ML11357A013

Riverkeeper (Riv) Pre-Filed Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit RIV000101, Haverstraw Water Supply Project Deis, Draft EIS Chapter 2

ML11357A013
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/23/2011
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML11357A006	List: ML11357A007 ML11357A008 ML11357A009 ML11357A010 ML11357A012 ML11357A013 ML11357A014
References
RAS 21644, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML11357A013 (14)

Text

RIV000101 Submitted: December 22, 2011 EXCERPT Chapter 2: Project Description A. INTRODUCTION The Proposed Project is the Haverstraw Water Supply Projecta water intake, intake pumping station, water treatment plant, and transmission and distribution mains to be located in the Town of Haverstraw, Rockland County, New York. The Proposed Project would draw and treat water from the Hudson River and deliver up to 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water to the existing United Water New York Inc. (United Water) distribution system serving Rockland County. This Project would allow United Water to increase the capacity of its water supply system to meet the projected future demands for water in Rockland County, and therefore is critical to United Waters ability to continue to provide water for the County, including providing adequate quantity, quality, and water pressure to meet the projected future demands for County residents, businesses, and firefighting capabilities.

The Proposed Project would draw water through an intake structure located in Haverstraw Bay, in the Hudson River, through an intake pumping station, to a water treatment plant. At the water treatment plant, water would be treated to remove impurities and salinity, and chlorinated. The potable water would be transmitted from the plant via new underground water transmission lines that would connect to United Waters existing water distribution network. The impurities and salt removed from the water would be processed and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

The Proposed Project would include the following elements:

! Water intake located in the Hudson River.

! Intake pumping station located on the Hudson River shoreline to draw water through the intake.

! Water treatment plant where the water would be treated and disinfected.

! Piping for transmission of water between project elements, including piping for raw water transmitted between the intake pumping station and the water treatment plant; piping to transmit wastewater to the Haverstraw Joint Regional Sewage Treatment Plant (JRSTP); and piping to convey potable water to the existing United Water distribution system.

! Potential upgrades to the JRSTP to increase the capacity of the plants outfall.

The Proposed Project is being designed to treat and deliver up to 7.5 mgd of potable water for the exclusive use of United Waters Rockland County customers. When the facility opens for operation, it would treat and deliver less water, potentially 2.5 mgd to 5 mgd. As Rockland Countys water demand increases, the Proposed Project would be expanded to meet that demand, with the ultimate capacity at 7.5 mgd. Except where otherwise noted, this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes and evaluates the Proposed Project at its full capacity of 7.5 mgd.

This chapter of the DEIS includes the following discussions:

2-1

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS Section B: Project Location, which describes the Project Sites.

Section C: Hudson River Source Water Quality, which discusses the water quality of the Hudson River.

Section D: Haverstraw Water Supply Project: Operations and Facilities, which describes the water treatment operations and facilities proposed at each site.

Section E: Safety and Security, discussing the security measures to be employed for the Proposed Project.

Section F: Overall Design Principles: Sustainability Measures, which describes the Proposed Projects design principles and sustainability measures.

Section G: Project Approvals, listing the anticipated permits and approvals that would be required for the Proposed Project.

Section H: Environmental Review under SEQRA, describing the process of environmental review under New Yorks State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

Section I: Analysis Framework and Format of this DEIS, describing the analysis framework used in the following chapters of this DEIS.

B. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Haverstraw Water Supply Project would be located in the Town of Haverstraw, in Rockland County, New York, as shown in Figure 2-1. The buildings associated with the Proposed Project would occupy two sites, referred to throughout this DEIS as the Intake Site and the Water Treatment Plant Site. In addition to these two sites, the Proposed Project would also have several other features that would occupy sites: the intake structure in the Hudson River, the underground pipe for transmission of raw water from the Intake Site to the Water Treatment Plant Site, and the underground pipes for conveying potable water from the treatment plant to the existing United Water distribution mains. The various Project Sites are described below and shown together on Figure 2-2. The facilities proposed for these sites are described later in this chapter in section D, Haverstraw Water Supply Project: Operations and Facilities.

INTAKE SITE The Intake Site consists of a one-acre portion of one tax parcel in the Town of Haverstraw, 21.09-2-1, located at 710 Beach Road. As shown in Figure 2-2, the Intake Site is on the south side of Beach Road on a point of land that extends into the Hudson River. The Intake Site is bounded to the north by the road and to the east by the Hudson River. To the west and south, it abuts property used by the U.S. Gypsum Company (USG) in connection with its manufacturing plant on the north side of Beach Road in the Town of Stony Point. An enclosed conveyor rises from the Hudson River across the USG site that abuts the Intake Site, and crosses Beach Road.

The conveyor is used by USG to move supplies from barges that dock at a USG pier in the Hudson River east of the site. Beyond the USG conveyor site, the Haverstraw Marina is south and west of the Intake Site. The Intake Site is currently accessible via a driveway from Beach Road through an adjacent portion of the USG property. A portion of the Site is used as a parking area and by the adjacent Haverstraw Marina for the off-season storage of approximately 20 recreational boats. A small boathouse/fishing structure is also located just south of the Intake Site. As described in section D, the Intake Site is proposed for development with an intake pumping station to draw water from the Hudson River.

