for IPEC are listed in Table 1 attached.

C. COASTAL ASSESSMENT Check either YES or NO for each of these questions. The numbers following each question refer to the policies described in the CMP document (see footnote on page 2) which may be affected by the proposed activity.

1. Will the proposed activity result in any of the following:

YES NO

a. Large physical change to a site within the coastal area which will require the X

preparation of an environmental impact statement? (11, 22, 25, 32, 37, 38, 41, 43)

b. Physical alteration of more than two acres of land along the shoreline, land under X

water or coastal waters? (2, 11, 12, 20, 28, 35, 44)........................................................

c. Revitalization/redevelopment of a deteriorated or underutilized waterfront site? (1) .... X

d. Reduction of existing or potential public access to or along coastal waters? (19, 20) ... X

e. Adverse effect upon the commercial or recreational use of coastal fish resources?

X (9, 10).............................................................................................................................

f. Siting of a facility essential to the exploration, development and production of X

energy resources in coastal waters or on the Outer Continental Shelf? (29) .................

g. Siting of a facility essential to the generation or transmission of energy? (27) ............ X

h. Mining, excavation, or dredging activities, or the placement of dredged or fill X

material in coastal waters? (15, 35) ..............................................................................

i. Discharge of toxics, hazardous substances or other pollutants into coastal waters? (8, X2 15, 35) ...........................................................................................................................

j. Draining of stormwater runoff or sewer overflows into coastal waters? (33) ............... X2

k. Transport, storage, treatment, or disposal of solid wastes or hazardous materials?

X2 (36, 39) ..........................................................................................................................

l. Adverse effect upon land or water uses within the States small harbors? (4) .............. X

2. Will the proposed activity affect or be located in, on, or adjacent to any of the following:

a. State designated freshwater or tidal wetland? (44) ....................................................... X2

b. Federally designated flood and/or state designated erosion hazard area? (11, 12, 17) .. X2

c. State designated significant fish and/or wildlife habitat? (7) ........................................ X

d. State designated significant scenic resource or area? (24) ............................................ X2

e. State designated important agricultural lands? (26) ...................................................... X

f. Beach, dune or barrier island? (12) ............................................................................... X 2

No change of existing activities or facilities is proposed.

2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 YES NO

g. Major ports of Albany, Buffalo, Ogdensburg, Oswego or New York? (3) ................... X

h. State, county, or local park? (19, 20) ............................................................................ X

i. Historic resource listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places? (23) ...... X

3. Will the proposed activity require any of the following:

a. Waterfront site? (2, 21, 22) ........................................................................................... X3

b. Provision of new public services or infrastructure in undeveloped or sparsely X

populated sections of the coastal area? (5) ....................................................................

c. Construction or reconstruction of a flood or erosion control structure? (13, 14, 16) .... X

d. State water quality permit or certification? (30, 38, 40) ............................................... X4

e. State air quality permit or certification? (41, 43) .......................................................... X

4. Will the proposed activity occur within and/or affect an area covered by a State approved local waterfront revitalization program? (see policies in local program X document) ...........................................................................................................................

D. ADDITIONAL STEPS

1. If all of the questions in Section C are answered NO, then the applicant or agency shall complete Section E and submit the documentation required by Section F.

2. If any of the questions in Section C are answered YES, then the applicant or agent is advised to consult the CMP, or where appropriate, the local waterfront revitalization program document.* The proposed activity must be analyzed in more detail with respect to the applicable state or local coastal policies. On a separate page(s), the applicant or agent shall: (a) identify, by their policy numbers, which coastal policies are affected by the activity, (b) briefly assess the effects of the activity upon the policy, and (c) state how the activity is consistent with each policy. Following the completion of this written assessment, the applicant or agency shall complete Section E and submit the documentation required by Section F.

E. CERTIFICATION The applicant or agent must certify that the proposed activity is consistent with the States CMP or the approved local waterfront revitalization program, as appropriate. If this certification cannot be made, the proposed activity shall not be undertaken. If this certification can be made, complete this Section.

The proposed activity complies with New York States approved Coastal Management Program, or with the applicable approved local waterfront revitalization program, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program.

2 No change of existing activities or facilities is proposed.

3 IPEC is a water-dependent use that requires a waterfront site. No change of existing activities or facilities is proposed.

4 IPEC has an existing state water quality certification and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

See Table 1 attached. The USNRC is considering Entergys argument that the requirement for a water quality certification in connection with License Renewal has been waived by NYSDEC.

• These state and local documents are available for inspection at the offices of many federal agencies, Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of State regional offices, and the appropriate regional and county planning agencies. Local program documents are also available for inspection at the offices of the appropriate local government.

3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table 1 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for the Indian Point Site Agency Authority Description Number Expiration Date USNRC Atomic Energy Act, IP1 License to DPR-5 September 28, 2013 10 CFR 50 Possess USNRC Atomic Energy Act, IP2 License to DPR-26 September 28, 2013 10 CFR 50 Operate USNRC Atomic Energy Act, IP3 License to DPR-64 December 12, 2015 10 CFR 50 Operate USDOT 49 CFR 107, Subpart G IP2 DOT Hazardous 053112 551 040U June 30, 2013 Materials Certificate of Registration USDOT 49 CFR 107, Subpart G IP3 DOT Hazardous 053112 551 047U June 30, 2013 Materials Certificate of Registration NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 325 IP2 Pesticide 12696 April 30, 2015 Application Business Registration NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 325 IP3 Pesticide 13163 April 30, 2015 Application Business Registration NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Parts 704 IP1, 2, and 3 SPDES NY 000 4472 October 1, 19921 and 750 Permit NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 704 Simulator NY 025 0414 February 28, 2013 Transformer Vault SPDES Permit NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 704 Buchanan Gas NY 022 4826 February 28, 2013 Turbine SPDES Permit NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Parts 200 IP2 Air Permit 3-5522- No Expiration Date and 201 00011/00026 NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Parts 200 IP3 Air Permit 3/5522- No Expiration Date and 201 00105/00009 WCDOH Chapter 873, Article IP2 Gas Turbine 1 #00021 December 31, 20122 XIII, Section Air Permit 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article IP2 Gas Turbine 2 #00022 December 31, 20122 XIII, Section Air Permit 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County i

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table 1 (cont'd)

Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for the Indian Point Site Agency Authority Description Number Expiration Date WCDOH Chapter 873, Article IP2 Gas Turbine 3 #00023 December 31, 20122 XIII, Section Air Permit 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article IP2 Boiler Permit 52-4493 Not Applicable XIII, Section 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article IP2 Vapor Extractor 52-5682 December 31, 20122 XIII, Section Air Permit 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article IP3 Boiler Permit 52-6497 No Expiration Date XIII, Section 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article IP3 Training Center 52-6498 No Expiration Date XIII, Section Boiler Permit 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article IP3 Vapor Extractor --3 -3 XIII, Section Air Permit 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 596 IP2 Hazardous 3-000107 September 4, 2013 Substance Bulk Storage Registration Certificate NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 596 IP3 Hazardous 3-000071 August 4, 2013 Substance Bulk Storage Registration Certificate NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 610 IP2 Major Oil 3-2140 --1 Storage Facility WCDOH Westchester County IP3 Petroleum Bulk 3-166367 September 7, 2015 Sanitary Code, Article Storage Registration XXV Certificate NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 372 IP2 Hazardous NYD991304411 No Expiration Date Waste Generator Identification ii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table 1 (cont'd)

Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for the Indian Point Site Agency Authority Description Number Expiration Date NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 372 IP3 Hazardous NYD085503746 No Expiration Date Waste Generator Identification NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 373 IP2 Hazardous NYD991304411 February 28, 20071 Waste Part 373 Permit USEPA 40 CFR 264 IP2 Hazardous Solid NYD991304411 October 14, 20024 Waste Amendment Permit USEPA 40 CFR 264 IP3 Hazardous Solid NYD085503746 October 17, 20014 Waste Amendment Permit Notes:

Current as of December 2012.

(1) Timely renewal application was submitted; therefore, permit is administratively continued under New York State Administrative Procedures Act.

(2) Permit renewal applications were submitted.

(3) Application has been submitted to WCDOH, but a permit has not yet been issued.

(4) Permit has been administratively continued based on conditional mixed waste exemption.

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations USDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IP1 = Indian Point, Unit 1 IP2 = Indian Point, Unit 2 IP3 = Indian Point, Unit 3 USNRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYCRR = New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations NYSDEC = New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES = State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WCDOH = Westchester County Department of Health iii

Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3 Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification in Support of USNRCs Renewal of Indian Point Unit 2 and 3 Operating Licenses Submitted by:

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Prepared by:

AKRF, Inc.

and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

December 2012

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................... I-1 A. CZMA Regulatory Context ................................................................................................ I-4

1. The CZMA ...................................................................................................................... I-4

2. Federally-Approved Coastal Zone Management Programs ............................................ I-5 B. Furtherance of National and State Objectives .................................................................... I-6 C. Description of IPEC ........................................................................................................... I-6

1. Description of IPECs Waterfront Facilities ................................................................... I-7 D. Description of IPECs Surroundings .................................................................................. I-8

1. Nearby Municipalities ..................................................................................................... I-9

2. Hudson River and Coastal Zone ...................................................................................... I-9 E. Regulatory History of IPEC ............................................................................................. I-11 F. Organization of Consistency Certification ....................................................................... I-11 II. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ........................................................................................... II-1 A. Policy 1 - Waterfront Redevelopment ............................................................................. II-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 1 ......................................................... II-2

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... II-3 B. Policy 2 - Water-Dependent Uses.................................................................................... II-3

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 2 ......................................................... II-3

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... II-4 C. Policy 3 - Development of New Yorks Major Ports ...................................................... II-4

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 3 ......................................................... II-5

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... II-5 D. Policy 4 - Encouraging Development of Small Harbors ................................................. II-5

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 4 ......................................................... II-6

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... II-6 E. Policy 5 - Development in Areas with Adequate Essential Services and Facilities ........ II-6

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 5 ......................................................... II-7

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... II-8 F. Policy 6 - Expedited Permitting for Development Activities .......................................... II-8

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 6 ......................................................... II-9

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... II-9 III. FISH AND WILDLIFE POLICIES .................................................................................. III-1 A. Introduction to Consistency Assessment ......................................................................... III-1 B. Policy 7 - Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats .............................................. III-6

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 7 ........................................................ III-8

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. III-9 C. Policy 8 - Hazardous Wastes and Pollutants that Bioaccumulate or Cause Lethal or Sublethal Effects............................................................................................................ III-10

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 8 ...................................................... III-10

a. Analysis of Potential Lethal or Sublethal Aquatic Impacts .................................... III-11

b. Analysis of Potential for Bioaccumulative Effects ................................................. III-12

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ III-13 i

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 D. Policy 9 - Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources........................................ III-13

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 9 ...................................................... III-13

a. Recreational Fish Resources ................................................................................... III-14

b. Wildlife Resources .................................................................................................. III-14

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ III-15 E. Policy 10 - Commercial Fishing ................................................................................... III-15

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 10 .................................................... III-15

a. Identification of Commercial Fisheries ................................................................... III-16

b. IPEC License Renewal Will Not Affect Future Development of Commercial Fisheries................................................................................................................... III-17

c. IPECs Thermal Discharge Does Not Impede Future Development of Commercial Fisheries .............................................................................................. III-17

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ III-17 IV. FLOODING AND EROSION POLICIES........................................................................ IV-1 A. Policies 11 through 14 -Siting Structures to Minimize Flooding and Erosion ............... IV-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policies 11 through 14.................................. IV-3

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. IV-3 B. Policy 15 - Mining, Excavating, or Dredging................................................................. IV-4

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 15 ...................................................... IV-4

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. IV-5 C. Policy 16 - Public Funding for Erosion Protection ......................................................... IV-5

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 16 ...................................................... IV-5

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. IV-5 D. Policy 17 - Non-Structural Measures for Flood and Erosion Control ........................... IV-6

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 17 ...................................................... IV-6

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. IV-7 V. GENERAL POLICY ......................................................................................................... V-1 A. Policy 18 - Safeguarding the States Vital Economic, Social and Environmental Interests ............................................................................................................................ V-1

1. Consistency With/Non Applicability of Policy 18 ........................................................ V-3

a. IPEC License Renewal Safeguards the States Economic Interests........................... V-4

i. Reliable, Baseload Energy Supplies ..................................................................... V-4 ii. Lower Cost Energy Resources .............................................................................. V-8 iii. Contributions to the Regional Economy ............................................................... V-9 iv. Contributions to Regional Employment ............................................................... V-9

b. IPEC License Renewal Will Safeguard the States Social Interests ........................ V-10

i. Education ............................................................................................................ V-10 ii. Community Partnership, Charitable Contributions ............................................ V-10

c. IPEC License Renewal Safeguards the States Environmental Interests ................. V-11

i. Federal and State Air Quality Goals ................................................................... V-11 ii. IPECs Contribution to Achievement of Air Quality Goals ............................... V-13 iii. IPECs Contribution to Environmental Justice ................................................... V-14 iv. Other Environmental Interests ............................................................................ V-15

d. IPEC License Renewal Is Consistent With the National Interest in Energy Production ................................................................................................................ V-15 ii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................. V-16 VI. PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES.......................................................................................... VI-1 A. Policies 19 and 20 - Public Access ................................................................................. VI-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policies 19 and 20 ........................................ VI-2

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. VI-4 VII. RECREATION POLICIES............................................................................................. VII-1 A. Policies 21 and 22 - Water-Related Recreational Opportunities .................................. VII-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 21 and Policy 22 ............................. VII-1

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ VII-3 VIII. HISTORIC AND SCENIC RESOURCES POLICIES.................................................. VIII-1 A. Policy 23 - Man-Made Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Resources .................. VIII-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 23 ................................................... VIII-2

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ........................................................................... VIII-4 B. Policies 24 and 25 - Scenic, Natural and Manmade Resources ................................... VIII-4

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policies 24 and 25 ..................................... VIII-5

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ........................................................................... VIII-6 IX. AGRICULTURAL LANDS POLICY .............................................................................. IX-1 A. POLICY 26 - Agricultural Lands ................................................................................... IX-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 26 ...................................................... IX-1

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. IX-1 X. ENERGY AND ICE MANAGEMENT POLICIES .......................................................... X-1 A. Policy 27 - Siting and Construction of Major Energy Facilities ..................................... X-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 27 ....................................................... X-1

a. Siting and Construction Based Upon Public Energy Needs....................................... X-2

b. Siting and Construction Compatibility With the Environment .................................. X-2

c. Siting and Construction Based Upon Need for Shorefront Location ......................... X-3

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... X-3 B. Policy 28 - Ice Management ............................................................................................ X-3

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 28 ....................................................... X-3

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... X-4 C. Policy 29 - Development of New, Indigenous Energy Resources................................... X-4

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 29 ....................................................... X-4

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................... X-5 XI. WATER AND AIR RESOURCES POLICIES ................................................................ XI-1 A. Policy 30 - Industrial Discharge of Pollutants ................................................................ XI-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 30 ...................................................... XI-1

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. XI-2 B. Policy 31 - Triennial Reviews of WQS .......................................................................... XI-2

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 31 ...................................................... XI-2

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. XI-3 C. Policy 32 - Innovative Sanitary Waste Systems ............................................................. XI-3

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 32 ...................................................... XI-3

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. XI-3 D. Policies 33 and 37 - Best Management Practices for Stormwater, CSOs, and Non-Point Source Discharges ........................................................................................................... XI-4 iii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 33 ...................................................... XI-4

2. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 37 ...................................................... XI-5

3. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. XI-6 E. Policy 34 - Vessel Wastes............................................................................................... XI-7

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 34 ...................................................... XI-7

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. XI-7 F. Policy 35 - Dredge and Fill Activities ............................................................................ XI-8

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 35 ...................................................... XI-8

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings .............................................................................. XI-9 G. Policy 36 - Spill Response and Hazardous Material Management................................. XI-9

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 36 ...................................................... XI-9

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ XI-11 H. Policy 38 - Protection of Surface Water and Groundwater Supplies ........................... XI-12

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 38 .................................................... XI-12

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ XI-13 I. Policy 39 - Solid Wastes And Hazardous Wastes ........................................................ XI-13

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 39 .................................................... XI-14

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ XI-16 J. Policy 40 - Steam Electric Generating Effluents in Conformance with WQS ............. XI-16

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 40 .................................................... XI-16

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ XI-17 K. Policy 41 - Achieving NAAQS and SAAQS ............................................................... XI-17

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 41 .................................................... XI-17

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ XI-20 L. Policy 42 - Reclassifying Prevention of Significant Deterioration Designations......... XI-20

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 42 .................................................... XI-21

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ XI-21 M. Policy 43 - Acid Rain ................................................................................................... XI-22

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 43 .................................................... XI-22

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ XI-23 XII. WETLANDS POLICY ................................................................................................... XII-1 A. Policy 44 - Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands .................................................................. XII-1

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 44 .................................................... XII-1

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings ............................................................................ XII-2 XIII. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. XIII-1 A. Statutes and Regulations Cited ..................................................................................... XIII-1 B. References Cited........................................................................................................... XIII-6 iv

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 LIST OF TABLES Table I-1 Owners of Properties Abutting IPEC Table I-2 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for the Indian Point Site Table V-1 IPEC Tax Distribution, 2003-2012 Table VIII-1 Listed Historic Sites Within Six Miles of IPEC Table XI-1 Unit 2 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations Table XI-2 Unit 3 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations v

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 LIST OF FIGURES I-1 IPEC Property Boundary I-2 IPEC Coastal Zone - River Mile 34 to 56 I-2a IPEC Coastal Zone - River Mile 34 to 60 (Proposed)

I-3 Abutting Parcels I-4 The IPEC Site I-5 Aerial View of IPEC - 5 Mile Study Area I-6 Land Cover from River Mile 34 to 42 I-7 Land Use - 5 Mile Radius I-8 Municipalities from River Mile 34 to 56 III-1 NYSDOS Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats from River Mile 34 to 56 III-1a NYSDOS Proposed Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats from River Mile 34 to 60 IV-1 FEMA Floodplain - 5 Mile Radius IV-2 FEMA Floodplain for IPEC Property V-1 New York Control Area Load Zones V-2 New York Control Area Load Zones with Counties Shown V-3 U.S. Electricity Production Costs VIII-1 Historic Land Disturbances within IPEC VIII-2 IPEC Study Area - 5 and 10 Mile Radius XII-1 NWI Wetlands from River Mile 38 to 45 XII-2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation from River Mile 38 to 45 vi

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Wetlands in the Vicinity of IPEC Appendix B Aquatic Ecology of the Hudson River Appendix C Flora and Terrestrial Fauna Habitat and Communities in the Vicinity of IPEC Appendix D Assessment of License Renewals Consistency With Policy 7 SCFWHs Appendix E Assessment of License Renewals Consistency With Policy 8 Hazardous Wastes and Pollutants Appendix F Assessment of License Renewals Consistency With Policy 9 Recreational Use of Fish Resources Appendix G Assessment of License Renewals Consistency With Policy 10 Commercial Use of Fish Resources Within the IPEC Area Appendix H Assessment of License Renewals Consistency With Policies 24 and 25 Visual Resources vii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit B.1 Species Life History, Alewife: Representative Important Species Exhibit B.2 Species Life History, American Shad: Representative Important Species Exhibit B.3 Species Life History, Atlantic Sturgeon Exhibit B.4 Species Life History, Atlantic Tomcod: Representative Important Species Exhibit B.5 Species Life History, Blueback Herring: Representative Important Species Exhibit B.6 Species Life History, Hogchoker Exhibit B.7 Species Life History, Shortnose Sturgeon Exhibit B.8 Species Life History, Stiped Bass: Representative Important Species Exhibit B.9 Species Life History, White Perch: Representative Important Species Exhibit B.10 Species Life History, Blue Crab Exhibit B.11 Species Life History, Atlantic Menhaden Exhibit B.12 Species Life History, Bay Anchovy: Representative Important Species Exhibit B.13 Species Life History, Bluefish Exhibit B.14 Species Life History, Spottail Shiner: Representative Important Species Exhibit B.15 Species Life History, Other Commercial and Recreational Fish Species Exhibit B.16 Species Life History, Additional Hudson River Species viii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2007. Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 - License Renewal Application including Environmental Report. Entergy submittal to USNRC. License Renewal Application Environment Report References. April 23, 2007. Entergy submittal to USNRC. Supplement to License Renewal Application Environmental Report References (Response to Environmental Audit Questions). Additional Documents Provided in Response to USNRC Comments During Environmental Audit Conducted in September 2007. November 14, 2007. Entergy submittal to USNRC. Supplement to License Renewal Application Environmental Report References (Response to Environmental Audit Questions). Hudson River Studies; Impingement and Entrainment Data; Supplemental Ristroph Studies. December 20, 2007. Entergy submittal to USNRC. Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Application - Environmental. Striped Bass and Atlantic Tomcod Population and Distribution Surveys. January 4, 2008. Entergy submittal to USNRC. Results of Ground Water Contamination Investigation. January 11, 2008. Entergy submittal to USNRC. Supplement Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review for License Renewal Application. Water Quality Data for Each Study and Year for Icthyoplankton and Fall Survey (March-October). January 10, 2008. Entergy submittal to USNRC. Supplemental Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review for License Renewal Application. Barnthouse, L.W., D.G. Heimbuch, W. Van Winkle, and J. Young.

Entrainment and Impingement at IP2 and IP3: A Biological Impact Assessment.

January 30, 2008. Entergy submittal to USNRC. Document Request for Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review for License Renewal Application -

Electronic Copy of Impingement Data - Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of the 1990 Annual Report (EA 1991). February 20, 2008. 0 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Document Request for Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review for License Renewal Application - Hudson River Fisheries Program Data (Year Class Report). March 7, 2008. 1 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Reply to Document Request for Additional Information Regarding Site Audit Review of License Renewal Application for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Enercon 345 kV Transmission Line-Induced Shock Study. April 23, 2008.

ix

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 2 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Remediation and Long Term Monitoring of Site Groundwater. May 15, 2008. 3 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Application - Refurbishment. May 14, 2008. 4 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Comments on NUREG-1437, Draft Supplement 38 (Entergys comments on the Draft SEIS). March 18, 2009. 5 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Transmission of Additional Requested Information Regarding Sturgeon Impingement Data. July 1, 2009. 6 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc, Reply to Request For Additional Information (RAI) Environmental Report -

Impingement Data. September 24, 2009. 7 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Documents Related to License Renewal Application Environmental Report. Phase 1A Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of Indian Point Generating Units Nos. 2 and 3. December 17, 2009. 8 Entergy submittal to USNRC. Request for Additional Information Related to License Renewal Indian Point Nuclear Application Environmental Report -

Impingement Data. IP2 and IP3 Impingement Abundance Data Files, 1981-1990. November 24, 2009. 9 Entergy 2012. Email from Andrea J Blizard, re: Message from GMPO Larry Coyle regarding site status, October 31, 2012. 0 US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant Unit No. 2. 1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 1975. Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant Unit No. 3. 2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 2010. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3:

Final Report: Main Report and Comment Responses. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 1. December 2010. 2A Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2011. Technical Review of FSEIS for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Sections 4.1.1-4.1.3 and Appendices H and I. March 2011. 3 Letter from Entergy to Andrew Stuyvenberg, USNRC, re: Intent to Participate in Endangered Species Act Consultation, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3. March 1, 2011.

x

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 4 Letter from Entergy to Andrew Stuyvenberg, USNRC, re: Endangered Species Act Consultation, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3. Submittal of Shortnose Sturgeon: A Technical Assessment Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. April 28, 2011. 5 Letter from Entergy to Brian Holian, USNRC, re: Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Waiver, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.

2 & 3 June 21, 2011. 6 Entergy submittal to USNRC. License Renewal Thermal Study Documents.

June 29, 2011. 7 Letter from Entergy to Brian Holian, USNRC re: Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Waiver. June 30, 2011. 8 Letter from Entergy to Brian Holian, USNRC re: Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Waiver. Submittal of NYDEC Memoranda Re:

Entergy Indian Point SPDES Proceeding/Section 401 Permit Proceeding. July 29, 2011. 9 Letter from Laurel Bauer, USNRC, to Mary Colligan, NMFS re: Supplement to Revised Biological Assessment for License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. July 26, 2011. 9A Letter from E.N. Zoli, Esq., to David Wrona, USNRC, re: Indian Point License Renewal - Entergy's Comments on NMFS' Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Correspondence, September 30, 2011. Barnthouse, L.W., M.T. Mattson, and J.

Young. 2011. Response to National Marine Fisheries Service Comments on NRC's Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. September 2011. 0 Letter from USNRC to NMFS re: National Marine Fisheries Service Letter Dated August 26, 2011, Regarding the Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation for the Proposed License Renewal of Indian point Nuclear Generating Unit Numbers 2 and 3. September 20, 2011. 1 R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Concurrence from NYSDOS and CZMA Federal Consistency Assessment Form. 2 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Concurrence from NYSDOS and CZMA Federal Consistency Assessment Form. 3 J. A. FitzPatrick Concurrence from NYSDOS and CZMA Federal Consistency Assessment Form. 4 The White House. National Security Strategy. May 2010. 5 National Economic Research Associates Inc. (NERA). 2010. Letter from David Harrison, Jr., Ph.D., NERA, and Eugene Meehan, NERA, to NYSDEC, re:

Effects of the Loss of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 Capacity and Generation on New York State Environmental, Economic and Energy Needs. April 29, 2010.

xi

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 6 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004. Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center. An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute.

April 2004. 7 Curricula Vitae for Lawrence W. Barnthouse, Ph.D.; Douglas G. Heimbuch, Ph.

D.; Mark T. Mattson, Ph. D.; and John R. Young. 8 Heimbuch, D.G. 2008. Potential Effects of Striped Bass Predation on Juvenile Fish in the Hudson River. 9 Young, J.R. 2012. Publications Resulting from the Hudson River Environmental Monitoring Program. 0 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion for Shortnose Sturgeon. October 14, 2011. 1 2011 Abundance Indices Update. 2 Applied Science Associates Inc. (ASA). 2011. Final Report. 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge From the Indian Point Energy Center. ASA Project 2009-1607. January 31, 2011. 3 NYSDEC. 2011. Letter to Hon. Maria E. Villa and Hon. Daniel P. OConnell from Mark Sanza re: Entergy Indian Point Nuclear Units 2 and 3 SPDES Permit Renewal/§401 WQC Application Proceedings DEC Staffs Review of Thermal Information. May 16, 2011. 4 NYSDEC. 2011. Indian Point Nuclear Facility Units 2 and 3 - SPDES Permit, NYS DEC's Administrative Proceeding for the Modification of the SPDES Permit. 5 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2011. Comments of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, on the New York State Department of States Proposed Revisions to Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Designations. August 15, 2011. 6 National Research Council of the National Academies (National Research Council). 2006. Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 7 New York City (NYC). 2011. PlaNYC Update April 2011. A Greener, Greater New York. The City of New York and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. 8 New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2011.

Indian Point Energy Center Retirement Analysis. Prepared for New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Prepared by Charles River Associates.

August 2, 2011.

xii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 9 New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2011. Power Trends 2011:

Energizing New Yorks Legacy of Leadership. 0 New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2011. 2010 Comprehensive Reliability Plan. Final Report. January 11, 2011. 1 National Economic Research Associates Inc. (NERA). 2002. Electricity System Impacts of Nuclear Shutdown Alternatives. March 2002. 2 The White House. 2011. Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. March 2011. 3 Entergy 401 Submittal. Detailed Responses to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservations Request for Information dated May 13, 2009. 4 NYSPSC SEQRA Documents: (1) Joint petition of ConEd and IP2_Order adopting and approving issuance of FSEIS August 17, 2001 and (2) Joint petition of ConEd and IP2_Order authorizing asset transfer August 31, 2001. 5 NYPA SEQRA Document - NYPA Negative Declaration. March 31, 2000. 6 USNRC. 2012. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437 Supplement 38, Vol. 4. June 2012. 7 Entergy. 2012. In the Matter of the Petition of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, for a Declaratory Ruling, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING, dated November 5, 2012, filed with the State of New York, Department of State on November 7, 2012. 8 Entergy. 2012. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to David Wrona, USNRC, re:

Endangered Species Act Consultation Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3. March 7, 2012. 9 USNRC. 2012. Letter from Jeremy Susco, USNRC, to Patricia Kurkul, NMFS, re: Request to Reinitiate Section 7 Consultation for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 due to Listing of Atlantic Sturgeon. May 16, 2012. 0 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Draft Biological Opinion for the Continued Operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station.

F/NER/2012/02252. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office. October 25, 2012. 1 Entergy. 2012. Letter from Elise N. Zoli, Esq. Goodwin Procter on behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations., Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations., Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, (Entergy) to David J. Wrona, Branch Chief, USNRC transmitting Entergys Comments on NMFSs Draft Biological Opinion for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

November 9, 2012.

xiii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 2 Entergy. 2012. Letter from Fred Dacimo, Entergy, to USNRC re: Supplement to License Renewal Application - Compliance with Coastal Zone Management Act, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3. July 24, 2012. 3 NERA Economic Consulting (NERA). 2012. Potential Energy and Environmental Impacts of Denying Indian Points License Renewal Applications. March 30, 2012. 4 NYSDOS. 2010. Letter from J. Zappieri, NYSDOS to D. Gray, Entergy, re: 0-2009-0006, NRC Dockets # Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, NYS DEC Region 3, Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Relicensing, Preliminary Policy Assessment.

February 1, 2009. (Entergy received this letter in February, 2010, and understands that the 2009 date on the letter was a typographical error.) 5 AKRF. 2010. Empirical Assessment of Expected Population-Level Effects of Reductions in Entrainment Losses at Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 and

3. February 2010. 6 Entergy. 2012. Letter from Elise Zoli to Christopher Hogan, NYSDEC, re:

Notice of Incomplete Permit Application and Request for Additional Information; Application for Incidental Take Permits (Pursuant to ECL 11-0535 and 6 NYCRR Part 182) - Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 and 3. March 8, 2012. 7 New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2012. Power Trends 2012:

State of the Grid. 8 Lesser, J.A. 2012. The Economic Impacts of Closing and Replacing the Indian Point Energy Center. September 2012. 9 New York Energy Highway Blueprint, issued by the New York Energy Highway Task Force (October 2012). 0 NAACP. 2009. Letter from Hazel Dukes, NAACP New York State Conference, to Andrew Stuyvenberg, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, re: February 12, 2009 Public Hearing on the relicensing of the Indian Point Energy Center.

January 21, 2009. 1 New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2012. 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment. September 18, 2012. 2 NOAA. 2012. Letter from Joelle Gore, Acting Chief, Coastal Management Programs, NOAA, to George Stafford, Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York, transmitting Enclosure to OCRM's November 30, 2012 Approval of the Incorporation of SCFWH Changes into the New York Coastal Management Program, November 30, 2012.

xiv

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 LIST OF ACRONYMS, DEFINED TERMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym, Defined Term, Definition or Abbreviation 2010 USNRC FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued by USNRC in 2010 2012 Draft Supplement draft report, issued by USNRC in June 2012, supplementing the FSEIS AEC Atomic Energy Commission ASA Applied Science Associates, Inc.

ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Biological Team LWB Environmental Services, Inc.; AKRF, Inc.; Normandeau Associates, Inc.; and ASA Analysis & Communication Inc.

BMPs best management practices Bowline Bowline Point Generating Station BSS Beach Seine Survey Buchanan Village of Buchanan CAA Clean Air Act CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CBS Chemical Bulk Storage CEHAs coastal erosion hazard areas CFR Code of Federal Regulations Charles Point RRF Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility CO2 carbon dioxide CO carbon monoxide Con Ed Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.

Consistency Certification consistency certification and supporting data Cortlandt Town of Cortlandt Croton-on-Hudson Village of Croton-on-Hudson CSAPR Cross State Air Pollution Rule CSO combined sewer overflow CSPP Chemical Spill Prevention Plans CWA Clean Water Act CWIS cooling water intake structures CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1466 DMRs Discharge Monitoring Reports DPSs Distinct Population Segments DSEIS Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ECL Environmental Conservation Law EGUs electric generating units Entergy Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

ER Environmental Report for the Operating License Renewal Stage ERA Guidelines Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment xv

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Acronym, Defined Term, Definition or Abbreviation EXC New York State Executive Law FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FMP Fishery Management Plan FSEIS USNRC Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 FSS Fall Shoals Juvenile Fish Survey GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement GHG greenhouse gases GIS Geographic Information System GWh gigawatt hour HMP Harbor Management Plan HRBMP Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program IP1 Indian Point Unit 1 IP2 Indian Point Unit 2 IP3 Indian Point Unit 3 IPEC Indian Point Energy Center (IP2 and IP3) kV kilovolt LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Lafarge Lafarge North America processing plant License Renewal Renewal of the IP2 and IP3 operating licenses LOLE loss of load expectation LRA License Renewal Application LRS Longitudinal River Ichthyoplankton Survey LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Magnuson-Steven Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Master Plan Buchanans 2005 Comprehensive Master Plan MLW mean low water MSL mean sea level MT metric tons MW megawatts MWh megawatt hour NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NEPA National Environment Policy Act NERA National Economic Research Associates, Inc.

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service N2O nitrous oxide xvi

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Acronym, Defined Term, Definition or Abbreviation NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOIA/RAI Notice of Incomplete Application and Request for Additional Information NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSR New Source Review NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit NYCA New York Control Area NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection NYCMP New York Coastal Zone Management Program, as published by NYSDOS, including amendments through 2006 NYCRR New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations NYISO New York Independent System Operator NYRHP New York Register of Historic Places NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOH New York State Department of Health NYSDOS New York State Department of State NYSEPB New York State Energy Planning Board NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority NYSHPO New York State Historical Preservation Office NYSOPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation NYSPSC New York State Public Service Commission ODCM Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual PAHs polyaromatic hydrocarbons PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PCN pre-construction notice Peekskill City of Peekskill PILOT payments-in-lieu-of-taxes PM particulate matter PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PSD prevention of significant deterioration RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative RIS representative important species RM river mile ROWs right-of-ways xvii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Acronym, Defined Term, Definition or Abbreviation SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality Standards SASS Scenic Area of Statewide Significance SAV submerged aquatic vegetation SCFWHs Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats SER Safety Evaluation Report SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SRSS Scenic Resources of Statewide Significance SSBPR Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit Stony Point Town of Stony Point SWMF Solid Waste Management Facilities TRC total residual chlorine USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCG United States Coast Guard USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USNRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission VOCs volatile organic compounds WCDP Westchester County Department of Planning WQC Water Quality Certification WQS Water Quality Standards WRCRA New York Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act xviii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION This consistency certification and supporting data (Consistency Certification) is submitted by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), and is being provided to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) in connection with the License Renewal Application (LRA)

(Attachment 1)1 filed by Entergy with the USNRC on April 23, 2007, requesting renewal of the Indian Point Unit 2 (IP2) and Unit 3 (IP3) operating licenses (License Renewal) for a period of 20 years.2 IP2 and IP3 are referred to collectively herein as the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC).

NYSDOS implements the New York Coastal Zone Management Program3 (NYCMP) in accordance with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1451-1466 (CZMA). When Entergy first met with NYSDOS staff on April 8, 2009, seeking guidance with respect to the process for NYSDOS concurrence with this Consistency Certification under the CZMA, NYSDOS instructed Entergy not to submit this Consistency Certification until completion of the process relating to the USNRC Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (FSEIS). USNRC issued the FSEIS in December, 2010 (the 2010 USNRC FSEIS) (Attachment 22). The 2010 USNRC FSEIS was completed and published in December 2010 and the public comment period closed in early 2011.4 In response to comments filed on the FSEIS, USNRC prepared a draft supplement to the 2010 USNRC FSEIS, which was issued for public comment on June 26, 2012 (Attachment 56).

NYSDOS also suggested that it would defer to future decisions by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concerning compliance with surface water quality standards (WQS). The future renewal of IPECs State Pollutant Discharge 1

Attachments 2 through Attachment 18, inclusive, are additional documents Entergy submitted to the USNRC in connection with its LRA prior to the issuance of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in December 2009.

2 The IP2 operating license was issued on September 28, 1973, and expires on September 28, 2013. The IP3 operating license was issued on December 12, 1975, and expires on December 12, 2015. Attachments 20 and 21, respectively, provide the Final Environmental Impact Statements for IP2 and IP3.

3 The NYCMP is set forth in a document entitled New York State Coastal Management Program and CZM Program Final Environmental Impact Statement with changes from 1982 to 2006, published by NYSDOS.

4 Entergy provided a technical review of certain aspects of the FSEIS (Attachment 22A).

I-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Elimination System (SPDES) permit is currently being addressed in pending adjudicatory proceedings.5 Finally, there are proceedings pending before the USNRCs Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)6 and NYSDOS,7 in which Entergy seeks to establish that no Consistency Certification regarding License Renewal is required. Entergy nonetheless believes that further delay in the initiation of the Consistency Certification process for License Renewal, subject to a full reservation of rights,8 would not be appropriate.

Entergy submitted the IPEC LRA and Environmental Report for the Operating License Renewal Stage (ER) (Attachment 1) to USNRC in 2007 pursuant to 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 54. In November 2009, USNRC issued a Final Safety Evaluation Report (SER) to document its review of the LRA for compliance with USNRCs safety requirements. In August 2011, USNRC issued a supplemental SER to document its review of supplemental information subsequently provided by Entergy.

In December 2008, USNRC issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) to assess the environmental impacts of IPEC License Renewal, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and potential mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts (USNRC 2008, p. iii). In December 2010, USNRC issued the 2010 USNRC FSEIS (Attachment 22) to provide additional evaluation of issues addressed by the DSEIS, as well as to address public and agency comments on the DSEIS (USNRC 2010, p. iii). USNRC concluded in the 2010 USNRC FSEIS that the adverse environmental impacts of IPEC License Renewal are not so great that preserving the option of License Renewal would be unreasonable. This recommendation was based upon (1) the analysis and findings in the USNRC Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), (2) the ER and other information submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, (4) the USNRC staffs own independent review, and (5) the USNRC staffs 5

See NYSDEC Adjudicatory Proceedings DEC No.: 3-5522-00011/00004 (SPDES No.: NY-0004472); DEC App.

Nos. 3-5522-00011/00030(IP2), 3-5522-00105/00031(IP3). Rulings by the presiding NYSDEC Administrative Law Judge are subject to review by the NYSDEC Commissioner or his delegate. It now appears likely that the NYSDEC adjudicatory process could take many more years before any final decisions are made by NYSDEC.

6 The issue of whether License Renewal requires any further review under the CZMA is a federal question pending before and to be resolved by the ASLB (Entergy 2012p).

7 For the reasons presented to NYSDOS by Entergys petition filed on November 7, 2012, License Renewal is exempt from review under the terms of the NYCMP itself (Entergy 2012i) (Attachment 57). Should NYSDOS fail to recognize IPEC as grandfathered under the NYCMP. Entergy reserves its rights to seek judicial review of that action.

8 See footnote 2 of the Overview of IPECs Consistency with the NYCMP accompanying this Consistency Certification.

I-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 consideration of public comments received during the scoping and licensing process and in response to the DSEIS (USNRC 2010, p. iv).

USNRC staff prepared a limited supplement the 2010 USNRC FSEIS. Attachments 22A through 30, 56, and 58 through 63, provide copies of documents in the USNRC administrative record for the License Renewal submitted after USNRC issued the FSEIS in December 2010.9 In June 2012, USNRC issued a draft report supplementing the FSEIS to address new information received since the FSEIS was issued (2012 Draft Supplement) (USNRC 2012) (Attachment 56).10 Entergy is submitting to NYSDOS for its review and concurrence the Federal Consistency Assessment Form along with appendices, exhibits, and attachments, which provide detailed information in support of IPEC License Renewal and its consistency with the NYCMP.

The supporting information includes the information identified by NYSDOS as necessary for Consistency Certification such as (i) IPECs ER prepared by Entergy in accordance with 10 CFR

§54.23; (ii) the 2010 USNRC FSEIS prepared by USNRC pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Entergy 2007a; USNRC 2010); and (iii) the 2012 Draft Supplement.

These supporting documents provide highly detailed descriptions of the proposed action.

The 2010 USNRC FSEIS includes a complete listing of licenses, permits, and other approvals from federal, state, and local authorities relating to IPEC operations, in addition to consultations and approvals required in conjunction with License Renewal. In addition to this information, Entergy is providing relevant maps and photographs. A complete list of all appendices, exhibits, and attachments is provided following the Table of Contents to this Consistency Certification.

No change in IPEC operations is proposed as part of License Renewal; there is no proposal to construct new structures. Under a full reservation of rights, Entergy is submitting this Consistency Certification that License Renewal is consistent with the NYCMP.

9 The filings in the USNRC records concerning License Renewal are voluminous. To avoid unnecessary volume and complexity, only those documents relevant to NYCMP policies have been included as attachments to this Consistency Certification. However, all USNRC filings are available to NYSDOS directly through USNRCs electronic document management system, ADAMS, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

10 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Draft Report for Comment Manuscript Completed: June 2012 Date Published: June 2012 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NUREG-1437 Supplement 38, Vol. 4. June 2012 (Attachment 56). The comment period on the 2012 Draft Report ended August 20, 2012.

I-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 A. CZMA Regulatory Context

1. The CZMA In 1972, Congress enacted the CZMA to encourage coastal states, Great Lake states, United States Territories, and Commonwealths to develop and implement comprehensive regulatory programs to manage natural resources in the coastal zone. The CZMA recognizes a national interest in the resources of the coastal zone and in the importance of balancing competing uses of those resources.

The CZMA establishes a framework for voluntary participation by states; if a state chooses to avail itself of the advantages of participation under the CZMA, then the state develops a draft coastal zone management program, consistent with the CZMA, and submits the draft program for federal approval. Coastal zone management programs are comprehensive plans that describe the uses subject to the management program, the authorities and enforceable policies of the management program, the boundaries of the states coastal zone, the organization of the management program, and related state coastal management concerns (NOAA 2009, p. 3).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency within the United States Department of Commerce, must approve each states proposed coastal zone management program (16 U.S.C. §1454; §1455(d); §1456(c)(3)(A)). To receive the required federal approval (and thus make the requirement of federal consistency effective), a state coastal zone management program must manage and balance competing uses of, and impacts to, coastal resources. For example, the CZMA expressly states that each state program should provide priority consideration to coastal-dependent energy facilities (16 U.S.C. §1452(2)(D)). The CZMA defines energy facilities to include electric generating facilities (16 U.S.C. §1453(6)).

The CZMA references global warming attributable to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from fossil-fueled power plants, and calls for state plans to reduce global warming impacts (Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, §6202(a)(7) of Pub. L. 101-508). The CZMA declares that it is the national policy to give priority consideration to locate to the maximum extent practicable major facilities related to energy in or adjacent to areas where such development already exists (16 U.S.C. §1452(2)(D)).

Federal consistency refers to the CZMA requirement that federal actions having effects on the coastal zone, with certain exceptions, should be consistent with the enforceable policies of the states federally-approved coastal zone management program. The federal consistency requirement also applies to non-federal entities applying to the federal government for a required permit or license.

If a consistency certification is required by the CZMA, and an applicant submits its consistency certification and necessary data and information, the state agency has six months either to concur with the certification or to object if it concludes that the proposed activity is inconsistent with the enforceable policies of the federally-approved coastal zone management I-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 program. If the state objects, then the applicant may appeal the decision to the Secretary of Commerce, who can override the objection on a finding that the activity is consistent with the objectives of the [CZMA] or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security (16 U.S.C. §1456(c)(3)(A)).

2. Federally-Approved Coastal Zone Management Programs NYSDOS, through the Division of Coastal Resources, developed the NYCMP. Before NOAA could approve the NYCMP, NYSDOS first had to satisfy NOAA that federal interests in the coastal zone were being adequately recognized and protected. To demonstrate the States recognition of the national interest in the coastal zone, the NYCMP identified the existence of five nuclear power plants, including IPEC, within New Yorks coastal zone. NOAA first approved the NYCMP in September 1982 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006). Since that time, NYSDOS has adopted a number of routine amendments to the NYCMP (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006).

The New York Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (WRCRA),

Article 42 of the New York State Executive Law (EXC), provides authority for a New York coastal program that includes coastal policies, coastal boundaries, and state consistency requirements (N.Y. Executive Law Art. 42 §910 et. seq.). Policies and Procedures, 19 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 600, describes the regulatory framework for WRCRA implementation. Under that state law, state agencies are given wide latitude to determine consistency of their actions with the NYCMP, as long as they do not substantially hinder the achievement of coastal policies (19 NYCRR Part 600, §600.4(b)). Moreover, section 600.4(b) further explains that even those state actions that will substantially hinder the achievement of one or more coastal policies are likewise consistent with the NYCMP if: (1) there are no reasonable alternatives, (2) adverse effects have been minimized, (3) one or more other coastal policies will be advanced, and (4) the action will result in an overriding regional or statewide public benefit.11 This substantive analytical framework for determining consistency through state agency decision-making is part of New Yorks federally-approved coastal program.

As noted in the NYCMP, there are no state regulations governing the procedures for federal consistency review. NYSDOS relies entirely on the CZMA and federal consistency regulations set forth at 15 CFR Part 930 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-9 p. 9). NOAAs regulations at 15 CFR Part 930 thus provide the only procedural guidance for determining consistency of License Renewal with the NYCMP.

11 19 NYCRR §600.4(b).

I-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 B. Furtherance of National and State Objectives The CZMA requires states to take account of national energy policies for the coastal zone. The preamble to the 2000 CZMA regulatory amendments identifies the siting of coastal-dependent energy facilities as an activity that significantly and substantially furthers the national interest (65 Fed. Reg. 77124 and 77150).

In the United States, 23 existing nuclear power plants have been found consistent with the state coastal management plan in connection with their license renewals.12 In New York State, license renewals for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, and James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant have already been determined to be consistent with the NYCMP (see Attachments 31, 32, and 33).

It is critical to both New Yorks and the Nations interest that IPECs existing generation virtually emission-free, reliable, and affordable baseload generation be preserved. Given the scope, magnitude, and importance of its economic and environmental benefits, IPEC License Renewal furthers compelling national and state objectives.

C. Description of IPEC IPEC is located in the Village of Buchanan (Buchanan) within New York States Coastal Zone (see Figures I-1, I-2, and I-3). Figure I-3 depicts the properties abutting the IPEC site and Table I-1 identifies the owners of those properties. IPEC consists of two baseload nuclear generating stations; IP2 is capable of generating approximately 1078 megawatts (MW) of electricity while IP3 is capable of generating approximately 1080 MW (USNRC 2010, p. 1-7) for a combined gross generating capacity of 2158 MW from a virtually emission-free, baseload, lower cost energy resource.13 Nuclear-generated electric power has been produced at the Indian Point site since 1962, when the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued a license to operate Indian Point Unit 1 (IP1). IP2 and IP3 began commercial operation in 1974 and 1976, respectively (EIA 2012b).

12 The following existing nuclear power plants have been found consistent with the state coastal management plan in connection with their license renewals: Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 & 2, Maryland; Turkey Point, Units 3 & 4, Florida; North Anna, Units 1 & 2, and Surry, Units 1 & 2, Virginia; Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3, Pennsylvania (CZMA:

Maryland); St. Lucie, Units 1 & 2, Florida; R.E. Ginna, Unit 1, New York (Attachment 31); D.C. Cook, Units 1 &

2, Michigan; Brunswick, Units 1 & 2, North Carolina; Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2, New York (Attachment 32);

Palisades, Michigan; James A. FitzPatrick, New York (Attachment 33); Oyster Creek, New Jersey; Pilgrim, Massachusetts; Crystal River, Unit 3, Florida; Hope Creek, New Jersey; Salem, Units 1 & 2, New Jersey; Seabrook Station, Unit 1, New Hampshire; Davis-Besse, Unit 1, Ohio; South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2, Texas; Millstone Units 2 & 3, Connecticut; and Kewanunee and Point Beach, Wisconsin.

13 2158 MW represents the combined baseload gross generating capacity of IP2 and IP3. New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) (2012a) indicates that available capacity was 2076 MW in the Winter of 2011, and 2061 MW in the Summer of 2011, and that IPEC generated 17,016,900 megawatt hours of electricity in 2011.

I-6

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 IP2 and IP3 were constructed as an expansion of the already developed site of the IP1 nuclear generating facility.14 The IPEC site, located along the eastern shoreline of the Hudson River, is approximately 239 acres of previously developed and disturbed land. Developed areas, including facilities and pavement, occupy more than half of the site (134 acres, predominantly in the central and southern portions) (USNRC 2010, p. 2-85). The central western portion of the site is where the majority of the structures that comprise the electric generating stations are located, including the now-retired IP1 and existing operating IP2 and IP3. About 25 acres of small tracts of forest are interspersed among the paved areas. Maintained areas of grass occupy about 7 acres of the site (USNRC 2010, p. 2-85). The northern portion of the site is covered by approximately 80 acres of forest. Within this forested area is a 2.4-acre freshwater pond (Entergy 2007a, p. 2-20; USNRC 1975, p. II-3, 2010, p. 2-24).

The site is hilly, with elevations rising to about 150 feet above the level of the Hudson River at the highest point (USNRC 2010, p. 2-85), and slopes generally toward the west, northwest, and toward the Hudson River. Thus, surface drainage is toward the Hudson River (Entergy 2007a, p. 2-18).

The area of the site that includes the reactors, fuel storage buildings, primary auxiliary buildings, refueling water storage tanks, turbine buildings, administrative buildings, warehouses, chemical systems building, stationary bulk petroleum and chemical storage tanks, and auxiliary boiler feed buildings has been disturbed and graded by construction activities over the course of the plants history (USNRC 2010; Fig. 2-3) (see Figure I-4). Beyond this immediate area, the site includes several parking areas, a training center, a number of storage facilities, as well as the Buchanan Service Building. Radioactive fuel and waste handling facilities also are present at the site, including waste holdup tanks, waste condensate tanks, gas decay tanks, chemical and volume control system holdup tanks, spent resin storage tank, interim radioactive waste storage facility, dry cask storage area, replaced steam generator storage facility, and original steam generator storage facility (USNRC 2010, pp. 2-14 through 2-21).

Located across Broadway, near the entrance of the site, is the Buchanan substation where power from IPEC is fed through two 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines that connect to the Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) electrical transmission grid. These are the only transmission lines available to connect the site to the transmission grid (USNRC 2010, p. 2 23).

1. Description of IPECs Waterfront Facilities The structures and facilities located along the waterfront include bulkheads, piers, intake structures, the intake buildings for IP1 and IP3, the discharge canal, the screenwell house, and 14 IP1 received an operating license in 1962 and has since been retired. IP1 is in safe storage condition until it is decommissioned (USNRC 2010, p. 1-1).

I-7

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 the condensate polisher building (USNRC 2010, Figs. 2-4 through 2-8). Controlled water access to the site is available using the existing wharf on the Hudson River. The wharf is primarily used for the receipt and removal of heavy equipment shipped to or from the site by barge (USNRC 2010, p. 2-2).

IPEC has a once-through non-contact condenser cooling system that withdraws water from, and discharges to, the Hudson River. Three shoreline intake structuresone for each operating unit (i.e., IP2 and IP3) and one for IP1 (which provides service water for IP2)are located along the Hudson River on the northwestern edge of the site and provide cooling water to the site. Each IP2 and IP3 intake structure consists of seven bays, six for circulating water and one for service water. The IP2 intake structure has seven separate bays, while the IP3 intake structures seven bays are served by a common plenum. In each structure, six of the seven bays contain a circulating water pump, and the seventh bay contains service water pumps. Before it is pumped to the condensers, river water passes through traveling screens in the intake structure bays to remove debris and fish (USNRC 2010, p. 2-8). Modified Ristroph screens were installed in 1991 and are operated continuously. This modification included a smooth mesh screen, a flow deflector lip on the fish bucket, a low pressure spray wash system operated for gentle removal of impinged organisms, and a high pressure wash spray designed for removal of debris (ENERCON 2010b, pp. 11, 23, and 25 through 26). The IPEC equipment decks are located 15 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and the bottoms of the intakes are located 27 feet below MSL (Entergy 2007a, p. 3-3).

The discharge canal is 40 feet wide. Six 96-inch diameter pipes per unit transport cooling water from the condensers to the discharge canal beneath the water surface. Cooling water from the canal is released into the Hudson River through an outfall structure located south of IP3 (Entergy 2007a, p. 3-5). As the discharged water enters the Hudson River, it passes through 12 discharge ports (4 feet by 12 feet each) across a length of 252 feet about 12 feet below the surface of the Hudson River (USNRC 2010, p. 2-13). Entergy leases the discharge canal structure and underlying land from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) (USNRC 2010, p. 2-133).

D. Description of IPECs Surroundings The facility lies within Buchanan at river mile (RM) 42,15 about 2.5 miles southwest of the City of Peekskill (Peekskill), the closest city, and about 24 miles north of the northern 15 The RM concept has its origins in the NOAA navigational chart # 12343, edition 12, dated November 22, 1975, prior to Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. Since then, environmental reports addressing resources along the Hudson River have typically relied upon this original base map to identify RM locations along the Hudson River. The Hudson River estuary is considered to extend for 153 linear miles north from the Battery Park located at the southern tip of Manhattan in New York City (RM mark 0) to the Federal Dam at Troy (RM mark 153). RM designations are used to identify the one mile-long segments bounded by two linearly increasing mile marks as one proceeds upstream (north) along the center of the Hudson River by boat from I-8

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 boundary of New York City (USNRC 2010, p. 2-1). Buchanan is located in upper Westchester County, New York (USNRC 2010, p. 1-6); Rockland, Putnam, and Orange counties are within a five-mile radius of IPEC (see Figure I-5). Many of the developed areas within these counties along the Lower Hudson River serve as commuter suburbs for New York City. Numerous areas of ecological, historical, and cultural importance also are present within these counties.

Significant development has occurred in the IPEC area and areas to the south (see Figure I-6). The area in the vicinity of IPEC is and has been highly developed since the 1800s (Cortlandt 2004, pp. 9-2 through 9-3), with a mix of industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational uses (see Figure I-7). Since IP2 and IP3 were constructed and licensed in the 1970s, surrounding industrial uses either have been expanded or added. For example, expansions at Bowline Point Generating Station (Bowline) in the Town of Haverstraw and the Lafarge North America processing plant (Lafarge) located in Buchanan, occurred within the past ten years and construction of the Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility (Charles Point RRF), located in Peekskill, occurred in the 1980s.

1. Nearby Municipalities The municipalities located in the vicinity of IPEC (see Figure I-8) are part of a highly developed area of the Lower Hudson River. Nearby municipalities include: the Town of Haverstraw, the Village of West Haverstraw, the Village of Croton-on-Hudson (Croton-on-Hudson), the Town of Stony Point (Stony Point), Peekskill, and the Hamlets of Crugers, Montrose, and Verplanck. These hamlets, along with Buchanan, are part of the larger Town of Cortlandt (Cortlandt). Further north are the United States Military Academy Reservation at West Point and the Town of Highlands.

2. Hudson River and Coastal Zone Approximately 15,950 acres of the Hudson River are located within RM 34 to 56, which encompass the area of IPEC and the boundaries of the closest Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (SCFWHs). As discussed in Appendix B, the Hudson River in this region is Battery Park to Troy Dam. A RM mark is represented by a line drawn at that distance measured upstream along the centerline of the Hudson River from Battery Park, and a RM is the mile-long segment of the Hudson River between RM marks. For example, RM 1 is the mile-long segment of the Hudson River bounded by RM mark 0 and RM mark 1 to the north; RM 2 is the mile-long segment of the river bounded by RM mark 1 and RM mark 2 to the north, and so forth. For purposes of this Consistency Certification, IPEC is referred to as within RM 42, based upon the 1975 NOAA navigational chart. If one were to redefine RM segments with modern GIS techniques, the results would be technically more accurate, but such a methodology would be inconsistent with the methodology used in prior environmental reports addressing the Hudson River. As a result of the use of different measurement methodologies, some other reports, including the 2010 USNRC FSEIS and Entergys 2007 ER, identify IPEC as being located at RM 43.

I-9

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 a tidal system containing brackish to fresh waters with a number of features ranging from steep shorelines, strong currents, and the deepest waters located in the north, to the most extensive area of shallow estuarine habitat in the south (NYSDOS 1987b; NYSDOS 1987c; NYSDOS 1987a).

In response to NYSDOS request,16 this Consistency Certification addresses the three SCFWHs:

Hudson RM 44 to 56 (NYSDOS 1987b), Iona Island Marsh (NYSDOS 1987c), and Haverstraw Bay (NYSDOS 1987a), all located several miles from the IPEC site (Figure I-2). In addition, after Entergy filed for License Renewal, NYSDOS proposed amendments to the NYCMP identifying additional portions of the Hudson River as SCFWHs. The NYSDOS proposal would expand the RM 44 to RM 56 SCFWH into the Hudson Highlands SCFWH, extending from RM 40 to RM 60, which would include the area adjacent to IPEC at RM 42 (see Figure I-2a).17 NYSDOS proposal for the Hudson Highlands SCFWH is not applicable to this Consistency Certification.18 The presence of these habitats within the region that has historically accommodated a mix of land uses, including heavy industry, along the Hudson River demonstrates that such uses can coexist and have coexisted with natural habitats.

The area of the NYSDOS-designated Coastal Zone evaluated in this Consistency Certification is shown in Figure I-2. There are approximately 41,855 acres of land within the Coastal Zone between RM 34 and RM 56. This includes the 239-acre IPEC site (USNRC 2010,

p. 1-6).

The Coastal Zone between RM 34 to 56 historically has been associated with water-dependent industrial uses. As discussed in Section VIII, RM 34 to 56 supports a number of waterfront or water-dependent industrial uses, including the Meenan Oil Company storage facility and terminal in Cortlandt, the Charles Point RRF and Lafarge on the east side of the River in the vicinity of IPEC; and Tilcon Quarry, U.S. Gypsum, and Bowline (1200 MW)

(CHGE et al. 1999) on the west side of the River.

Notwithstanding the highly-developed nature of this portion of the Hudson River Coastal Zone, there are also numerous opportunities for public access to water-related recreational activities and publicly-owned foreshore and adjacent lands in the vicinity of RM 34 to 56 including a large number of waterfront parks containing fishing piers, boat launches, pedestrian overlooks, and trail systems, some of which are within a half mile of the IPEC site.

16 NYSDOS made this request at a meeting on August 10, 2009; in attendance for NYSDOS were Jeffery Zappieri, Bridget Sasko, and Matthew Maraglio.

17 Attachment 45 provides Entergys comments to NYSDOS on the proposed amendments to the NYCMP.

18 Entergys application for License Renewal was submitted to USNRC in 2007. The NYSDOS proposal does not apply to this Consistency Certification (NOAA 2012) (Attachment 72); 15 CFR §930.51(b)(2).

I-10

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 E. Regulatory History of IPEC Several factors were used to select the IPEC site for nuclear power generation, including:

(1) geology of the site; (2) remote danger of flooding; (3) short distance to load centers; (4) availability of the Hudson River water for cooling purposes; (5) scarcity of suitable sites; and (6) existing transmission right-of-ways (ROWs) (USNRC 1975, pp. I-3 and I-4).

Initial construction of IP1, IP2, and IP3 required over 50 permits, approvals, and certifications including permits from the following state agencies and municipalities: Hudson River Valley Commission, New York State Water Resources Commission, NYSDEC, New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), Westchester County Department of Planning (WCDP), and the Buchanan Building Department (USNRC 1975, pp. I-5 through I-7). These initial permit approvals and certifications included major actions such as dredging, construction of outfall structures, land use approvals, excavation, and demolition (USNRC 1975, pp. I-5 through I-7). Once constructed, IP1, IP2, and IP3 were required to obtain additional permits for operation including but not limited to USNRC operating licenses, water quality certifications (WQC) and SPDES permits from NYSDEC. Table I-2 provides a list of federal, New York State, local, and regional licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals for IP1, IP2, and IP3 (USNRC 2010, pp. E-4 through E-7).

F. Organization of Consistency Certification At the request of NYSDOS, this Consistency Certification identifies each of the 44 policies of the NYCMP and explains why either License Renewal is consistent with the policy, or why the policy is inapplicable.19 The sections of this Consistency Certification are organized to parallel the NYSDOS organization of policies of the NYCMP (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006). Policies that address common themes are addressed jointly within a given section.Section II addresses Development Policies (1 through 6).Section III addresses the Fish and Wildlife Policies (7 through 10).

Section IV provides an assessment of the Flooding and Erosion Hazards Policies (11 through 17).Section V discusses the consistency of License Renewal with General Policy 18.Section VI addresses the Public Access Policies, 19 and 20.Section VII discusses consistency with the Recreation Policies, 21 and 22.Section VIII discusses IPECs consistency with the Historic and Scenic Resources, Policies 23 through 25.Section IX addresses Agricultural Lands Policy 26.

Section X includes an assessment of the Energy and Ice Management Policies (27 through 29).

19 The Preliminary Policy Assessment provided by NYSDOS to Entergy by letter dated February 1, 2009, indicates that all 44 policies are to be addressed as part of this Consistency Certification, and provides guidance with respect to 13 policies that NYSDOS staff viewed as potentially relevant (Attachment 64) (NYSDOS 2010).

Entergy received the letter in February, 2010, and understands that the 2009 date on the letter was a typographical error.

I-11

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Section XI assesses consistency with the Water and Air Resources Policies (30 through 43).

Section XII addresses the Wetlands Policy, 44. Finally,Section XIII provides a list of statutory and regulatory materials, and a list of literature cited in this document.

Accompanying this document are eight appendices (Appendix A through Appendix H),

which provide detailed information and analyses developed to support this Consistency Certification. Appendix B is accompanied by 16 exhibits (Exhibits B.1 through B.16). A list of these appendices and exhibits is provided following the Table of Contents. Key documents prepared by third-parties which contain important information that supports this Consistency Certification, or which should be made part of the administrative record for this Consistency Certification, are provided as attachments. A list of attachments is provided following the Table of Contents.

I-12

TABLES IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table I-1 Owners of Properties Abutting IPEC Name & Current Address of Tax Assessor Map Parcel Owner (as provided in Tax Property Address (as Provided Identification Number Assessors Database) in Tax Assessors Database)

Abutters to Entergys License Renewal -related properties, as identified above 43.6-1-2 NEW YORK STATE ATOMIC & HUDSON RIVER SPACE AUTHORITY EMPIRE STATE PLAZA-NEW YORK STATE DEA BUILDING 4 ALBANY NY 12223 43.7-1-1 VILLAGE OF BUCHANAN PARK BROADWAY TATE AVE BUCHANAN NY 10511 43.10-1-2 LAFARGE CORP 350 BROADWAY 350 BROADWAY-ATTN:

ACCOUNTING BUCHANAN NY 10511 43.11-1-1 CREX-DIMARB LLC BLEAKLEY AVE & BROADWAY C/O GLENN GRIFFEN 1234 LINCOLN TERRACE PEEKSKILL NY 10566 43.11-2-1 RITORNATO SANDRA L 300 BLEAKLEY AVE 14 COACHLIGHT SQ MONTROSE NY 10548 43.11-2-31 CON EDISON CO OF NY BROADWAY TAX DEPARTMENT C/O: STEPHANIE J. MERRIT 4 IRVING PL RM 74 NEW YORK NY 10003 43.11-2-33 CON EDISON CO OF NY BROADWAY TAX DEPARTMENT C/O: STEPHANIE J. MERRIT 4 IRVING PL RM 74 NEW YORK NY 10003 43.11-2-34 MANNFOLK MARY M 461 BROADWAY 461 BROADWAY BUCHANAN NY 10511 43.14-2-1 CON EDISON CO OF NY 375 BROADWAY TAX DEPARTMENT C/O: STEPHANIE J. MERRIT A 4 IRVING PL RM 74 NEW YORK NY 10003 43.14-2-2 ST MARYS ROMAN CEMETERY 345 BROADWAY CEMETERY PO BOX 609 VERPLANCK NY 10596 I-1-i

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table I- 1 (cont'd)

Owners of Properties Abutting IPEC Name & Current Address of Tax Assessor Map Parcel Owner (as provided in Tax Property Address (as Provided Identification Number Assessors Database) in Tax Assessors Database) 43.14-3-1 CON EDISON CO OF NY BROADWAY TAX DEPARTMENT C/O: STEPHANIE J. MERRIT 4 IRVING PL RM 747 NEW YORK NY 10003 43.14-3-2 HICKEY JOSEPH W & JULIA 320 BROADWAY 320 BROADWAY PO BOX 701 VERPLANCK NY 10596 43.15-1-13 DE CRENZA JOHN 142 WESTCHESTER AVE 142 WESTCHESTER AVE BUCHANAN NY 10511 43.15-1-14 SMALL DONNA M 148 WESTCHESTER AVE 148 WESTCHESTER AVE BUCHANAN NY 10511 43.15-1-16 CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 WESTCHESTER AVE TROLLEY RD MONTROSE NY 10548 43.15-1-21 CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 WESTCHESTER AVE TROLLEY RD MONTROSE NY 10548 43.18-1-1 MC GUIGAN JOSEPH & 303 BROADWAY ELIZABETH PO BOX 273 303 BROADWAY VERPLANCK NY 10596 43.18-1-2 KEESLER FREDERICK F & 38 MANOR LN MARGARET PO BOX 136 VERPLANCK NY 10596 43.18-1-5.1 COUGHLAN EILEEN 33 MANOR LN PO BOX 746 33 MANOR LN VERPLANCK NY 10596 43.18-2-1 KERTELITS THOMAS J & KELLY 3 PHEASANTS RUN H

3 PHEASANTS RUN BUCHANAN NY 10511 43.18-2-14 SCHNEIDER ROBERT L & RENEE 5 PHEASANTS RUN 5 PHEASANTS RUN BUCHANAN NY 10511 I-1-ii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table I-2 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for the Indian Point Site Agency Authority Description Number Expiration Date USNRC Atomic Energy Act, IP1 License to Possess DPR-5 September 28, 2013 10 CFR 50 USNRC Atomic Energy Act, IP2 License to Operate DPR-26 September 28, 2013 10 CFR 50 USNRC Atomic Energy Act, IP3 License to Operate DPR-64 December 12, 2015 10 CFR 50 USDOT 49 CFR 107, Subpart G IP2 DOT Hazardous 053112 551 040U June 30, 2013 Materials Certificate of Registration USDOT 49 CFR 107, Subpart G IP3 DOT Hazardous 053112 551 047U June 30, 2013 Materials Certificate of Registration NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 325 IP2 Pesticide 12696 April 30, 2015 Application Business Registration NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 325 IP3 Pesticide 13163 April 30, 2015 Application Business Registration NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Parts 704 and IP1, 2, and 3 SPDES NY 000 4472 October 1, 19921 750 Permit NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 704 Simulator Transformer NY 025 0414 February 28, 2013 Vault SPDES Permit NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 704 Buchanan Gas Turbine NY 022 4826 February 28, 2013 SPDES Permit NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Parts 200 and IP2 Air Permit 3-5522-00011/00026 No Expiration Date 201 NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Parts 200 and IP3 Air Permit 3/5522-00105/00009 No Expiration Date 201 WCDOH Chapter 873, Article XIII, IP2 Gas Turbine 1 Air #00021 December 31, 20122 Section 873.1306.1 of the Permit Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article XIII, IP2 Gas Turbine 2 Air #00022 December 31, 20122 Section 873.1306.1 of the Permit Laws of Westchester County I-2 i

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table I-2 (cont'd)

Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for the Indian Point Site Agency Authority Description Number Expiration Date WCDOH Chapter 873, Article XIII, IP2 Gas Turbine 3 Air #00023 December 31, 20122 Section 873.1306.1 of the Permit Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article XIII, IP2 Boiler Permit 52-4493 Not Applicable Section 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article XIII, IP2 Vapor Extractor 52-5682 December 31, 20122 Section 873.1306.1 of the Air Permit Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article XIII, IP3 Boiler Permit 52-6497 No Expiration Date Section 873.1306.1 of the Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article XIII, IP3 Training Center 52-6498 No Expiration Date Section 873.1306.1 of the Boiler Permit Laws of Westchester County WCDOH Chapter 873, Article XIII, IP3 Vapor Extractor --3 -3 Section 873.1306.1 of the Air Permit Laws of Westchester County NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 596 IP2 Hazardous 3-000107 September 4, 2013 Substance Bulk Storage Registration Certificate NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 596 IP3 Hazardous 3-000071 August 4, 2013 Substance Bulk Storage Registration Certificate NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 610 IP2 Major Oil Storage 3-2140 --1 Facility WCDOH Westchester County IP3 Petroleum Bulk 3-166367 September 7, 2015 Sanitary Code, Article Storage Registration XXV Certificate NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 372 IP2 Hazardous Waste NYD991304411 No Expiration Date Generator Identification I-2 ii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table 1-2 (cont'd)

Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for the Indian Point Site Agency Authority Description Number Expiration Date NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 372 IP3 Hazardous Waste NYD085503746 No Expiration Date Generator Identification NYSDEC 6 NYCRR Part 373 IP2 Hazardous Waste NYD991304411 February 28, 20071 Part 373 Permit EPA 40 CFR 264 IP2 Hazardous Solid NYD991304411 October 14, 20024 Waste Amendment Permit EPA 40 CFR 264 IP3 Hazardous Solid NYD085503746 October 17, 20014 Waste Amendment Permit Notes:

Current as of December 2012 (1) Timely renewal application was submitted; therefore, permit is administratively continued under New York State Administrative Procedures Act.

(2) Permit renewal applications were submitted.

(3) Application has been submitted to WCDOH, but a permit has not yet been issued.

(4) Permit has been administratively continued based on conditional mixed waste exemption.

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations USDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IP2 = Indian Point, Unit 2 IP3 = Indian Point, Unit 3 NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NYCRR = New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations NYSDEC = New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SAFSTOR = Safe Storage SPDES = State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WCDOH = Westchester County Department of Health I-2 iii

FIGURES 8.2011 W 9

u te Ro Old r

yD ert Lib Louisa St lsh Blv d

Joh n W a

h St er S o ut L ow Av e lcher We n Rd ntow st R d G re e Bl y Po ea k le yA Alba ve n

St Wh ite S

Park t

rc h S Ch u t

C Lin Le rc h w hu dsey is St St Ave A ve St en 1s t

tr e C St vi s Ln wa T ra aft y le e Co Br rA v Cr te oa 2n d

es 3r d Ct d

ch St St t

C hu n

r St or e 16 na t

sa L W t hea n t Do he es h P Ru llag M

Stan 4t h n

St Ga St nry St He m rine 11 th e Willia t 6th Area h St St Ca of Detail 9t 10 14 7t ve 15 eA St h t t h St h h t h St St dg NY St 13 St St nd t ck le Av t h St eA Co rtla Ro 7t e ve h

St Bannon Ave an d Ta t Hi 8t 10 es St gh h t h CT St l

St St Ja 11 m a rd t h St La Sew NJ 6t h

St ke D dd ve 7t Sh e h H il St r

lto R d A

Pl 5t p nd Burke Ct l h i gh St d a

H 4th yR St lle T ro IPEC Property Boundary IPEC CZMA IPEC Property Boundary Figure I-1 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet E

Vails Gate 6.9.2011

!

(

57 Cornwall on Hudson Firthcliffe

!

(

56

(

!

55 Nelsonville Cold Spring

(

!

54 Hudson R iver Mile 44 -56

(

!

53

!

(

52

!

(

51 Highland Falls

(

!

50

(

!

49

(

!

48 Fort Montgomery

!

(

47

£

6

!

(

46

(

!

45 Iona

£

987 Island Marsh  !

(

44

£

202

(

!

43

(

!

42 IPEC Buchanan

!

(

41 Verplanck £

9

£

987

!

(

40 Crugers

!

(

39

(

!

38 Area  !

(

37 NY of Detail Croton-on-Hudson Havers traw Bay Haverstraw

(

!

36

(

!

35 CT

(

!

NJ 34

!

(

33 IPEC CZMA NYS DOS Coastal Zone Boundary IPEC Coastal Zone - River Mile 34 to 56 NYSDOS Significant Coastal Habitat Figure I-2

!

( 0 1 2 3 4 E

41 River Mile Miles

60

!

(

10.4.2012  !

(59 New Windsor 58

!

(

Vails Gate 57

!

(

Pro po sed Exp ans ion -

Huds on H ig hlan ds Cornwall on Hudson Firthcliffe 56

!

(

55

!

(

Nelsonville Cold Spring 54

!

(

Hu dso n Riv er Mil e 4 4-5 6 53

!

(

52

!

(

51

!

(

Highland Falls 50

!

(

49

!

(

48

!

(

Fort Montgomery 47

!

(

£

6 46

!

(

45

!

(

Iona

£

987 Isla nd 44 Ma rs h  !

(

£

202 43

!

(

Pro po sed Exp ans ion -

Huds on H ig hlan ds 42

!

(

IPEC Buchanan 41

!

( Verplanck £

9

£

987 40

!

(

Crugers 39

!

(

38

!

(

Area NY of Detail 37

!

( Croton-on-Hudson Ha ve rstra w Ba y Haverstraw 36

!

(

35

!

(

CT NJ 34

!

(

33

!

( Copyright:© 2009 ESRI NYS DOS Coastal Zone Boundary IPEC CZMA NYSDOS Significant Coastal Habitat IPEC Coastal Zone - River Mile 34 to 60 (Proposed)

NYSDOS Proposed Significant Coastal Habitat Figure I-2a River Mile 0 1 2 3 4 41 E

!

(

Miles

11.4.2011 43.7-1-1 43 .1 1-1 -1 43.11-2-1 43.11-2-33 43.11-2-34 43.11-2-31 43.6-1-2 IPEC 43.14-2-1 43.15-1-21 43 .

1 5-1 -1 43.10-1-2 43 6

.15 14 4433.1

.144--22-2 43

-2

.15 13 43.18-2-1 43.14-3-2 43.18-2-14 43.14-3-1 43.18-1-1 43.18-1-2 43.18-1-5.1 Source: Town of Cortlandt Tax Assessors Office Area of Detail NY CT IPEC CZMA N Abutting Parcels J Figure I-3 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet E E

11.2011 Area of Detail Source: USNRC 2010 Fig. 2-3 NY CT NJ IPEC CZMA The IPEC Site Figure I-4 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet E

8.2011 Putnam County Orange County Rockland County Westchester County IPEC Area of Detail NY CT NJ 5-Mile Radius IPEC CZMA County Boundary Aerial View of IPEC - 5 Mile Study Area Figure I-5 0 1 2 3 4 Miles E

Marsh Hudson River Mile 44-56 11.2011

£

202 USGS National Land Cover Database Open Water 43

!

(

Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity 42

!

( Developed, High Intensity IPEC Barren Land Deciduous Forest Buchanan Evergreen Forest Av e Mixed Forest er 41

!

( st

£ 9 Shrub/Scrub he tc es Verplanck W

Grassland/Herbaceous d

ry R K in gs F er Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crop Alba ny Po

!

(40 Woody Wetlands st R d

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Crugers 39

!

(

38

!

(

37

!

( St ple Ma ve Ri s id Croton-on-Hudson e

r Av e

Haverstraw 36

!

(

35

!

(

SOURCE: USGS, National Land Cover Database, 2001 NY 34

!

(

Area of Detail CT NJ 33

!

(

32

!

(

Coastal Zone Boundary IPEC CZMA Land Cover from River Mile 34 to 42 Figure I-6 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles E

11.2011 Fort Montgomery IPEC Buchanan Verplanck Crugers Land use and parcel data sources: Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Orange County GIS Haverstraw Area of Detail Coastal Zone Boundary Land Use Residential NY CT Commercial (incl. mixed-use residential/commercial)

Industrial NJ Utilities/Transportation Institutional/Community Services Open Space/Recreation && Entertainment/Wild Vacant IPEC CZMA Land Use - 5 Mile Radius Figure I-7 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles E

11.2011 New Windsor Fishkill tt y y

57

!

( ss C

Coou u nn 56

!

(

Philipstown ee s s

Cornwall on Hudson D Duu tt c c hh 55

!

(

Cornwall Nelsonville Cold Spring 54

!

(

53

!

(

52

!

(

Putnam Valley 51

!

(

Highland Falls 50

!

(

Highlands 49

!

(

48

!

(

47 tt yy C oo uu nn

!

(

am m C P uu tt nn a P

oo uu nn tt yy t ee rr C C

Woodbury t cc hh ee ss t

£ 6

ttyy W ee ss t W

nn 46

!

(

uu ttyy oo nn CC uu ee oo gg CC 45 nn dd

!

(

rraa nn llaa

£ 987 OO 44 kk  !

(

cc oo £

202 RR 43 Peekskill

!

(

Yorktown 42

!

(

IPEC Buchanan Tuxedo 41

!

( £ 9

Cortlandt

£

987 40

!

(

Stony Point 39

!

(

38

!

(

Area 37

!

( Croton-on-Hudson of Detail Haverstraw Haverstraw 36

!

(

New Castle 35

!

(

NY CT NJ Ramapo Clarkstown 34

!

( Ossining 33

!

(

County Boundary NYS DOS Coastal Zone Boundary IPEC CZMA Cortlandt City/Town Boundary 41

!

( River Mile Municipalities from River Mile 34 to 56 Figure I-8

!

( Village 0 1 2 3 4 Miles E

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 II. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Policies 1 through 6 are designed to promote the use of coastal resources. These policies encourage revitalization of underutilized waterfronts, location of water dependent uses within the coastal zone, the expansion of New York States major ports, redevelopment of the existing built environment (as opposed to undeveloped areas), and expediting permitting procedures. These policies are inapplicable to IPEC, which is an existing water-dependent use already located within a developed area of the coastal zone where adequate infrastructure already exists to support IPECs operations.

A. Policy 1 - Waterfront Redevelopment Policy 1 seeks to:

[r]estore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational, and other compatible uses (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6,

p. 3).20 20 NYSDOS guidance indicates that Policy 1 is related to other policies aimed at fostering development in the coastal area and that municipalities have primary responsibility for the restoration, revitalization, and redevelopment of waterfront areas. Specifically, it states:

[i]n responding to this policy, several other policies must be considered:

Policy 2, Policy 5, [and] Policy 6 Local governments through waterfront revitalization programs have the primary responsibility for implementing this policy (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 3 through

4) [emphasis supplied].

NYSDOS Policy 1 further notes that state and federal agencies also have responsibilities regarding the revitalization of urban waterfront areas and are expected to analyze their actions to ensure they further waterfront revitalization:

[s]tate and federal agencies must ensure that their actions further the revitalization of urban waterfront areas. The transfer and purchase of property; the construction of a new office building, highway or park; the provision of tax incentives to businesses; and establishment of enterprise zones, are all examples of governmental means for spurring economic growth. When any such action, or similar action is proposed, it must be analyzed to determine if the action would contribute to or adversely affect a waterfront revitalization effort. It must be recognized that revitalization of once dynamic waterfront areas is one of the most effective means of encouraging economic growth in the State, without consuming valuable open space outside of these waterfront areas. Waterfront redevelopment is also one of the most effective means of rejuvenating or at least II-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 1 Policy 1 is aimed primarily at encouraging actions by local governmental entities to spur waterfront redevelopment within underutilized waterfront areas. IPEC is located within Buchanan, which is incorporated within the town of Cortlandt. IPEC is not located within an underutilized waterfront area of Buchanan. However, continued productive use of IPEC will help protect the Hudson River waterfront against blight and underutilization. Buchanans (2012) website prominently features a waterfront view of IPEC and a boat launch. Buchanans website proudly indicates that Buchanan is:

[r]ich in history and amenities, [where] visitors and residents enjoy a thriving shopping district, parks, recreational facilities and more.

A wonderful place to live and work, Buchanan is home to Entergy, which provides electricity to the entire region (Buchanan 2012).

Buchanans (2005) Comprehensive Master Plan (Master Plan)21 indicates that the IPEC site likely will remain industrial.

IPEC is an existing, well-maintained, and productive baseload electric generating station located on a 239-acre developed waterfront site within Buchanan. The Indian Point site has been devoted to nuclear power generation since 1956 when the USNRC issued the construction permit for IP1. IPEC provides up to 30 percent of the New York City areas base-load electricity (Lesser 2012, p. 2). In 2011, IPEC produced a total of 17,016,900 megawatt hours (MWh) of net energy (NYISO 2012a, p. 33). As of June 2006, the workforce consisted of about 1,255 employees during normal plant operations (USNRC 2010, p. 8-14) (Attachment 22).22 IPEC License Renewal will allow for continued operation of the facility, maintaining the vibrancy of the Hudson River waterfront.

By contributing to the tax bases of Buchanan and surrounding communities, by providing employment for local residents (NEI 2004 (Attachment 36); USNRC 2010; Entergy 2007a), and by providing a source of virtually emission-free, lower-cost, reliable energy, IPEC License Renewal will continue to assist local communities to implement redevelopment and revitalization measures identified for the coastal zone.

stabilizing residential and commercial districts adjacent to the redevelopment area (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 3) [emphasis supplied].

21 Buchanan does not have a NYSDOS-approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP).

22 Currently, IPEC employs approximately 1,100 workers (EIA 2012b).

II-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 1 is inapplicable. IPEC already exists as a highly productive well maintained waterfront facility within Buchanan. If and to the extent Policy 1 is deemed applicable to License Renewal, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 1.

B. Policy 2 - Water-Dependent Uses Policy 2 seeks to facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 6).23

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 2 IPEC is an existing water-dependent use of the coastal zone, and is not being sited there anew. IPEC is a well-maintained and productive water-dependent baseload electric generating station located on a developed waterfront site within Buchanan (NYISO 2012a, pp. 33 and 48).

The NYCMP itself recognizes IPEC as one of the States existing energy facilities located within the States coastal zone (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-9, p. 3).

23 NYSDOS guidance indicates that state agencies should give special consideration to waterfront facilities that have water-dependent needs (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 6 through 7). NYSDOS guidance for Policy 2 states that:

There is a finite amount of waterfront space suitable for development purposes.

Consequently, while the demand for any given piece of property will fluctuate in response to varying economic and social conditions, on a statewide basis, the only reasonable expectation is that long-term demand for waterfront space will intensify (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 6).

19 NYCRR Part 600.2 defines a water-dependent use as a business or other activity which can only be conducted in, on, over, or adjacent to a water body because such activity requires direct access to that water body, and which involves, as an integral part of such activity, the use of the water. [emphasis supplied]

In discussing these water-dependent uses, NYSDOS incorporates the regulatory definition of water-dependent use and further states:

[t]he following uses and facilities are considered as water-dependent Uses involved in the sea/land transfer of goods (for example: docks, loading areas, pipelines, short-term storage facilities) Uses requiring large quantities of water for processing and cooling purposes Uses that rely heavily on the waterborne transportation of raw materials or products which are difficult to transport on land, thereby making it critical that a site near to shipping facilities be obtained (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 6 through 7)

[emphasis supplied].

II-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 IPEC relies on water from the Hudson River for the generation of electricity (i.e.,

condensation of steam in the condensers), as well as for cooling other equipment, including safety-related equipment essential for safe plant operations. This water is supplied by, and returned to, the Hudson River (USNRC 2010, p. 2-8). This use of water also requires intake structures, a discharge canal, and associated facilities that are located on the IPEC waterfront site (Figure I-4). IPECs use of water for cooling makes it a water-dependent use under NYSDOS guidance (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 7).

The IPEC site is not served by freight rail service, and overland transportation is not feasible for the receipt or removal of the types of exceptionally large equipment required for the generation of electricity. Therefore, IPEC depends upon waterborne transportation for deliveries and removal of large equipment. For example, IPEC received new steam generators via barge in the 1980s. In 2006 and 2009, IPEC received new main power transformers via barge and the replaced transformers were removed by barge for disposition. Waterborne transportation activities of this nature have occurred over the past 40 years and Entergy anticipates continued use of this means of transportation under IPEC License Renewal (Entergy 2010a, 2010b).

IPECs reliance on waterborne transportation of products such as steam generators, turbine rotors, and main power transformers in order to maintain reliable plant operations (Entergy 2010b) also makes it a water-dependent use under NYSDOS guidance.

While Buchanan does not have a NYSDOS-approved LWRP, other municipalities with NYSDOS-approved LWRPs have identified facilities with requirements similar to those of IPECs as water-dependent uses. These include: Charles Point RRF (Peekskill 2005), which utilizes water for cooling; Bowline, which operates with a once-through cooling water system, and the Tilcon Industries facility in Village of Haverstraw, which requires water-based shipping (Haverstraw 2005). The Tilcon Quarry in Stony Point and the U.S. Gypsum plant are considered water-dependent either because of the use of Hudson River water for cooling or their dependence on deliveries via barge, respectively (Stony Point 1994).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 2 is inapplicable. License Renewal does not involve the siting of new facilities within the coastal zone. IPEC is an existing water-dependent use located within the coastal zone.

If and to the extent Policy 2 is deemed applicable to License Renewal, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 2.

C. Policy 3 - Development of New Yorks Major Ports Policy 3 seeks to:

[f]urther develop the States major ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York City, Ogdensburg, and Oswego as centers of commerce and industry, and encourage the siting in these port areas, including II-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 those under the jurisdiction of State public authorities, of land use and development which [i]s essential to, or in support of, the waterborne transportation of cargo and people (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 11).24

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 3 IPEC has no plans for additional development along IPECs waterfront, and License Renewal will have no impact within the States major ports. IPEC is located on the Hudson River at RM 42 in Westchester County. It is neither within, nor in close proximity to, the ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York City, Ogdensburg, and Oswego. Based on ESRI 2009 ArcMap software, IPEC is approximately 40 miles north of the Manhattan piers and Brooklyn Marine Terminal in the Port of New York (PANYNJ 2012) and 93 miles south of the Port of Albany (POA 2012). IPEC License Renewal does not involve any action within or abutting these ports, or any major port, and there is no reasonable expectation that IPEC License Renewal will affect these ports or any other port referenced in Policy 3.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 3 is inapplicable to IPEC License Renewal. IPEC is not within and will not affect any of the ports identified in Policy 3.

D. Policy 4 - Encouraging Development of Small Harbors Policy 4 seeks to:

[s]trengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and activities which have provided such areas with their 24 The aim of this policy is to support the development of the ports in Albany, Buffalo, New York City, Ogdensburg, and Oswego (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 11). In implementing this policy, State agencies must recognize the legally established jurisdictional boundaries of the port authorities. If an action is proposed for a site within or abutting a major port, or if there is a reasonable expectation that a proposed action elsewhere will have an impact on a major port, then the determination of consistency should follow the guidelines specified for this policy with respect to: maintenance and enhancement of port activity; dredging; landfill projects in the near-shore areas; non-port related activities; sale of public lands within or adjacent to a major port; programming of capital projects; abandonment of buildings; piers and vessels; proposals for the development of new major ports; public access; and consideration of harbor management plans.

II-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 unique maritime identity (NOAA and NYSDOS, 2006, chap. II-6,

p. 13).25

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 4 IPEC is not located within a small harbor area and License Renewal will have no impact on any small harbor areas. IPECs host communityBuchanandoes not have a LWRP (Westchester 2012). Only four municipalities within the region of RM 34 to 56 have NYSDOS-approved LWRPs: Peekskill (2005), Croton-on-Hudson (1992), Stony Point (1994), and the Village of Haverstraw (2005). Of these, only Stony Points LWRP indicates it has a small harbor and IPEC License Renewal does not include any proposal to use the small harbor in Stony Point. Only Haverstraws LWRP includes a Harbor Management Plan (HMP); this HMP specifically identifies existing industrial water-dependent uses, including Bowline.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 4 is not applicable to IPEC License Renewal. Buchanan does not have a small harbor. License Renewal will not affect any small harbors.

E. Policy 5 - Development in Areas with Adequate Essential Services and Facilities Policy 5 seeks to encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate.26 25 NYSDOS Policy 4 establishes seven guidelines to be applied in assessing compliance. The first six of these guidelines require the following actions affecting small harbors: give priority to traditional and/or desired uses; maintain the character, intensity of use, and architectural style; prevent deterioration due to vandalism or structural decline; protect the existing economic base; and protect views and the visual quality of the area. The seventh guideline directs agencies to consider information in relevant harbor management plans when assessing compliance with the other six guidelines (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 13 through 14).

26 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 5 states that:

[d]evelopment, particularly large-scale development, in the coastal area will be encouraged to locate within, contiguous to, or in close proximity to, existing areas of concentrated development where infrastructure and public services are adequate, where topography, geology, and other environmental conditions are suitable for and able to accommodate development (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p 16).

NYSDOS guidance further states that it is the goal of this policy to strengthen existing residential, industrial and commercial centers; and foster energy conservation by encouraging proximity between home, work and leisure activities (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 16).

II-6

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 5 IPEC License Renewal will not entail the location of any new development within the coastal zone and will not affect the adequacy of existing infrastructure.

As stated previously, IPEC is an existing facility and no new development is proposed.

In addition, IPEC already is well served by existing infrastructure, and no additional infrastructure of the type addressed in Policy 5 (either on or off-site) will be necessary to support future operation of IPEC pursuant to License Renewal (USNRC 2010, p. 4-47; Entergy 2007a, 2007b).

IPECs location in the Hudson River valley has the benefit of several major highway routes that serve as transportation corridors for employee and other vehicular traffic to and from the site.27 No expansion of the existing workforce is planned; thus, there will be no added pressure on local traffic (USNRC 2010; Entergy 2007a). Moreover, eighty percent of the employees live in the five-county (i.e., Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange and Dutchess) area surrounding IPEC (Entergy 2007a; USNRC 2010, p. 2-114; NEI 2004), which reduces transportation needs between home and work.

Potable water and process water are supplied to the site by the Buchanan water supply system, which has sufficient capacity to provide for IPECs needs (USNRC 2010, p. 4-45; Entergy 2007a). Buchanans Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) treats sanitary waste from IPEC.

More importantly, IPEC License Renewal will provide adequate electricity supplies for New York. The generation facilities at IPEC and the transmission facilities needed to transmit the power from the plant to the power grid already are constructed and are operational. In 2011, NYSDOS further provides that in assessing the adequacy of an areas infrastructure and public services, the following should be considered:

a. [s]treets and highways serving the proposed site can safely accommodate the peak traffic generated by the proposed land development; b. [d]evelopments water needs (consumptive and fire fighting) can be met by the existing water supply system; c. [s]ewage disposal system can accommodate the wastes generated by the development; d. [e]nergy needs of the proposed land development can be, accommodated by existing utility systems; e. [s]torm water runoff from the proposed site can be accommodated by on-site and/or off-site facilities; and f. [s]chools, police and fire protection, and health and social services are adequate to meet the needs of the population expected to live, work, shop, or conduct business in the area as a result of the development (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 17).

27 As noted in Policy 2, IPEC utilizes waterborne transportation to receive and remove extremely large equipment, which cannot be accommodated on streets and highways.

II-7

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 IPEC produced a total of 17,016,900 MWh of net energy (NYISO 2012a, p. 33). IPEC will continue to be an essential component of New York States electric supply, and it will continue to provide lower-cost, virtually emission-free power to New York State residents (National Research Council 2006, p. 14 [Attachment 46]; NYISO 2012a, p. 33).

IPEC provides financial support for local schools, and health and social services. The Hendrick Hudson Central School District, the school district serving the area in the immediate vicinity of the site, will not require additional classroom space as a result of License Renewal since there will be no expansion of the existing IPEC workforce (Entergy 2007a). However, taxes paid by IPEC provide substantial benefits to the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, as well as Westchester County in general (Entergy 2007a, p. 4-86). Since there will be no permanent change in the workforce anticipated, IPEC License Renewal will not create the need for new large-scale housing or retail development (USNRC 2010, Entergy 2007a).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings IPEC License Renewal will not entail new development, but rather continued generation of reliable, lower-cost, virtually emission-free energy for New York State consumers at an existing industrial center that has adequate infrastructure to support both current and future operations under License Renewal. IPEC License Renewal will not trigger the need for additional infrastructure, such as roads, water or sewer services, schools or other social services, or additional transmission facilities. If and to the extent Policy 5 is deemed applicable to License Renewal, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 5.

F. Policy 6 - Expedited Permitting for Development Activities The goal of Policy 6 of the NYCMP is to [e]xpedite permit procedures in order to facilitate the siting of development activities at suitable locations (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 19).28 28 In assessing consistency with this policy, NYSDOS guidance on Coastal Policy 6 states:

For specific types of development activities, and in areas suitable for such development, State agencies and local governments participating in the Waterfront Revitalization Program will make every effort to coordinate and synchronize existing permit procedures and regulatory programs, as long as the integrity of the regulations' objectives is not jeopardized (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 19).

NYSDOS goes on to provide additional guidance to its sister agencies on coordination and promulgation of new regulations relevant to Policy 6.

II-8

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 6 No siting of new development is proposed as part of License Renewal. License Renewal has no bearing on Policy 6which calls for coordination and synchronization by state and local governments of permitting and regulatory review for the initial siting of development activities.

Policy 6 is directed at the actions of New York State and its local governmental agencies and not to private entities, such as Entergy.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 6 is inapplicable to IPEC License Renewal. License Renewal does not entail the siting of new development activity within the coastal zone or state and local permitting for the same.

II-9

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 III. FISH AND WILDLIFE POLICIES Policies 7 to 10 relate to different fish and wildlife considerations associated with the coastal zone. In assessing consistency with Policies 7 through 10, factors to be evaluated include protection of habitat within SCFWHs; protection of fish and wildlife from substances that bioaccumulate or cause lethal or sublethal effects; and maintenance of recreational and commercial fisheries and recreational wildlife. Collectively, the assessments described below and in Section III.B demonstrate that the current SPDES-permitted cooling water use through the cooling water intake structures (CWIS) at IPEC, and the discharges from IPEC, including thermal discharges, are consistent with Policies 7 to 10.

A. Introduction to Consistency Assessment No new activities or new developments are proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal.

Rather, IPEC License Renewal, as described in Entergys LRA (Attachment 1), seeks only the continuation of existing activities. These activities are conducted subject to Entergys existing SPDES permit which ensures that: (1) cooling water is withdrawn by way of the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact; (2) thermal discharges do not cause adverse environmental impacts to the aquatic communities of the Hudson River, but instead ensure the balanced indigenous populations of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and (3) WQS are met.29 NYSDEC staff determined that IPECs continued thermal discharges are in compliance with applicable NYSDEC WQS (Attachments 43 and 44). With respect to cooling water withdrawal, IPEC employs the best technology available with respect to impingement.30 USNRC has concluded, in the context of its National Environmental Policy Act analysis, that License Renewal is appropriate, a position underscored in USNRCs most recent supplement to the existing FSEIS and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) renewal of its 1979-vintage biological opinion and incidental take permit for IPEC relating to shortnose 29 NYSDEC is authorized under the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) §17-0817 to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, including for this current permit renewal (whereas USEPA retained control over a past NPDES permit renewal). Under Clean Water Act (CWA) §402(k), compliance with the conditions and requirements specified in a SPDES permit is compliance with the CWA, including applicable state water quality standards. See also 6 NYCRR §750-2.1(b) (Upon issuance of a SPDES permit, a determination has been made on the basis of a submitted application, plans, or other available information, that compliance with the specific permit provisions will reasonably protect classified water use and assure compliance with applicable water standards. (6 NYCRR §750-2.1(b)). The requirements of the CWA shall be the water pollution controlrequirements applicable to the [NYCMP]. 16 U.S.C. §1456(f).

30 The existing screening systems at IPEC remain state-of-the-art for minimizing impingement mortality (Enercon 2010b). USEPA, in its 2011 draft rule to regulate CWISs at existing power plants and other facilities (76 Fed.

Reg. 22174), concluded that the IPEC-type Ristroph Screens and fish return configuration represents the best technology available for minimizing impingement mortality.

III-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 sturgeon (Attachments 22, 40, 56, and 60). While NMFS currently is addressing the recent listing of Atlantic sturgeon (Attachment 60), with a supplement to the biological opinion expected shortly, Entergy has provided extensive analysis establishing the absence of adverse impact to the recovery of this newly listed species (Attachment 24).

In order to assess the potential environmental impacts of IPEC operations on the aquatic community, Entergy has retained LWB Environmental Services, Inc.; AKRF, Inc.; Normandeau Associates, Inc.; and ASA Analysis & Communication Inc. (collectively, the Biological Team). The Biological Team31 is composed of nationally recognized aquatic biologists and fisheries scientists, representing the leaders in their respective fields of fisheries assessment and statistics. The Biological Teams scientific approach to data assessment of IPECs potential impact on the Hudson River aquatic populations has relied upon an extensive fisheries dataset collected as part of the Hudson River Biological Monitoring Program (HRBMP); this dataset is regularly employed by other scientists and regulators alike (Young 2012) (Attachment 39).

The HRBMP, which has been conducted annually since 1974 to assess IPECs (and other Hudson River power plants) effect on the representative important species (RIS) (and therefore the community of aquatic organisms potentially affected by its CWISs), covers the entire estuarine portion of the River from RM 0 to 152. The components of the HRBMP include:

the Longitudinal River Ichthyoplankton Survey (LRS), Fall Shoals Juvenile Fish Survey (FSS) and Beach Seine Survey (BSS), as well as directed surveys targeting striped bass and Atlantic tomcod. The HRBMP has produced a comprehensive database on abundance of egg, larval, and juvenile life stages of estuarine fish in the Hudson River estuary (Waldman et al.

2006). The quality of these datasets has been independently validated using secondary datasets from the Hudson River (Attachment 8).32 Further, the data have been relied upon by over 100 peer-review scientific publications (Young 2012) (Attachment 39). Each survey was designed to target specific fish populations (i.e., striped bass and Atlantic tomcod), life stages and/or habitats within the estuary (i.e., shorelines, mid-water and deep-water benthic areas). These datasets provide species composition and abundance data that has been used to assess trends in annual abundance, recruitment timing and strength, temporal occurrence, and spatial distribution of fishes and blue crabs (see Appendix B and Exhibits B-1 through B-14). This information has been compared to entrainment and impingement data collected at IPEC to determine the susceptibility of each species to entrainment and impingement. In addition, long-term changes in the abundance of RIS have been evaluated using these datasets to monitor fish population trends and to determine if there are increasing or decreasing trends in abundance that might warrant further analysis.

31 Copies of the curricula vitae of key members of the Biological Team are included as Attachment 37 to this Consistency Certification.

32 Dr. Heimbuch of the Biological Team validated the fisheries datasets for internal consistency and for external consistency with independent datasets from the Hudson River.

III-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 The Biological Teams analyses have been routinely validated, including through leading national peer-reviewed published journals (Attachment 37). Specifically as it relates to Policies 7 through 10, and among the extensive body of the Biological Teams scientific work, the Biological Team performed a comprehensive assessment of: (1) Hudson River fisheries trends; (2) the potential impacts of IPECs continued operations, employing targeted RIS33 selected by NYSDEC as part of the 2003 draft SPDES permit renewal for IPEC (NYSDEC 2003c), and (3) a community-level analysis of fish species (Barnthouse et al. 2008) (Attachment 8). That assessment established, unequivocally that IPECs operations have had no discernible adverse effect on RIS populations or fish communities, and that IPECs continued operations will have no measurable adverse effect on the aquatic populations or communities of the Hudson River.

The Biological Team applied a rigorous assessment approach using methodologies that are generally accepted in the scientific community (Appendices D, F, and G).34 These assessments focused on cooling water use (i.e., withdrawal and discharge) and the effects on the best usages of Class SB surface saline waters of the Hudson River designated by NYSDEC in the vicinity of IPEC.35 The assessments of the Biological Team were performed specifically to identify potential adverse effects of the CWIS on NYSDEC-selected RIS, which function as valid proxies for the entire fish community, and, as a matter of added confirmation, to examine potential community-33 The RIS are: striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white perch (Morone americana), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli),

and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). Spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) also was included as an RIS by the Biological Team in 2011. The background on the development of the RIS list is described in Appendix B and in Barnthouse et al. 2008 (Attachment 8). The species included on the RIS list have been included in §316(b) studies for IPEC and other Hudson River power plants since the 1970s. Five of these species, striped bass, white perch, Atlantic tomcod, alewife, and bay anchovy, were identified by USEPA as RIS for the studies on the Hudson River. Although not officially listed as RIS, blueback herring was included in the list of species studied by the Biological Team because of its abundance in impingement collections at IPEC, and American shad was included because of its commercial importance. Collectively, these eight RIS represented 90.7% of all impinged organisms and 98.6% of all entrained organisms (Appendix D), and are therefore representative of the majority of taxa entrained and/or impinged at IPEC.

34 The Biological Teams approach is consistent with established definitions and standards of ecological risk assessment and fisheries management, and is consistent with guidelines set forth by agencies such as the USEPA in its 1998 Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA Guidelines). USEPAs ERA Guidelines provide direction on how to evaluate the adverse ecological effects of environmental stressors at the ecosystem-,

community- or population level (USEPA 1998). Whether or not an impact is considered adverse depends on whether or not it will alter valued structural or functional attributes of the ecological entities under consideration and is determined using three general criteria outlined in the USEPAs document. The three general criteria are: 1) nature and intensity of the effect, 2) spatial and temporal scale and 3) potential for recovery.

35 The best usages of Class SB surface waters are primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. 6 NYCRR Part 701.11.

III-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 level impacts of IPECs continued operations as it is currently configured, i.e., IPECs configuration for License Renewal. The assessments also are consistent with methodologies applied by fisheries management agencies such as the NMFS under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Steven Act).36 The Biological Teams approach included three distinct methodologies, (1) eco-epidemiology, (2) Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBPR) model, and (3) a community-level impact assessment. Each utilized generally accepted scientific methods to evaluate the potential impacts of IPEC operations on aquatic organisms in the Hudson River (Appendix D). The methodologies used by the Biological Team allowed for a robust, refined, and detailed assessment of IPECs potential adverse impacts to the aquatic ecology of the Hudson River (Appendices D, F, and G).

The first method, eco-epidemiology, is an approach documented by Suter et al. (2007)

(also termed ecological detection by Hilborn and Mangel [1997]) that is similar to methods used by medical epidemiologists to identify the causes of disease outbreaks.37 This approach involves the comparative testing of relevant hypotheses against five criteria for evaluating causal associations.38 The key to this approach is distinguishing between causal agents that possibly could have contributed to observed changes in species abundance and those that are very unlikely to have contributed to those changes (Appendix D). The eco-epidemiological analysis had the benefit of the long-term datasets collected under the HRBMP and evaluated whether entrainment and impingement at IPEC adversely affected fish populations. This component of the adverse environmental impact assessment concluded that IPECs CWISs are not a causal agent of any adverse impacts to Hudson River fish populations. Overfishing was found to be the 36 The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for protection of the resources from significant adverse impacts while ensuring long-term human use. Adverse impacts to a fishery population may be quantified as changes in abundance, size- or age-composition, reproductive output or any other characteristic that reflects the sustainability of the population over time.

37 As discussed in Appendix D, the method has been tested in several field studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (Suter et al. 2002; Cormier et al. 2002; Norton et al. 2002; Diamond et al. 2002; Clements et al.

2002). All three of the authors to Suter et al. 2007 are senior scientists in USEPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment and were the principal authors of USEPA's (2000) guidance on identifying causes of impairment in U.S. surface waters.

38 The five factors evaluated in the eco-epidemiological analysis are:

1. Co-occurrence: Effect occurs where and when its cause occurs and does not occur in the absence of its cause.

2. Sufficiency: Intensity or frequency of a cause should be adequate to produce the observed magnitude of effect.

3. Temporality: A cause must precede its effect.

4. Manipulation: Changing the cause must change its effect.

5. Coherence: Relationship between cause and effect must be consistent with scientific knowledge and theory.

III-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 likely primary causal agent for observed declines in a number of fish species (Attachment 8).39 Striped bass predation was also identified as a likely contributing causal agent for certain species (Heimbuch 2008) (Attachment 38). The analysis of the forage biomass necessary to sustain the rising striped bass population indicates that the observed declines in Hudson River fish species is roughly identical in magnitude to that biomass.

The second method is a commonly accepted scientific mathematical model known as the SSBPR model (Appendix D) (Barnthouse et al. 2008) (Attachment 8).40 The SSBPR model quantifies the impact of mortality due to fishing or other stressors on the ability of a fish population to replace itself (i.e., to persist in the future and sustain continued harvests by fishermen and other sources of mortality). The SSBPR model was applied to two fish species, striped bass and American shad, which were the only species for which adequate data necessary to complete the analysis were available. The Biological Team also concluded that IPECs CWISs do not impair the capacity of those species to replace themselves as measured by the SSBPR model (Barnthouse et al. 2008).

For the third method, the Biological Team analyzed potential community level41 as opposed to population level 42 impacts. For this component of the assessment, a broader set of fish species was analyzed (Barnthouse et al. 2008) (Attachment 8). The team used generally accepted statistical methods to analyze long-term abundance trends to determine whether species with high levels of susceptibility to entrainment have historically shown greater changes in abundance. Statistical analysis of long-term Hudson River datasets showed that species with higher susceptibility to entrainment at IPEC are no more likely to have increased or decreased in abundance over more than 35 years as compared to species with lower susceptibility (Attachments 8 and 41). Based on the results of this community-level assessment, entrainment and impingement associated with IPECs cooling water use were determined not to have caused any discernible adverse effect upon, or impairment of, the suitability of the Hudson River for primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing, or the suitability of the waters for fish and shellfish propagation and survival (Appendices D, E, F, and G).

39 Dr. Heimbuch correlated the abundance indices with environmental stressors to test the hypothesis that abundance and stressors are associated and to test an alternative hypothesis for observed declines in several forage fishes that are prey for striped bass.

40 The SSBPR model is a well-used and generally accepted method used by fisheries management agencies to manage commercial and recreational fisheries. NOAA guidelines (Restrepo et al. 1998) for implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act identify the SSBPR model as one of the methods that can be used to establish over-fishing reference points that comply with the Act.

41 A community is an assemblage of populations that occur together in space and time.

42 Populations are groups of plants, animals, or other organisms, all of the same species, that live together and reproduce.

III-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 The collective results of recent and historical assessments conducted using long-term datasets underscore the conclusion that continued operation of IPEC, as currently configured, will not impair SCFWHs or adversely impact the persistence of fish populations within the Hudson River estuary. Further, a rigorous assessment of IPECs thermal discharge conducted by RPS ASA43 and accepted by NYSDEC establishes that IPECs thermal discharges meet applicable NYSDEC WQS (ASA 2011) (Attachment 42). Accordingly, the suitability of the Hudson River for primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing, and the suitability of the waters for fish and shellfish propagation and survival, are assured. As set forth below, these assessments, in conjunction with other available data, demonstrate that IPECs continued operations will not: (1) impair or destroy Hudson River habitats, (2) contribute hazardous wastes or other pollutants to the environment in a manner that significantly affects the resources, or (3) impair recreation and commercial fishing resources. As such, there is no credible scientific basis for concluding that continued operation of IPEC in its present configuration will be inconsistent with Policies 7 to 10.

B. Policy 7 - Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats Policy 7 provides that:

Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected, preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats.44 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p.

20).

In order to determine consistency with Policy 7, NYSDOS applies a habitat impairment test to ensure that land and water uses or development will not:

43 In October 2011 Applied Science Associates, Inc. (ASA) was acquired by RPS Group, a multi-national consulting firm that offers science-based analysis and environmental, energy, science, and technology services to clients, and is now doing business as RPS ASA.

44 NYSDOS guidance recognizes that certain habitats (i.e., SCFWHs) have been designated as critical to fish and wildlife populations, including those that:

1) are essential to the survival of a large portion of a particular fish or wildlife population (e.g., feeding grounds, nursery areas);

2) support populations of rare and endangered species;

3) are found at a very low frequency within a coastal region;

4) support fish and wildlife populations having significant commercial and/or recreational value; and

5) would be difficult or impossible to replace (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006; chap. II-6, p. 20).

III-6

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1) destroy the habitat;45 or,

2) significantly impair the viability of a habitat.46 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 21; NYSDOS 1987a, 1987b, 1987c).

NYSDOS has identified the following range of physical, biological, and chemical parameters determinative of the viability of SCFWHs that should be considered in assessing if an activity will impair or destroy a SCFWH:

1) Physical parameters, such as living space, circulation, flushing rates, tidal amplitude, turbidity, water temperature, depth (including loss of littoral zone), morphology, substrate type, vegetation, structure, erosion and sedimentation rates;

2) Biological parameters, such as community structure, food chain relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, behavioral patterns and migratory patterns; and

3) Chemical parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, acidity, dissolved solids, nutrients, organics, salinity, and pollutants (heavy metals, toxic and hazardous materials) (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p.21).

In assessing the physical, chemical, and biological parameters determinative of the viability of a SCFWH, one must consider the tolerance range of organisms that utilize that SCFWH, particularly the organisms supporting the SCFWHs designation. The tolerance range of an organism is not defined as the physiological range of conditions beyond which a species will not survive at all, but as the ecological range of conditions that supports the species 45 Habitat destruction is defined as the loss of fish or wildlife use through direct physical alteration, disturbance, or pollution of a designated area or through the indirect effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat destruction may be indicated by changes in vegetation, substrate, or hydrology, or increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, or pollutants.

46 Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources (e.g., food, shelter, living space) or change in environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate, and salinity) beyond the tolerance range of an organism.

Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include but are not limited to reduced carrying capacity, changes in community structure (food chain relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity, and/or increased incidence of disease and mortality.

III-7

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 population or has the potential to support a restored population, where practical (NYSDOS 1987a, 1987b, 1987c). Either the loss of individuals through an increase in emigration or an increase in death rate indicates that the tolerance range of an organism has been exceeded. An abrupt increase in death rate may occur as an environmental factor falls beyond a tolerance limit (a range has both upper and lower limits). Many environmental factors, however, do not have a sharply defined tolerance limit, but produce increasing emigration or death rates with increasing departure from conditions that are optimal for the species (NYSDOS 1987a, 1987b, 1987c).

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 7 IPEC is located at RM 42. Thus, it is not located in or adjacent to any SCFWHs in the NOAA-approved NYCMP as of 2007 when Entergy submitted its License Renewal Application to USNRC (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006) (see Figure III-1). NYSDOS staff have asked Entergy, nonetheless, to consider certain regional SCFWHs. These are: Hudson RM 44 to 56 SCFWH, the Iona Marsh SCFWH, and the Haverstraw Bay SCFWH, descriptions of which are set forth in Appendix D.

After Entergys License Renewal Application was filed with USNRC in 2007, NYSDOS promulgated regulations proposing to expand the boundaries of RM 44 to 56 SCFWH to include RM 57 to 60 and RM 40 to 43 - the portion of the Hudson River adjacent to IPEC - within the new Hudson Highlands SCFWH (see Figure III-1a).47 Although this recently proposed change to the NYCMP is not applicable to License Renewal,48 the data and analysis in this Consistency Certification nonetheless demonstrate that License Renewal will not destroy habitat, or significantly impair habitat, within the Hudson Highlands SCFWH.49 As emphasized throughout, IPEC License Renewal does not encompass new proposed activities with new coastal effects. Based upon the extensive available data and analysis and 47 Entergy submitted comments to NYSDOS on the proposed amendments to the NYCMP in August 2011 (Attachment 45).

48 Changes to the NYCMP adopted after submission of Entergys License Renewal Application to USNRC in 2007 are not applicable to this Consistency Certification (NOAA 2012) (Attachment 72); 15 CFR § 930.51(b)(2). Even as a matter of state law, the adoption of the Hudson Highlands SCFWH regulations by NYSDOS has been challenged and remains subject to judicial review (Entergy 2012m).

49 The analyses presented in Appendix D and Attachment 8 show that License Renewal cannot reasonably be expected to destroy or significantly impair habitat within the Hudson River, including not only areas within the three SCFWHs in IPECs vicinity but also within the newly designated Hudson Highland SCFWH, which was an expansion of SCFWH RM 44-56 to include RM 40-43 and RM 57-60. More broadly, Appendix D and Attachment 8 provide a comprehensive assessment of the potential for adverse impact due to IPECs continued operation during License Renewal. The comprehensive assessment, by its scope and breadth, incorporated the potential for License Renewal to affect RM 40-43 and RM 57-60, the areas of the Hudson Highlands not within the three SCFWHs. In fact, the analyses encompassed RM 39-46, the IPEC Region which is within the Hudson Highlands.

III-8

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 the conclusions of the Biological Team, IPEC License Renewal will not alter the biological, physical, or chemical parameters of these habitats, and therefore, will not destroy or significantly impair these designated SCFWHs (Appendix D). IPECs operations to date have not altered, and continued operations cannot reasonably be expected to alter, the community structure, food chain relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, behavioral patterns, and migratory patterns of the fish species utilizing either SCFWH, or anywhere else in the Hudson River, beyond the tolerance range of those organisms (Barnthouse et al. 2008; Heimbuch 2008) (Attachments 8, and 38, respectively).

IPEC uses the Hudson River for cooling water and discharges that water to the Hudson River. Both uses are extensively regulated by NYSDEC, to assure that cooling water use and discharges of pollutants comply with applicable federal and New York State requirements (NYSDEC 2003a, 2003b). IPEC has a strong record of compliance with its SPDES permit (Entergy 2010e, 2010f). Intensive monitoring of the Hudson River fish community over IPECs entire period of operation, and subsequent statistical assessments (discussed in detail above) demonstrate that no measurable adverse impacts to fish populations or the aquatic community have occurred or are expected to occur (Attachment 8) (Barnthouse et. al. 2008, Entergy 2011k).

Furthermore, based on extensive monitoring and modeling studies conducted by RPS ASA, NYSDEC staff have concluded that IPECs thermal discharge is in conformance with state thermal WQS (Attachments 42, 43, and 44). RPS ASA conducted a comprehensive modeling study to determine whether IPECs thermal discharge is in compliance with NYSDECs thermal WQS at 6 NYCRR Part 704 (ASA 2011, p. i). RPS ASA used data from hydrothermal monitoring programs conducted in 2009 and 2010 to support the modeling effort, calibrated and verified the model, and then ran it to predict the nature and extent of the thermal plume during average and worst-case scenario conditions, e.g., reflecting various input parameters for air temperature, fresh water river flow, etc. The model results establish that IPEC is in compliance with the criteria in NYSDECs thermal WQS, a conclusion with which NYSDEC staff agree (Attachment 43).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No new construction or activities are proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal that reasonably could be expected to raise Policy 7 concerns, even for nearby SCFWHs. Extensive data collected under the oversight and direction of NYSDEC regarding the effects of IPEC operations on aquatic organisms, populations, and communities over a 35-year period indicate that IPEC cannot reasonably be considered to have caused an adverse impact on habitats within the Hudson River, let alone in a nearby SCFWH, and no destruction or significant impairment of such habitat can reasonably be expected from continued operations during the License Renewal period. Moreover, adequate assurances of protection exist under applicable New York law, including the SPDES program, pursuant to which NYSDEC assures IPECs compliance with applicable federal and State law. Even if, contrary to the applicable legal standards, the recently enacted NYSDOS amendments to the NYCMP establishing the Hudson Highlands SCFWH III-9

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 were applied to Entergys 2007 License Renewal Application, these same data and analyses demonstrate that IPEC License Renewal cannot reasonably be expected to destroy habitat, or significantly impair viability of habitat located within a SCFWH. Therefore, if and to the extent Policy 7 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 7.

C. Policy 8 - Hazardous Wastes and Pollutants that Bioaccumulate or Cause Lethal or Sublethal Effects Policy 8 seeks to:

[p]rotect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources50 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 25).

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 8 No changes in IPECs operations are proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. IPEC currently operates subject to and with the benefit of a SPDES permit and other permits and authorizations issued by NYSDEC. The effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions of IPECs permits regulate IPECs operations in accordance with federal and State law.

Pesticide use is regulated by NYSDEC under 6 NYCRR Part 325. Sodium hypochlorite, which is used to control biofouling in IPECs cooling water system, is classified by NYSDEC as 50 According to NYSDOS guidance on Policy 8, hazardous wastes are defined as:

... unwanted by-products of manufacturing processes and are generally characterized as being flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. More specifically, hazardous waste is defined in ECL

[S27-0901(3)] as waste or combinations of wastes which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or otherwise managed (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap.

II-6, p. 25).

Other pollutants, as defined in NOAA and NYSDOS (2006, chap. II-6, p. 25) Guidance, include:

conventional wastes generated from point and non-point sources, and not identified as hazardous wastes but controlled through other State laws.

The goal is to: minimize possible contamination of and bio-accumulation in the State's coastal fish and wildlife resources at levels that cause mortality or create physiological and behavioral disorders.

III-10

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 a pesticide. IPEC operates subject to and with the benefit of the appropriate NYSDEC Pesticide Business Registrations, submits the required annual reports to NYSDEC, and maintains appropriate applicator certifications to ensure that pesticide use and storage on-site are conducted properly and in accordance with regulations. Moreover, the discharge of sodium hypochlorite at IPEC is also regulated under IPECs SPDES permit, consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agencys (USEPA) Effluent Limitation Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 423. The only pesticide discharged in connection with IPECs operations is sodium hypochlorite.

Petroleum bulk storage on-site is regulated by NYSDEC under 6 NYCRR Parts 612-614 for IP3, and 6 NYCRR Parts 610-614 and 17 NYCRR Parts 30 and 32 for IP2. The IP2 and IP3 facilities have the appropriate registrations and procedures in place for oil spill prevention, response, and reporting. On-site chemical bulk storage is regulated by NYSDEC under 6 NYCRR Parts 595-599. IP2 and IP3 have Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans (SPCC Plan) in place, as required under 40 CFR Part 112, to prevent the discharge of oil to surface waters or surface water tributaries. IP2 and IP3 have: Chemical Spill Prevention Plans (CSPP), as required by 6 NYCRR Part 598, to prevent the discharge of hazardous chemicals to surface waters and their tributaries; appropriate registrations and procedures for proper chemical materials handling and storage; spill prevention, response, and reporting; and storage systems inspection, maintenance, and repair. Additionally, IPEC has processes and procedures to ensure that hazardous chemicals stored and used on-site are handled and stored in accordance with applicable State and federal regulations.

Hazardous wastes and mixed wastes generated on-site are packaged, temporarily stored, and shipped off-site for processing and disposal, and all are managed in compliance with applicable federal and state law. Specifically, NYSDEC issued a permit for the storage of mixed wastes at IP2, and both IP2 and IP3 have USEPA permits for the storage of mixed wastes, although they currently operate under the USEPA and NYSDEC conditional mixed waste exemptions. These activities are also regulated under 6 NYCRR Parts 370-376, as well as 40 CFR Parts 260-268. IPEC has processes and procedures to ensure that mixed and hazardous wastes are packaged, stored, and shipped so as to comply with the applicable State and federal regulations.

Accordingly, IPEC operates subject to comprehensive regulations that NYSDEC implements to ensure that hazardous materials and wastes are managed in accordance with NSYDECs goals for the ambient environment and receiving water bodies.

a. Analysis of Potential Lethal or Sublethal Aquatic Impacts NYSDECs §303(d) list identifies certain pollutants that have caused impairment in the vicinity of IPEC, none of which are discharged by IPEC (NYSDEC 2012e). Specifically, as discussed in Appendix E, New York States §303(d) list identifies the lower Hudson River as being impaired for fish consumption as a result of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and III-11

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 other toxics, which may include mercury, pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

heavy metals and dioxins/furans present in Hudson River sediment (NYSDEC 2012e, p. 24).

Further, for those non-§303(d) listed pollutants, IPECs SPDES permit provides a numerical limit, expressed as a concentration or a mass loading, for each pollutant discharged at IPEC within NYSDECs jurisdiction (NYSDEC 1987) in quantities and concentrations that NYSDEC has determined comply with federal and state law. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to NYSDEC by Entergy report the concentrations of pollutants measured at each outfall and confirm Entergys continued compliance on a monthly basis, identifying few instances of spills or other exceedances.

The pollutants listed in IPECs SPDES permit (NYSDEC 1987) and released by IPEC in conformance with that permit do not cause pollutant concentrations in the Hudson River to exceed New Yorks water quality criteria (Appendix E). For all substances except residual chlorine, the estimated discharge concentrations are lower than both the chronic and acute criteria. Peak total residual chlorine (TRC) concentrations measured during chlorination (limited to 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> per week) of the condenser cooling systems at IPEC are substantially lower than the permit limit. TRC breaks down rapidly in aquatic environments; therefore, these discharges cannot reasonably be expected to cause sublethal or lethal effects on aquatic organisms. Compliance with the ambient criteria indicates that these discharges would not cause effects on exposed organisms within the Hudson River (USEPA 1985).

b. Analysis of Potential for Bioaccumulative Effects Bioaccumulation refers to the propensity of a chemical to reach concentrations within the tissues of organisms that are higher than concentrations in environmental media. Chemicals are identified as bioaccumulative if concentrations in exposed organisms can reach levels that can be harmful to predators or to human consumers. Chemicals that bioaccumulate are not discharged from IPEC (Appendix E). 51 51 Strontium is a radionuclide that is known to bioaccumulate. Studies demonstrate that strontium is not present in Hudson River fish species above background levels, and that those background levels are not attributable to IPEC (USNRC 2010, pp. 2-105 to 2-106, 2-112) (Attachment 22). However, strontium historically has been identified as present in water released to groundwater from IPECs Unit 1 spent fuel pool. Entergy has removed the spent fuel from Unit 1s spent fuel pool and the pool has been drained (USNRC 2010, p. 2-111) (Attachment 22).

Therefore, the IPEC Unit 1 spent fuel pool is no longer a potential source of strontium. Moreover, IPECs License Renewal does not request permission either to generate electricity from Unit 1 or to use the Unit 1 spent fuel pool. Accordingly, the presence of strontium in historical water releases from the Unit 1 spent fuel pool has no bearing on this Consistency Certification. Moreover, regulation of radiological discharges from IPEC is within the exclusive jurisdiction and control of USNRC. See Train v. Colorado Public Interest Group, Inc., 426 U.S. 1, 16 (1976).

III-12

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings IPEC License Renewal will result in the continuation of existing operations. Based on over 35 years of operation, historic discharges by IPEC of pollutants or hazardous substances have not caused sublethal or lethal effects on the Hudson Rivers aquatic biota and have not bioaccumulated in aquatic food chains. IPEC is and will continue to be extensively regulated by NYSDEC. If and to the extent Policy 8 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is consistent with Policy 8.

D. Policy 9 - Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources Policy 9 seeks to: [e]xpand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks, and developing new resources52 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 28).

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 9 Policy 9 is directed primarily at wildlife agencies managing fish and wildlife resources for recreational use. Because there will be no change of IPECs operations as part of License Renewal, continued plant operations will not impede access to existing resources. Furthermore, IPEC License Renewal is unrelated to supplementing fishery stocks and developing new recreational fishery resources.

As discussed in Section III.A above, detailed assessments by leading aquatic biologists and fisheries scientists have demonstrated that IPECs cooling water use has not resulted in a decrease in populations of recreational fishery species in more than 35 years of IPECs operation (Appendix F), and that cessation of IPECs operations would not produce an increase in these populations (Appendix F). Moreover, these assessments have demonstrated that the principal cause of decline in some recreational fisheries is overfishing. IPECs operations (past or future) cannot reasonably be considered to impair recreational fisheries.

For example, NYSDECs spawning stock index for striped bass, a measure of the health of the spawning population, has been improving since the 1980s (see Appendix G). The index value for 2007 was the highest (i.e., the best) ever measured (see Appendix G). Similarly, an 52 NYSDOS guidance provides a detailed approach for assessing consistency with Policy 9; the relevant portions provide:

Recreational uses of coastal fish and wildlife resources include consumptive uses such as fishing and hunting, and non-consumptive uses such as wildlife photography, bird watching and nature study. Consideration should be made by Federal and State agencies as to whether an action will impede existing or future utilization of the State's recreational fish and wildlife resources (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 28).

III-13

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 independent analysis conducted by a leading fisheries expert concluded that the recreational fishery for striped bass has resulted in a significantly larger harvest of striped bass from the Hudson River population than entrainment of striped bass by cooling water intake structures (CHGE 1999, Appendix VI-4-A). Finally, the angler survey data presented in Appendix F demonstrates that IPEC operations are not restricting recreational angler opportunities for striped bass or any other recreational species. Likewise, by way of example, although the American shad population has declined, there is no credible basis for linking such declines to entrainment at IPEC; to the contrary, declines are clearly and directly related to overfishing and other conditions in spawning grounds of the upper Hudson River (Attachment 65).

a. Recreational Fish Resources The analysis presented in Appendix F demonstrates that IPECs operations do not pose a risk to the utilization or future development of recreational fishery resources by adversely affecting the abundance or reproduction of recreationally important species.

As discussed in Appendix F, the estuary supports a variety of species that are utilized by recreational anglers. Anadromous fishes, such as striped bass, American shad, alewife, and blueback herring, are pursued and may be harvested during spring spawning runs. Largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth (Micropterus dolomieu) bass are sought during summer and fall. Abundant panfish species such as white perch, sunfishes (Lepomis spp.),

catfishes (Ictaluridae), crappies (Pomoxis spp.), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) occur throughout the estuary. Marine species, such as bluefish, weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and Atlantic tomcod, as well as blue crabs, are sought seasonally, but primarily in the more saline reaches of the lower estuary.

Creel surveys conducted on the Hudson River have demonstrated the presence of an active recreational fishery with striped bass, river herring, and white perch constituting the top three most sought after fish species during the last decade (Normandeau 2003, 2007). Most of these past creel studies included RM 12 to 151, and the results of those studies indicate that IPECs operations have not impeded the existing utilization of the Hudson Rivers recreational fishery (Green 1991; Peterson 1998; NYSDOH 2000; Normandeau 2003, 2007). Detailed information on these studies is provided in Appendix F. Results from the creel surveys are consistent with the Biological Teams conclusions that IPECs operations are not adversely affecting fish populations (Attachment 8).

b. Wildlife Resources Appendix C identifies the wildlife resources in the IPEC Region. IPEC License Renewal does not involve any change of the terrestrial environment that could affect future consumptive or non-consumptive use of wildlife resources. The FSEIS concludes that any impacts to the terrestrial ecology of the site under the continued operations scenario would be SMALL (USNRC 2010, p. 9-9) (Attachment 22).

III-14

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No new construction or operational changes are proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. Data from recent creel surveys, data collected through the HRBMP for over 35 years, and analysis of IPECs operations indicate that IPEC has not impeded existing use or development of the recreational fisheries. Policy 9 is inapplicable to IPEC License Renewal.

However, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 9 if and to the extent it is deemed applicable.

E. Policy 10 - Commercial Fishing Policy 10 seeks to:

[f]urther develop commercial finfish, shellfish and crustacean resources in the coastal area by encouraging the construction of new, or improvement of existing on-shore commercial fishing facilities, increasing marketing of the States seafood products, maintaining adequate stocks, and expanding aquaculture facilities53 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 30).

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 10 IPECs continued operations do not and will not affect commercial fisheries.

53 NYSDOS guidance discussing Policy 10 provides that:

[c]ommercial fishery development activities must occur within the context of sound fishery management principals developed and enforced within the State's waters by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the management plans developed by the Regional Fisheries Management Councils (Mid-Atlantic and New England) and enforced by the NMFS within the Fishery Conservation ZoneSound resource management considerations include optimum sustained yield levels developed for specific commercial fish species, harvest restrictions imposed by State and Federal governments, and the economic, political (uses conflicts), and technological constraints to utilizing these resources. (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p.

30)

Additionally, NYSDOS guidance identifies four factors to be considered in assessing consistency with Policy 10.

The third factor states that, [c]onsideration should be made by State and Federal agencies whether an action will impede existing utilization or future development of the state's commercial fishing resources. The other three factors relate to efforts by public agencies or other entities that are undertaking activities to develop commercial fisheries and are not applicable to IPECs consistency determination (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp.

30 through 31).

III-15

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

a. Identification of Commercial Fisheries The existing commercial fishery resources that utilize the Hudson River are striped bass, river herring, American shad, bluefish, blue crab, Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus),

Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), Atlantic menhaden, scup (Stenotomus chrysops),

summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), red hake (Urophycis chuss), weakfish, winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), and windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus).54 Status reports and assessments prepared by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) the governmental agency charged with oversight of such stocks have been reviewed and evaluated (Appendix G).55 The Biological Team concluded that IPECs operations 54 As of February 6, 2012, Atlantic sturgeon from five Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) throughout the species geographic range, were listed under the Endangered Species Act (77 Fed. Reg. 5880; 77 Fed. Reg. 5914).

The New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon (to which the Hudson River population belongs) was listed as endangered effective on April 6, 2012. There is no longer a commercial fishery for Atlantic sturgeon; however, the existence of a fishery in the future would not be impacted by IPECs continued cooling water use, as indicated in the DEIS (1999) and AKRF et al. (2012) analysis of sturgeon entrainment and impingement. NOAA has not identified cooling water use as a primary threat to Atlantic sturgeon (77 Fed. Reg. 5880, 5908, 5894).

In March 2012, Entergy filed a response to NYSDECs Notice of Incomplete Application and Request for Additional Information (NOIA/RAI) in connection with the 2012 application for an Incidental Take Permit.

The NOIA/RAI addressed the recent listing of Atlantic sturgeon and responded to NYSDECs request for an assessment of potential impacts associated with two alternative intake structure technologies (Entergy 2012e)

(Attachment 66).

55 Brief summaries on the population status and trends for the other species are included below.

Weakfish are managed as a single coastwide stock by the ASMFC. ASMFC (2009) completed an updated stock assessment in 2010, which concluded that the abundance of weakfish declined from 1999 to 2008. The assessment also concluded that an increase in natural mortality, rather than an increase in fishing mortality, was responsible for the decline. New York landings have consistently been 10% or less of the coastwide total.

The black sea bass stock is managed as a single unit. Based on an assessment completed in 2009, NMFS determined that the Atlantic black sea bass stock has been rebuilt (Shepherd 2009).

Red hake is monitored and assessed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). The NEFSC has determined that the Southern Georges Bank and Mid-Atlantic Bight stock is not in an overfished condition (Traver and Col 2006).

Commercial and recreational winter flounder fisheries are currently managed as three stocks: Gulf of Maine, Southern New England-Middle Atlantic, and Georges Bank under the New England Fishery Management Councils (NEFMC) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the ASFMCs Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder (ASMFC 2005). A stock assessment of the Southern New England-Middle Atlantic winter flounder stock was completed in 2011 (NEFSC 2011). NMFS has determined that the Southern New England-Middle Atlantic winter flounder stock is overfished; however, overfishing is not currently occurring.

The windowpane is managed by the NEFMC under the Multispecies FMP (NEFSC 2008). A comprehensive assessment completed in 2008 determined that the Southern New England-Mid-Atlantic Bight windowpane flounder stock was not in an overfished condition, although overfishing was occurring (NEFSC 2008).

III-16

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 create no adverse environmental impacts to fish populations or communities, and conversely that cessation of IPEC operations would not improve these populations (Attachments 8 and 65).

b. IPEC License Renewal Will Not Affect Future Development of Commercial Fisheries No new construction or operational changes are proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. Based on analysis of data from IPECs operations for over 35 years, License Renewal will not have any adverse impacts to Hudson River fish populations or communities and will not impede future development of commercial fisheries (Barnthouse et al. 2008) (Attachment 8).

c. IPECs Thermal Discharge Does Not Impede Future Development of Commercial Fisheries As discussed in detail in Appendix G, NYSDEC staff has determined based on comprehensive monitoring and modeling studies that IPECs thermal discharge meets NYSDECs thermal WQS (NYSDEC 2012h, 2011e) (Attachments 43 and 44). Elevated temperatures are limited primarily to the immediate vicinity of the discharge structure; the plume with lower delta temperatures extends up- and down-stream along the eastern shoreline of the Hudson River (ASA 2011) (Attachment 42). The thermal plume does not extend longitudinally or vertically within the water column in a manner that reasonably could be considered to impede migration of any of the anadromous commercial species (i.e., striped bass, alewife, blueback herring,56 and American shad) that move past IPEC between marine and freshwater habitats within the Hudson River.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No new construction or operational changes are proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. Data collected through the HRBMP for over 35 years, and analysis of IPECs operations, indicate that IPEC has not impeded existing development of commercial fisheries.

Therefore, if and to the extent that Policy 10 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 10.

56 As noted in Appendix B, NMFS has initiated a review of the status of the alewife and blueback herring stocks to determine if they should be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

III-17

FIGURES

!(77  !(57 6.9.2011 Mile s (!76 IPEC C ZMA 0 3  !(75

!(56 NYSDO S Sig nific a nt C oa sta l Fish a nd Wild life Ha b ita ts POUGHK EEPSIE fro m Rive r M ile 3 4 to 5 6

!(74

!(55 Fig ure III-1

!(73 U

Ull ss tt ee rr  !(72 (!54 COLD SPRING

!(71 Haver st raw Bay

!(70 Hudson River Mile 44-56

!(69

!(53

!(68 D Duu tt cc hh ee ss ss (!52 Iona Island Marsh

!(67

!(66

!(51

!(64

!(65 £ 9 (!10 Hudson River Miles

(!63 HIGHLAND FALLS  !(50

!(62 Hudson

!(61 NEWB URGH (!49 R iver Mile 44- 56

!(60

!(59  !(48

!(58

£ 9

FORT MONTGOMERY

!(57

!(56 See Inset Map (!47 O

O rr aa nn gg ee  !(55

!(54 P P uu tt nn aa m m

(!46

!(53 £ 6

(!52 (!45

!(51

!(44

(!50 Iona Island

£ 202

!(49 PEEKSKILL

!(48 Ma rsh  !(43

(!47

!(46 (!42 IPEC

!(45

!(44 BUCHANAN

!(43  !(

41

!(42 W W ee ss tt cc hh ee ss tt ee rr VERPLANCK

!(41 IPEC

!(40

!(40

!(39 (!39 CRUGERS

(!38 STONY POINT

£ 9

!(37 (!38

!(36

!(35

!(34  !(37

!(33 Ha verstra w Ba y CROTON-ON-HUDSON R

Roo cc kk ll aa nn dd NEW CITY

(!32 HAVERSTRAW  !(36

!(31

!(35 SPR IN G VALLEY

!(30

!(29  !(34

!(28

!(27 (!33 Mile s

!(26 0 2

!(25  !(32

!(24

!(23

!(22

!(21

(!20

!(19

!(18 PAR AMUS YONK ERS B

Bee rr gg eenn (!17 MOUN T VERN ON

!(16 EN GLEWOOD  !(15

!(14

(!13 IPEC FORT LEE

!(12 B Brr oo nn xx

!(11

!(10

(!9

!(8

!(7 H

!(6 N Nee ww Huu dd ss oo nn Y

!(5 Yoo rr kk UNION C ITY

(!4 HOB OK EN (!3 Q Q uu eeee nn ss IPEC

!(2 JERSEY CITY

!(1 Fe e t

(!0 0 1,500 K

Kii nn gg ss

!(77 10.4.2012 Mile s (!76  !(59 IPEC C ZM A 0 3 Pro posed Expansion - NYSDO S Pro pose d Signific a nt C oa sta l Fish a nd

!(75 POUGHKEEPSIE Wild life Ha bita ts fro m Rive r Mile 34 to 60

!(74  !(58 Hudson Fig ure III-1a High lands

!(73 U

U ll ss tt ee rr  !(72  !(57

!(71 Haverst raw Bay

!(56

!(70 Hudson River Mile 44-56

!(69  !(55

!(68 D D uu tt cc hh ee ss ss Iona Island Marsh

!(67  !(54

!(66 COLD SPRING Proposed Expansion -

!(65 Hudson Highlands RM 40 - RM 60

!(

53

!(64

(!63  !(52

!(10 Hudson River Miles

!(62

!(61 NEWBURGH

!(60

!(51

£ 9

!(59

!(58 HIGHLAND FALLS  !(50 Hu ds on

!(57 Riv er M ile

!(56 See Inset Map  !(49 44 -56 O

O rr aa nn gg ee  !(55

!(54 PP uu tt nn aa m m

!(48 £ 9

!(53 FORT MONTGO ME RY

!( 52

!(47

!(51

!(50

!(46

(!49

!(48 £ 6

Ion a

!(45

(!47

!(46 Isl an d  !(44

!(45 Ma rsh PEEKSKILL

£ 202

!(44  !(

43

!(43 Pro posed Expansion -  !(42

!(42 W W ee ss tt cc hh ee ss tt ee rr IPEC Hudson

(!41 High lands IPEC

!(40 BUCHANAN

!(39  !(

41

(!38 VERPLANCK

!(37  !(40

!(36

!(35

!(34  !(39 CRUG ERS STONY POINT £ 9

!(33 R  !(32

!(38 R oo cc kk ll aa nn dd NEW CITY

!(31  !(37 Ha ve rst ra w Ba y CROTON-ON-

!(30 HUDSO N

!(36 SPRING VALLEY

!(29 HAVERSTRAW

!(28

!(35

!(27 Mile s

!(26 0 2  !(34

!(25  !(33

!(24

!(23

!(21

!(22 IPEC

!(20 Fe e t

(!19 0 1, 500

!(18 PARAMUS YONKERS B

B ee rr gg ee nn (!17 Pro posed Expansion -

!(16 MOUNT VERNON Hudson ENGLEWOOD  !(15 High lands

(!14

!(13

!(12 B B rr oo nn xx

!(11 FORT L EE

!(10

(!9

(!8

!(7 H

!(6 NN ee w w

H uu dd ss oo nn YYoo rr kk

!(5 UNION CITY

(!4 HOBOKEN (!3 Q Q uu ee ee nn ss

!(2 JERSEY CITY

!(1

!(0 K K ii nn gg ss

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 IV. FLOODING AND EROSION POLICIES Policies 11 through 14 of the NYCMP seek to minimize damage to property, natural resources, and human lives as a result of flooding or erosion caused by the siting of buildings or other structures, or the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 32 through 39). These policies are addressed collectively below. Policy 15 pertains to mining, excavation, or dredging activities; Policy 16 addresses the use of public funds for erosion protection; and Policy 17 provides guidance with respect to non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion. Because License Renewal does not involve any new construction or change of operations, these policies are inapplicable.

A. Policies 11 through 14 -Siting Structures to Minimize Flooding and Erosion Policies 11 through 1457 are set forth below:

POLICY 11: Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 32);58 57 Guidance provided on the implementation of these policies indicates that several New York State laws provide the means for implementing these policies, including the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, ECL Article 34, and the Flood Plain Management Act, ECL Article 36 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 32 through 38).

Although NOAA and NYSDOS 2006 refer to Article 36 as the Floodplain Management Act, currently Article 36 is titled Participation in Flood Insurance Programs and relates to the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA).

58 With respect to Policy 11, NYSDOS states that in coastal erosion hazard areas (CEHAs):

buildings and similar structures shall be set back from the shoreline a distance sufficient to minimize damage from erosion unless no reasonable prudent alternative site is available as in the case of piers, docks and other structures necessary to gain access to coastal waters to be able to function.

[T]he setback will be calculated, taking into account the rate at which land is receding due to erosion, and the protection provided by existing erosion protection structures, as well as by natural protective features such as beaches, sandbars, spits, shoals, barrier islands, bay barriers, near shore areas, bluffs and wetlands. [A]n erosion hazard areas permit must be approved for [any new]

structure. Existing, non-conforming structures may be only minimally enlarged (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 32).

NYSDOSs guidance for Policy 11 also refers to areas subject to high velocity waters caused by hurricanes or other storm washes, i.e., coastal high hazard areas and establishes restrictions on the types of structures that may be placed in such areas, as follows:

IV-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 POLICY 12: Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 34);59 POLICY 13: The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures shall be undertaken only if they have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion for at least thirty years as demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 36);60 and POLICY 14: Activities and development, including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 37).61 In coastal lands subject to high velocity waters caused by hurricane or other storm wave wash - coastal high hazard area - walled and roofed buildings or fuel storage tanks shall be sited landward of mean high tide(NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 32).

Finally, in areas:

where human lives may be endangered by major coastal storms, all necessary emergency preparedness measures should be taken, including disaster preparedness planning (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 32).

59 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 12 provides that:

Beaches, dunes, barrier islands, bluffs, and natural protective features help safeguard coastal lands and property from damage, as well as reduce the danger to human life, resulting from flooding and erosion. Excavation of coastal features, improperly designed structures, inadequate site planning, or other similar actions which fail to recognize their fragile nature and high protective values, lead to the weakening or destruction of those landforms. Activities or development in, or in proximity to, natural protective features must ensure that

[weakening or destruction of those landforms] are minimized (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 32).

60 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 13 notes that, although erosion protection structures are deployed widely throughout New York State, many are improperly designed, constructed, or maintained; therefore, these structures do not provide the anticipated protection. Consistency with the design, construction, and maintenance standards set forth in Policy 13 will ensure reductions in damages and losses (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 36).

61 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 14 recognizes that erosion and flooding are naturally occurring processes, but that certain activities can exacerbate the adverse effects of those natural processes, as follows: ...

the use of erosion protection structures such as groins, or the use of impermeable docks which block the littoral transport of sediment to adjacent shorelands, thus increasing their rate of recession; the failure to observe proper drainage or land restoration practices, thereby causing run-off and the erosion and weakening of IV-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policies 11 through 14 IPEC, an existing facility, already has been sited and built. Thus, the aspects of Policies 11 through 14 applicable to initial facility siting and development are not applicable to License Renewal. In addition, there will be no change in the existing stations footprint, plant design, or operation in connection with License Renewal.

With respect to consistency with the NYSDOS guidance for Policy 11, IPEC is not located within a NYSDEC-identified CEHA based on ECL Article 34. Further, only the narrow segment of IPEC adjacent to the Hudson River shoreline is within the 100-year (1% annual chance of flooding occurring) floodplain (see Figures IV-1 and IV-2) as described in ECL Article 36 (FEMA 2007). Based on aerial imagery, the only structures in the 100-year floodplain are the intake structures, the discharge canal, piers, armored shoreline, and bulkheads.

Other than the area within the 100-year floodplain, no portion of the IPEC site is within the 500-year (0.2% chance of flooding occurring) floodplain (FEMA 2007).

With respect to Policy 12, there are no plans for on-site land disturbance or construction in connection with IPEC License Renewal (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 1; USNRC 2010, p.

3-8). Therefore, no previously undisturbed land or natural features will be disturbed and Policy 12 is not applicable to License Renewal.

Policies 13 and 14 are also inapplicable because Entergy is not constructing or reconstructing any erosion protection structures in connection with IPEC License Renewal.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Polices 11 through 14 are inapplicable to License Renewal. The IPEC site is not in a NYSDEC-designated CEHA and only those facilities located immediately adjacent to the shoreline are within the 100-year floodplain. The remaining portions of the site are outside the 500-year floodplain. No new erosion control structures are proposed as part of License Renewal.

If and to the extent Policies 11 through 14 are deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with any relevant aspects of Policies 11 through 14.

shorelands; and the placing of structures in identified floodways so that the base flood level is increased causing damage to otherwise hazard-free areas (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II 6, p. 37).

IV-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 B. Policy 15 - Mining, Excavating, or Dredging Policy 15 provides that:

[m]ining, excavation or dredging in coastal waters shall not significantly interfere with the natural coastal processes which supply beach materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall be undertaken in a manner which will not cause an increase in erosion of such land (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 39).62

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 15 There are no mining or excavation activities conducted by Entergy at IPEC in nearshore or offshore waters. Therefore, these components of the Policy are not applicable to License Renewal. Future maintenance dredging activities, if any, occurring at IPEC are likely to be covered under the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (77 Fed. Reg. 10184, 10270) Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3, Maintenance, which:

authorizes the removal of accumulated sediments and debris in the vicinity of and within existing structures (e.g., bridges, culverted road crossings, water intake structures, etc.).

If maintenance dredging were required, Entergys implementation of measures specified in State and federal permits authorizing maintenance dredging would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to coastal zone resources (6 NYCRR §608.7; Article 15, Title 5 of the ECL).

62 NYSDOS guidance notes that:

[c]oastal processes, including the movement of beach materials or shoreline sediment by water, and any mining, excavation or dredging in nearshore or offshore waters which changes the supply and net flow of such materials can deprive shorelands of their natural regenerative powers. Such mining, excavation and dredging should be accomplished in a manner so as not to cause a reduction of supply, and thus an increase of erosion, to such shorelands.

Offshore mining is a future alternative option to land mining for sand and gravel deposits which are needed to support building and other industries (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 39).

Consequently, the NYCMP directs that human activities that extract nearshore or offshore sediment should be accomplished in a manner so as not to reduce sediment supplies necessary for natural processes to maintain shoreline integrity (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 40).

IV-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 15 is inapplicable to License Renewal. No maintenance dredging is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. Any future dredging that may be required would be implemented pursuant to applicable federal and/or State permits which would ensure that any dredging would not cause coastal erosion or flooding.

C. Policy 16 - Public Funding for Erosion Protection Policy 16 identifies the appropriate uses of public funds for erosion control:

[p]ublic funds shall only be used for erosion protective structures where necessary to protect human life, and new development which requires a location within or adjacent to an erosion hazard area to be able to function, or existing development; and only where the public benefits outweigh the long term monetary and other costs including the potential for increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective features (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 41).63

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 16 IPEC License Renewal does not entail the construction or reconstruction of erosion protective structures through use of public funds.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 16 is not applicable to IPEC License Renewal.

63 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 16 requires a careful assessment and cost benefit analysis before public funds are expended:

Public funds are used for a variety of purposes on the State's shorelines. This policy recognizes the public need for the protection of human life and existing investment in development or new development which requires a location in proximity to the coastal area or in adjacent waters to be able to function.

However, it also recognizes the adverse impacts of such activities and development on the rate of erosion and on natural protective features and requires that careful analysis be made of such benefits and long-term costs prior to expending public funds (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 41).

IV-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 D. Policy 17 - Non-Structural Measures for Flood and Erosion Control Policy 17 provides that:

[n]on-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 42).64

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 17 No non-structural methods to control flooding or erosion are proposed as part of License Renewal. No activity is proposed that would disturb the shoreline.

IPECs shoreline is artificially stabilized with shoreline armoring, bulkheads, and other structural features. There has never been a significant flood in the vicinity of IPEC (Entergy 2008c, chap. 2, p. 29). Prior to Superstorm Sandy, the highest water elevations in the vicinity of IPEC had been 7.4 feet above MSL, recorded during a severe hurricane in November 1950. On October 31, 2012, the river level reached 9.7 feet (Entergy 2012q) (Attachment 73). Flood waters would need to reach 15.2 feet above MSL before seeping into any IPEC structures (Entergy 2008c, chap. 2, pp. 29 and 30).

64 This policy recognizes the potential adverse impacts that flooding and erosion can cause within developed areas and on natural protective features in the coastal area, and the substantial costs that can be incurred in constructing and maintaining structures to prevent erosion and flooding. NYSDOS identifies non-structural measures for both CEHAs and other flood hazard areas (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 41). Only those relevant to other flood hazard areas are relevant to IPEC, because, as noted above in Section IV.A, IPEC is not located within a NYSDEC-designated CEHA; however, some portions of the IPEC site are located in a flood hazard area. The non-structural measures for flood hazard areas include:

(a) the avoidance of risk or damage from flooding by the siting of buildings outside the hazard area; and (b) the flood-proofing of buildings or their elevation above the base flood level (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 43).

Consistency with this policy entails an assessment of whether applicable non-structural measures will afford the degree of protection appropriate both to the character and purpose of the activity or development, and to the hazard. Furthermore, if non-structural measures are determined to offer sufficient protection, then consistency with the policy will require the use of such measures, whenever possible(NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6,

p. 43). In addition, an analysis may be required to determine if the use of non-structural measures offers sufficient protection for existing and future shoreline activities (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 43).

IV-6

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 17 is not applicable to License Renewal. IPEC does not and will not require non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion. If and to the extent Policy 17 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 17.

IV-7

FIGURES 8.2011 48

!

(

Fort Montgomery 47

!

(

6

£

46

!

(

45

!

(

£

987 44

!

(

£

202 43

!

(

42

!

(

IPEC Buchanan 41

!

( 9

£

Verplanck

£

987 40

!

(

Crugers 39 SOURCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map, Q3, 2009/1996

!

(

38

!

(

37

!

( Croton-on-Hudson Haverstraw 36

!

(

Area NY of Detail CT NJ Coastal Zone Boundary IPEC CZMA 100-Year Floodplain FEMA Floodplain - 5 Mile Radius 500-Year Floodplain Figure IV-1 River Mile 0 1 2 3 4 41

!

(

Miles E

8.2011 Bl e ak le y Av e

1st St wa y

Br oa d

SOURCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map, 2007 Area of Detail NY e v

he st e rA es CT tc 4th W St St entr e NJ C

3r d

St 100-Year Floodplain IPEC CZMA IPEC Property Boundary FEMA Floodplain for IPEC Property Figure IV-2 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet E

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 V. GENERAL POLICY Policy 18 is designed to safeguard the States economic, social, and environmental interests. This policy lies at the heart of the NYCMP, and calls for the balancing of the critical energy, economic, and environmental contributions provided by IPEC against any environmental impacts.

A. Policy 18 - Safeguarding the States Vital Economic, Social and Environmental Interests Policy 18 provides that:

[t]o safeguard the vital economic, social and environmental interests of the State and of its citizens, proposed major actions in the coastal area must give full consideration to those interests, and to the safeguards which the state has established to protect valuable coastal resource areas (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p.

44).65 65 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 18 indicates that economicas well as social and environmental interestsmust be considered in determining if a major action is consistent with Policy 18. In this regard, the guidance states:

[p]roposed major actions may be undertaken in the coastal area if they will not significantly impair valuable coastal waters and resources, thus frustrating the achievement of the purposes of the safeguards which the State has established to protect those waters and resources. Proposed actions must take into account the social, economic and environmental interests of the State and its citizens in such matters that would affect natural resources, water levels and flows, shoreline damage, hydro-electric power generation, and recreation (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 44).

In seeking federal approval of the NYCMP, NYSDOS specifically noted the existing nuclear energy facilities, including IPEC, already located in the States coastal zone:

The State has demonstrated its recognition of the national interest in energy facilities by the number and scope of facilities already located in or planned for New Yorks coastal area...[including] nuclear - 5 units...[and] 2 nuclear - under construction (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-9, p. 3) [emphasis supplied].

On the basis of the existing energy production facilities already located in the States coastal zone, NYSDOS predicted that the NYCMP would have no negative effects on energy production. On the contrary, the Program recognizes the importance of adequate energy supplies for the economic development of the State (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. V, p. 7).

V-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Policy 18 is in accord with the national interests in the coastal zone. In Section 302(a) and (b) of the CZMA, Congress specifically found that:

[t]here is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone, [and]

[t]he coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, ecological, industrial, and esthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the present and future well-being of the Nation.

Federal policy under Sections 303(2)(C) and 303(2)(D) of the CZMA is to give priority consideration to coastal dependent uses and encourage the siting of major facilities where such development already exists to the maximum extent practicable.

Among the critical environmental interests of the State and its citizens under the NYCMP is the prevention of global warming. In the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990,66 Congress specifically addressed the need to minimize the adverse impacts of global warming attributable to the burning of fossil fuels. In 2005, then New York State Governor George Pataki recognized both the serious potential risks that climate change poses to aquatic ecosystems and coastal areas and the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) associated with fossil fuel fired electric generating stations (NYS 2005). In 2007, then Governor Spitzer stated: Global warming is the most significant environmental problem of our generation, and by helping lead this regional program, we can reduce emissions from power plants - one of the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the Northeast (Spitzer 2007). In 2008, Governor Paterson said that: Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time, and that by coming together with nine other states, New York is showing that we can take our own bold action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Paterson 2008).

If global warming is indeed the most serious environmental issue of these times,67 then IPEC License Renewal plays a vital role in New Yorks efforts to address that issue.

66 Pub. L. 101-508 §6202(a)(7).

67 In 2010, the Obama Administration identified global warming and climate change as issues affecting national security (Attachment 34).

V-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non Applicability of Policy 18 There are five major attributes of IPEC that make it uniquely situated to meet New Yorks electricity, air quality, and climate change objectives, thus safeguarding the States vital economic, environmental, and social interests consistent with Policy 18.

Location. IPEC is located in the Southeastern New York area (including not only the New York City area, but also the Long Island area and Lower Hudson Valley, within NYISO zones G, H, I, J, and K, see Figures V-1 and V-2) that represents a substantial and growing portion of the States load and that is traditionally supply constrained due, in part, to the difficulty and cost of siting new generation and transmission infrastructure (NERA 2010, p. 4) (Attachment 35).

Capacity. IPEC has a combined gross generating capacity of 2158 MW (Attachment 22, p. 8-27).

Baseload operation and generation. In 2010, IPEC generation represented approximately ten percent of the total electricity consumed in New York State and 17 percent of the total electricity consumed in the Southeastern New York area (NERA 2012, pp. E-2 and 1) (Attachment 63). IPEC typically generates power across all months of the year and hours of the day, with the exception of limited planned outages. As a result, due to its size and form of generation technology, IPEC generated more energy in 2009, 2010, and 2011, than any other facility in the Southeastern New York area or elsewhere within New York State (NERA 2010, p. 4

[Attachment 35]; NYISO 2011b, pp. 31 through 50; NYISO 2012a, pp. 30 through 48). Indeed, when considering the New York City area alone, instead of in combination with the Long Island area and Lower Hudson Valley, IPEC provides up to 30 percent of the New York City areas base-load electricity (Lesser 2012, p. 2)

(Attachment 68).

Reactive power service. In addition to the energy and capacity it provides, IPEC is a significant source of voltage support in the Lower Hudson Valley, an essential service for operation of the local transmission and distribution system. This contribution is particularly important because of the difficulty of siting additional generation, which is a dynamic resource, within the Southeastern New York area (NERA 2010, p. 5)

(Attachment 35).

Low emitting. IPECs core and essential nuclear generation is virtually emissions free for air pollutants that contribute to global warming and various air quality problems (such as CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM)). Thus, IPEC operations contribute substantially to the ability of New York State to meet key climate change and air quality goals (NERA 2012, pp. E-4, 25 through 26, 33 through 34, and 39 through 40) (Attachment 63).

These characteristics make IPEC License Renewal essential for the proper balance of the economic, social, and environmental priorities established by the NYCMP.

V-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

a. IPEC License Renewal Safeguards the States Economic Interests Adequate supplies of reliable, baseload electricity from lower cost electricity resources are essential to safeguard the States economic interests (NEI 2004, pp. 5 through 6 [Attachment 36]; NYSEPB 2009e, p. 4). PlaNYC, a sustainability plan written by the City of New York, supports the continued operation of IPEC, calling the facility a cornerstone of the regions electricity system, without which the reliability of the system, electricity prices, and efforts to reduce GHGs will be threatened (NYC 2011, pp. 105, 106, and 112) (Attachment 47). IPEC is a reliable, lower cost energy resource that provides many services to New Yorks consumers.

Entergy also pays a substantial amount of direct and indirect taxes in New York State (USNRC 2010, pp. 2-121 and 2-133) (Attachment 22) and is a major employer in the region (NEI 2004, p.

5) (Attachment 36). These economic benefits to New York will only continue with IPEC License Renewal.

i. Reliable, Baseload Energy Supplies In 2011, IPEC produced a total of 17,016,900 MWh of net energy (NYISO 2012a, p. 33).

The average capacity factor for IPEC ranged from 90.3% to 96.1% between 2006 and 2010, with a five-year average capacity factor of 93.0%, which means that Entergy effectively operates on a 24x7 basis (Entergy 2011f).

NYISO is charged with ensuring the reliability of New Yorks bulk power supply. To do so, NYISO, among other things, conducts reliability planning studies on a bi-annual basis that assess systems conditions under base case assumptions and further conducts analyses, using multiple scenarios to test the robustness of the bulk power system and to bound the conditions under which resource adequacy or transmission security needs may arise. In a series of studies conducted over many yearsthe most recent of which was completed this fallNYISO has studied the impacts if IPEC were lost as a system resource and has repeatedly found major resource adequacy violations and other significant adverse system impacts. NYISO has continued to identify these major adverse system impacts over this entire period, notwithstanding the major reduction in load in New York that resulted from the economic recession.

Over the years, NYISO consistently has found that IPEC is important to the reliability of New York States electricity system. For example, in assessing a scenario that tested the reliability impacts of losing IPEC generation in its 2009 Comprehensive Reliability Plan, NYISO found that [d]ue to their location in a constrained area of the system [r]etirement of both [IP]

units would cause a severe shortage in resources needed to maintain bulk power system reliability, resulting in the probability of an involuntary interruption of load that is approximately 40 times higher than the reliability standard in 2018 (NYISO 2009a, p. 18). In these studies, NYISO also has identified a number of other risk factors that could affect the reliability of the New York State electric supply system and further highlight the importance of IPECs operations, including:

V-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 higher than expected load growth - a function of consumer and economic demand; and new environmental regulations affecting the costs and ability of existing facilities to continue to produce power (NYISO 2011a, p. 2) (Attachment 50).

The adverse system impacts that would result without IPEC License Renewal are not limited only to resource adequacy. As reflected in NYISOs most recent reliability study, its 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment, other violations under Reliability Criteria also would result (NYISO 2012b, p. 8) (Attachment 71). In addition, NYISOs 2009 Reliability Needs Assessment notes that IPEC is a critical source of voltage support for this area (NYISO 2009c,

p. 5-6). The 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment confirms this finding, concluding that under stress conditions, the voltage performance on the system would be degraded, making it necessary at times to take emergency operating measures, including shedding load (NYISO 2011a, pp. 18 through 19; NYISO 2012b, pp. 8 and 43) (Attachment 50 and Attachment 71). Therefore, all else equal, IPECs continued operation is essential to maintaining the reliability of New York States power system in terms of resource adequacy, transmission security, and voltage support.

Without either IPEC License Renewal or substantial system investment completed in a timely manner to address the many ways in which IPECs operations support system reliability, major system disruptions would result (NYC 2011, p. 116). An analysis by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) concluded that losing both IPEC units as a system resource in Southeastern New York would violate reliability criteria in 2016 (NYCDEP 2011, p. 13). NYCDEP also emphasized that independent analysesindicate that there are reliability issues raised by the loss of IPEC which go beyond resource adequacy and would need to be addressed even if minimum resource adequacy standards were met (NYCDEP 2011, p.

13). NYISO also has found that, without IPEC License Renewal, development of adequate system infrastructure to replace IPEC would be required in order to avoid violations of the reliability standards forecasted to occur in 2016 (the first year modeled absent IPEC generation) as well as to address voltage issues (NYISO 2012c, p. 7; NYISO 2012b, p. 8) (Attachments 67 and 71, respectively).68 NYISO continues to warn that the loss of IPEC as a system resource would result in violations of the applicable transmission line Reliability Criteria (NYISO 2012b, pp. 8 and 42 through 43). IPEC is able to supply large quantities of reactive power when necessary to the transmission grid; reactive power levels must be maintained to keep voltage levels high enough 68 IPECs retirement without new generation or transmission system additions will compromise the reliability of the electricity grid. (NYCDEP 2011, p. 12) (Attachment 47). As recently as October, 2012, the New York Energy Highway Task Force pointed out New Yorks lack of, and need for, a Replacement Contingency Plan before New York even can plan to begin to address the serious reliability, public and private costs, and environmental consequences, that would accompany any attempt to replace IPEC (New York Energy Highway Task Force 2012, pp. 42 and 48 through 49) (Attachment 69).

V-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 to maintain reliability and avoid voltage collapses (National Research Council 2006, p. 43).

Without IPEC License Renewal, voltage performance on the transmission system during stress conditions will be degraded (NYISO 2012b, p. 8) (Attachment 71). Thus, IPECs continued operation is essential to maintaining the reliability of New York States power system, and, therefore, the States economy.

The 2010 Reliability Needs Assessment was conducted based on the assumption that IPEC will be operated at least through 2020. In that report, NYISO determined that there would be no reliability needs between 2011 and 2020 with continued operation of IPEC (NYISO 2010, pp. ii through iii) [emphasis supplied]. These findings concerning the important role that IPEC operations has on the system were again affirmed in NYISOs most recent reliability study, the 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment, this time measuring impacts through at least 2022. The 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment concludes that [r]eliability violations would occur in 2016 if the Indian Point Plant were to be retired at the latter of the two units current license expiration dates using the Base Case load forecast assumptions (NYISO 2012b, p. 8) (Attachment 71). In its 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment, NYISO also continued to conclude that, under stress conditions, the voltage performance on the system would be degraded absent IPEC License Renewal (NYISO 2012b, p. 43). In other words, all else being equal, IPEC License Renewal is necessary to ensure the continued reliability of the New York power system. NYISO states that, without IPEC License Renewal, the loss of load expectation (LOLE) would be 0.48 in 2016.

This is a significant violation of the 0.1 days per year criterion. Beyond 2016, due to annual load growth the LOLE continues to escalatereaching an LOLE of 3.63 days per year in 2022, which exceeds the reliability requirement thirty-fold (NYISO 2012b, p. 43).

Because a substantial portion of New York States electricity needs is in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County, IPEC is uniquely situated to support these requirements (NYISO 2009d, p. 9). Furthermore, IPEC is the largest energy facility close to New York City and is located south (i.e., on the unconstrained side) of the largest congestion points within the New York Control Area (NYCA) transmission system (NYISO 2009d, p. 9). New York City has limited ability to import electricity from farther upstate due to these congestion points and also has limited ability to expand in city generation (NYC 2011, p. 116). Thus, IPEC is a vital resource to New York Citys energy supply due to its location and form of generation technology. IPEC also serves to increase the voltage support at a critical location on the grid, thus maintaining the system (NYISO 2012b, pp. 42 through 43). NYISO states that

[s]outheastern New York, with the Indian Point Plant in service, currently relies on transfers to augment existing capacity, and load growth or loss of generation capacity in this area would aggravate those transfer limits (NYISO 2012b, p. 42).

Given the current structure of New Yorks energy system, IPEC has been recognized for many years as a vital component of both the reliability and economics of power for the New York City area (National Research Council 2006, p. 14) (Attachment 46). Much more recently, PlaNYC acknowledged that New Yorks electricity system faces significant reliability challenges and that:

V-6

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

[p]rincipal among these is the potential closure of Indian Point, which could lead to major system disruptions in the absence of a viable replacement plan. New York Citys ability to import electricity is limited by under sized and congested transmission lines, and opportunities to expand in city generation are limited.

Periods of peak summer demand put significant stress on utility infrastructure and cause the activation of the dirtiest in city plants.

As a result, each summer we must brace for the possibility of neighborhood level blackouts and increased air pollution (NYC 2011, p. 116).

Also in 2011, NYCDEP commissioned an analysis, conducted by Charles River Associates, of the impacts of loss of IPECs baseload facilities from economic, environmental and reliability perspectives (NYCDEP 2011, p. 7). One of the key findings of the NYCDEP report is that IPECs retirement without new generation or transmission system additions will compromise the reliability of the electricity grid (NYCDEP 2011, p. 4) (Attachment 48).

Reliability of the New York electricity system also will be affected by other developments that impair the economic viability of existing generating units. These developments include substantial reductions in projected natural gas prices as well as major environmental regulations, both of which affect the economic viability of existing generating units (EIA 2012a, p. 46). Several State and federal environmental regulationsincluding programs under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) such as Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogen (6 NYCRR Part 227-2), Best Available Retrofit Technology (6 NYCRR Part 249), Maximum Achievable Control Technology (Proposed 6 NYCRR

§200.10(d)), the Coal Combustion Residuals Disposal Regulations (75 Fed. Reg. 35127) (NERC 2010, p. 17), and the Best Technology Available for CWISs rule under the CWAeither are proposed or in effect and will have compliance deadlines as early as January 2014 (NYISO 2012c, pp. 43 through 44). USEPAs Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which established caps on NOx and also tightened the cap on SO2 emissions, also could impose costs on existing units.69 These regulations can be expected to affect the operations of a substantial portion of the installed generating capacity of New York State.70 This underscores the critical need to keep IPEC operating.

69 United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), leaving CAIR, which preceded CSAPR, in place pending the promulgation of a lawful replacement for both rules. On October 5, 2012, USEPA requested a rehearing en banc on the Courts overturning of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 D.C. Cir. August 21, 2012 No.

11-1302, 11-1315, 11-1323, 11-1338, 11-1340, 11-1350, 11-1357, 11-1358).

70 The array of proposed regulations is estimated to potentially impact more than half of the installed generating capacity in New York State, with effects ranging from retrofitting pollution controls to reduced use or retirement.

V-7

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 ii. Lower Cost Energy Resources The national average marginal cost of nuclear electricity production of 2.19 cents per kilowatt per hour in 2011 is lower than production costs for coal, natural gas, and oil (3.23, 4.51, and 21.56 cents per kilowatt per hour, respectively) (see Figure V-3) (NEI 2012). In order to increase the competitiveness of the New York State economy, lower cost energy resources, such as IPEC, need to remain in operation (NYSEPB 2009d, p. 4). An analysis of the economic impacts of closing and replacing IPECs generation, conducted by the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute, found that all alternatives [to IPEC License Renewal] would create higher costs that would reverberate throughout society, increasing the price of goods and services to consumers, businesses, and industry (Lesser 2012, p. 3)

(Attachment 68). When assessing the consistency of IPECs operation with the NYCMP, it is necessary to consider the economic impacts that will result from repairing or replacing major components of the existing system infrastructure. As noted by the New York State Energy Planning Board (NYSEPB) (2009c, p. 2):

[w]ith the need to repair or replace aging infrastructure putting renewed upward pressure on New Yorks relatively high electricity rates (compared with other states), there is a strong need to balance the potential benefits of any new State policies and actions against their aggregate impact on the State and its ratepayers.

The loss of IPECs baseload generation would cost New York States citizens an estimated $1.5 billion per year in wholesale energy cost increases alone (NYCDEP 2011, p. 11). This is without taking into account the increases in the charges incurred to meet capacity obligations. A new multi-billion dollar cost would be imposed on New Yorks energy consumers who must also bear a concomitantly heavy environmental cost from the increased operation of some combination of fossil fuel-fired facilities were IPECs licenses not renewed (NERA 2010, p. 12). The effects of these higher electricity costs absorbed by customers would ripple through the New York economy, leading to estimated reductions in output of $1.8 billion-$2.7 billion per year over the 15-year period 2016-2030 (Lesser 2012, executive summary). Thus, Policy 18 overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that IPEC License Renewal is consistent with the NYCMP.

(NYISO 2012c, p. 43) (Attachment 67). The array of proposed regulations is estimated to impact 23,957 megawatts of capacity, more than half the installed generating capacity in New York State. (NYISO 2011c, p.

41) (Attachment 49). More than 40 percent of New Yorks existing power generating capacity is over 40 years old and more than 20 percent is over 50 years old. Recent and pending environmental regulations ... coupled with low natural gas prices could lead to accelerated retirements of some of these older facilities. The potential retirement of power plants creates uncertainties for the future of the States power supply. (citations omitted)

(New York Energy Highway Task Force 2012, p. 42) (Attachment 69).

V-8

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 iii. Contributions to the Regional Economy In addition to being a reliable, baseload, lower cost energy resource that serves a substantial portion of Southeastern New Yorks electricity needs, Entergy also plays a vital role in the regions overall economy. A study conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), in cooperation with Entergy, estimated that, in 2002, Entergy operations led to an increase in gross regional product (i.e., output of goods and services) of $763.3 million in Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess countiesan estimate that does not account for the benefits to the economy that result from lower electricity prices (NEI 2004, p. 5) (Attachment 36). The study also determined that Entergys contribution during 2002 amounted to $811.7 million for the New York State economy and $1.5 billion for the United States economy (NEI 2004, p. 5).

Entergy also makes substantial contributions to State and local tax revenues. Table V-I shows IPECs tax distribution from 2003 through 2012; IPEC paid a total of approximately

$28,158,219 in payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT), property tax, and sales use tax payments in 2012 (Entergy 2007a, p. 2-46; Entergy 2012j). Entergy also pays about one million dollars each year to NYSERDA to lease the discharge canal structure and underlying land (USNRC 2010, p.

2-133). This funding from Entergy assists NYSERDA in carrying out its mission to help New York reduce energy consumption, promote the use of renewable energy sources, and protect the environment (NYSERDA 2012). In addition, Entergy pays annual fees to NYSERDA in association with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act; the amount paid for fiscal year 2011-2012 was $1,529,865 (NYSERDA 2011).

iv. Contributions to Regional Employment Entergy is a major employer in the region. Currently, IPEC employs approximately 1,100 employees (EIA 2012b). The highly skilled and specialized employees at IPEC average over $100,000 a year in annual salary, well above the New York average salary of $52,810 and national average salary of $45,230 (Entergy 2012k, p. 5; USDOL 2012a, 2012b). Another 1,200 secondary jobs within the surrounding five county region have been created as a result of the economic activity generated by IPEC (NEI 2004, p. 5). In the absence of IPEC License Renewal, [t]he resulting loss of jobs in the state could range from 26,000 to 40,000 per year, depending on the alternative chosen to replace IPEC (Lesser 2012, executive summary). At a time of high State unemployment an estimated 8.7%, as of October 2012 (NYSDOL 2012)

New York State needs to protect its existing job base.

During scheduled refueling outages, which typically last about 30 days, an additional 950 workers are on site (USNRC 2010, pp. 2-114 and 2-115). IPEC provides well-paying jobs to highly skilled union workers including Mill Wrights, Iron Workers, Teamsters, Boilermakers, Carpenters, Electricians, Engineers, Insulators, Painters, Divers, and Steam Fitters during these refueling and maintenance outages (Entergy 2011g).

V-9

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

b. IPEC License Renewal Will Safeguard the States Social Interests

i. Education As discussed above, IPEC contributes substantially to State and local tax and other revenues. These contributions include major contributions to education. Between 2003 and 2006, 27% to 38% of the total revenue for the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, serving about 2,800 students, was derived from Entergys payments (USNRC 2010, pp. 2-119 and 2-133 through 2-134); in 2012, IPEC contributed in excess of $20 million to the Hendrick Hudson Central School District (Entergy 2012j) (see Table V-1). Taxes paid by IPEC also have provided substantial benefits to Westchester County in general (Entergy 2007a, p. 4-86) (Attachment 1).

ii. Community Partnership, Charitable Contributions Entergy and its employees participate in a wide range of corporate giving programs that address a variety of community issues. Entergy donated approximately $2 million in 2011 to various non-profit organizations in the New York City metropolitan region (Entergy 2012k, p.

5). These charitable programs include open grants, micro grants, United Way campaigns, the Power to Care campaign, the Community Connectors Volunteer Program, and the Entergy Charitable Foundation (Entergy 2012b, 2012a, 2010d).

Micro-grant recipients (i.e., 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, schools, hospitals, governmental units, nonprofit religious institutions, and 501(c)(4) volunteer fire departments) receive up to $1,000 for projects that improve or enrich arts, culture, education and literacy, the health of families, the community, the environment, and economic development (Entergy 2012c). The open grants program focuses on improving the community as a whole. Examples of projects funded through the open grants program are projects that involve civic affairs, blighted housing improvements, neighborhood safety initiatives, and childrens education as well as art and cultural projects that involve an array of locally based visual arts, theater, dance, and music (Entergy 2012d). The Power to Care campaign allows local nonprofit organizations to assist seniors and the disabled in crisis with emergency bill payment. Entergy provides matching donations for new pledges and one time donations, up to $500,000 annually (Entergy 2012n).

Entergy awarded community based Environmental Stewardship grants to community organizations in New York; recipients include Historic Hudson Valley in 2008 (Entergy 2008a,

p. 17) and Adirondack Mountain Club and Black Rock Forest Consortium Inc. in 2006 (Entergy 2006a, p. 16).

In addition, employee donations and matching company contributions to United Way campaigns, educational institutions, and local nonprofit agencies provide assistance to those in need within the community. As of May 2010, Entergy and its employees have donated a total of

$574,228 to the United Way chapters of Columbia and Greene Counties, Dutchess County, Greater Oswego County, Westchester County, and Putnam County (Entergy 2010d). Finally, V-10

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Entergys Community Connectors Program offers employees and retirees the opportunity to volunteer within their communities. Each volunteer also can earn grants through their volunteer hours, to be donated to the nonprofit organization or educational institution of their choice (Entergy 2012a). IPEC employees donate their time as volunteer firefighters and police officers, coach sports teams, and volunteer for numerous charitable organizations (Entergy 2012k, p. 6).

IPEC employees also voluntarily participate in charitable activities including blood donations to the New York Blood Center, gift donations to Toys for Tots and a local hospice care facility, cell phone donations for the Call to Protect program, and numerous food and coat drives (Entergy 2012k, p. 6).

Entergy is a leader in supporting its local communities. Entergy has established its Entergy Charitable Foundation to support initiatives that sustain communities, with an emphasis on initiatives that assist low income individuals, and support education and literacy. Entergy donated $5,000 to the Montrose Child Care Center to buy computers (Mitcham 2010). In addition, Entergy has donated money to Buchanan, along with a salt shed and a bucket truck (Buchanan 2009, p. 16). Entergy also partners with organizations in the community including Hudson Valley Hospital, the Paramount Center for the Arts, Hendrick Hudson School District, Peekskill Celebration, New York Botanical Gardens, and the New York State NAACP (Entergy 2012k, pp. 5 through 6).

c. IPEC License Renewal Safeguards the States Environmental Interests

i. Federal and State Air Quality Goals The Obama Administrations Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future stresses the need to focus on clean energy, such as nuclear power, and to reduce dependence on oil (The White House 2011, p. 3) (Attachment 52). Indeed, the Obama Administration has included nuclear power as a recipient of clean energy credits under a proposal to develop clean energy standards (The White House 2011, p. 35).71 The USEPA is developing regulations to limit CO2 emissions under the CAA. The United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S.

497 (2007), directed that if USEPA determined that GHGs were an endangerment to public health and the environment, the CAA requires USEPA to develop air quality standards to address global warming. On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator determined that CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O), and four other GHGs in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare. Under the terms of a recent Settlement Agreement between USEPA and several petitioners including New York State, USEPA proposed 71 Clean energy is also a part of the Obama Administrations National Security Strategy (Attachment 34).

V-11

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 rules that include standards of performance for GHGs for new and modified electric generating units (EGUs) and emissions guidelines for existing EGUs. USEPA issued the proposed regulation on April 13, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 22392). The adoption of potential future federal climate change legislation and regulations are expected to increase substantially the pressures to reduce CO2 emissions, leading to potential additional retirements or changes in operation of fossil fuel-fired facilities and an even greater need for units such as IPEC, which generate electricity for the grid virtually emission-free (NERC 2010, pp. 16 through 17).

In addition to these federal programs, New York State has implemented its own programs to deal with global warming. New York State is a signatory to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Memorandum of Understanding and is implementing measures to promote reductions in emissions of CO2 associated with fossil fuel-fired electric generating stations (NYS 2005). Former New York Governors Spitzer and Paterson both recognized global warming as the most significant environmental issue facing New York. Under New York Executive Order No. 24, GHG emissions are to be reduced by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 (24 N.Y. St. Reg.

Vol. XXXI, Issue 35, September 2, 2009). Likewise, New York City has set a goal to reduce GHG emissions 30% by 2030 (NYC 2011, p. 112).

Reducing the amount of energy produced by burning fossil fuels not only helps reduce GHG emissions, but also is a necessary element of New York States efforts to address federal and State air quality standards. As discussed in detail in Section XI below, USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for seven pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), SO2, carbon monoxide (CO), lead, ozone, PM less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), and PM less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) (USEPA 2011).

NYSDEC has, for the most part, adopted the NAAQS as the State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) (NYSDEC 2012d). On August 8, 2011, USEPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which required reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOx from power plants in various states (76 Fed. Reg. 48208). CSAPR required these states, including New York, to reduce electric power sector emissions that contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution in downwind areas. In August 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating CSAPR and leaving CAIR, which preceded CSAPR, in place pending the promulgation of a lawful replacement for both rules.72 In addition, when energy is produced by nuclear facilities, it also helps New York State reduce the serious ecological threat that is posed by acid deposition to New York State's waters and forests. In an attempt to prevent the impacts of acid rain that were observed on numerous lakes and headwater streams within the Adirondack region, the State passed the Acid Deposition Control Act in 1984, the first such act in the nation (NYSDEC 2012g). This Act required the reduction of SO2 emissions from existing sources and further NOx emission controls on new 72 See, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 D.C. Cir. August 21, 2012 No. 11-1302, 11-1315, 11-1323, 11-1338, 11-1340, 11-1350, 11-1357, 11-1358.

V-12

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 sources in New York State. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 added Title IV, an acid rain deposition control program, and set a goal of reducing annual SO2 emissions by 10 million tons below 1980 levels and NOx emissions by 2 million tons below 1980 levels, by the year 2000. To achieve these reductions, the law required a tightening of restrictions placed on fossil fuel-fired power plants and set up a national cap-and-trade program (USEPA 2012a; NERA 2010, p. 15).

ii. IPECs Contribution to Achievement of Air Quality Goals IPEC License Renewal will continue to reduce the causes of global warming, preserve air quality for New Yorks citizens, and fight the formation of acid rain because fossil fuel-fired power plants otherwise must operate to replace some portion of IPECs baseload energy production (NERA 2012, p. 25). Increased fossil fuel-fired generation would lead to increases of CO2 and other air pollutants (NERA 2012, pp. E-1 through E-6, 25 through 26, 33, 39 through 40, and 61; NEI 2004, pp. 6 and 32) (Attachment 36). Based on a recent National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) report, if IPEC generation were not available, fossil fuel-fired facilities in some form would be used to replace IPECs baseload energy supplies with associated national CO2 emissions increases in a range of about 13.5 million metric tons annually over the period from 2016 to 2025 (NERA 2012, p. E-4).

IPEC also plays a vital role in addressing State and federal air quality standards in New York, especially throughout the Hudson Valley and New York City, since nuclear power plants such as IPEC operate virtually emission-free for air pollutants such as NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, PM10, PM2.5, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor to ozone formation (NEI 2004, p. 32). In contrast, as noted above, these pollutants are emitted from the production of electricity from fossil-fuel power plants. IPEC produced 17,016,900 net MWh of virtually emission-free energy in 2011 (NYISO 2012a, p. 33). NYCDEPs analysis of impacts without IPEC License Renewal concluded that a substantial increase in air emissions [would result]

under all the scenarios analyzed (NYCDEP 2011, p. 13). Replacement of IPECs electricity production by primarily fossil-fired units would lead to an increase in emissions of approximately 13.5 million metric tons for CO2, 6,400 tons for SO2, and 3,300 tons for NOx (NERA 2012, pp. E-4, 40).

Without IPEC, the emission of acid rain precursors would increase. As discussed in more detail in Section XI below, as nuclear power plants do not use fossil fuels to generate electricity, they are virtually emission-free, an important consideration when addressing the precursors of acid rain. Without License Renewal, the problems of acidic deposition in New York State would be further exacerbated.

V-13

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 iii. IPECs Contribution to Environmental Justice Environmental justice also must be a concern of NYSDOS when it considers whether to concur with this Consistency Certification. The loss of IPEC baseload generation would risk denying environmental justice to those whose health and financial well-being would be harmed by IPECs closure. Hazel Dukes, the President of the New York State National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Conference, explained the environmental justice implications of closing IPEC:

I write today to give voice to the voiceless in this debate. To say in one loud voice, that no decision can be achieved without taking the health and economic well-being of all of the communities Indian Point serves, into consideration.

Social justice organizations such as the NAACP have a special interest in working to combat climate change and drastically reduce air pollution from nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SOx), and carbon dioxide (CO2).

The debate over relicensing has taken place without input from communities of color which are under siege by dirty air, not to mention the health effects that come along with poor air quality.

The debate over relicensing has raged on without input from communities of color who can ill-afford higher electricity bills.

The debate over relicensing has taken place without reassurance that the dirty-air power plants, built to replace Indian Point, will not once again end up in our neighborhoods.

There are too many cases of childhood asthma in our neighborhoods, and too many families and senior citizens forced to choose between heating their home and buying groceries. There are too many small business owners who cannot withstand blackouts, and too many unemployed citizens.

We at the NAACP New York State Conference recognize that the Indian Point nuclear power plants avoid millions of tons of pollution every year while providing us with 2,000 megawatts of electricity for our schools, mass transit, hospitals, and government institutions. (NAACP 2009) (Attachment 70).

V-14

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 iv. Other Environmental Interests In addition to the environmental benefits described above, IPEC License Renewal will be fully consistent with the States environmental interests in protecting terrestrial and aquatic resources. IPEC already exists and thus IPEC License Renewal will not entail any change to the topography or terrestrial ecology, except those attained through better air quality.

IPEC necessarily relies for its continued operation on the use of cooling water from the Hudson River. IPECs use of cooling water has engendered scores of studies over the years to document and assess the potential effects on the Hudson River of its operations.

Now more than 35 years of Hudson River data and analyses exist upon which valid scientific judgments can be based. Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse has led the Biological Team to analyze the available data, applying procedures and methodologies accepted in the scientific community for analysis of the impacts of the power generating stations thermal and pollutant discharges, and impingement and entrainment, on riverine flora and fauna, wetlands systems, and aquatic environments (Appendices D and E). The Biological Team has concluded, to a reasonable scientific certainty, that IPEC operations to date have not altered, and continued operations will not alter, the community structure, food chain relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, behavioral patterns, and migratory patterns of the fish species utilizing the Hudson River (Appendix D).

The data and analyses also clearly demonstrate that IPECs operations have not affected the recreational or commercial fisheries (Appendices F and G). Comprehensive and continuous river wide monitoring of fish populations and resulting data have fully characterized the river wide distribution and abundance of the fish populations potentially susceptible to entrainment and impingement at IPEC, and show that IPEC operations had no adverse impact on the Hudson River aquatic environment or its indigenous fish populations as the result of entrainment and impingement (Appendices B through F and Exhibits B.1 through B.14). None of IPECs discharges has affected any of the key physical, biological, or chemical parameters in any critical fish habitats in the vicinity of IPEC.

d. IPEC License Renewal Is Consistent With the National Interest in Energy Production The federal CZMA places limits on a States review of federal actions.73 Federal and State law require regulatory agencies to balance the competing needs to utilize the coastal zone to generate electricity, which is vital to the public interest, while minimizing environmental impacts caused by new development. IPEC License Renewal does not involve new development 73 See, e.g., CZMA §303(2)(D), §307(b), §307(c)(3)(A), and §312(a); 16 U.S.C. §1452(2)(D), §1456(b),

§1456(C)(3)(a), and §1458(A).

V-15

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 and thus does not raise any of the environmental concerns associated with new energy facility development in the coastal zone.

The federal CZMA recognizes that energy production is a vital need for the United States, and a proper and essential use of the coastal zone. Under the federal CZMA, Congress made a finding that:

[t]he national objective of attaining a greater degree of energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by providing Federal financial assistance to meet state and local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activity in or affecting the coastal zone (CZMA

§302(j)).

IPEC is an energy facility as defined in the CZMA. Through the expansion of an existing facility (i.e., IP1) during the 1970s, IPEC anticipated and complied with CZMA's preference to locate energy facilities where similar industrial activity already exists (CZMA §303[2][D]).

IPEC also is located in the vicinity of other power generation facilities, including Bowline located in the nearby Village of Haverstraw, and Charles Point RRF adjacent to IPEC on the Hudson River in Peekskill. Thus, IPEC fulfills the national requirement for locating energy facilities to the maximum extent practicable in or adjacent to areas where such development already exists (CZMA §303[2][D]), as well as the State legal requirement of encouraging the location of land development in areas where infrastructure and public services are adequate (Article 42, §912[7] of New Yorks Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Law).

Furthermore, IPEC contributes to the national interest in a significant and substantial manner, as required by Sections 302 and 303 of the CZMA. Specifically, IPEC is a lower cost energy resource in New York State (National Research Council 2006, p. 14) (Attachment 46).

Moreover, IPEC is the largest generating station close to the major load centers in New York City, and power generated by IPEC is delivered to these load centers by way of lines that run into New York City (National Research Council 2006, p. 14).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings NYCMP Policy 18 requires NYSDOS to safeguard the vital economic, social, and environmental interests of New York State and its citizens. Policy 18 lies at the heart of the NYCMP, calling for the balancing of economic, social and environmental interests of New York while protecting its coastal resources.

IPEC License Renewal is a vital component of any plan to allow New York State to achieve this balance. IPEC License Renewal will protect the welfare of New Yorks citizenry by V-16

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 preserving and maintaining a virtually emission-free, reliable, lower cost energy resource; important employment opportunities; and financial support to local communities.

IPEC License Renewal will safeguard the environment. IPEC License Renewal allows New York State to address air quality standards, to address global warming, and to minimize the precursors to acid rain, while at the same time adequately safeguarding its environmental interests in the coastal zone. If and to the extent that Policy 18 may be deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 18.

V-17

TABLES IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table V-1 IPEC Tax Distribution, 2003-2012a, b Taxes Paid Tax Type of To Recipients Tax 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b Westchester County, Town of PILOT Cortlandt, and Town of Verplanck Property Cortlandt Fire District Tax 5,023,579 4,659,642 3,773,590 3,748,804 3,818,583 3,877,539 3,950,976 3,973,922 4,030,528 4,110,923 Hendrick Hudson Central School Town of District Cortlandtc (CSD) PILOT 10,077,000 Hendrick Hudson Central Hendrick School Hudson District CSDd (CSD) PILOT 9,524,000 9,358,500 7,585,000 7,688,500 8,157,500 8,655,500 9,183,500 9,665,000 10,061,000 Hendrick Hudson Central Hendrick School Hudson District CSDd (CSD) PILOT 9,524,000 9,358,500 7,585,000 7,688,500 8,157,500 8,655,500 9,183,500 9,665,000 10,061,000 10,473,000 Lakeland Town of Central Property Cortlandtc Schools Tax 32,710 35,569 Lakeland Town of Central Property Cortlandtd Schools Tax 35,569 80,226 92,485 98,747 98,155 103,032 V-1-i

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table V-1 (continued)

IPEC Tax Distribution, 2003-2012a, b Taxes Paid Tax Type of To Recipients Tax 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 b Town of Hendrick Property Cortlandtd Hudson CSD Tax 109,873 184,852 215,550 444,620 469,162 486,416 502,268 522,228 537,412 PILOT and Village of Village of Property Buchanane Buchanan Tax 2,271,753 2,184,044 1,984,680 2,023,151 2,032,788 2,039,354 2,100,452 2,106,905 2,117,758 2,137,711 New York State Department of Taxation Westchester and Finance County Sales Use 484,149 797,281 279,724 168,253 379,042 416,774 476,237 457,910 364,683 383,571 New York State Department of Taxation State of New and Finance York Sales Use 725,014 1,060,973 356,056 199,411 449,235 459,535 564,430 542,708 432,217 454,602 Total 28,173,774 27,810,108 23,614,887 21,727,416 23,068,423 24,178,396 25,417,511 26,432,213 27,193,414 28,158,219 V-1-ii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table V-1 (continued)

IPEC Tax Distribution, 2003-2012a, b Notes:

a. Fiscal year, if not otherwise defined, extends from January 1st of indicated year through December 31st of the year.

b. Taxes Paid as of Sept 25, 2012

c. Fiscal year extends from July 1st of prior year through June 30th of the indicated year. Two equal payments are made to the school district during the fiscal year, with each payment made during a different calendar year.

d. Fiscal year extends from July 1st of indicated year through June 30th of the subsequent year. Two equal payments are made to the school district during the fiscal year, with each payment made during a different calendar year.

e. Fiscal year extends from June 1st of indicated year through May 31st of the subsequent year.

Sources:

Entergy 2007a, pp. 2-46 and 2-47 Entergy 2012j V-1-iii

FIGURES 8.12.11 D A - WEST B - GENESE C - CENTRL D - NORTH E

E - MHK VL F - CAPITL G - HUD VL H - MILLWD I - DUNWOD F J - N.Y.C.

K - LONGIL Source: http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/market_data/zone_maps_graphs/nyca_zonemaps.pdf B

E A C B

G H

I J K IPEC CZMA New York Control Area Load Zones Figure V-1

8.12.11 D

CLINTON FRANKLIN ST LAWRENCE E ESSEX JEFFERSON LEWIS WARREN F

HAMILTON WASH-ING-C TON HERKIMER SARATOGA B OSWEGO ONEIDA FULTON Source: http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/market_data/zone_maps_graphs/nyca_zonemaps.pdf SCHE-MONTGOMERY RENS-NEC- SELAER TADY WAYNE ALBANY ONONDAGA ORLEANS MONROE MADISON SCHO-HARIE NIAGARA OTSEGO ONTARIO COLUM-CAYUGA GENESEE BIA GREENE LIVINGSTON SENECA CHENANGO YATES CORTLAND A ERIE WYOMING TOMPKINS DELAWARE SCHUYLER BROOME ULSTER G TIOGA DUTCHESS STEUBEN CHEMUNG ALLE-GANY SULLIVAN CHAUTAUQUA CATTARAUGUS E PUTNAM H C ORANGE B WESTCHESTER G ROCKLAND SUFFOLK BRONX I

NASSAU NEW YORK K

RICHMOND QUEENS KINGS J

IPEC CZMA New York Control Area Load Zones with Counties Shown Figure V-2

10.3.12 U.S. Electricity Production Costs 1995-2011, In 2011 cents per kilowatt-hour Source: http://nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncosts/

Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs. Production costs do not include indirect costs and are based on FERC Form 1 filings submitted by regulated utilities. Production costs are modeled for utilities that are not regulated.

Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite Updated: 5/12 IPEC CZMA U.S. Electricity Production Costs Figure V-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 VI. PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES Policies 19 and 20 promote public access to water-related recreational resources and facilities. These policies are concerned with public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas, waterfront parks, and publicly-owned lands with passive recreational opportunities.

A. Policies 19 and 20 - Public Access Policy 19 seeks to [p]rotect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6,

p. 50).74 Policy 20 provides that [a]ccess to the publicly-owned foreshore and to lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the waters edge that are publicly-owned shall be provided and [i]t shall be provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 57).75 74 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 19 calls for achieving balance among the following factors: the level of access to a resource or facility; the capacity of a resource or facility; and the protection of natural resources (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 50). NYSDOS recognizes that imbalance among these factors, particularly in urban areas, is often due to access-related problems, and therefore indicates that priority should be given to (1) improving physical access to existing and potential coastal recreation sites within the heavily populated urban coastal areas, and (2) increasing the ability of urban residents to get to coastal recreation areas by improved public transportation (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 50). The particular water-related recreation resources and facilities which should receive priority for improved access include public beaches, boating facilities, fishing areas, and waterfront parks.

The following guidelines have been established for determining the consistency of a proposed action with Policy 19:

a) The level of access to be provided should be in accord with estimated public use. If not, the level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with this policy.

b) The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use which would exceed the physical capability of the resource or facility. If this were determined to be the case, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with this policy (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 50 and 52).

75 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 20 provides that in coastal areas where there are little or no recreation facilities providing specific water-related recreational activities, access to the publicly-owned lands of the coast should be provided for activities which require minimal facilities for their enjoyment (i.e., passive recreational opportunities such as walking along a beach or city waterfront, or to a scenic vantage point; bicycling; bird watching; photography; nature study; beachcombing; fishing; and hunting). Access can be provided through the development of coastal trails, access across transportation facilities, improved access to urban waterfronts, and the promotion of mixed and multi-use development (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 57).

NYSDOS guidance also addresses easements on lands underwater to adjacent onshore property owners. Public use of such publicly-owned underwater lands and lands immediately adjacent to the shore shall be discouraged VI-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policies 19 and 20 IPEC is an existing facility and does not impede access to publicly-owned foreshore or recreational resources. In addition, no change of physical facilities or operations is proposed as part of License Renewal that could impede public access to publicly-owned foreshore or recreational resources.

The IPEC site and its environs are, and historically have been (as far back as the 1800s),

a highly-developed area, with robust commercial, manufacturing, industrial, and institutional land uses (Cortlandt 2004, pp. 9-2 through 9-3). With the exception of the Lents Cove Village Park, located to the north of IPEC, land uses within the coastal zone in the vicinity of IPEC consist of transportation, communication, utilities, manufacturing, industrial, warehousing, or vacant properties (WCDP 2009a). Industrial and manufacturing uses in the vicinity of IPEC include: Lafarge within Buchanan (WCDP 2009a); Charles Point RRF in Peekskill (Peekskill 2005, p. II-3); Tilcon Quarry and Bowline in Haverstraw (Haverstraw 2005, pp. 2-4 through 2-5).

The United States Coast Guard (USCG)-mandated exclusion zone (33 CFR §§165.30 and 165.169(a)(1)) limits access to an extremely small portion of shoreline; it does not restrict access to water-related and waterfront activities located north and south of the IPEC site. The vast majority of the Hudson River in the local area remains available for boating and fishing.

Notwithstanding the highly-developed nature of this area of the Hudson River, there are numerous opportunities for public access to water-related recreational activities and publicly-owned foreshore of the Hudson River. In particular, Westchester County has a large number of where such use would be inappropriate for reasons of public safety, military security, or the protection of fragile coastal resources (NOAA and NYSDOS, 2006, chap. II-6, p. 57).

NYSDOS further provides that the following guidelines be used in determining the consistency of a proposed action with Policy 20:

1. The existing level of public access within public coastal lands or waters shall not be reduced or eliminated.

2. Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided by new land use or development, except where (a) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security, or the protection of identified fragile coastal resources; (b) adequate access exists within one-half mile; or (c) agriculture would be adversely affected.

3. Proposals for increased public access to coastal lands and waters shall be analyzed according to the following factors:

a) The level of access to be provided should be in accord with estimated public use. If not, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy.

b) The level of access to be provided shall not cause a degree of use which would exceed the physical capability of the coastal lands or waters. If this were determined to be the case, the proposed level of access to be provided shall be deemed inconsistent with the policy (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 57 through 59).

VI-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 waterfront parks and a trail system, the Westchester RiverWalk, which provide public access to the waterfront in this region (WCDP 2009b). The Westchester RiverWalk links many of the waterfront parks together.

In the immediate vicinity of the IPEC site, public water-related resources include those offered by the Hudson River (e.g., swimming, boating, and fishing), and water-related recreational activities available at Lents Cove Village Park, located within one half mile of the IPEC site (WCDP 2009b). Recreational facilities at Lents Cove Village Park, bordering IPEC, were developed between 2002 and 2004. These include ball fields (Cortlandt 2012a), a boat launch that provides fee-based access to the Hudson River (HRFA 2012, p. 10), and walking trails that provide pedestrian access to the waterfront and views of the Hudson River and the Bear Mountain Bridge (Rojas 2004).

The Peekskill waterfront traditionally has been a mix of commercial and industrial land uses (e.g., D. Bertolini and Sons, Charles Point Marina, and Charles Point RRF), but has more recently undergone recreational development (Peekskill 2009, pp. 1, 6, 13, and 14). Proposed improvements on the Peekskill side of Lents Cove, within one mile of IPEC, include a kayak launch and an overlook shelter (Peekskill 2009, p. 6). IPEC has not inhibited the development of these facilities, nor will it interfere with the publics access to them.

North of Lents Cove Village Park, public access to the waterfront and water-related recreational opportunities within the coastal zone are available at two parks in Peekskill: Charles Point Park, within one mile of IPEC; and Riverfront Green Park, within two miles of IPEC (WCDP 2009b). Charles Point Park, located north of the Charles Point RRF, has a large pier that is suitable for fishing and provides expansive views of the Hudson River and Bear Mountain Bridge. Peekskill plans to upgrade the pier and to build more walking trails that link the pier to the Riverfront Green Park, thereby increasing accessibility to Charles Point Park (Peekskill 2009,

p. 5).

Riverfront Green Park provides access to a combined 53 acres of land and underwater acreage along the waterfront (Peekskill 2005, p. II-9). A boat launch provides access to recreational opportunities on the Hudson River, and the Peekskill Yacht Club, located within the Park, provides docking, boat storage, and waterfront clubhouse facilities (Peekskill 2005, p. II-10; Peekskill 2009, p. 5). The 2004 Peekskill LWRP calls for an expansion of the Yacht Clubs marina, and increased parking capacity to provide greater access to on-water boating recreation (Peekskill 2005, p. V-13). Upgrades to the Park have also been identified that will increase public access and enjoyment of the coastline (Peekskill 2005, pp. IV-10 and IV-11). The Southern Waterfront Park and Trail Master Plan also includes proposed large scale improvements to the Riverfront Green Park aimed at improving access to the area, including a cul-de-sac drop off area, increased parking, and a trail system that will link the park to Charles Point, downtown Peekskill, and Annsville Preserve Park to the north (Peekskill 2005). The trail system will provide improved pedestrian access to the park.

VI-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 South of the IPEC site, public access to the waterfront and water-related recreational opportunities within the coastal zone are available at Steamboat Riverfront Park, approximately one mile from IPEC, in Verplanck. Developed in the mid to late 1990s, this facility provides pedestrian water access and has a fishing pier (Cortlandt 2012b). It is a part of the Westchester RiverWalk trail, and therefore is linked to other waterfront parks (WCDP 2003). Several other marinas (Kings Marina, Riveredge Trailer Park, Cortlandt Yacht Club, and Viking Boat Yard) operate to the south of IPEC. These marinas provide access to water-based recreation for both local and transient boaters.

The Westchester RiverWalk is a 51.5 mile trail system (WCDP 2009b) that eventually will allow pedestrian and bike access along or near the Hudson River within Westchester County using trails, esplanades, and boardwalks (WCDP 2003, p. 1). Westchester County began the project in 2000 in an effort to increase access to the coastline (WCDP 2003, p. 1). By linking parks along the Hudson River, the Westchester RiverWalk will improve access to lesser used parks, as well as provide new public access to the waterfront. In the vicinity of the IPEC site, the 2-mile-long Cortlandt shoreline trail portion of the RiverWalk parallels Broadway on the eastern side of the IPEC site, connecting Steamboat Riverfront Park on the south to Lents Cove Village Park on the north (WCDP 2003, p. 14).

Bear Mountain State Park, located on the western shore of the Hudson River in Rockland and Orange Counties (Entergy 2007a, p. 2-3), provides access to public water-related recreational resources and facilities. The park contains a play field, picnic areas, fishing access, and a trail system (NYSOPRHP 2012).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policies 19 and 20 do not apply to IPEC License Renewal. IPEC is an existing facility and no new facilities or operations are proposed that could interfere with public access to publically-owned foreshore or recreational resources.

IPEC License Renewal will not reduce access to water-related recreational resources or the publicly-owned foreshore or recreational resources. The only publicly-owned lands near IPEC are Lents Cove Village Park and the Westchester RiverWalk. Lents Cove Village Park already has water access and the purpose of the Westchester RiverWalk is to link existing water-related recreational resources, such as Lents Cove and Steamboat.

If and to the extent Policies 19 and 20 are deemed applicable to IPEC, continued operation under IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policies 19 and 20. In fact, the many publicly-owned and publically-funded recreational areas in the vicinity of IPEC have been constructed or improved during the past 15 years with the indirect financial support of IPECs PILOT payments.

VI-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 VII. RECREATION POLICIES Policies 21 and 22 promote water-related and water-dependent recreational activities within the coastal zone.

A. Policies 21 and 22 - Water-Related Recreational Opportunities Policy 2176 provides that [w]ater-dependent and water-enhanced recreation would be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given priority over non-water-related uses along the coast; Policy 2277 provides that [d]evelopment when located adjacent to the shore will provide for water-related recreation, whenever such use is compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and is compatible with the primary purpose of the development.

(NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 66)

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 21 and Policy 22 IPEC is an existing facility and no new construction or operations are proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal that could trigger applicability of Policies 21 and 22. These policies do 76 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 21 identifies two categories of water-related recreational activities: water-dependent activities such as boating, swimming, and fishing; and water-enhanced activities such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas, scenic overlooks, and passive recreation areas that take advantage of coastal scenery (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 62 through 63). NYSDOS further provides that, where demand exists, water-related recreation development is to be increased and given a higher priority than non-coastal dependent uses (e.g., non-water-related recreation uses), provided that the development of water-related recreational activities is consistent with the preservation and enhancement of important coastal resources such as fish and wildlife habitats, aesthetically significant areas, historic and cultural resources, agriculture, and significant mineral and fossil deposits. Where water-related recreational development has the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts to coastal resources, mitigating measures are to be implemented where practicable to minimize adverse impacts (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 64).

NYSDOS has identified priority areas in which it seeks increased water-related recreational opportunities; i.e.,

areas where access to coastal recreational opportunities can be provided by new or existing public transportation services and areas where the use of the shore is severely restricted by highways, railroads, industry, or other forms of existing intensive land use or development (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 64 through 65).

NYSDOS further provides that the siting or design of new public development that results in a barrier to the recreational use of a major portion of a community's shore should be avoided (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap.

II-6, pp. 62 through 63).

77 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 22 states that:

whenever developments are located adjacent to the shore they should to the fullest extent permitted by existing law provide for some form of water-related recreation use unless there are compelling reasons why any form of such recreation would not be compatible with the development, or a reasonable demand for public use cannot be foreseen (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 66) [emphasis supplied].

NYSDOS identifies types of development as having the potential to provide water-related recreation as a multiple use, including power plants and utility transmission ROWs (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 66).

VII-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 not encourage recreational use where such recreational use is incompatible with existing waterfront uses. For security purposes, access to nuclear power plants is significantly restricted and, therefore, recreational use of the IPEC site not practicable.78 There are numerous opportunities for water-dependent, water-enhanced, and water-related recreational opportunities in the vicinity of IPEC that will not be adversely impacted by License Renewal. A small portion of the river in IPECs vicinity (within a 300-yard radius of the IPEC pier) is excluded from public access by the USCG (33 CFR §§165.30 and 165.169(a)(1);

Entergy 2007a, p. 2-98). The USCG-mandated exclusion zone does not impede recreational uses of Hudson River.

IPEC License Renewal will not hinder the development and use of water-dependent, water-enhanced, and/or water-related recreational opportunities in the vicinity of IPEC. These water-related recreational opportunities have continued to develop during the period of IPECs current operations.

The Westchester RiverWalk, a Greenway Trail, under development through the WCDP, is expected to link 51.5 miles of Hudson River waterfront and recreational opportunities (WCDP 2009b). The completed trail will run along the riverfront from Cortlandt, in the north, to the City of Yonkers, in the south. The completed sections of RiverWalk are already enhancing riverfront access to town and state recreational facilities (WCDP 2003, p. 1). Riverfront access in the vicinity of IPEC includes Lents Cove Village Park (NYSDEC 2009), which provides public boating access. In addition, Riverfront Green Park in Peekskill (NYSDEC 2009), Steamboat Riverfront Park in Verplanck (Cortlandt 2012b; NYSDEC 2009), and Bear Mountain State Park in Rockland and Orange Counties (NYSOPRHP 2012) also provide access to the Hudson River for water-dependent and water-related recreational opportunities.

Several existing marinas close to IPEC provide boating access to the Hudson River. The Charles Point Marina and the Peekskill Yacht Club are located in the southern portion of Peekskill (WCDP 2003). King Marina and Cortlandt Yacht Club are located in Cortlandt (Westchester 2012; Cortlandt 2004). These marinas provide a range of services to local and transient boaters. In the Village of Haverstraw, the NYSDOS-approved LWRP includes an HMP (Haverstraw 2005, Appendix A, p. 1).

Likewise, there are numerous opportunities for water-enhanced recreational opportunities in the vicinity of IPEC. These are discussed in detail in connection with Policies 19 and 20, and include: walking trails in Lents Cove Village Park that provide pedestrian access to the waterfront and views of the Hudson River and the Bear Mountain Bridge (Peekskill 2009); a large pier that provides expansive views of the Hudson River and Bear Mountain Bridge in the Charles Point Park within Peekskill (Peekskill 2009); access to almost the entire waterfront within Peekskill via a walkway from Riverfront Green Park (Peekskill 2009); pedestrian water 78 If IPEC were retired, full dismantling of structures and decontamination of the site may not occur for up to 60 years after plant shutdown (USNRC 2010, p. 8-20).

VII-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 access and a fishing pier at Steamboat Riverfront Park in Verplanck (Cortlandt 2012b); and the approximate 51.5 mile Westchester RiverWalk, which eventually will allow pedestrian/bike access along or near the Hudson River within Westchester County using trails, esplanades, and boardwalks (WCDP 2003).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policies 21 and 22 are inapplicable to License Renewal. If and to the extent deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policies 21 and 22. IPECs presence has not and will not impede continued development of water-related recreational opportunities, including boating access to the Hudson River from a variety of marinas in the vicinity of IPEC, and numerous waterfront parks and trails.

VII-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 VIII. HISTORIC AND SCENIC RESOURCES POLICIES Policies 23 through 25 relate to historic, archaeological, and culturally significant resources.

A. Policy 23 - Man-Made Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Resources Policy 23 seeks to: [p]rotect, enhance and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the State, its communities, or the Nation (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 70).79 79 NYSDOS guidance provides that, in order to protect man-made resources that are of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance, all agencies must recognize the importance of these resources and be able to identify and describe them. In addition to specific sites, areas of significance and the areas around specific sites must be protected (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 70). As noted below, NYSDOS guidance states that a significant adverse change could include actions within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property boundary of such identified resources. Therefore, the area within 500 feet of IPECs property boundary has been evaluated for the presence of historic, archaeological, or culturally significant resources. The policy requires active efforts, when appropriate, to restore or revitalize these resources through adaptive reuse. While the program is concerned with the preservation of all such resources within the coastal boundary, NYSDOS, through Policy 23, actively promotes the preservation of historic and cultural resources that have a coastal relationship (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 70).

NYSDOS guidance includes examples of structures, districts, areas, or sites which are considered of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance to the State, its communities, or the nation:

(a) [a] resource, which is in a federal or State park established, among other reasons, to protect and preserve the resource; (b) [a] resource on, nominated to be on, or determined eligible to be on the National or State Registers of Historic Places.

(c) [a] resource on or nominated to be on the State Nature and Historic Preserve Trust.

(d) [a]n archaeological resource which is on the State Department of Education's inventory of archaeological sites. (e) [a] local landmark, park, or locally designated historic district which is located within the boundary of an approved local waterfront revitalization program.

(e) [a] resource that is a significant component of an Urban Cultural Park (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 70).

NYSDOS guidance also explains that techniques, measures, or controls to prevent significant adverse change to these resources must be considered and adopted by entities proposing activities that could affect these measures.

A significant adverse change includes, but is not limited to:

(1) [a]lteration of or addition to one or more of the architectural, structural, ornamental or functional features of a building, structure, or site that is a recognized historic, cultural, or archaeological resource, or component thereof (2) [d]emolition or removal in full or part of a building, structure, or earthworks that is a recognized historic, cultural, or archaeological resource or components thereof, or [associated] appurtenant fixtures VIII-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 23 No land disturbance and/or construction activities are proposed in connection with License Renewal (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 1; USNRC 2010, pp. 3-12). Moreover, in the event of any land disturbance, Entergy has an administrative procedure in place to protect potential cultural artifacts (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 1; Entergy 2007a, pp. 4-46 and 4-47). Entergys administrative procedure, (EN-EV-121, Cultural Resources Protection Plan)

(Entergy 2008d), includes measures for archaeological investigations and protection, and consultations with New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) and/or appropriate Native American groups prior to any on-site land disturbance (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p.

1).

Consistent with its procedures, comprehensive assessments have been conducted to identify man-made historic, archaeological, or cultural resources (ENERCON 2009). The comprehensive assessments date back to the early 1970s80 and include correspondence with NYSHPO, Phase 1A and Phase 1B archaeological surveys as part of the USNRC DSEIS and the 2010 USNRC FSEIS, as well as on-site surveys conducted by USNRCs cultural resources staff as part of the License Renewal process (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 5; USNRC 2010, pp. 2-138 and 2-139). Correspondence with NYSHPO included review of its files for recorded archaeological and historic resources on-site and within a one-mile radius of the site. Provided below is a summary of the findings of the comprehensive assessments undertaken by Entergy.

In connection with IPECs initial licensing and construction, a review of NYSHPOs file indicated that there were no previously-recorded archaeological sites on the IPEC property or within a one mile radius of the IPEC site and no previous studies had been conducted on the IPEC site (USNRC 2010, p. 2-138). A copy of a site plan for IPEC was filed with NYSHPO in 1972. A file search was also conducted in 1972 to identify any properties on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There were no listings at that time (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 5).

A second assessment (Phase 1A Survey) of the potential existence of historic and prehistoric artifacts at IPEC was conducted in November 2006 by ENERCON. The Phase 1A Survey involved a literature review and sensitivity assessment as well as an informal site walkover of the north end of the IPEC property (USNRC 2010, p. 2-138; ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 1). This survey also included a review of NYSHPO records for archaeological (3) [a]ll proposed actions within 500 feet of the perimeter of the property boundary of the historic, architectural, cultural, or archaeological resource and all actions within an historic district that would be incompatible with the objective of preserving the quality and integrity of the resource (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6 pp. 70 and 71) 80 These early assessments would have been undertaken by Con Ed, the then owner of the Units as discussed in Section I above.

VIII-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 sites within one-mile of IPEC as well as research on NYSHPOs online database of aboveground historic resources within six miles of the IPEC site.

Land on and adjacent to the IPEC site has been disturbed, dating at least as far back as the 1880s. The northern section of the property had been extensively disturbed by limestone quarry activities in the 1800s. The areas surrounding two-thirds of the property including plant facilities were completely disturbed during IPECs original construction (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 3; USNRC 2010, p. 2-139). See Figure VIII-1 for a map showing land disturbances within the IPEC property (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I Figure 10). The site visit completed as part of the Phase 1A Survey noted about 80 acres of wooded land on the north end of the IPEC property (Entergy 2007a, p. 2-20; USNRC 1975, p. II-3) (approximately one-third of the total property); since this time, some of the trees have been removed to ensure compliance with USNRC security requirements.

The Phase 1B Survey included subsurface investigations of portions of the site. (USNRC 2010, p. 4-48) (Attachment 22). USNRC staff also reviewed NYSHPO files for archaeological sites within one-mile of IPEC and for aboveground historic resources within five miles of the site (USNRC 2010, p. 2-138). The Phase 1B investigation identified numerous historic resources south of IP3. The survey also identified some prehistoric resources at two southern locations.

Prehistoric artifacts included stone flakes and shatter, as well as quartz shatter. Historic resources included indications of a smelter that once operated on-site as well as concrete pads or caps, a fence, and other expected indications of historic site usage.81 USNRC Staff, as part of the License Renewal process, also observed a concrete stairway and retaining wall, south of the main power block area, from the former Indian Point Park (a popular recreation area from 1923 to 1956) (USNRC 2010, p. 2-139).

NYSHPO completed a review of the information submitted in connection with IPEC License Renewal in December 2009 (NYSOPRHP 2009a). NYSHPOs review considered the Site Inventory Forms for IP2 and IP3 prepared by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) (2009b, 2009c). NYSHPO noted the presence of two historic sites (A11967.000106 and A11967.000107), one south and one north of the generating facility and recommended that if disturbance of these areas was planned, a Phase II site examination be conducted on these sites to provide the additional information necessary to evaluate the sites (NYSOPRHP 2009a).

The State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange, created by NYSHPO, lists all aboveground New York properties that are either already listed or are eligible for listing on the NRHP and the New York Register of Historic Places (NYRHP). The four counties within a five-mile radius of the IPEC site (see Figure VIII-2), Westchester, Putnam, Orange, and Rockland counties, have a long Native American and Euro-American history. The two listed historic sites that are closest to IPEC are the Peekskill Downtown Historic District, located about 81 Notably, IP1, which no longer is in service, was the first commercial reactor in the United States. The control panel from this reactor is now in the Smithsonian Institutions collection (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 21).

VIII-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 two miles northeast of IPEC, and Stony Point Battlefield, located about one and a half miles south of IPEC on the western shore of the River. See Table VIII-1 for additional historic sites within a six-mile radius of the IPEC site (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I, Table 1; Entergy 2007a,

p. 2-75). The nearest listed NRHP or NYRHP properties are more than one mile from the IPEC site (ENERCON 2009, Appendix I p. 5; Entergy 2007a, p. 2-75).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings License Renewal will not result in any land disturbance (USNRC 2010, p. 3-12).

Therefore, Policy 23 is inapplicable to License Renewal.

The closest properties listed on the NRHP or NYRHP are more than a mile from the perimeter of the IPEC site. Any future on-site land disturbance at IPEC would adhere to procedures that assure the protection, enhancement, and restoration of the States historic and culturally significant resources. License Renewal is therefore fully consistent with Policy 23 if and to the extent Policy 23 is deemed applicable.

B. Policies 24 and 25 - Scenic, Natural and Manmade Resources Policy 24 seeks to [p]revent impairment of scenic resources of statewide significance (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 73). NYSDOS defines impairment as:

(i) the irreversible modification of geological forms, the destruction or removal of vegetation, the modification, destruction, or removal of structures, whenever the geologic forms, vegetation or structures are significant to the scenic quality of an identified resource; and (ii) the addition of structures which because of siting or scale will reduce identified views or which because of scale, form, or materials will diminish the scenic quality of an identified resource (6 NYCRR Part 600.4)82 [emphasis added].

82 NYSDOS guidance to applicants can be used in evaluating the potential for a proposed action that would adversely affect (i) a Scenic Resources of Statewide Significance (SRSS) or (ii) a natural or man-made resource not identified as a SRSS which contributes to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 74). The NYCMP places a greater emphasis on SRSS under Policy 24, but requires that a proposed action limit impairment, or provide measures to enhance the scenic quality of the overall coastal area under Policy 25. Where appropriate, this assessment distinguishes between SRSS identified under Policy 24 and other resources that contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area under Policy 25. NYSDOS guidance for Policy 24 states:

[w]hen considering a proposed action, agencies shall first determine whether the action could affect a scenic resource of statewide significance. This VIII-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Policy 25 seeks to [p]rotect, restore, or enhance natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 77).83 Because these policies are closely related, Entergy is addressing them together.

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policies 24 and 25 IPEC is an existing facility and License Renewal will have no impact on the aesthetic environment. No change of the physical setting is proposed. Nonetheless, at the request of NYSDOS, Entergy has conducted a full assessment of the aesthetic relationship of IPECs existing facilities to their surroundings. Appendix H to this Consistency Certification provides a detailed discussion of the methodology used for evaluating the consistency of IPEC License Renewal with Policies 24 and 25.

IPEC is located in an area that has a long history dating back to the 1800s of commercial, manufacturing, and industrial development. This area of Westchester County has had a large industrial presence along the River banks (ConEd 1972, p. II-3). In addition to IPEC, several other waterfront industrial uses are currently located on the east side of the River in this area, including the Meenan Oil Company storage facility and terminal in Cortlandt, Charles Point RRF in Peekskill, and Lafarge in Buchanan. On the west side of the River, existing visible waterfront industrial land uses include the Tilcon Quarry, a bulk material processing plant, Lovett Generating Station, U.S. Gypsum in Stony Point, and Bowline. There is also a regional overhead electric transmission line crossing the Hudson River at Verplanck, as well as the Algonquin gas line which crosses under the Hudson River and rises to the surface on an easement cleared of vegetation on the IPEC property.

determination would involve: (1) a review of the coastal area map to ascertain if it shows an identified scenic resource which could be affected by the proposed action, and (2) a review of the types of activities proposed to determine if they would be likely to impair the scenic beauty of an identified resource (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 74).

NYSDOS guidance goes on to quote the definition of impairment referenced above in 6 NYCRR §600.4 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 74).

83 The NYSDOS guidance for Policy 25 states:

[w]hen considering a proposed action, which would not affect a scenic resource of statewide significance, agencies shall undertake to ensure that the action would be undertaken so as to protect, restore or enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. Activities which could impair or further degrade scenic quality are the same as those cited under the previous policy, i.e.,

modification of natural landforms, removal of vegetation, etc. However, the effects of these activities would not be considered as serious for the general coastal area as for significant scenic areas (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 77) [emphasis supplied].

VIII-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 The clustering of IPEC with these other industrial waterfront uses is consistent with the federal CZMA directive to give priority consideration for siting, to the maximum extent practicable, of new commercial and industrial developments in or adjacent to areas where such development already exists (16 U.S.C. §1452). The IPEC site itself has been in active use since 1926. Construction of IP1 began in the late 1950s and commercial operations began in 1962.

Large industrial structures, including the IP1 containment building, powerhouse, and a 334-foot tall stack have existed on the IPEC site for nearly fifty years (Entergy 2007a, p. 2-2). Entergy is currently removing this stack in stages, down to a height of 167 feet above MSL (Entergy 2012h). These structures, because of their large-scale and utilitarian form, industrialized the landscape of the IPEC site approximately a decade prior to the construction of IP2 and IP3. The construction of IP2 and IP3 in the 1970s did not represent a new industrial use, but rather an expansion of the long-standing industrial use of the property. Structures, roads, and other improvements were terraced into the hillside, which helps to minimize visible disturbance to the shoreline landform. In addition, IP2 and IP3 are clustered close together with preexisting IP1, successfully minimizing their visual profile, avoiding unnecessary disturbance of open space and maintaining vegetated areas around the periphery of the site.

The Hudson Highlands Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) was established in 1993 (NYSDOS 1993), approximately 40 years after construction of IP1 began and more than 15 years after IP2 and IP3 began commercial operations. In designating the Bear Mountain State Park subunit of the SASS, NYSDOS recognized [t]he City of Peekskill, Westchester County's garbage generated power plant and the nuclear power complex at Indian Point, all situated across the Hudson River from Dunderberg Mountain, detract from some of the dramatic Highland views, introducing urban and industrial elements into the natural wildlands of the Bear Mountain State Park and the surrounding Hudson Highlands. However, these features are often screened from view in many of the trailside vistas by woodland and topography (NYSDOS 1993).

In designating the Jones Point subunits of the SASS, NYSDOS recognized that the presence of industrial development on the eastern shorelands of the Hudson River dominate the views from the subunit (NYSDOS 1993). NYSDOS designated the Hudson Highlands as a SASS in 1993, owing to its positive scenic features of cultural importance, the lack of discordant features within subunits, its public accessibility, and views of the subunit from other portions of the coastal area combined, which validated inclusion of the Bear Mountain State Park (HH-11),

Jones Point (HH-14), and Anthony's Nose (HH-16) subunits in the Hudson Highlands SASS (NYSDOS 1993). The presence of the existing industrial facilities, including IPEC, did not impede these subunits from being designated by NYSDOS as SASS.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policies 24 and 25 are not applicable to existing facilities. IPEC License Renewal includes no change of the aesthetic environment that would impair or lead to the degradation of scenic resources. If and to the extent Policies 24 and 25 are deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policies 24 and 25.

VIII-6

TABLES IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table VIII-1 Listed Historic Sites Within Six Miles of IPEC Listed Listed Site Name Nearest City or Town NRHP NYRHP Westchester County Standard House City of Peekskill Yes Yes Peekskill Freight Depot City of Peekskill Yes Yes Thomas Nelson House City of Peekskill Yes Yes Peekskill Presbyterian Church City of Peekskill Yes Yes Aaron Copland House Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes St. Peters Episcopal Church City of Peekskill Yes Yes Isaac Young House Town of New Castle Yes Yes Peekskill Downtown Historical District City of Peekskill Yes Yes Old St. Peters Church and Old Cemetery at Van Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes Cortlandtville Carrie Chapman Catt House Town of New Castle Yes -

Ford Administration Building City of Peekskill Yes -

Fort Hill-Nelson Avenue Historic District City of Peekskill Yes -

St. Augustines Episcopal Church Village of Croton-on-Hudson Yes -

Old St. Peters Church Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes Old Croton Dam; Site of New Croton Dam Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes Van Cortlandt Upper Manor House Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes Bear Mountain Bridge Road Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes Van Cortlandtville School (Common District School No. Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes 10)

John Jones Homestead Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes Old Croton Aqueduct Town of Cortlandt Yes Yes Old Chappaqua Historic District Town of New Castle Yes Yes Chappaqua Railroad Depot and Depot Plaza Town of New Castle Yes Yes Church of Saint Mary the Virgin and Greely Grove Town of New Castle Yes Yes Greely House Town of New Castle Yes Yes Rehoboth Town of New Castle Yes Yes Sarles Tavern-Granite House Town of New Castle Yes Yes Williams-DuBois House Town of New Castle Yes Yes Drum Hill High School City of Peekskill Yes Yes Beecher-McFadden Estate City of Peekskill Yes Yes Villa Loretto City of Peekskill Yes Yes United States Post Office-Peekskill City of Peekskill Yes Yes Van Cortlandt Manor Village of Croton-on-Hudson Yes No Croton North Railroad Station Village of Croton-on-Hudson Yes Yes St. Marys Complex City of Peekskill Yes -

St. Patricks Church Town of Cortlandt Yes -

Mount Florence City of Peekskill Yes Yes Quaker Bridge Road Town of Cortlandt Yes -

Asbury United Methodist Church; Bethel Chapel and Village of Croton-on-Hudson Yes Yes Cemetery VIII-1-i

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table VIII-1 (contd)

Listed Historic Sites Within Six Miles of IPEC Listed Listed Site Name Nearest City or Town NRHP NYRHP Rockland County Henry M. Peck House Town of Haverstraw Yes Yes Philadelphia Toboggan Company Carousel No. 15 Town of Clarkstown Yes Yes Bear Mountain Inn Town of Stony Point Yes Yes H.R. Stevens House Town of Clarkstown Yes Yes Terneur-Hutton House Town of Clarkstown Yes Yes Blauvelt House Town of Clarkstown Yes Yes Commander Town of Stony Point Yes Yes Stony Point Battlefield Town of Stony Point Yes Yes Stony Point Lighthouse Town of Stony Point Yes Yes Homestead Town of Haverstraw Yes Yes Henry Garner Mansion West Haverstraw Yes Yes Fraser-Hoyer House West Haverstraw Yes Yes Rockland County Courthouse and Dutch Gardens Town of Clarkstown Yes Yes Kings Daughters Public Library Town of Haverstraw Yes Yes Mount Moor African American Cemetery Town of Clarkstown Yes Yes Central Presbyterian Church Town of Haverstraw Yes -

William H. Rose House Town of Stony Point Yes Yes Bear Mountain Bridge and Toll House Town of Stony Point Yes Yes United States Post Office-Haverstraw Town of Haverstraw Yes Yes Orange County St. Marks Baptist Church Village of Highland Falls Yes Yes Fort Montgomery Site Town of Highlands Yes Yes Cragston Dependencies Town of Highlands Yes No St. Marks Episcopal Church Town of Highlands Yes No Storm King Highway Town of Highlands Yes No U.S. Bullion Depository Town of Highlands Yes No U.S. Military Academy (West Point) Town of Highlands Yes Yes Center Street, House at 37 Village of Highland Falls Yes No Church of the Holy Innocents and Rectory Village of Highland Falls Yes No First Presbyterian Church of Highland Falls Village of Highland Falls Yes No Highland Falls Railroad Depot Village of Highland Falls Yes No Highland Falls Village Hall Village of Highland Falls Yes No House at 116 Main Street Village of Highland Falls Yes No Parry House Village of Highland Falls Yes No Pine Terrace Village of Highland Falls Yes No The Squirrels Village of Highland Falls Yes No Stonihurst Village of Highland Falls Yes No Webb Lane House Village of Highland Falls Yes No Queensboro Ironworks Historic District Town of Highlands Yes -

Bear Mountain State Park Historic District Town of Highlands Yes Yes Palisades Interstate Parkway Town of Highlands Yes Yes VIII-1-ii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table VIII-1 (contd)

Listed Historic Sites Within Six Miles of IPEC Listed Listed Site Name Nearest City or Town NRHP NYRHP Putnam County Boscobel Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Castle Rock Town of Philipstown Yes Yes DeRham Farm Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Old Albany Post Road Town of Philipstown Yes Yes The Birches Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Eagles Rest (Jacob Rupert Estate) Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Garrison Landing Historic District Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Garrison Union Free School Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Glenfields Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Hurst-Pierrepont Estate Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Mandeville House Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Montrest Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Moore House Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Normandy Grange Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Oulagisket Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Rock Lawn and Carriage House Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Walter Thompson House and Carriage House Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Walker House Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Wilson House Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Woodlawn (Malcolm Gordon School) Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Fair Lawn Town of Philipstown Yes Yes West Point Foundry Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Manitoga (Russell Wright Estate) Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Dicks Castle Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Plumbush Town of Philipstown Yes Yes St. Philips Church in the Highlands Complex Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Frederick Osborn House Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Indian Brook Road Historic District Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Garrison Grist Mill Historic District Town of Philipstown Yes Yes Entergy 2007a Note: - In table above indicates site may be proposed on state list, but approval of its listing has not yet occurred.

VIII-1-iii

FIGURES 8.2011 Area of Detail NY CT NJ Modified from Figure 10 in Appendix I of ENERCON's IPEC CZMA "Phase IB Archeological Investigation of Potential Cooling Tower Construction Historic Land Disturbances within IPEC Sites at Indian Point Energy Center, Westchester County, New York" Report (2009) Figure VIII-1 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet E

!

(

59 8.2011 Fishkill Kent

!

(

58 D

D uu tt cc hh ee ss ss New Windsor C C oo uu nn tt yy

!

(

57 Philipstown Kent

!

(

56 Fishkill Cornwall on Hudson

!

(

55 Nelsonville Orange County Cold Spring Cornwall  !

(

54 Putnam Valley

!

(

53 Blooming Grove  !

(

52 Carmel

!

(

51 Highland Falls 50 !

(

Highlands

!

(

49 Putnam County

!

(

48 Woodbury

!

(

47

£ 6

!

(

46

!

(

45

£

987

! Peekskill Somers

(

44

£

202

!

(

43

!

(

42 Yorktown IPEC Cortlandt Buchanan

!

(

41

£

9 Tuxedo

£

987

!

(

40 Stony Point  !

(

39

!

(

38

!

(

37 Croton-on-Hudson Haverstraw Village of Haverstraw 36  !

(

!

(

35

!

(

34 Ossining New Castle Rockland County  !

(

33

!

(

32 Ramapo Clarkstown

!

(

31 Westchester County

!

(

30 Mount Pleasant Upper Nyack

£

Area 117 of  !

(

29 Detail Nyack Sleepy Hollow

!

(

28 NY CT South Nyack NJ  !

(

27 Tarrytown Grand View-on-Hudson

£

87 Orangetown Greenburgh

!

(

26 County Boundary NYS DOS Coastal Zone Boundary IPEC CZMA Town Boundary (

! River Mile IPEC Study Area - 5 and 10 Mile Radius 41

(

! Village Figure VIII-2 0 1 2 3 4 E

5-Mile Study Area 10-Mile Study Area Miles

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 IX. AGRICULTURAL LANDS POLICY A. POLICY 26 - Agricultural Lands Policy 26 seeks to [c]onserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 78).84

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 26 License Renewal involves no new construction or activities that could displace existing agricultural lands. Moreover, NYSDOS decided that urban areas, such as Westchester County, are excluded from the mapping of agricultural lands.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 26 does not apply to IPEC License Renewal. IPEC is and will remain an industrial site. NYSDOS has decided to exclude highly developed areas of the state, such as Westchester County, from its effort to map important farmlands in the coastal area of New York State.

84 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 26 states that [t]he first step in conserving agricultural lands is the identification of such lands (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 78). NYSDOS establishes five criteria for identifying important agricultural lands in the States coastal areas (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 78 through 79). The second criterion provides for the identification of active farmland within Agricultural Districts; the fifth criterion provides for the identification of farmland of statewide significance. NYSDOS notes the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets developed a new agricultural land classification system prior to the completion of NYSDOS mapping efforts. NYSDOS further indicates it will incorporate this new classification system into the definition of important agricultural land, which will serve as the basis for revising maps of coastal agricultural land (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 79). The revised definition of important agricultural lands, based on the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets new agricultural land classification system, will include:

all land within an agricultural district or subject to an eight-year commitment which has been farmed within at least two of the last five years, or any land farmed within at least two of the last five years in soil groups 1-4 as classified by the Land Classification System established by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, or any land farmed within at least two of the last five years which is influenced by climate conditions which support the growth of high value crops. Additionally, agricultural land not meeting the above criteria but located adjacent to any such land and forming part of an on-going agricultural enterprise shall be considered important agricultural land (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 79).

NYSDOS further clarifies that urban areas (i.e., Nassau, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, and Erie counties; all cities; and any built-up area within the state) will be excluded from the mapping of agricultural lands under this new definition of important agricultural lands (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 79).

IX-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 X. ENERGY AND ICE MANAGEMENT POLICIES Policies 27 through 29 address siting of energy facilities and use of ice management practices. Policy 27 recognizes the need to balance public energy needs against the environmental impacts of the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone. Policy 28 addresses ice management practices to minimize the impacts on aquatic resources and production of hydroelectric power. Policy 29 is concerned with development of new energy resources on the outer continental shelf, in Lake Erie, and in other water bodies.

A. Policy 27 - Siting and Construction of Major Energy Facilities Policy 27 provides that:

[d]ecisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a shorefront location (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 85).85

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 27 IPEC already exists, and is already sited in the coastal zone. Therefore, Policy 27, which addresses the siting and construction of new energy facilities based on public energy needs, is inapplicable to License Renewal.

85 In assessing consistency with this policy, NYSDOS guidance states:

[d]emand for energy in New York will increase . The State expects to meet these energy demands through a combination of conservation measures; traditional and alternative technologies; and use of various fuels including coal in greater proportion [emphasis supplied] (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 85). Reliance on coal-fired generation is no longer feasible, given the promulgation of more stringent air quality regulations.

As discussed in more detail in Section V above and in Section XI below, several state and federal environmental regulations aimed at protecting air quality, such as the Coal Combustion Residuals Disposal Regulations (75 Fed.

Reg. 35127) (NERC 2010, p. 17) and programs implemented by NYSDEC under the federal CAA including Reasonably Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogen (6 NYCRR Part 227.2), Best Available Retrofit Technology (6 NYCRR Part 249), and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (Proposed 6 NYCRR Part 200.10(d)) (NYISO 2012c, pp. 43 through) will make it more difficult for fossil fuel-fired power plants, and coal-fired power plants in particular, to obtain the necessary air permits. The New York State Energy Plan outlines several methods for achieving energy efficiency, including programs to achieve the States goal to reduce electricity use by 15% below 2015 forecasts (NYSEPB 2012, pp. 74 through 75; NYSEPB 2009a, p. xiv), thus conserving 26,880 Gigawatt Hour (GWh) by 2015 (NYISO 2012b p. C-8). However, as discussed in more detail below, these energy efficiency goals have been difficult to achieve. Governor Andrew Cuomo stated that:

New York State is failing to achieve its efficiency goals by a wide margin (Cuomo 2010, p. 22).

X-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

a. Siting and Construction Based Upon Public Energy Needs IPEC is essential to meeting New York States energy needs in accordance with Policy

27. When considering the New York City area alone, IPEC provides up to 30 percent of the New York City areas base-load electricity (Lesser 2012, p. 2). The electricity generated by IPEC is essential to maintaining the stability of the transmission grid and to achieving compliance with accepted reliability standards established by the New York State Reliability Council and the Northeast Power Coordinating Council as approved by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and ultimately the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (NYSEPB 2009e, p. 22; NYISO 2012b, pp. 8, 42 through 43, A-7).

IPECs continued operation substantially reduces the likelihood of outages, absent construction of new facilities (NYSEPB 2009a, p. 64). Loss of IPECs generation capacity would exacerbate the transfer limits upon which southeastern New York relies to augment existing capacity (NYISO 2012b, p. 42).

b. Siting and Construction Compatibility With the Environment IPEC is a critical component of New Yorks commitment to reduce GHG emissions, fight the causes of global warming, prevent acid rain, and preserve air quality. Compared to fossil-fuel driven power plants, nuclear power plants emit substantially lower amounts of criteria air pollutants such as CO2, NOx, SO2, CO, PM, VOC, or ozone (see also Section XI below) (NEI 2004, p. 32) (Attachment 36). USNRCs FSEIS noted that GHG emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle are substantially lower compared to an equivalent coal-fired plant (USNRC 2010, pp. 6-12 through 6-13) (Attachment 22). Replacement of IPECs electricity production by primarily fossil-fired units would lead to an increase in emissions of approximately 13.5 million metric tons for CO2, 6,400 tons for SO2, and 3,300 tons for NOx (NERA 2012, pp. E-4, 40).86 IPEC License Renewal will entail no change in the topography or terrestrial ecology.

With respect to the aquatic ecology of the Hudson River in the vicinity of IPEC, more than 35 years of data and analysis demonstrate that IPEC operations do not alter the community structure, food chain relationships, species diversity, predator/prey relationships, population size, mortality rates, reproductive rates, behavioral patterns, and migratory patterns of the fish species utilizing the Hudson River (Barnthouse et al. 2008) (Attachment 8). Comprehensive and continuous river-wide monitoring of fish populations and resulting data analyses have fully characterized the river-wide distribution and abundance of the fish populations potentially susceptible to entrainment and impingement at IPEC, and show that IPEC operations have no adverse impact on the Hudson River aquatic environment or its indigenous fish populations as 86 New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC) press release states:

[t]he two operational Indian Point units have significant strategic value as their continued operation reduces the amount of air pollutant emissions in the New York metropolitan area (NYSPSC 2010, p. 2).

X-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 the result of entrainment and impingement. Moreover, IPECs discharges are subject to applicable water quality standards specified in the SPDES permit.

c. Siting and Construction Based Upon Need for Shorefront Location IPEC is a water-dependent facility and requires a shorefront location for cooling water, and barge delivery of large equipment such as steam generators and transformers.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 27 does not apply to IPEC License Renewal since IPEC License Renewal does not involve the siting or construction of a major new energy facility; IPEC is already sited and constructed. IPEC supplies energy in an area of high demand and at a location on the transmission grid that relies on IPEC to supply the high voltage necessary to maintain grid stability The production of electricity at IPEC does not result in emissions of criteria air pollutants, GHG, or acid rain precursors. IPEC requires a shorefront location to withdraw the necessary water for cooling purposes and to receive barge shipments of large equipment necessary for the production and transmission of electricity.

B. Policy 28 - Ice Management Policy 28 provides that:

[i]ce management practices shall not interfere with the production of hydroelectric power, damage significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, or increase shoreline erosion or flooding (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 89).87

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 28 Ice management is sometimes conducted at power plants to minimize the vulnerability of the plant cooling system to blockage by ice (ISE 2008, p. 4). While seasonal ice conditions do occur at certain locations along the Hudson River, IPEC has not experienced any issues associated with intake structure blockage due to ice loading, pancake ice, or frazil ice. Diver reports indicate that small portions of ice can be seen in the river during winter, but they are 87 According to NYSDOS guidance, [p]rior to undertaking actions required for ice management, an assessment must be made of the potential effects of such actions ... This assessment should consider the production of hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife and their habitats as identified in the Coastal Area Maps, flood levels and damage, rates of shoreline erosion damage, and effects on natural protective features. The guidance also provides that adequate methods of avoidance or mitigation of such potential effects should be utilized if the ice management practices are to be implemented (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 89).

X-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 above the flow of water for the intake and therefore do not cause blockage. The deicing systems originally installed at IPEC have been retired due to the lack of problems caused by ice blockage (ISE 2008, Appendix 3 pp. 51 through 52). However, the cooling water intakes have ice curtain walls extending one foot below mean low water (MLW) at the entrance to each of the forebays, which prevent ice from entering the bay (Entergy 2007a, p. 3-3) (Attachment 1).

Because the ice curtains are effective at preventing ice from entering the intake bays, no additional ice management measures are used or needed at the IPEC site, and this is not expected to change during License Renewal. These passive ice management measures do not interfere with hydroelectric power, do not damage significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, and do not increase shoreline erosion or flooding.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 28 is inapplicable to License Renewal. IPEC has not experienced any issues associated with blockage of the intakes due to ice. The use of ice curtain walls will not interfere with the production of hydroelectric power, damage significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, or increase shoreline erosion or flooding. If and to the extent Policy 28 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 28.

C. Policy 29 - Development of New, Indigenous Energy Resources Policy 29 seeks to:

[e]ncourage the development of energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie and in other water bodies, and ensure the environmental safety of such activities (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 90).88

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 29 IPEC is an existing facility along the Hudson River. Policy 29 does not apply to IPEC License Renewal as it is not on the Outer Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie and in other water bodies (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 90).

88 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 29 states:

[t]he State recognizes the need to develop new indigenous energy sources. It also recognizes that such development may endanger the environment. Among the various energy sources being examined are those which may be found on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) or in Lake Erie. The State has been encouraging the wise development of both (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 90).

NYSDOS goes on to specifically discuss drilling for oil and natural gas within the outer continental shelf and Lake Erie (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, pp. 90 through 91).

X-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings IPEC already exists next to the Hudson River. Policy 29 applies to newly-proposed energy facilities within coastal waters and is not applicable to IPEC License Renewal.

X-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 XI. WATER AND AIR RESOURCES POLICIES Policies 30 through 40 deal with certain activities within or near the coastal zone, such as industrial discharges (Policy 30); innovative sanitary waste systems (Policy 32); stormwater, Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), and non-point discharges (Policies 33 and 37); discharge of vessel wastes (Policy 34); dredge and fill activities (Policy 35); hazardous materials handling and spill response (Policy 36); solid and hazardous wastes management (Policy 39); and steam electric generating effluents (Policy 40). Policies 31 and 38 protect public water supplies.

Policies 41 through 43 protect air quality.

A. Policy 30 - Industrial Discharge of Pollutants Policy 30 states that:

[m]unicipal, industrial, and commercial discharge of pollutants, including but not limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, into coastal waters will conform to State and National water quality standards (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 92).89

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 30 IPECs effluent discharges are regulated by a SPDES permit (# NY-0004472) issued by NYSDEC.90 This SPDES permit establishes effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions intended to assure that all permitted industrial discharges are in compliance with New York State ECL, Article 17, Title 8 and the federal CWA, as amended (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.). IPECs SPDES permit limits pollutant discharges to levels that comply with WQS including NYSDECs thermal WQS (6 NYCRR §704.2), as NYSDEC staff recently confirmed (NYSDEC 2011e, 2012h) (Attachments 43 and 44).

Entergy implements and will continue to implement USEPA- and NYSDEC-mandated spill prevention and control plans, which minimize the likelihood of unplanned discharges or spills of oil or chemicals and which ensure prompt response activities in the event of an unplanned discharge.

89 NYSDOS guidance on implementing Policy 30 states that:

[m]unicipal, industrial and commercial discharges include not only "end-of-the pipe" discharges into surface and groundwater but also plant site run-off, leaching, spillages, sludge and other waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage sites. Also, the regulated industrial discharges are both those which directly empty into receiving coastal waters and those which pass through municipal treatment systems before reaching the State's waterways (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 92).

90 The permit is provided as part of Attachment 1.

XI-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No change of existing operations is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. IPECs discharges are subject to the limits set by its SPDES permit; those limits are established to ensure conformance with WQS. If and to the extent Policy 30 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 30.

B. Policy 31 - Triennial Reviews of WQS Policy 31 states that:

[s]tate coastal area policies and management objectives of approved local Waterfront Revitalization Programs will be considered while reviewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water quality standards; however, those waters already over-burdened with contaminants will be recognized as being a development constraint (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p.

93).91

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 31 Policy 31 relates to NYSDECs obligations under §303(d) and §305(b) of the federal CWA to conduct triennial reviews to determine whether New Yorks surface waters meet the numeric WQS as set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 703 and the best usages set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 701. Policy 31 recommends that during its triennial review, NYSDEC should consider the LWRPs and NYCMP policies; however, the requirements established under the CWA control NYSDECs review process.

91 NYSDOS provides the following explanation of its objectives in adopting Policy 31:

Pursuant to the Federal CWA of 1977 (Pub. L. No.95-217) the State has classified its coastal and other waters in accordance with considerations of best usage in the interest of the public and has adopted water quality standards for each class of waters. These classifications and standards are reviewable at least every three years for possible revision or amendment. Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs and State coastal management policies shall be factored into the review process for coastal waters.

The State has identified certain stream segments as being either "water quality limiting" or "effluent limiting." along stream segments classified as "water quality limiting," waste treatment beyond best practicable treatment would be required, and costs of applying such additional treatment may be prohibitive for new development. (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 93)

XI-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 31 applies to NYSDECs triennial review of WQS and, therefore, is not applicable to IPEC License Renewal. Policy 31 relates to NYSDECs obligations to comply with the federal CWA and to consider LWRPs and the NYCMP in doing so.

C. Policy 32 - Innovative Sanitary Waste Systems Policy 32 seeks to [e]ncourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems in small communities where the costs of conventional facilities are unreasonably high, given the size of the existing tax base of these communities (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap.

II-6, p. 93).92

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 32 This policy is directed toward municipalities and/or sewer districts, which have primary responsibility for regulating the treatment and disposal of sanitary wastes in communities. Those entities are encouraged to promote installation of cost-effective alternative technology sewer systems consistent with their fiscal constraints. Most of IPECs sanitary wastes are discharged to Buchanans POTW for treatment and disposal (Entergy 2007a, pp. 3-20 and 9-3; USNRC 2010,

p. 2-23) (Attachments 1 and 22). The remainder is discharged to septic tanks, which are pumped out by a licensed septic system contractor, and treated and disposed of at a licensed off-site disposal facility. Entergy intends to continue this practice under IPEC License Renewal (Entergy 2007a, pp. 3-20 and 9-3).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 32 is directed toward municipalities and/or sewer districts. Entergy is not responsible for regulating the treatment and disposal of sanitary wastes within Buchanan.

Therefore, Policy 32 does not apply to IPEC License Renewal.

92 NYSDOS guidance on Policy 32 states:

[a]lternative systems include individual septic tanks and other subsurface disposal systems, dual systems, small systems serving clusters of house-holds or commercial users, and pressure or vacuum sewers. These types of systems are often more cost effective in smaller less densely populated communities and for which conventional facilities are too expensive (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 93).

XI-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 D. Policies 33 and 37 - Best Management Practices for Stormwater, CSOs, and Non-Point Source Discharges Policies 33 and 37 relate to the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control discharges of pollutants in stormwater into coastal waters. Policy 33 addresses stormwater runoff and CSOs, and Policy 37 addresses non-point source discharges of excess nutrients, organics, and eroded soils. These policies are as follows:

POLICY 33: BMPs will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6,

p. 94);93 and POLICY 37: BMPs will be utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coastal waters (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6,

p. 97).94

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 33 BMPs that are required by NYSDEC and currently being implemented at IPEC will continue during the License Renewal period. IPECs SPDES permit incorporates BMPs to control stormwater runoff from specific areas. NYSDEC regulates stormwater management under 6 NYCRR Part 750, and ECL 17-0808. Entergy has procedures in place pursuant to SPDES Permit # NY-0004472 (NYSDEC 1987) to ensure IPECs compliance with the applicable NYSDEC stormwater BMPs (Entergy 2007a, pp. 9-8 through 9-9; USNRC 2010, pp.

E-4 and E-5).

93 Drawing on the definition of BMPs in §600.2(e) of 19 NYCRR Part 600 and the requirements for when BMPs are to be applied in §600.5(h), NYSDOS provides the following guidance on the implementation of Policy 33 (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 94). Specifically, NYSDOS notes that BMPs:

include both structural and non-structural methods of preventing or mitigating pollution caused by the discharge of storm water runoff and combined sewer overflows.

NYSDOSs explanation of Policy 33 further states that:

[a]t present, structural approaches to controlling storm water runoff (e.g.,

construction of retention basins) and combined sewer overflows (e.g.,

replacement of combined system with separate sanitary and stormwater collection systems) are not economically feasible. Until funding for such projects becomes available, non-structural approaches (e.g., improved street cleaning, reduced use of road salt) will be encouraged. (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 94) 94 NYSDOSs explanation of Policy 37 states that:

[b]est management practices used to reduce these sources of pollution could include but are not limited to, encouraging organic farming and pest management principles, soil erosion control practices, and surface drainage control techniques. (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 97)

XI-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Stormwater discharges are routinely monitored, and BMPs (structural and non-structural) have been and/or will be implemented, as specified by permit conditions (Entergy 2009, Exhibit D, p. 4). These BMPs may include various combinations of structural methods (i.e., a stormwater collection system, retention basins, use of silt fences during construction activities, hay bale dikes, and secondary containment structures) as well as non-structural methods (e.g.,

inspections, and monitoring) (Entergy 2006b, p. 30; Entergy 2006c, p. 30).

40 CFR Part 112 requires the owner or operator of certain oil storage equipment to develop a SPCC Plan, which must then be approved by a professional engineer (Entergy 2006b, pp. 11 and 13; Entergy 2006c, pp. 10 and 13). Pursuant to this requirement, IPEC has developed SPCC Plans for Units 2 and 3, which among several things, provide control measures to ensure that collected precipitation is inspected and monitored for the presence of oil prior to discharging to the discharge canal in conformance with applicable limits in IPECs SPDES permit (Entergy 2006b, p. 30; Entergy 2006c, p. 30). The IP2 and IP3 SPCC Plans also require that aboveground tanks, underground tanks, diked storage areas, aboveground valves, and aboveground piping are visually inspected to monitor and correct conditions that could result in the discharge of pollutants (Entergy 2006b, pp. 21 through 23; Entergy 2006c, pp. 21 through 23). IPEC also operates and adheres to Site Procedures IP-SMM-EV-102 (SPDES Permit Administration)

(Entergy 2004b) and 0-CY-1245 (SPDES Permit Compliance) (Entergy 2011l). As noted above, IPEC has an on-site stormwater program monitoring system (Entergy 2006b, p. 30; Entergy 2006c, p. 30). The plant is designed so that accidental releases from tanks are contained within sumps or oily water separators, and visual inspections of the SPDES stormwater outfalls are routinely conducted (Entergy 2006b, p. 30; Entergy 2006c, p. 30). Diked areas are visually inspected for oil prior to drainage and discharge of rainwater (Entergy 2006b, p. 23; Entergy 2006c, p. 23). When specified by SPDES permit conditions, BMPs are utilized, including the use of control technologies, retention basins, silt fences, hay bale dikes, monitoring, and inspections.

USEPA defines CSOs as an overflow of rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater, during periods of heavy rainfall, directly to a stream, river, or water body (USEPA 2012e). CSOs in the vicinity of IPEC are under the control of local governmental entities such as Buchanan. IPEC does not control the procedures for managing CSO overflows.

Most of the sanitary wastewater from IPEC is transferred to Buchanans POTW system for treatment. A few isolated areas at IPEC are served by septic tanks (USNRC 2010, p. 2-23).

These septic tanks are pumped out by a licensed septic system contractor, and shipped to a licensed offsite facility for treatment (Entergy 2007a, pp. 3-20 and 9-3).

2. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 37 IPEC operates subject to its SPDES permit # NY-0004472, as discussed above, that incorporates BMPs to control stormwater runoff. There are no activities at the IPEC site that would result in any significant non-point discharge of nutrients, organics, or eroded soils, which would affect coastal waters.

XI-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Herbicide and pesticide use is minimal; those substances are only used periodically for the control of weeds and insects such as wasps (Entergy 2007a, pp. 2-22 and 9-4 through 9-5).

Both are applied in minimal amounts by using hand-controlled sprayers operated by NYSDEC-licensed applicators, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 325 (Entergy 2007a). Fertilizers are used for on-site landscaping on inland portions of the site. IPECs shoreline consists of operational buildings, armored shoreline, bulkheads, piers, and other man-made structures, which do not require the application of pesticides or fertilizers.

As discussed in Section III.C, sodium hypochlorite95 is used at the IPEC site to control biofouling in the cooling water system in accordance with SPDES permit NY-0004472. Sodium hypochlorite usage at the site is registered under IP2s Pesticide Application Business Registration 12696 and IP3s Pesticide Application Business Registration 13163 (Entergy 2007a,

p. 9-4; USNRC 2010, p. E-4). Sodium hypochlorite is also managed under the IP2 and IP3 Chemical Bulk Storage (CBS) Certificates 3-000107 and 3-00071, respectively (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-10; USNRC 2010, p. E-5) and NYSDEC regulatory requirements (6 NYCRR Part 595 through 599). Entergy complies with the NYSDEC registrations and certifications discussed above, and with the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 325. Any spill from the IP2 sodium hypochlorite tanks would be into the secondary containment structure from where it could be collected and removed, or reused for biofouling prevention. Any spill at the IP3 sodium hypochlorite tank would be directed first to the Condensate Polisher facility and then to the High and Low Total Dissolved Solids Tanks. These tanks discharge to Outfall 001L, which is a regulated internal monitoring point under IPECs SPDES permit NY-000472; monitoring for total residual chlorine is required for outfall 001L. This configuration essentially eliminates the likelihood of a spill that would result in a non-point source discharge. Moreover, only trained station personnel inject the sodium hypochlorite at the intake structure. In conclusion, the storage location, BMPs required by the IPEC SPDES permit, and the injection methods minimize any potential for sodium hypochlorite to be present in runoff from IPEC.

3. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No change of existing operations or BMPs is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal.

IPEC operates subject to applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to stormwater runoff and non-point discharge of nutrients, organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters. If and to the extent Policies 33 and 37 are deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 33 and Policy 37.

95 Sodium hypochlorite falls within the definition of pesticides at 6 NYCRR Part 325.

XI-6

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 E. Policy 34 - Vessel Wastes Policy 34 states that:

[d]ischarge of waste materials into coastal waters from vessels subject to State jurisdiction will be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 95).96

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 34 Entergy owns and operates a 15-foot boat for use in support of IPECs environmental monitoring and testing programs; this boat is not equipped with sanitary facilities or sanitary waste holding tanks (Entergy 2010a). IPEC receives shipments of equipment via barge; however, these barges are not under Entergys ownership or control. Any vessels that make deliveries to IPEC are required to meet the requirements of NYSDECs general NPDES permit issued in 2008 by the USEPA, which regulates the discharge of wastes from vessels, including barges (USEPA 2011f). NYSDEC implements this general permit pursuant to its delegation of authority from USEPA under the CWA.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No change in operations is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. Entergy does not operate vessels at IPEC that discharge waste materials into coastal waters. Therefore, Policy 34 is not applicable to IPEC License Renewal.

96 NYSDOS guidance on Coastal Policy 34 states:

All untreated sanitary waste from vessels is prohibited from being discharged into the States coastal waters. Where coastal resources or activities require greater protection than afforded by this requirement the State may designate vessel waste no discharge zones. Within these no discharge zones the discharge of all vessel waste whether treated or not is prohibited. A determination from EPA that an adequate number of vessel waste pumpout stations exists is necessary before the State can designate a no discharge zone. The State prepared a Clean Vessel Act Plan which identifies the coastal waters for which no discharge zones are needed and the number of vessel waste pump outs required to obtain the determination from EPA. The discharge of other wastes from vessels is limited by State law (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p.

95).

The Hudson River from north of the Battery in Manhattan to south of the Federal Dam in Troy (including RM 42) is a no-discharge zone per Section 312(f)(3) of the CWA and 40 CFR 140.4(a) (68 Fed. Reg. 58345).

XI-7

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 F. Policy 35 - Dredge and Fill Activities Policy 35 states that:

[d]redging and filling in coastal waters and disposal of dredged material will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements, and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 96).97

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 35 No dredging or filling is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. The two shoreline intake structures (IP2 and IP3) are described in detail in Section I. The bottoms of the intake bays are located 27 feet below MSL (USNRC 2010, p. 2-9). If necessary to accommodate the depth of the coolant pump bays, the accumulated sediment directly adjacent to IPECs CWISs may be dredged on an as-needed basis to 27 feet below MSL (Entergy 2007a, p. 3-3) to facilitate water flow (Entergy 2007a, p. 4-82).

These dredging activities have been and, if needed, would continue to be conducted pursuant to conditions in permits issued by USACE under §404 of the federal CWA and Excavation or Placement of Fill in Navigable Waters permits issued by NYSDEC pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 608 (Use and Protection of Waters). Any dredged materials would be disposed of in a licensed upland disposal facility, as required by applicable regulations, and therefore would not pose a threat to ecological communities of the Hudson River (Entergy 2007a, p. 2-9). If needed, such dredging activities likely would be conducted pursuant to an USACE NWP 3 Maintenance (77 Fed. Reg. 10184, 10270), which requires compliance with General Condition 31, Pre-Construction Notice (PCN). The PCN for maintenance dredging at IPEC would be required to include information regarding the original design capacities and configurations of the outfalls, intakes, canals (77 Fed. Reg. 10184, 10286). Other General Conditions applicable to NWP 3 would require that dredging be restricted to times of the year which protect water quality, 97 NYSDOS recognizes that dredging, filling, and disposing of dredge material are activities typically associated with waterfront revitalization and development (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 96). They are necessary for maintaining navigation channels at sufficient depths, removing pollutants, and meeting other coastal management needs. Such activities, however, may adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands, and other important coastal resources. NYSDOS guidance states that these adverse effects can be minimized through careful design and timing of the dredging or filling activities, proper siting of dredge material disposal sites, and the beneficial use of dredged material (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 96).

NYSDOS notes that projects deemed consistent with Policy 35 are those that can satisfactorily demonstrate that they would undertake measures to reduce anticipated adverse effects, as required under NYSDEC Protection of Waters permits issued pursuant to ECL Articles 15, 24, 25, and 34 and are consistent with policies pertaining to the protection and use of coastal resources (i.e., Policies 7, 15, 19, 20, 24, 26, and 44) (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 96).

XI-8

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 fish and other aquatic species, wetlands, and habitats located within the vicinity of the CWIS (77 Fed. Reg. 10184, 10282).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No dredging or filling is proposed as part of License Renewal. If needed, any additional dredging and filling during License Renewal would be undertaken pursuant to federal and State permits that impose the requisite conditions to ensure consistency with Policy 35 and its objectives. Therefore, if and to the extent deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 35.

G. Policy 36 - Spill Response and Hazardous Material Management Policy 36 addresses the minimization of spills relating to the shipment and storage of petroleum products and other hazardous materials. Policy 36 states that:

[a]ctivities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum and other hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will prevent or at least minimize spills into coastal waters; all practicable efforts will be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and restitution for damages will be required when these spills occur (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 97).98

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 36 No change in existing activities is proposed as part of License Renewal.

IPEC receives and stores diesel fuel and wastewater treatment chemicals that are within NYSDOS definition of petroleum and hazardous materials. These materials, the quantities stored on-site, and the storage methods are presented in Tables XI-1 and XI-2 (Entergy 2006b, pp. 35 through 39; Entergy 2006c, pp. 34 through 36).

NYSDEC regulates petroleum bulk storage under the authority of 6 NYCRR Parts 610-614 and 17 NYCRR Parts 30 and 32. IPEC has procedures in place to ensure that petroleum and other hazardous materials used on-site are safely handled and stored. In addition, IPEC facilities 98 Policy 36 does not include a definition of hazardous materials. Instead, it references Policy 39, which defines hazardous wastes based on the definition in Title 9 of the ECL. Section 27-0901(3) defines hazardous wastes as wastes that:

may: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or otherwise managed.

XI-9

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 have the appropriate registrations, licenses, and procedures in place to prevent, report and respond to spills. Onsite, CBS is regulated by NYSDEC under 6 NYCRR Parts 595-599. IP2 and IP3 have in place Chemical Spill Prevention Programs, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 598 and 599, to prevent the discharge of hazardous chemicals to surface waters and their tributaries.

In summary, IPEC facilities have the appropriate registrations and procedures in place for proper materials handling and storage; spill prevention, response, and reporting; and storage systems inspection, maintenance, and repair. IPEC also has processes and procedures in place to ensure that hazardous chemicals stored and used on-site are managed in accordance with applicable State and federal regulations so as to prevent the release of these materials to coastal waters (Entergy 2007a; USNRC 2010, pp. 1-7 through 1-8).

As previously discussed in Policy 33 above, IP2 and IP3 have SPCC Plans in place as required under 40 CFR 112 to prevent the discharge of oil to surface waters or surface water tributaries (Entergy 2006b, p. 13; Entergy 2006c, p. 13). These SPCC Plans describe the procedures, materials, equipment, and facilities that are utilized at IPEC for managing oil storage containers in an effort to minimize the frequency and severity of oil spills (Entergy 2006b, p. 8; Entergy 2006c, p. 8). The ultimate goal of the SPCC Plans is to minimize the risk of a discharge into navigable waters of the United States and waters of the State of New York (Entergy 2006b,

p. 13; Entergy 2006c, p. 13).

The SPCC Plans also establish internal procedures for routine inspections and emergency response plans, and personnel have been trained on their implementation (Entergy 2006b, pp. 13 and 23; Entergy 2006c, pp. 13 and 23). These internal procedures require personnel to follow a protocol to prevent potential spills during the routine handling of oil products (Entergy 2006b, p.

16; Entergy 2006c, p. 16), to conduct inspections once per shift of equipment, and to conduct visual inspections of the site (Entergy 2006b, p. 17; Entergy 2006c, p. 17). If any leaks are detected, then Entergy implements the SPCC Plans response and cleanup procedures (Entergy 2006b, p. 18; Entergy 2006c, p. 18) and the leak is corrected in accordance with IPECs corrective action program. Above-ground tanks are visually inspected on a monthly basis (Entergy 2006b, p. 29; Entergy 2006c, p. 29). The only exceptions are those tanks with bottoms flush against the floor; these tanks are inspected at a 10-year interval as part of IPECs Preventative Maintenance Program (Entergy 2006b, p. 22; Entergy 2006c, p. 22). The integrity of underground tanks is verified through annual testing in accordance with site procedures (Entergy 2006b, p. 22; Entergy 2006c, p. 22). Daily inventory records, reconciled on a ten-day basis, are required to be kept for all underground storage tanks (NYSDEC 2012f).

NYSDEC regulates petroleum bulk storage, including diesel fuel, under the authority of 6 NYCRR Parts 610-614 and 17 NYCRR Parts 30 and 32. As required by these regulations, IP2 is licensed by Major Oil Storage Facility License 3-2140 (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-11; USNRC 2010, p.

E-5) and IP3 is registered under Petroleum Bulk Storage Registration Certificate 3-166367 with the Westchester County Department of Health (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-11; USNRC 2010, p. E-6).

These storage tanks must meet minimum requirements as established by the USEPA and NYSDEC (NYSDEC 2012l). In addition, these petroleum bulk storage tanks are included in the IP2 and IP3 SPCC Plans (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-4).

XI-10

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 As established by the SPCC Plan, the following IPEC procedures are in place to respond to a spill or leak (Entergy 2006b, pp. 41 through 46; Entergy 2006c, pp. 41 through 44):

SMM-EV-101 Procedures (Spill/Release Response Plan) govern spills and releases that are not a potential threat to offsite health or safety (Entergy 2006b, p. 18; Entergy 2006c, p. 17);

FP-20 Procedures (Hazardous Materials) identify the materials which could be released and the equipment and practices available to mitigate such a release (Entergy 2006b, p. 18; Entergy 2006c, p. 17);

FP-21 Procedures (Hazardous Materials Response Team Standard Operating Procedures) establish guidelines for handling material incidences at IPEC, and provide a HazMat Response Team contact list (Entergy 2006b, p. 18; Entergy 2006c,

p. 18);

IP-1052 Procedure (Hazardous Waste Emergency) details spill or release responses for the emergency response personnel to minimize hazards to human health and the environment (Entergy 2006b, p. 18; Entergy 2006c, p. 18); and PFM-103, DEC Reporting, requires monthly visual inspections and reporting of tanks and containment structures (Entergy 2006b, p. 18; Entergy 2006c, p. 18).

In addition to petroleum storage, the bulk storage of certain chemicals (e.g., sodium hypochlorite used to treat the once-through cooling water) also is regulated by NYSDEC under 6 NYCRR Parts 595-599. The sodium hypochlorite is stored and managed under the IP2 and IP3 CBS Certificates 3-000107 and 3-00071, respectively, pursuant to the requirements specified in the applicable NYSDEC regulations (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-10; USNRC 2010, p. E-5). The requirements for this storage include registrations, specifications, periodic inspection, and testing of all tanks.

Any spill of hazardous material must be reported to NYSDEC, as required by 6 NYCRR Part 595.3 (Entergy 2009, p. 11). Entergy has conducted all corrective actions for its infrequent spills in a prompt manner.

IPEC operates in accordance with applicable licenses, registrations, permits, plans, and procedures to ensure compliance with State and federal regulations. Activities are being conducted at IPEC so as to prevent or minimize spills into coastal waters relating to the shipment and storage of petroleum and hazardous materials. Under License Renewal, IPEC will remain subject to all applicable federal and State regulations, as well as the plans, procedures, and administrative controls that Entergy has developed and implemented pursuant to these regulations.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No change of existing activities at IPEC is proposed as part of License Renewal. The transportation and storage of petroleum products and hazardous materials on-site at IPEC are subject to comprehensive federal and State regulations. These laws and regulations were XI-11

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 developed with the express intent of preventing and/or minimizing spills into coastal waters and, in the event a spill occurs, to mitigate its effects in a timely and appropriate manner. If and to the extent Policy 36 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 36.

H. Policy 38 - Protection of Surface Water and Groundwater Supplies Policy 38 states that: [t]he quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies, will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 99).99

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 38 No change of activities that could affect groundwater or surface water is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal.

No potable water sources in the area of IPEC rely on either groundwater or the Hudson River.100 The 2010 USNRC FSEIS summarizes the findings of NYSDEC and NYSDOH that there are no residential or municipal drinking water wells in the vicinity of IPEC and that there are no known impacts to any drinking water source (USNRC 2010, p. 2-111).

IPEC uses Hudson River water for cooling purposes, but does not use groundwater as a resource for any plant operations or as a potable water source. IPEC discharges to surface water are regulated by NYSDEC under IPECs SPDES permit, which requires compliance with applicable WQS and other relevant criteria.101 Furthermore, solid and hazardous waste 99 NYSDOS guidance on implementation of Policy 38 states that:

[s]urface and groundwater are the principal sources of drinking water in the State, and therefore must be protected. (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6,

p. 98) 100 USNRC (2010, p. 2-111) (Attachment 22). Entergy is aware that United Water New York, Inc. has filed applications with various State agencies for the construction and operation of a desalination plant in the Village of Haverstraw to serve as a supplemental source of potable water for Rockland County. NYSDEC certified the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as complete and issued draft permits in January 2012. An application is pending before USACE.

101 Ground water testing at the IPEC site has detected low levels of radionuclide contaminants (ENERCON 2010a, Attachment 3 p. 4). Regulation of radiological discharges from IPEC is within the exclusive jurisdiction and control of USNRC, and is not a consideration under the NYCMP. See Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, Inc., 426 U.S. 1, 16 (1976). Accordingly, IPECs low-level radiological effluent releases into the Hudson River are regulated by the USNRC (2005; Entergy 2011o) and are considered to be well within the public safety-based dose limits established by USNRC (2009, Enclosure p. 2).

Based on its review of radioactive effluent release reports from 2002 through 2009, USNRC determined that radiological release levels were well within the acceptable limits in IPECs Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and, therefore, are deemed to be negligible with respect to public health and safety and the environment (USNRC 2010, pp. 2-111 through 2-114). NYSDEC supported the conclusion that radionuclide releases to groundwater that reached the Hudson River did not violate NYSDEC WQS and that there is no effect XI-12

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 management practices are subject to applicable federal and State regulatory requirements, resulting in the protection of groundwater (Section XI.I, above).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No change of IPECs operations is proposed as part of License Renewal. The Hudson River and groundwater in the vicinity of IPEC are not used as a source of drinking water.

IPECs discharges to surface water are subject to applicable State and federal requirements which require compliance with WQS. Therefore, if and to the extent Policy 38 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 38.

I. Policy 39 - Solid Wastes And Hazardous Wastes Policy 39 addresses the appropriate handling of solid and hazardous wastes:

[t]he transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands and scenic resources.102 on fish from the radionuclide releases to groundwater, and no public health concern associated with eating fish from the Hudson River (NYSDEC 2008).

There is no scientific basis to conclude that releases of radionuclides to groundwater that migrated to the Hudson River have impaired or will impair the use of the Hudson River for its best uses (i.e., primary and secondary contact recreation and suitability for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival) (NYSDEC 2008).

Nonetheless, Entergy has expanded its radiological environmental monitoring of Hudson River fish and invertebrates to include additional fish sampling in Haverstraw Bay (Entergy 2012o).

102 NYSDOS guidance on determining consistency with Policy 39 directs applicants to the definitions of solid and hazardous wastes and solid waste management facilities (SWMF) in Title 9 of the ECL. Section 27-0501 defines solid wastes as follows:

all materials or substances discarded or rejected as being spent, useless, worthless, or in excess to the owners at the time of such discard or rejection, including but not limited to garbage, refuse, industrial and commercial waste, sludges from air or water pollution control facilities or water supply treatment facilities, rubbish, ashes, contained gaseous material, incinerator residue, demolition and construction debris and offal, but not including sewage and other highly diluted water-carried materials or substances and those in gaseous form.

SWMFs are defined as:

any facility employed beyond the initial solid waste collection process, including but not limited to recycling centers, transfer stations, baling facilities, rail haul or barge haul facilities, processing systems, including resource recovery XI-13

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 39 Solid wastes, including small quantities of hazardous wastes, are generated and managed at IPEC. In general, on-site solid waste management activities at IPEC are limited to storage.

Solid wastes generated within the facility are transported by a licensed transporter to a facility licensed to manage the materials. IPEC does not treat or dispose of solid wastes on-site and has appropriate on-site facilities designed and constructed to store these wastes properly.

Additionally, IPEC operates in conformance with the requisite regulatory permits and/or approvals. IPECs waste management and storage practices are designed and implemented to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations for the protection of the resources of the state, including groundwater and surface waters, and fish and wildlife habitats. No change in existing solid or hazardous waste management requirements and procedures is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal.

A brief overview of the various wastes and the waste management practices at IPEC is provided below, along with the regulatory controls in place to ensure proper waste management.

Non-hazardous wastes produced from plant maintenance, cleaning and operational processes.

These include waste oil and oily debris from the operation and maintenance of oil-filled equipment and universal wastes such as spent fluorescent bulbs and batteries. Non-hazardous waste containers are stored inside enclosed buildings equipped to contain any potential leakage or spills. These wastes are collected in central collection areas prior to final disposition at an offsite facility licensed by NYSDEC to receive and manage the material.

These wastes are managed in accordance with the Entergy Waste Management Program to meet all regulatory requirements (Entergy 2007a, p. 3-20).

Small quantities of hazardous wastes, such as shelf-life expired chemicals, laboratory chemical wastes and project-specific wastes such as those associated with repair work, are generated and stored at IPEC. As discussed above, these wastes also are collected in central collection areas and managed in accordance with the Entergy Waste Management Program prior to final disposal at an offsite NYSDEC-licensed facility (Entergy 2007a, p. 3-20).

As discussed in Policy 36, IPEC is subject to and must comply with NYSDECs regulations in 6 NYCRR Parts 360 and 370-376. Requirements associated with these regulations include, but are not limited to, obtaining an identification number prior to treating, storing, disposing, transporting, or offering for transportation hazardous waste; storage and inspection practices; waste shipments; contingency measures; spill response and cleanup actions; regulatory reporting; and transportation. IPEC has the necessary USEPA identification numbers to generate facilities or other facilities for reducing solid waste volume, sanitary landfills, plants and facilities for compacting, composting or pyrolization of solid waste, incinerators and other solid waste disposal, reduction or conversion facilities.

NYSDOS guidance also notes that other factors relevant to determining consistency with Policy 39 include related issues, such as filling of wetlands and littoral areas, atmospheric loading, and degradation of scenic resources (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 99).

XI-14

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 and offer hazardous waste for transportation via Hazardous Waste Generator Identification Numbers NYD991304411 (IP2) and NYD085503746 (IP3). IP2 also manages mixed hazardous wastes on site in accordance with the NYSDEC Part 373 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal permit (NYD991304411). IPEC operates and adheres to Entergy Procedures EN-EV-104 (Waste Minimization), EN-EV-106 (Waste Management Program), IP-SMM-EV-101 (IPEC Spill/Release Response Plan), IP-SMM-EV-107 (IPEC Contingency Plan), FP-20 (Hazardous Materials), FP-21 (Hazardous Materials Response Team Standard Operating Procedure), and IP-1052 (Hazardous Waste Emergency - implementing the Emergency Plan).

These procedures ensure that nonhazardous and hazardous waste generated and stored on-site are properly managed and inspected, that transportation requirements are met, that spill prevention measures are in place, that reporting obligations are fulfilled in the event of a spill, and that prompt systematic response and cleanup actions are taken in the event of a spill to minimize any potential impact to coastal waters.

After USEPAs promulgation of mixed waste regulations in 40 CFR Part 266, USEPA issued permits for the storage of mixed wastes at IPEC. Upon NYSDECs adoption of the conditional mixed waste exemption regulations, Entergy requested that NYSDEC terminate IP2s Hazardous Waste Part 373 Permit NYD991304411 upon its scheduled expiration date of February 27, 2007 (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-4). In connection with Entergys request to terminate this permit, NYSDEC required Entergy to implement a soil and groundwater monitoring program in the vicinity of certain areas identified as having been associated with solid waste collection areas by IP2s previous owner. Certain samples indicated the presence of some metals, including selenium and chromium, which are not associated with IPECs operations.

None of these metals are present in the soils or groundwater in concentrations that interfere with the protection of groundwater or surface water supplies. Pending completion of this investigation, NYSDEC is considering converting the Hazardous Waste Part 373 Permit into a Corrective Action Permit relative to a current groundwater investigation program (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-4). At NYSDECs request, Entergy submitted a permit renewal application in the form of a request for a Corrective Action Permit; therefore, the Hazardous Waste Part 373 Permit has been administratively continued while the Corrective Action Permit Application is under review (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-4).

Although the investigation did not indicate that the presence of the metals identified during the NYSDEC-required monitoring program is attributable to IPECs operation, Entergy is working cooperatively with NYSDEC to resolve this issue to NYSDECs satisfaction, consistent with all applicable regulations and sound science.

As set forth above, mixed and hazardous wastes at IPEC are packaged, stored, and shipped pursuant to permits and procedures in place to assure compliance with the applicable State and federal regulations. The permits, regulations, and procedures applicable to the use, storage, handling and off-site disposal of solid and hazardous wastes will provide appropriate protection for groundwater and surface water supplies, fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural land, and scenic resources.

XI-15

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No change in operations is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. Entergys solid waste management practices associated with the generation, transportation and storage of solid wastes, including hazardous and mixed wastes, are being and will continue to be conducted pursuant to applicable federal and State regulatory requirements, thereby ensuring the protection of the States resources, including ground and surface waters, and fish and wildlife habitat.

Therefore, if and to the extent Policy 39 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 39.

J. Policy 40 - Steam Electric Generating Effluents in Conformance with WQS Policy 40 provides that:

[e]ffluent discharged from major steam electric generating and industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and shall conform to State water quality standards. (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 100)103

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 40 No change of IPECs current operating procedures is proposed as part of License Renewal. SPDES Permit NY-0004472 governs industrial discharges from IPEC operations, imposing effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions which are intended to assure that all discharges comply with Title 8 of Article 17 of the ECL of New York State and the CWA, as amended (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.). The SPDES permit provides appropriate protection of aquatic habitats and is intended to assure conformance with WQS, including the applicable thermal standards as confirmed by NYSDEC (2012h, 2011e)

(Attachments 53, 43, and 44, respectively).

As discussed in greater detail in Appendix E, the effluents discharged from IPEC cause no material adverse effects on fish and wildlife. IPECs discharges are consistent with the propagation and protection of fish and wildlife. Based on analyses of over 35 years of fish 103 NYSDOS guidance on this policy notes that:

[t]he State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment must consider a number of factors when reviewing a proposed site for facility construction. One of these factors is that the facility should not discharge any effluent that will be unduly injurious to the propagation and protection of fish and wildlife, the industrial development of the State, the public health, and public enjoyment of the receiving waters. The effects of thermal discharges on water quality and aquatic organisms will be considered by the siting board when evaluating an applicant's request to construct a new steam electric generating facility (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 100).

XI-16

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 population data, IPEC does not impair fish populations or communities in the Hudson River (Appendices F and G). NYSDEC staff recently has reconfirmed that IPECs thermal discharge is in conformance with NYSDECs thermal WQS (NYSDEC 2011e, 2012h).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings No change of IPECs operations is proposed as part of License Renewal. Effluent discharges from IPEC are governed by a SPDES permit issued by NYSDEC which requires that discharges satisfy applicable water quality standards. If and to the extent Policy 40 is deemed applicable to License Renewal, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 40.

K. Policy 41 - Achieving NAAQS and SAAQS Policy 41 of the NYCMP provides that: [l]and use or development in the coastal area will not cause national or State air quality standards to be violated (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 101).104

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 41 Continued operation of IPEC is a critical component of New Yorks commitment to maintain compliance with federal and State air quality standards. NAAQS have been established for seven pollutants: NO2, SO2, CO, lead, ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 (USEPA 2012g).

For the purposes of assessing attainment with NAAQS, the relevant New York State counties are Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess.105 These counties are deemed to be in attainment with the NAAQS for SO2, PM10, and lead (USEPA 2012g).

Westchester County is a maintenance area for CO, while Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Dutchess Counties are in attainment for CO (USEPA 2012g). Although USEPA proposed to determine that these counties had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on January 25, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 3720), USEPA had strengthened the 8-hour ozone standards in 2008. On May 21, 104 NYSDOS (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 101) guidance on Policy 41 incorporates NYSDECs air quality policies and programs developed pursuant to New York State laws on air quality and the federal CAA.

The requirements of the CAA are the minimum air quality control requirements applicable within the coastal area.

To the extent possible, the State Implementation Plan will be consistent with coastal lands and water use policies. Conversely, coastal management guidelines and program decisions with regard to land and water use and any recommendations with regard to specific sites for major new or expanded industrial, energy, transportation, or commercial facilities will reflect an assessment of their compliance with the air quality requirements of the State Implementation Plan (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 101).

105 These are the five counties discussed in Appendix E Applicants Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage, Indian Point Energy Center (Entergy 2007a).

XI-17

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 2012, USEPA designated Westchester and Rockland Counties as marginal non-attainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 Fed. Reg. 30088), effective July 20, 2012. Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess Counties are in attainment with the 2008 8-hour standard. All five counties currently are in attainment with the annual average NO2 standard (USEPA 2012g) and have been designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 1-hour NO2 standard, effective February 29, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 9532). Putnam and Dutchess Counties are in attainment with the PM2.5 standard (USEPA 2012g), while Westchester, Rockland, and Orange counties are designated as non-attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS (USEPA 2012g).

NYSDEC (2012d, 2012i, 2012j, 2012k) has, for the most part, adopted the NAAQS as the SAAQS; for CO, annual NO2, and SO2, the SAAQS differ from the NAAQS in that the SAAQS are defined on a rolling 12-month basis rather than for a calendar year. NYSDEC (2012d) also has SAAQS for hydrocarbons (non-methane), beryllium, fluorides, hydrogen sulfide, and settleable particulates (dustfall).106 IPEC does not emit any of the NAAQS or SAAQS regulated pollutants in connection with the generation of electricity; however, IPEC emits very small quantities of NOx, SO2, CO, VOCs and PM from its small boilers and emergency diesel generators. The quantities of pollutants emitted from these sources at IPEC are orders of magnitude smaller than what would be emitted if IPECs generation were replaced with fossil-fueled generation. IPEC also could emit these pollutants from combustion turbines on site; however, these turbines are not in operation and there are no plans to operate them in the future (Entergy 2011n). New York State air permits for IP2 and IP3, 3-5522-00011/00026 and 3-5522-000105/00009, respectively, regulate emissions from the boilers, emergency generators, and turbines. These permits restrict NOx emissions to 23.75 tons (22 metric tons [MT]) per year per station by restricting engine run time and fuel consumption (USNRC 2010, p. 2-30). In addition to restrictions associated with operational run times and fuel consumption, IPEC utilizes ultra low sulfur diesel fuel oil, which further minimizes SO2 emissions. At these capped emission levels, IPEC is not a major source as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 201-2. NYSDEC also has not deemed it necessary to set emission limits applicable to IPEC for any of the other pollutants for which there are NAAQS or SAAQS. Entergy operates IPEC in accordance with the terms and conditions in these minor source air permits and is not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or SAAQS (Entergy 2007a; USNRC 2010, p. 2-30). Furthermore, permit conditions include the obligation to comply with NYSDECs regulation at 6 NYCRR Part 200-6 that prohibit emissions which would contravene any ambient air quality standard.

More importantly, IPEC helps achieve attainment of State and federal air quality standards in New York, especially throughout the Hudson Valley and New York City. Nuclear power generated by IPEC, in contrast to fossil-fuel power plants, is virtually free of the emission 106 The SAAQS for settleable particulates, non-methane hydrocarbons, and ozone had corresponded to federal standards that have since been revoked or replaced. The State does not monitor air quality for beryllium, fluorides, hydrogen sulfide, and settleable particulates (dustfall) (NYSDEC 2012d). The State monitors concentrations of certain speciated VOCs, but not for total hydrocarbons (non-methane).

XI-18

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 of air pollutants such as NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, PM10, PM2.5, and VOCs (NEI 2004, p. 32)

(Attachment 36). A recent NYSPSC press release states that: [t]he two operational Indian Point units have significant strategic value as their continued operation reduces the amount of air pollutant emissions in the New York metropolitan area (NYSPSC 2010, p. 2). IPEC produced 17,016,900 net MWh of virtually emission-free energy in 2011 (NYISO 2012a, p. 33). NYISO has reported that the retirement of IPEC would require development of adequate replacement generation (NYISO 2012c, p. 7) (Attachment 49). If IPEC were retired, its electric production would be replaced primarily by fossil fuel-fired power plants, which would increase the emissions of air pollutants including those for which NAAQS and SAAQS have been developed (NERA 2012, pp. E-1 through E-6, 25 through 26, 33, 39 through 40, and 61). Furthermore, a significant amount of the replacement fossil power would be likely to come from unused capacity of older natural gas-fired units or coal-fired units, both of which tend to have higher emission rates than new natural gas units (NERA 2012, p. E-6). Replacement of IPECs electricity production by primarily fossil-fired units would lead to an increase in emissions of approximately 13.5 million metric tons for CO2, 6,400 tons for SO2, and 3,300 tons for NOx (NERA 2012, pp. E-4, 40).

Given the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone non-attainment areas in this region, if a new fossil fuel-fired power plant were built to replace the electricity produced by IPEC, the replacement facility likely would be subject to New Yorks New Source Review (NSR) program. That program would require the facility to obtain emission offsets and apply technology that corresponds to the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) to obtain the necessary air permits since emissions likely would exceed applicable major facility thresholds under 6 NYCRR Part 231 (NYSDEC 2012m). LAER and emission offsets could be needed for NOx, PM2.5, and SO2 (as a PM2.5 precursor pollutant) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) could be needed for CO and PM10.

Federal and New York regulatory programs such as the Acid Rain Trading Program, the Northeast NOx Budget Trading Program and CAIR limit and require reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOx from power plants. As noted above in Section V, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision vacating CSAPR and leaving CAIR, which preceded CSAPR, in place pending the promulgation of a lawful replacement for both rules.107 New York State will be under pressure to reduce emissions in order to attain the NAAQS/SAAQS.

However, NYCDEPs analysis of impacts from the retirement of IPEC concluded that its retirement would cause a substantial increase in air emissions under all the scenarios analyzed (NYCDEP 2011, p. 13) (Attachment 48).

USEPA has proposed to reduce the NAAQS for ozone from a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a level within the range of 60 to 70 ppb (NERA 2010, p. 15) (75 Fed. Reg. 2938).

The proposed standard currently is undergoing interagency review. USEPA adopted the 1-hour NO2 and 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 2010, and is considering lowering the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 107 See. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 D.C. Cir. August 21, 2012 No. 11-1302, 11-1315, 11-1323, 11-1338, 11-1340, 11-1350, 11-1357, 11-1358.

XI-19

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 future (USEPA 2011). USEPA also is proposing a secondary ozone standard, measured as a cumulative concentration within the range of 7 to 15 parts per million (ppm)-hours aimed mainly at protecting sensitive vegetation (USEPA 2012d). These revised standards would necessitate further reductions in emissions of NOx, SO2 and PM2.5 in order to attain the NAAQS/SAAQS. Without IPEC these emission reductions would be more difficult to achieve.

The United States Supreme Court also ordered USEPA to develop air quality standards for GHGs to address global warming. Under the terms of a recent Settlement Agreement between USEPA and several petitioners including New York State, USEPA proposed rules that include standards of performance of GHGs for new and modified EGUs and emissions guidelines for existing EGUs. USEPA issued the proposed regulation on April 13, 2012 (77 Fed.

Reg. 22392).

As discussed in Section V, above, New York joined with other states in RGGI with the goal of reducing GHG emissions from the electric utility sector; New Yorks governors from Governor Pataki through and including Governor Cuomo have endorsed efforts to reduce these emissions. As stated in Executive Order No. 24, GHG emissions are to be reduced by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 (24. N.Y. St. Reg., Vol. XXXI, Issue 35, September 2, 2009). Based on a recent NERA report, if IPEC were retired, the national CO2 emissions would increase by about 13.5 million metric tons annually (NERA 2012, p. E-4) (Attachment 63). On July 12, 2012, New York adopted CO2 Performance Standards for Major Electric Generating Facilities under 6 NYCRR Part 251 (NYSDEC 2012c). Part 251 establishes CO2 emission standards for new major electric generating facilities (defined as facilities that have a generating capacity of at least 25 MW), and for existing electric generating facilities, which increase their capacity by at least 25 MW.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings IPECs virtually emission-free energy production plays an important role in attaining NAAQS and SAAQS and thereby protects the public health and environment. Without IPEC, other forms of electric generation would increase, which would result in increased emissions.

Therefore, IPEC License Renewal substantially advances the goals of Policy 41. If and to the extent that Policy 41 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 41.

L. Policy 42 - Reclassifying Prevention of Significant Deterioration Designations Policy 42 requires NYSDEC to consider the NYCMP if it reclassifies land areas based on requirements of the federal Clean Air Act (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 101).

Policy 42 states that: [c]oastal management policies will be considered if the State reclassifies XI-20

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant deterioration regulations of the federal Clean Air Act (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 101).108

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 42 Policy 42 is directed at NYSDEC and has no relevance to IPEC. As noted above, Westchester and the nearby counties of Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess are deemed to be in attainment with the NAAQS for: NO2, SO2, PM10, and lead; Westchester County is a maintenance area for CO, while the other four counties are in attainment with the NAAQS for CO; Putnam and Dutchess counties are in attainment with the NAAQS for PM2.5 (USEPA 2012g). Any major sources or major modifications at major sources, as defined under the CAA that impact the air quality in these counties would be subject to federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations.109 The PSD regulations at 40 CFR Part 51.166 require that all lands of the State be designated Class I, Class II, or Class III, and specifies restrictions on area classifications. NYSDEC is the State agency charged with implementing the PSD regulations.

IPEC is not a major source and its State air permit caps or limits emissions of all criteria pollutants below the major source threshold (NYSDEC Permits 3-5522-00011/00026 and 3-5522-000105/00009). IPEC License Renewal will neither entail new construction nor change IPECs operations. Therefore, there will be no additional emissions due to IPEC License Renewal.

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 42 is directed at NYSDEC rulemakings regarding air attainment classifications.

IPEC is not a major source and IPEC License Renewal will not entail a major modification at a major source and does not trigger PSD requirements. Therefore, Policy 42 is inapplicable to License Renewal.

108 The policies of the State and local coastal management programs concerning proposed land and water uses and the protection and preservation of special management areas will be taken into account prior to any action to change PSD land classifications in coastal regions or adjacent areas. In addition, NYSDOS must provide NYSDEC with recommendations for proposed PSD land classification designations based upon State and local coastal programs.

109 Major sources or major modifications at major sources that impact the air quality in any nonattainment areas would be subject to Nonattainment Area New Source Review Regulations.

XI-21

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 M. Policy 43 - Acid Rain Policy 43 deals with the causes of acid rain. Policy 43 states that: [l]and use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of acid rain precursors: nitrates and sulfates (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 102).110

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 43 Without IPEC, it will be more difficult for New York to fulfill its commitment under Policy 43 to limit the causes of acid rain. IPEC plays a key role in meeting the power generation and energy needs of the State without the production of acid rain precursors, i.e., nitrates or sulfates.

Acid rain is formed when SO2 and NOx react in the atmosphere with moisture and other chemicals to form acidic compounds (USEPA 2012c). The combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, wood, etc.) is the basic cause of acid rain. In the United States, fossil fuel-fired power plants are responsible for 67% of all SO2 emissions, and 23% of NOx emissions (USEPA 2012b). USEPA estimated that existing coal-fired power plants emit, on average, 13 pounds/MWh of SO2 and 6 pounds/MWh of NOx. Existing oil-fired power plants emit, on average, 12 pounds/MWh of SO2 and 4 pounds/MWh of NOx; existing natural gas-fired power plants emit, on average, 0.1 pounds/MWh of SO2 and 1.7 pounds/MWh of NOx (USEPA 2012b). Nuclear power plants do not use fossil fuels to generate electricity and, therefore, do not produce acid rain precursors in generating electricity.

In an attempt to prevent the impacts of acid rain that were observed on numerous lakes and headwater streams within the Adirondack region, the State passed the Acid Deposition Control Act in 1984, the first such act in the nation (NYSDEC 2012g). This Act required the reduction of SO2 emissions from existing sources and further NOx emission controls on new sources in New York State. The federal CAA Amendments of 1990 added Title IV, an acid rain deposition control program, and set a goal of reducing annual SO2 emissions by 10 million tons below 1980 levels and reducing annual NOx emissions by 2 million tons below 1980 levels by the year 2000. To achieve these reductions, the law required a tightening of restrictions placed 110 The NYCMP incorporates the State's policies on acid rain (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 102) implemented through ECL Article 19 and NYSDECs regulations at 6 NYCRR Parts 243, 244 and 245. Section 19-0103 of the ECL states:

[i]t is declared to be the policy of the state of New York to maintain a reasonable degree of purity of the air resources of the state, which shall be consistent with the public health and welfare and the public enjoyment thereof, the industrial development of the state, the propagation and protection of flora and fauna, and the protection of physical property and other resources, and to that end to require the use of all available practical and reasonable methods to prevent and control air pollution in the state of New York.

The States efforts to control acid rain will enhance the continued viability of coastal fisheries, wildlife, agricultural, scenic, and water resources.

XI-22

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 on fossil fuel-fired power plants and set up a cap-and-trade program (USEPA 2012a; NERA 2010, p. 15).

Emissions of SO2 and NOx from the heavily industrialized Midwest affect New York State's air quality. USEPA's acid rain data for 2000 show that Ohio's emissions of SO2 and NOx are four times greater than New York State's level (NYSDEC 2012n). As discussed above in Section V and Section XI.K, USEPAs CAIR program, promulgated on March 10, 2005, limits and requires reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOx from power plants. However, NYSDEC has projected that even with the reductions achieved under the CAA, the problem of acidic deposition in the Adirondacks will continue to worsen. Emissions of NOx and SO2 must be substantially reduced just to return water quality in the Adirondacks to 1984 levels. Without such additional reductions, the percentage of acidic lakes, streams and rivers in the Adirondacks will roughly double by the year 2040 (NYSDEC 2012n).

Without IPECs 2158 MW of baseload electricity (17,016,900 MWh per year of net energy), electricity would have to be produced from alternative sources, predominantly fossil-fuel burning plants that emit the precursors to acid rain (NERA 2012, pp. 25 through 26). This would further exacerbate the problem of acidic deposition and New York State would be compromising its commitment to reduce the precursors to acid rain.

Nuclear power plants do use a limited amount of fossil fuel for activities other than the generation of electrical power. For instance, IPEC has on-site emergency diesel generators and has fossil fuel-fired boilers (Entergy 2007a, p. 9-3). The emergency generators are operated for testing and maintenance purposes in accordance with requirements imposed by the USNRC, while boilers are operated either seasonally for heating or on an as-needed basis. Emissions from these generators, boilers, and combustion turbines are regulated under the State laws and regulations, as well as permits issued by the NYSDEC. As discussed in Section XI.K above, IPECs Air Facility Permits 3-5522-00011/00026 (IP2) and 3-5522-000105/00009 (IP3) include specific limits on pollutants that contribute to acid rain. Entergy operates IPEC pursuant to these air permits and has the requisite administrative controls in place to achieve compliance, including Site Procedure IP-SMM-EV-117 (Air Quality Management) (Entergy 2004a).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings IPEC plays a key role in meeting the power generation and energy needs of the State without contributing to the production of acid rain precursors. Without IPEC, it would be more difficult for New York to fulfill its commitment under Policy 43 to limit the causes of acid rain.

If and to the extent that Policy 43 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 43.

XI-23

TABLES IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table XI-1 Unit 2 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations Description (Tank Volume Gallons Location Number)

Ignition Oil Tank 6,250 (AST) Tank in Vault (11IOT) on Cradle Ignition Oil Tank 6,250 (AST) Tank in Vault (12IOT) on Cradle Maintenance 500 (UST) West of Training Facility Buchanan Service (MTF) Center 21 EDG Day Tank 175 (AST) Diesel (21FODT) Generator Building 22 EDG Day Tank 175 (AST) Diesel (22FODT) Generator Building 23 EDG Day Tank 175 (AST) Diesel (23FODT) Generator Building Fire Pump Diesel 275 (AST) 72-ft Storage Tank elevation Across (DFPFOT) from Unit 1 Gas Turbine 2 & 3 213,840 (197,637 (AST) South End of Storage Tank working capacity) GT2/3 Property (GT2/3-FOT)

Technical Support 75 (AST) 33-ft Diesel (TSCFODT) Elevation Unit 1 Turbine Building 21 MBFP Oil 80 (AST) 5-ft Elevation Accum. Tank A Turbine Building (21OATA) 21 MBFP Oil 80 (AST) 5-ft Elevation Accum. Tank B Turbine Building (21OATB) 22 MBFP Oil 80 (AST) 5-ft Elevation Accum. Tank A Turbine Bldg.

(22OATA) 22 MBFP Oil 80 (AST) 5-ft Elevation Accum. Tank B Turbine Bldg.

(22OATB)

Boiler Feed Pump 1,400 (AST) 5-ft Elevation Oil Console (BFOC) Turbine Bldg.

XI-1-i

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table XI-1 continued Unit 2 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations Description (Tank Volume Gallons Location Number)

Boiler Feed Pump 255 (AST) 15-ft Turbine Oil Elevation Turbine Conditioner Bldg.

(BFPTOC)

Clean Lube Oil 23,500 (AST) 15-ft Storage Tank Elevation Turbine (COST) Bldg.

Dirty Oil Storage 23,500 (AST) 15-ft Tank (DOST) Elevation Turbine Bldg.

Gas Turbine #1 Lube 3000 (AST) 15-ft Oil Reservoir Elevation GT1 (GT1LOR) Building Gas Turbine #2 Lube 1,500 (AST) Inside GT2 Oil Reservoir Building (GT2LOR)

Gas Turbine 3 Used 275 (UST) Inside GT3 Oil Tank Building (GT3LFST)

Gas Turbine #3 Lube 1,700 (AST) Inside GT3 Oil Reservoir Building (GT3LOR)

Hydrogen Seal Oil 1,200 (AST) 15-ft Reservoir (HSOT) Elevation Turbine Bldg.

R4D4 Lube Oil 550 (AST) 15-ft.

Separator Sludge Elevation Turbine Tank (LOSTSST) Bldg.

Main Turbine Oil 1,150 (AST) 15-ft.

Conditioner (MTOC) Elevation Turbine Bldg.

Main Lube Oil 15,000 (AST) 15 ft.

Reservoir (TLOR) Elevation Turbine Bldg.

Gas Turbine #1 30,000 (UST) 25-ft Storage Tank (GT1- Elevation Unit 1 FOT-11) Turbine Bldg.

Gas Turbine #1 30,000 (UST) 25-ft Storage Tank (GT1- Elevation Unit 1 FOT-12) Turbine Building 21 EDG Diesel 7,700 (UST) Diesel Storage Tank Generator Building (21FOST) 22 EDG Diesel 7,700 (UST) Diesel Storage Tank Generator Building (22FOST)

XI-1-ii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table XI-1 continued Unit 2 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations Description (Tank Volume Location Number) Gallons 23 EDG Diesel 7,700 (UST) Diesel Generator Storage Tank Building (23FOST)

Gas Turbine #1 Fuel 275 (UST) West Of GT1 Oil Dump Tank Building (GT1FODT)

Security Diesel 550 (UST) 72-ft Elevation Unit Storage Tank 2 Command Post (SDFT)

Gas Turbine #2 Used 275 (UST) West Of GT2 Oil Tank Building (GT2LFST) 21 Main Transformer 19,740 Main Transformer Yard 22 Main Transformer 19,740 Main Transformer Yard Buchanan Service <500 Buchanan Service Center -

Center Transformer Emergency Operation Facility (EOF)

GT2 Auxiliary <500 Above Ground, Next to Power Transformer GT2 Building (Normal Supply)

GT2 Auxiliary <500 Above Ground, Next to Power Transformer GT2 Building (Auxiliary Supply)

New Simulator L&P <500 South of New Simulator Transformer Building Substation A <500 88-ft Elevation, North of Transformer Unit 2 Command Post Substation C <500 88-ft Elevation, North of Transformer Unit 2 Command Post Unit Auxiliary 9,207 Main Transformer Yard Transformer Spare Station 9,000 NW of Turbine Building Auxiliary Transformer Station Auxiliary 9,207 Main Transformer Yard Transformer Test Transformer <500 33-ft Elevation Unit 1 (L&P Room) Turbine Building XI-1-iii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table XI-1 continued Unit 2 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations Description (Tank Volume Gallons Location Number)

Main Warehouse ~990 Service Center (Drums)

Oil Storage Cabinets 1,200 West of Turbine (4) Building 15 Unit 2 Sodium 500 (AST) Unit I Intake Hypochlorite Tank Building (HDT-01)

Unit 2 Sodium 4,747 (AST) Unit I Intake Hypochlorite Tank Building (HMST-11)

Unit 2 Sodium 4,747 (AST) Unit I Intake Hypochlorite Tank Building (HMST-12)

(AST) = Aboveground Storage Tank (UST) = Underground Storage Tank XI-1-iv

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table XI-2 Unit 3 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations Description (Tank Volume Gallons Location Number)

House Service Boiler 275 (L17) HSB Annex Day Tank (AST)

OIAC Diesel Storage 100 (M18) Outside Tank (AST) Turbine Hall 31 EDG Day Tank 175 (N16) Diesel (AST) Generator Building 32 EDG Day Tank 175 (N16) Diesel (AST) Generator Building 33 EDG Day Tank 175 (N16) Diesel (AST) Generator Building Training Fire Pump 250 (W13) Training Diesel Storage Tank Center (AST) 95-ft Hill Fire Pump 350 (L13) By Fire Water Diesel Storage Tank Tanks (AST)

Meteorological 240 (Z11) Met Tower System Diesel Storage Tank (AST)

Portable Diesel 995 (P8) Training Center Storage Tank (AST)

Tech Services Center 100 (N17) Turbine Hall Diesel Day Tank (AST)

Portable Kerosene 495 (P8) Training Center Storage Tank (AST) 31 Main Boiler Feed 80 (M17) Turbine Hall Pump Accumulator (AST) 32 Main Boiler Feed 80 (M17) Turbine Hall Pump Accumulator (AST)

Main Turbine 120 (M17) Turbine Hall Generator Bearing Oil Drain Tank (AST)

XI-2-i

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table XI-2 continued Unit 3 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations Description (Tank Volume Gallons Location Number)

Clean Oil Storage 23,500 (L17) North 15 Tank (AST) Turbine Hall Dirty Oil Storage 23,500 (L17) North 15 Tank (AST) Turbine Hall Main Turbine 120 (M17) Turbine Hall Generator Loop Seal Vapor Extractor Drain Tank (AST)

Main Boiler Feed 1,400 (N17) Turbine Hall Pump Lube Oil Reservoir (AST)

Main Lube Oil 15,000 (L17) Turbine Hall Reservoir (AST)

R2D2 Lube Oil 250 (M17) Turbine Hall Sludge Tank (AST)

R4D4 Lube Oil 540 (L17) Turbine Hall Sludge Tank (AST)

Main Turbine 120 (M17) Turbine Hall Generator Oil Reservoir Vapor Extractor Drain Tank (AST)

Training Center Fuel 6,000 (W10) Training Oil Storage Tank Center (UST)

Appendix R Diesel 4,000 (L16) Near Storage Tank (UST) Appendix R Diesel 31 EDG Diesel 7,700 (N16) Diesel Storage Tank (UST) Generator Building 32 EDG Diesel 7,700 (N16) Diesel Storage Tank (UST) Generator Building 33 EDG Diesel 7,700 (N16) Diesel Storage Tank (UST) Generator Building Sewage Treatment 270 (P18) Sewage Plant Plant Diesel Storage Tank (UST)

XI-2-ii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Table XI-2 continued Unit 3 Petroleum and Hazardous Materials Storage Locations Description (Tank Volume Gallons Location Number)

Tech Services Center 4,000 (N17) Turbine Hall Diesel Storage Tank (UST) 31 Main Transformer 17,240 (M16) Main (OFEE) Transformer Yard 32 Main Transformer 25,400 (M16) Main (OFEE) Transformer Yard Unit Auxiliary 6,080 (M16) Main Transformer (OFEE) Transformer Yard Station Auxiliary 8,876 (M16) Main Transformer (OFEE) Transformer Yard GT Turbine 3,800 (K16) North of Unit Transformer (OFEE) 3 TH Spare Station 10,200 (Z11) Adjacent to Auxiliary Transformer Met Tower (OFEE)

Spare Main 24,300 (Z11) Adjacent to Transformer (OFEE) Met Tower Unit 3 Sodium 6,500 (AST) Outside the Hypochlorite Tank Unit 3 Intake (008-1) Structure (AST) = Aboveground Storage Tank (UST) = Underground Storage Tank (OFEE) = Oil-Filled Electrical Equipment XI-2-iii

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 XII. WETLANDS POLICY A. Policy 44 - Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Policy 44 seeks to [p]reserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas.111

1. Consistency With/Non-Applicability of Policy 44 No filling or alteration of wetlands is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. No state or federal jurisdictional tidal or freshwater wetlands exist on the IPEC site. There are no plans for additional activities or development along the waterfront as a part of IPEC License Renewal.

Freshwater and tidal wetlands that occur within Haverstraw Bay SCFWH (RMs 34 to 40) and RMs 44 to 56 SCFWH are discussed in Section III. Within the vicinity of IPEC (RMs 41 to 44), NYSDEC and National Wetlands Inventory-(NWI) mapped wetlands are limited to the tributaries and coves of the Hudson River and the coastal zone, as described in Appendix A.

With the exception of open water habitats mapped by NYSDEC and NWI, IPEC, at RM 42, is not located in or adjacent to wetlands of the Hudson River. Although NWI-mapped freshwater wetlands are located within the coastal zone portion of the IPEC site, they are not mapped as wetlands by NYSDEC. Those wetlands are shown on Figure XII-1.

111 NYSDOS provides guidance to applicants for use in determining consistency with this policy by first defining both tidal and freshwater wetlands as follows:

Tidal wetlands include the following ecological zones: lower intertidal mix; open water; Phragmites australis; scrub/shrub; submerged aquatic vegetation; Typha angustifolia; Trapa natans; salt meadow; Spartina alternifolia; unvegetated flats; upland; upper intertidal mix; and wooded swamp. These tidal wetland areas are officially delineated on NYSDEC's Tidal Wetlands Inventory Map.

Freshwater wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, and flats supporting aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation and other wetlands so defined in the N.Y.S. Freshwater Wetlands Act and the N.Y.S. Protection of Waters Act (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6, p. 103).

These freshwater and tidal wetlands are mapped by NYSDEC pursuant to Article 24 (§0301) and Article 25

(§0201), respectively. NYSDOS guidance also identifies the wetlands benefits that Policy 44 is intended to protect as:

habitat for wildlife and fish, including a substantial portion of the State's commercial fin and shellfish varieties; and contribution to associated aquatic food chains; erosion, flood and storm control; natural pollution treatment; groundwater protection; recreational opportunities; educational and scientific opportunities; and aesthetic open space in many otherwise densely developed areas (NOAA and NYSDOS 2006, chap. II-6,

p. 103).

XII-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) beds, which are important fish and wildlife habitat, are present in the open waters of the Hudson River from RM 41 to RM 44. Water depths where SAV occurs in the vicinity of IPEC range from approximately one to seven feet (NYSDOT 1973). Within the Hudson River, SAV bed coverage varies among different reaches and light penetration is the primary determinant of SAV distribution. The highest abundances of SAV in the Hudson River occur in water less than three feet deep at low tide (Holochuck 2010).

Water depths within the Hudson River near IPECs discharge structure are far greater than three feet (ASA 2011, p. 25), and therefore SAV are highly unlikely to form at that location.

SAV beds cover approximately 33 acres within the open water portions of the Hudson River from RM 41 to RM 44 in the following areas: the western portion of the river at RM 41 (Figure XII-2); the western portion of the river across from IPEC at RM 42; and the central and eastern portions of the river at RM 43. Additional SAV bed coverage occurs in nearby tributaries to the Hudson River including Annsville Creek/Peekskill Hollow Creek and Lents Cove, both located to the northeast of IPEC in the vicinity of RM 43. The closest SAV bed to IPEC is approximately two acres in size and is located within Lents Cove (NYSDEC 2011b).

The thermal discharge from IPEC does not affect wetlands or SAV. NYSDEC staff have confirmed that the modeling and monitoring results indicate that IPECs thermal discharge is in conformance with NYSDECs thermal water quality standards (6 NYCRR Part 704.2(b)(5))

(ASA 2011) and 6 NYCRR Part 704.3 (NYSDEC 2011e, p. 2; NYSDEC 2012h) (Attachments 43 and 44).

2. Conclusion and Proposed Findings Policy 44 is inapplicable to License Renewal. No filling or alteration of wetlands is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. Operation of IPEC does not adversely affect NYSDEC-mapped tidal and freshwater wetlands or SAV beds within the Hudson River. No change to existing operations is proposed as part of IPEC License Renewal. Therefore, if and to the extent Policy 44 is deemed applicable, IPEC License Renewal is fully consistent with Policy 44.

XII-2

FIGURES 6.2.2010 6

£

46

!

(

45

!

(

£ 987 44

!

(

£

202 43

!

(

Lents Cove 42

!

(

IPEC Buchanan e

Av er 41

!

( st

£ 9

e tc es h

Verplanck W

y Rd lle Tr o

d r ry R s Fe K i ng A

lb a ny Po 40

!

( st R dA lb any Po st Rd Crugers SOURCE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, 1977-2010 39

!

(

38

!

(

37

!

(

NY Area of Detail CT Haverstraw 36

!

(

NJ 35

!

(

NWI Wetlands Freshwater forested/shrub wetland NYS DOS Coastal Zone Boundary IPEC CZMA Estuarine unvegetated Freshwater pond NWI Wetlands from River Mile 38 to 45 Figure XII-1 Estuarine vegetated Lacustrine Riverine 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Freshwater emergent wetland Miles E

8.2011 6

£

46

!

(

45

!

(

987

£

44

!

(

202

£

43

!

(

Lents Cove 42

!

(

IPEC Buchanan ve rA 41

!

( s te 9

£ he estc Verplanck W

y Rd l le T

ro Rd err y sF K ing Al ba ny Po 40

!

( st R d

Alba Po ny s

tR d

Crugers 39

!

(

SOURCE: Hudson River Estuary Tidal Wetlands 2007, Cornell IRIS, HRNERR, NYSDEC, 2011 38

!

(

37

!

(

NY Area of Detail CT Haverstraw 36 NJ  !

(

35

!

(

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI Submerged Aquatic Vegetation NYS DOS Coastal Zone Boundary IPEC CZMA Water Celery 41

(

! River Mile Submerged Aquatic Vegetation from River Mile 38 to 45 Upland Hudson River Figure XII-2 Open Water 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles E

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 XIII. REFERENCES A. Statutes and Regulations Cited Air Resources - General Provisions, 6 NYCRR Parts 200.6 and Proposed 200.10(d).

Application of Pesticides, 6 NYCRR Part 325.

Applications for Licenses and Preliminary Permits Under the Water Power Act, 6 NYCRR Part 600.

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), 6 NYCRR Part 249.

Certification of Onshore Major Facilities, 6 NYCRR Part 610.

ClassificationsSurface Waters and Groundwaters, 6 NYCRR Part 701.

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 85.

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOx Ozone Season Trading Program, 6 NYCRR Part 243.

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOx Annual Trading Program, 6 NYCRR Part 244.

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SO2 Trading Program, 6 NYCRR Part 245.

Clean Water Act, §§101-607; 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

CO2 Performance Standards for Major Electric Generating Facilities, Proposed 6 NYCRR Part 251.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), §§302-319; 16 U.S.C. §§1451-1464.

Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Regulations. Final Rule. 65 Fed. Reg. 237, pp. 77124-77174 (Dec. 8, 2000) (OCRM, NOS, NOAA, DOC).

Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-508, §6202(a)(7).

Criteria Governing Thermal Discharges, 6 NYCRR Part 704.

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), art. 15, §§15-0501-0516.

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), art. 17, §§17-0808, 17-0811, 17-0817.

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), art. 19, §§19-0901-19-0921.

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), art. 24, §24-0301.

XIII-1

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), art. 25; §25-0201.

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), art. 27; §§27-0501, 27-0901(3).

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), art. 34.

Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), art. 36.

Environmental Priorities and Procedures in Petroleum Cleanup and Removal, 6 NYCRR Part 611.

Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites, 6 NYCRR Part 375.

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 D.C. Cir. August 21, 2012 No. 11-1302, 11-1315, 11-1323, 11-1338, 11-1340, 11-1350, 11-1357, 11-1358.

Establishing a Goal to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Eighty Percent by the Year 2050 and Preparing a Climate Action Plan. Governors Executive Order 24. N.Y. St. Reg.. Vol.

XXXI, Issue 35, September 2, 2009.

Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs, 15 CFR Part 930.

General. 6 NYCRR Part 750; Obtaining a SPDES Permit, 6 NYCRR Part 750-1; Operating in Accordance with a SPDES Permit, 6 NYCRR Part 750-2.

Hazardous Substance Bulk Storage Regulations. 6 NYCRR Part 596.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities. Proposed Rule. 75 Fed.

Reg. 118, p. 35127 (June 21, 2010) (to be codified at 40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264, 265, 268, 271, and 302).

Handling and Storage of Hazardous Substances, 6 NYCRR Part 598.

Handling and Storage of Petroleum, 6 NYCRR Part 613.

Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, 6 NYCRR Part 373.

Hazardous Waste Management System, General, 6 NYCRR Part 370.

Hazardous Waste Management System: General, 40 CFR Part 260.

Hazardous Waste Manifest System and Related Standards for Generators, Transporters and Facilities, 6 NYCRR Part 372.

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes, 40 CFR Part 261.

XIII-2

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes, 6 NYCRR Part 371.

Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, 40 CFR Part 265.

Land Disposal Restrictions, 40 CFR Part 268.

Land Disposal Restrictions, 6 NYCRR Part 376.

List of Hazardous Substances, 6 NYCRR Part 597.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1801-1884.

Marine Sanitation Device Standard, 40 CFR Part 140.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened and Endangered Status for Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Northeast Region. Final Rule. Vol. 77 Fed. Reg. 24, pp. 5880-5912 (February 6, 2012).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in the Southeast. Final Rule. Vol.

77 Fed. Reg. 24, pp. 5914-5982 (February 6, 2012).

New Source Review for New and Modified Facilities, 6 NYCRR Part 231.

Oil Pollution Prevention, 40 CFR Part 112.

Oil Spill Prevention and ControlActions to Be Taken in Event of a Discharge, 17 NYCRR Part 32.

Oil Spill Prevention and ControlLicensing of Major Facilities, 17 NYCRR Part 30.

Permits and Registrations, 6 NYCRR Part 201.

Policies and Procedures, 19 NYCRR Part 600.

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Major Facilities for Oxides of Nitrogen (NO), 6 NYCRR Part 227-2.

Registration of Petroleum Storage Facilities, 6 NYCRR Part 612.

Regulated Navigation Areas and Limited Access Areas, 33 CFR §§165.30 and 165.169(a)(1).

XIII-3

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Releases of Hazardous Substances, 6 NYCRR Part 595.

Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR Part 51.

Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, 10 CFR Part 54.

Requirements for the Applicability, Analysis, and Installation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Controls, 6 NYCRR Part 249.

Solid Waste Management Facilities, 6 NYCRR Part 360.

Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, 40 CFR Part 264.

Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste, 40 CFR Part 262.

Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste, 40 CFR Part 263.

Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, 40 CFR Part 266.

Standards for New or Substantially Modified Hazardous Substance Storage Facilities, 6 NYCRR Part 599.

Standards for New and Substantially Modified Petroleum Storage Facilities, 6 NYCRR Part 614.

Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities Operating Under a Standardized Permit, 40 CFR Part 267.

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. Proposed Rule. Vol. 77 Fed. Reg. 72, pp. 22392-22441 (April 13, 2012).

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits, 6 NYCRR Part 750.

Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, 40 CFR Part 423.

Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations, 6 NYCRR Part 703.

Train v. Colorado Public Interest Group, Inc., 426 U.S. 1, 16 (1976).

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012 Nationwide Permits, Conditions, Further Information, and Definitions. Executive Order 13211. 77 Fed. Reg. 34, pp.

10184-10290 (February 21, 2012).

XIII-4

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. New York State Prohibition on Marine Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Final Affirmative Determination. Vol. 68 Fed.

Reg. 196, pp. 58345-58346 (October 9, 2003).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Proposed Rule. Vol. 75 Fed. Reg. 11, pp. 2938-3052 (January 19, 2010).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Federal Implementation Plans:

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals. Final Rule. Vol. 76 Fed. Reg. 152, pp. 48208-48256 (August 8, 2011).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemCooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase I Facilities; Proposed Rule. Vol. 76 Fed. Reg. 76, pp. 22174-22288 (April 20, 2011).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Final Rule. Vol. 77 Fed. Reg.

98, pp. 30088-30160 (May 21, 2012).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Final Rule. Vol. 77 Fed. Reg. 33, pp. 9532-9588 (February 17, 2012).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Determination of Failure To Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard by 2007, Determination of Current Attainment of One Hours Ozone Standard, Determinations of Attainment of the Eight-Hour Ozone Standards for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Nonattainment Area in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Proposed Rule. Vol. 77 Fed. Reg. 16, pp. 3720-3725 (January 25, 2012).

Use and Protection of Waters, 6 NYCRR Part 608.

Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways, New York State Executive Law (EXC), art. 42, §§42-910-42-922.

XIII-5

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 B. References Cited AKRF, Inc. (AKRF), Normandeau Associates, Inc., ASA Analysis & Communications, Inc., and LWB Environmental Services, Inc. 2012. Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon Impingement at IPEC Units 2 and 3: Review of Historical Data, Projections of Impingement, and Assessment of the Condition of Impinged Sturgeon Upon Arrival at IPEC. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. July 23, 2012.

Applied Science Associates Inc. (ASA). 2011. Final Report. 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge From the Indian Point Energy Center. ASA Project 2009-1607. January 31, 2011.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2005. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for inshore stocks of winter flounder. Fishery Management Report No. 43 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2009. Weakfish stock assessment report: A Report of the ASMFC Weakfish Technical Committees. Presented to the 48th Stock Assessment Workshop Stock Assessment Review Committee Woods Hole, MA SAW/SARC 48. June 1-4, 2009.

Barnthouse, L.W., D.G. Heimbuch, W.V. Winkle, and J. Young. 2008. Entrainment and Impingement at IP2 and IP3: A Biological Impact Assessment. January 2008.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. (CHGE), Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., New York Power Authority, and Southern Energy New York. 1999. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: For State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline 1 & 2, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton 1 & 2 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland, and Westchester Counties. December 1, 1999.

City of Peekskill (Peekskill). 2005. City of Peekskill Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.

Adopted by City of Peekskill Common Council, January 26, 2004. Approved by NYS Secretary of State Randy A. Daniels, July 6, 2004. Concurred by U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, January 14, 2005.

City of Peekskill (Peekskill). 2009. Planning and Design for: Peekskills Southern Waterfront Park and Trail Master Plan: Final Design Report. July 2009.

Clements, W.H., D.M. Carlisle, L.A. Courtney, and E.A. Harrahy. 2002. Integrating observational and experimental approaches to demonstrate causation in stream biomonitoring studies. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1138-1146.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (ConEd). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unit No. 2: Vols. 1 and 2: Docket No. 50-247. September 1972.

XIII-6

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Cormier, S.M., S.B. Norton, G.W. Suter II, D. Altfater, and B. Counts. 2002. Determining the causes of impairments in the Little Scioto River, Ohio, USA: Part 2. Characterization of Causes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1125-1137.

Cuomo. 2010. Power NY: The New NY Agenda. Andrew Cuomo. 2nd in a series.

Diamond, J.M., D.W. Bressler, and V.B. Serveiss. 2002. Assessing relationships between human land uses and the decline of native mussels, fish, and macroinvertebrates in the Clinch and Powell River watershed, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1147-1155.

Enercon Services Inc. (ENERCON). 2009. Phase IB Archaeological Investigation of Potential Cooling Tower Construction Sites at Indian Point Energy Center Westchester County, NY. October 9, 2009.

Enercon Services Inc. (ENERCON). 2010a. Engineering Feasibility and Costs of Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 And 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration.

Attachment 3: Geological Assessments. February 2010.

Enercon Services Inc. (ENERCON). 2010b. Evaluation of Alternative Intake Technologies at Indian Point Units 2 & 3. February 2010.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2004a. IPEC Site Management Manual: Air Quality Management. IP-SMM-EV-117, Revision 0. Effective Date: July 26, 2004.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2004b. IPEC Site Management Manual: SPDES Permit Administration. IP-SMM-EV-102, Revision 0. Effective Date: July 26, 2004.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2006a. 2006 Sustainability Report. Imagine. Aspire.

Achieve. Entergy Corporation. New Orleans, LA.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2006b. Indian Point 2 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan. [40 CFR 112.7].

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2006c. Indian Point 3 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan. [40 CFR 112.7].

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (Entergy). 2007a.

Applicants Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage (Appendix E to Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, License Renewal Application). ADAMS Accession No.

ML071210530. April 23, 2007.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2007b. Indian Point Energy Center, License Renewal Application, Docket Nos. 50-247 (Unit 2) and 50-286 (Unit 3). April 23, 2007.

XIII-7

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2008a. 2008 Sustainability Report. Entergy Corporation. New Orleans, LA.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2008c. Indian Point 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Revision 21.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2008d. Nuclear Management Manual. Cultural Resources Protection Plan. EN-EV-121, Rev.1. Effective Date: March 27, 2008.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (Entergy). 2009. Detailed Responses to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservations (NYSDEC) Request for Information (RFI), May 13, 2009.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2010a. Personal Communication from Dara F. Gray, Entergy, to Maureen V. Heimbuch, AKRF, Inc. February 24, 2010.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2010b. Personal Communication from Jill Lagace, Entergy, to Maureen V. Heimbuch, AKRF, Inc., re: IPEC draft consistency assessments.

January 5, 2010.

Entergy Corp. (Entergy). 2010d. Personal Communication from Kelli Dowell, Esq., to Maureen V. Heimbuch, AKRF, Inc., re: providing summary of United Way Contributions. May 3, 2010.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2010e. Letter from Elise Zoli to William Adriance re: Request for Adjudicatory Hearing on NYSDEC Staffs April 2, 2010 Notice of Denial of Joint Application for CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, NRC License RenewalEntergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 and 3. April 29, 2010.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2010f. Letter from Elise Zoli to Christopher Hogan re: Joint Application for CWA 401 Water Quality Certification for the Renewal of NRC Operating Licenses for Indian Point Units 2 and 3, Response to May 13, 2009. RFI.

February 12, 2010.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2011f. Personal Communication from Dara Gray, Entergy to Maureen V. Heimbuch, AKRF, Inc., re: Question on Capacity Factor. May 23, 2011.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy) 2011g. Personal Communication from Salvatore Zulla, Entergy to Maureen V. Heimbuch, AKRF, Inc., re: Revised IPEC CZM Cover Letter, Legal Framework, and Executive Summary. June 25, 2011.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2011k. Technical Review of FSEIS for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Sections 4.1.1-4.1.3 and Appendices H and I.

XIII-8

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2011l. SPDES Permit Compliance: 0-CY-1245 Revision 14. Effective Date: August 16, 2011.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2011n. Personal Communication from Dara Gray, Entergy to Maureen V. Heimbuch, AKRF, Inc., re: History of IPEC. May 13, 2011.

Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Indian Point Units 1 and 2. (Entergy). 2011o. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Rev. 3. Effective Date: January 24, 2011.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2012a. Community Connectors Volunteer Program.

http://www.entergy.com/our_community/volunteerism.aspx (accessed October 5, 2012).

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2012b. Corporate and Foundation Giving.

http://www.entergy.com/our_community/giving.aspx (accessed October 5, 2012).

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2012c. Entergy Micro Grant Guidelines.

http://www.entergy.com/our_community/micro_grant_guidelines.aspx (accessed October 5, 2012).

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2012d. Entergys Open Grants Program Guidelines and Application. http://www.entergy.com/our_community/Grant_Guidelines.aspx (accessed October 5, 2012).

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2012e. Letter from Elise Zoli to Christopher Hogan, transmitting Response to Notice of Incomplete Application and Request for Additional Information; Application for Incidental Take Permits (Pursuant to ECL 11-0535 and 6 NYCRR Part 182) - Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 and 3. March 8, 2012.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2012h. Personal Communication from Dara Gray, Entergy to Maureen V. Heimbuch, AKRF, Inc., re: History of IPEC. September 10, 2012.

Entergy. 2012i. In the Matter of the Petition of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, for a Declaratory Ruling, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING, dated November 5, 2012, filed with the State of New York, Department of State on November 7, 2012.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2012j. Personal communication from Jill Lagace, Entergy, to Maureen V. Heimbuch, AKRF, Inc., re: Updated Tax Information for Indian Point. September 26, 2012.

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2012k. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, et al. v.

The New York State Department of State, et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany, Index No. 5450-12. October 1, 2012. Affidavit of Patric W. Conroy.

XIII-9

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2012m. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, et al.

v. The New York State Department of State, et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany, Index No. 5450-12. October 1, 2012.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2012n. The Power to Care.

http://www.entergy.com/our_community/power_to_Care_Video.aspx (accessed October 5, 2012).

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2012o. In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3). Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper RC-3 and Clearwater EC-1 (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks). Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR. October 12, 2012.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2012p. Motion and Memorandum By Applicant Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. for Declaratory Order That It Has Already Obtained the Required New York State Coastal Management Program Consistency Review of IPEC Units 2 and 3 for Renewal of the Operating Licenses, dated July 30, 2012, USNRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy). 2012q. Email from Andrea J Blizard, re: Message from GMPO Larry Coyle regarding site status. October 31, 2012.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2007. FEMA Issued Flood Maps.

http://www.msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10001&c atalogId=10001&langId=-1&categoryId=12001&parent_category_rn=12001&type=CAT

_MAPPANEL&stateId=13039&countyId=14878&communityId=351448&stateName=N EW+YORK&countyName=WESTCHESTER+COUNTY&communityName=BUCHAN AN%2CVLG+OF&dfirm_kit_id=&dfirmCatId=null&isCountySelected=&isCommSelec ted=&userType=G&urlUserType=G&sfc=0&cat_state=13039&cat_county=14878&cat_

community=351448 (accessed February 16, 2010).

Green, D.M. 1991. Characterization of Angler Activity on the Hudson River Estuary. Cornell Biological Field Station, Cornell University Department of Natural Resources, Bridgeport, NY.

Heimbuch, D.G. 2008. Potential Effects of Striped Bass Predation on Juvenile Fish in the Hudson River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1591-1605.

Hilborn, R. and M. Mangel. 1997. The Ecological Detective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Holochuck, N. 2010. Hudson River Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. New York Sea Grant Fact Sheet. New York Sea Grant Extension Program, Kingston, NY.

XIII-10

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Hudson River Fishermans Association (HRFA). 2012. Hudson River Launch Ramps.

http://www.hrfanj.org/ramps.htm (accessed October 5, 2012).

Indian Point Independent Safety Evaluation Panel (ISE). 2008. Indian Point Independent Safety Evaluation.

Lesser, J.A. 2012. The Economic Impacts of Closing and Replacing the Indian Point Energy Center. Center for Energy Policy and the Environment, Report No. 11. September 2012.

Mitcham, M.L. 2010. Entergy Buys Computers for Tots. The Journal News. White Plains, NY.

April 29, 2010.

NAACP New York State Conference of Branches (NAACP). 2009. Letter from Hazel Dukes, NAACP New York State Conference, to Andrew Stuyvenberg, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, re: February 12, 2009 Public Hearing on the relicensing of the Indian Point Energy Center. January 21, 2009.

National Economic Research Associates Inc. (NERA). 2010. Letter from David Harrison, Jr.,

Ph.D., NERA, and Eugene Meehan, NERA, to NYSDEC, re: Effects of the Loss of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 Capacity and Generation on New York State Environmental, Economic and Energy Needs. April 29, 2010.

National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA). 2012. Potential Energy and Environmental Impacts of Denying Indian Points License Renewal Applications. March 30, 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). 2006. New York State Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. CZMA Federal Consistency Overview Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. February 20, 2009.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. Letter from Joelle Gore, Acting Chief, Coastal Management Programs, NOAA, to George Stafford, Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York, transmitting Enclosure to OCRM's November 30, 2012 Approval of the Incorporation of SCFWH Changes into the New York Coastal Management Program. November 30, 2012.

National Research Council of the National Academies (National Research Council). 2006.

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs. Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

XIII-11

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 New York City (NYC). 2011. PlaNYC Update April 2011. A Greener, Greater New York. The City of New York and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2011. Indian Point Energy Center Retirement Analysis. Prepared for New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Prepared by Charles River Associates. August 2, 2011.

New York Energy Highway Task Force. 2012. New York Energy Highway Blueprint. Issued in 2012.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2007a. Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process Supporting Document and Appendices for the 2007 Reliability Needs Assessment. March 16, 2007.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2009a. 2009 Comprehensive Reliability Plan. Comprehensive System Planning Process. Final Report. May 19, 2009.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2009c. 2009 Reliability Needs Assessment.

Comprehensive System Planning Process. Final Report. January 13, 2009.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2009d. Memorandum from Stephen G.

Whitley, NYISO to Thomas Congdon, NYSEPB, re: Comments on the August 2009 Draft State Energy Plan. October 19, 2009.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2010. 2010 Reliability Needs Assessment.

Final Report. September 2010.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2011a. 2010 Comprehensive Reliability Plan. Final Report. January 11, 2011.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2011b. 2011 Load & Capacity Data: Gold Book. Originally released April 2011. Version 1.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2011c. Power Trends 2011: Energizing New Yorks Legacy of Leadership.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2012a. 2012 Load & Capacity Data: Gold Book. Originally released April 2012. Version 1.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2012b. 2012 Reliability Needs Assessment.

Final Report. September 18, 2012.

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2012c. Power Trends 2012: State of the Grid.

XIII-12

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 New York State (NYS). 2005. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Memorandum of Understanding. Executed by Hon. George E. Pataki, Governor of the State of New York.

December 20, 2005.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (NYSDEC). 1987. State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Discharge Permit (NY-000-4472)Indian Point Generating Station (Units 1 and 2 Con Ed) and (IP3 PASNY). October 1987.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003a. SPDES Permit No. NY-0224826. March 4, 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003b. SPDES Permit No. NY-0250414. March 4, 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003c. Fact Sheet New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Draft Permit Renewal with ModificationIndian Point Electric Generating Station. November 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2008. Community Fact Sheet: Prepared for the May 9, 2008 NRC Government-to-Government meeting.

Groundwater Investigation. http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/44014.html (accessed November 15, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2009. Hudson River Estuary Public Fishing and Boating Access. Hudson River Estuary Program. New Paltz, NY.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2011b. Cornell Institute for Resource Information Sciences/Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve/NYSDEC 2007 data. Hudson River Submerged Aquatic Vegetation for the Haverstraw, Thiells, Ossining, Peekskill, Popolopen Lake, Cornwall and West Point quadrangles (maps). NYSDEC. Albany, NY. 2011.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2011e. Letter from Mark Sanza, NYSDEC to Hon. Maria E. Villa and Hon. Daniel P. OConnell, NYSDEC, re: Entergy Indian Point Nuclear Units 2 and 3 SPDES Permit Renewal/§401 WQC Application Proceedings DEC Staffs Review of Thermal Information. May 16, 2011.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012c. Adopted Part 251 CO2 Performance Standards for Major Electric Generating Facilities.

www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/82870.html (accessed August 13, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012d. Ambient Air Quality Standards: New York State and Federal Standards.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8542.html (accessed October 8, 2012).

XIII-13

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012e. The Final New York State 2012e Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters Requiring a TMDL/Other Strategy. July 2012.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012f. Chemical and Petroleum Storage. http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/287.html (accessed October 8, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012g. Environmental Impacts of Acid Deposition: Lakes, Effects of Acid Rain of Adirondack Lakes.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8631.html (accessed October 8, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012h. Indian Point Nuclear Facility Units 2 and 3SPDES Permit, NYS DEC's Administrative Proceeding for the Modification of the SPDES Permit. http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html (accessed October 8, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012i. Subpart 257-7:

Air Quality Standards-Nitrogen Dioxide (No2). http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4147.html (accessed October 9, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012j. Subpart 257-2:

Air Quality Standards-Sulfur Dioxide (So2). http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4152.html (accessed October 9, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012k. Subpart 257-4:

Air Quality Standards-Carbon Monoxide (Co). http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4150.html (accessed October 9, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012l. Regulation of Petroleum Tanks. http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/2642.html (accessed October 9, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 2012m. Subpart 231-5 New Major Facilities and Modifications to Existing Non-major Facilities in Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Areas of the State Within the Ozone Transport Region. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/51081.html (accessed October 9, 2012).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012n. Acid Rain Questions & Answers: Some Questions and Answers on Acid Rain.

http:/www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8418.html (accessed October 9, 2012).

New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 2000. Health Consultation, 1996 Survey of Hudson River Anglers: Hudson Falls to Tappan Zee Bridge at Tarrytown, New York:

Final Report. ENV 531-4 HEACN 99-838 FINAL. CERCLIS No. NYD980763841. May 2000.

XIII-14

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL). 2012. State Labor Department Releases October 2012 Area Unemployment Rates.

http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/pressreleases/prlaus.shtm (accessed December 5, 2012).

New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). 1987a. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form for Haverstraw Bay. November 15, 1987.

New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). 1987b. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form for Hudson River Mile 44-56. November 15, 1987.

New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). 1987c. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form for Iona Island Marsh. November 15, 1987.

New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). 1993. Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance. July 1, 1993.

New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). 2010. Letter from J. Zappieri, NYSDOS to D.

Gray, Entergy, re: 0-2009-0006, NRC Dockets # Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, NYS DEC Region 3, Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Relicensing, Preliminary Policy Assessment.

February 1, 2009.112 New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 1973. Fresh Water Wetlands Map.

Peekskill Quadrangle. 2nd Ed. New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, NY.

New York State Energy Planning Board (NYSEPB). 2009a. 2009 State Energy Plan, Vol. 1.

December 2009.

New York State Energy Planning Board (NYSEPB). 2009c. Electricity Assessment: Resources and Markets. New York Energy Plan 2009. December 2009.

New York State Energy Planning Board (NYSEPB). 2009d. Energy Costs and Economic Development Issue Brief. New York State Energy Plan 2009. December 2009.

New York State Energy Planning Board (NYSEPB). 2009e. Energy Infrastructure Issue Brief.

New York State Energy Plan 2009. December 2009.

New York State Energy Planning Board (NYSEPB). 2012. New York State Energy Plan: New York State Transmission and Distribution Systems Reliability Study and Report. August 2012.

112 Entergy received the letter in February, 2010, and understands that the 2009 date on the letter was a typographical error.

XIII-15

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2011. Letter from Peter V. Mahar, NYSERDA to Jim Regan, Entergy re: Invoice for the fiscal year 2011-12 net assessment applicable to Entergy Nuclear. January 28, 2011.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2012. About NYSERDA http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/About.aspx (accessed October 9, 2012).

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2009a.

Letter from Cynthia Blakemore, NYSOPRHP to Tim Basham, Enercon Services Inc., re:

Indian Point Energy Center Units 2 and 3 Operating License Renewal. December 8, 2009.

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2009b.

New York State Historic Archaeological Site Inventory Form. Indian Point Unit 2.

October 9, 2009.

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2009c.

New York State Historic Archaeological Site Inventory Form. Indian Point Unit 3.

October 9, 2009.

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2012.

Bear Mountain State Park. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/13/details.aspx (accessed October 9, 2012).

New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC). 2010. Press Release, PSC Seeks Comments on Entergys Spin-Off Plan: New Options Regarding Ownership Transfer Put on Table. Albany, NY. March 4, 2010.

Normandeau Associates Inc. (Normandeau). 2003. Assessment of Hudson River Recreational Fisheries. Final Report. December 2003.

Normandeau Associates Inc. (Normandeau). 2007. Assessment of Spring 2005 Hudson River Recreational Fisheries. Final Report. July 2007.

North American Electronic Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2010. 2010 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. October 2010.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2008. Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks Through 2007: Report of the 3rd Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III). Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, August 4-8, 2008.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2011. 52nd Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (52nd SAW). Assessment Report. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11-19.

XIII-16

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Norton, S.B., S.M. Cormier, G.W. Suter II, B. Subramanian, E. Lin, D. Altfater, and B. Counts.

2002. Determining probable causes of ecological impairments in the Little Scioto River, Ohio, USA: Part 1. Listing candidate causes and analyzing evidence. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:1112-1124.

Nuclear Energy Institutes (NEI). 2004. Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center. An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. April 2004.

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2012. Key Issues. Economic Growth.

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/economicgrowth (accessed September 5, 2012).

Paterson, D. 2008. Press Release, Governor Paterson Rings in New Era to Combat Climate Change. Distributed by Media-Newswire.com. September 26, 2008.

Peterson, D.L. 1998. Assessment of the Striped Bass Fishery of the Hudson River, 1997. Final Research Report by the New York Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. March 1998.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). 2012. About the Port Authority.

http://www.panynj.gov/about/ (accessed October 9, 2012).

Port of Albany (POA). 2012. Port Facilities: An Overview.

http://www.portofalbany.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemi d=88 (accessed October 9, 2012).

Restrepo, V. R., G. G. Thompson, P. M. Mace, W. L. Gabriel, L. L. Low, A. D. MacCall, R. D.

Mehot, J. E. Powers, B. L. Taylor, P. R. Wade, and J. F. Witzig. 1998. Technical guidance on the use of precautionary approaches to implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SP-31. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

Rojas, M. 2004. Lents Cove Nature Trail Leads to River: State DEC grant, local funds paid for nearly mile-long path. The Journal News. White Plains, NY. October 7, 2004.

https://secure.pqarchiver.com/lohud/access/1802243771.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:F T&type. (accessed June 6, 2010).

Shepherd, G.R. 2009. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 09-16: Black Sea Bass 2009 Stock Assessment Update. October 2009.

Spitzer. 2007. Press Release, Gov. Spitzer Unveils Cutting-Edge Global Warming Regulations.

October 24, 2007.

Suter, G.W. II, S.B. Norton, and S.M. Cormier. 2002. A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 1101-1111.

XIII-17

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Suter, G.W. II, S.M. Cormier, and S.B. Norton. 2007. Ecological Epidemiology and Causal Analysis. Ch. 4 in G.W. Suter II (ed.) Ecological Risk Assessment, 2nd Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

The White House. 2011. Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. March 30, 2011.

Town of Cortlandt (Cortlandt). 2004. Comprehensive Master Plan. Last Update: July 9, 2004.

Town of Cortlandt (Cortlandt). 2012a. Parks Division: Lents Cove Ball Fields.

http://www.townofcortlandt.com/cit-e-access/webpage.cfm?TID=20&TPID=4832 (accessed October 9, 2012).

Town of Cortlandt (Cortlandt). 2012b. Parks Division: Steamboat Riverfront Park.

http://www.townofcortlandt.com/cit-e-access/webpage.cfm?TID=20&TPID=4810 (accessed October 9, 2012).

Town of Stony Point (Stony Point). 1994. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Adopted by Town of Stony Point Town Board, June 14, 1994. Approved by NYS Secretary of State Gail S. Shaffer, October 27, 1994. Concurred by U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, January 13, 1995.

Traver, M. and L. Col. 2006. Red Hake. In: Status of the Fishery Resources of the Northeastern United States. Available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pg/redhake/

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012a. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 with Projections to 2035. June 2012.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012b. Nuclear & Uranium State Nuclear Profiles: New York Nuclear Profile 2010 New York profile.

www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/newyork/ (accessed June 7, 2012).

United States Department of Labor (USDOL). 2012a. Occupational Employment Statistics: May 2011 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: United States.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed September 11, 2011).

United States Department of Labor (USDOL). 2012b. Occupational Employment Statistics: May 2011 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: New York.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ny.htm (accessed September 11, 2011).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. PB 85-227049. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

XIII-18

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April 1998.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. EPA/822/B-00/025. December 2000.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, EPA 452/R-11-003. April 2011.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012a. Clean Air Markets: Acid Rain Program. Last Updated: July 25, 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/arp/basic.html (accessed October 15, 2012).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012b. Clean Energy: Air Emissions.

Last Updated: December 28, 2007. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html (accessed October 15, 2012).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012c. Clean Energy: Glossary. Last Updated: December 28, 2007. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/glossary.html (accessed October 15, 2012).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012d. Ground-level Ozone, Regulatory Actions. Last Updated August 9, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/glo/actions.html (accessed October 15, 2012).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012e. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Combined Sewer Overflows. Last Updated February 16, 2012. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5 (accessed October 15, 2012).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012f. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Vessel Discharges. Last Updated February 16, 2012.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=350 (accessed October 15, 2012).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012g. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Last Updated July 20, 2012.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ (accessed November 28, 2012).

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 1975. Final Environmental Statement related to the Operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant Unit No. 3. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. NUREG-75/002. Docket No. 50-286, Vol. 1. February 1975.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 2005. 10 CFR Part 20: Standards for Protection Against Radiation. Last Updated September 27, 2012.

XIII-19

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/full-text.html (accessed October 15, 2012).

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 2008. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 2 and 3. Draft Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Vol.

1, Supplement 38. December 2008.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 2009. Letter from Mr. Darrel J.

Roberts, Director Division of Reactor Safety to Mr. Joseph Pollock, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., re: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1, 2, and 3NRC Inspection Report Nos. 05000003/2009008, 05000247/2009008, and 05000286/2009008. October 19, 2009.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 2010. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3: Final Report: Main Report and Comment Responses. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 1. December 2010.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 2012. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Draft Report for Comment NUREG-1437 Supplement 38, Vol. 4. June 2012.

Village of Buchanan (Buchanan). 2005. Comprehensive Master Plan: Remembering the Past, Improving the Present, Envisioning the Future. Village of Buchanan, NY. March 2005.

Village of Buchanan (Buchanan). 2009. Village of Buchanan Mayor & Board of Trustees Regular Meeting. Buchanan, NY. December 7, 2009.

Village of Buchanan (Buchanan). 2012. Village of Buchanan Website Home Page: Welcome to Buchanan, NY. http://villageofbuchanan.com (accessed October 2, 2012).

Village of Croton-on-Hudson (Croton). 1992. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Adopted by Village of Croton-on-Hudson Board of Trustees, March 16, 1992. Approved by NYS Secretary of State Gail S. Shaffer, June 15, 1992. Concurred by U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, August 17, 1992.

Village of Haverstraw (Haverstraw). 2005. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Adopted by Village Board of Trustees, August 11, 2003. Approved by NYS Secretary of State Randy A. Daniels, May 20, 2004. Concurred by U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, January 14, 2005.

Waldman, J.R., K.E. Limburg, and D.L. Strayer, eds. 2006. Hudson River Fishes and their Environment. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 51, Bethesda, Maryland.

XIII-20

IPEC CZMA Consistency Certification December 2012 Westchester County Department of Planning (WCDP). 2003. Hudson River Trailway Plan.

September 2003.

Westchester County Department of Planning (WCDP). 2009a. Village of Buchanan Parcel Based Land Use Map. April 1, 2009.

Westchester County Department of Planning (WCDP). 2009b. Westchester RiverWalk: A Greenway Trail. February 1, 2009.

Westchester County Geographic Information Systems (Westchester). 2012. Westchester County GIS. http://giswww.westchestergov.com/Default.htm (accessed November 29, 2012).

Young, J.R. 2012. Publications Resulting from the Hudson River Environmental Monitoring Program. October 24, 2012.

XIII-21