2-2

LAKE ONTARIO VERMONT NEW HAMPSHIRE MASSACHUSETTS NEW YORK CONNECTICUT Water Supply Project Area PENNSYLVANIA ATLANTIC OCEAN NEW JERSEY Figure Water Treatment Plant Project Location Haverstraw Water Supply 2-1 2-1 County,Project NY Location Figure Rockland UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project Project Location

9.15.08 RD 4T H S T ER R IV Intake Site 5T H ST D

BA TTA LI O N D SS Y POI NT R R G RA SL AT ER DR DR HOK E HOLT DR B EA C H R D IES DR KAY FR Water Treatment Plant Site T H ILL NU WA L ADLE R CT Legend E CO LO GY LN Municipal Boundary NORT H ST Project Sites Potential Property for Expansion/Easements COS GR OVE AV GA GA N RD CENTE R AV Intake Pipe ST CAME RON ST Raw Water Transmission Line Route BEN SO N ST BLA UVEL ST AV T HERDMAN ST Potential Utility Route CAR OL ST N WAYNE AV DEMA RE Potential Site Access RAILRO KWIEC INSKI ST AD AV EA V

DA L 0 800 ZU G ON IBE CT CLIFF ST E RAILR OA D AV Feet SA KNOX ST PHEL PS ST WAY NE AV PECK ST MS Figure 2-2 UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project Project Site Boundaries

Chapter 2: Project Description As discussed below in section D of this chapter, the water intake would extend from the shoreline of the Intake Site approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet into the Hudson River. The route of the water intake pipe would extend approximately 500 feet beyond the grant line of the lands under water granted to USG, into the public trust waters of the Hudson River.

WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE The Water Treatment Plant Site is a 9.03-acre site at 555-571 Beach Road in the Town of Haverstraw (see Figure 2-3). The Water Treatment Plant Site consists of portions of four tax parcels: 20.16-2-1, 20.16-2-2.1, 20.16-2-2.2, and 20.16-2-5. The Water Treatment Plant Site is bounded to the east and southeast by the closed Haverstraw Landfill, to the west by a railroad right-of-way owned by the CSX Corporation. Privately owned industrial properties are located to the north and south of the Site. The JRSTP is located nearby, to the south of the Haverstraw Landfill site. The Water Treatment Plant Site is a reclaimed area located within the boundary of the now closed Haverstraw Landfill. The Site was not used for landfilling, but municipal waste was historically stored there. This waste was removed during landfill closure and the Site was excavated to provide soil to cap the adjacent landfill. Some fill material has recently been placed on the Site. The Site is now vacant; about 1/3 of the Site is vegetated with a mix of grasses, shrubs, and small trees and the rest is bare earth and a stormwater basin. The Site is substantially lower in grade than the surrounding areas and is not accessible via roadways.

The Proposed Project also may incorporate a portion of an adjacent, vacant property to the south of the Water Treatment Plant Site into the Site, for use as a staging area during construction (see Chapter 15, Construction Impacts) or for potential easements or expansion. This property (also shown in Figure 2-3) consists of one tax parcel, 20.16-2-6, and is 6.35 acres in size. The property is owned by DSB Realty Associates, LLC and is referred to in this chapter as the DSB property.

RAW WATER TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE The raw water transmission line route extends between the Intake Site and Water Treatment Plant Site. As shown in Figure 2-2, the route follows the public right-of-way, running beneath Beach Road and Ecology Lane to the JRSTP. Along Beach Road, the water line would cross Minisceongo Creek either above-grade, alongside the bridge carrying Beach Road, or in a buried pipe beneath the creek. At the JRSTP, it would continue westward along the south side of the plant and beyond, finally bending northward to the Water Treatment Plant Site. The pipeline route from the intake pumping station to the water treatment plant would be approximately 7,500 feet (1.4 miles) long. In addition, the route also passes through sections of USG property near the Intake Site; the JRSTP; and the privately owned DSB property to the south of the Water Treatment Plant Site.

POTABLE WATER MAIN ROUTES At this time, potential routes have been identified but not finalized for the new potable water main connections that would extend from the new water treatment plant (discussed in section D later in this chapter). These potential routes are shown in Figure 2-4. As shown in the figure, some of the potential routes extend westward from the Water Treatment Plant Site, crossing the CSX railroad tracks and continuing along an east-west street to meet Route 9W. Others extend south from the Water Treatment Plant Site, along North Wayne Avenue, Carol Street, or the 2-3

9.25.08 T DR HOL DR S

IE FR Y

KA int ny Po of Sto Town er a s tr w of Hav Town w

erstra e of Hav Villag Water Treatment Plant Site Haverstraw Landfill T

C BE LL P

C AM ADLE R CT ST JRSTP BENSON BLA UVELT AV E C OL OG Y L N

HR D

BE A C CAME RON ST N WAYNE AV HERDMA N S T Legend KWIEC INSKI ST Municipal Boundary CAROL ST Project Sites Potential Property for Expansion/Easements AV Raw Water Transmission Line Route AL E ND Potential E RAIL Utility Route RO AD AV SO Potential Site Access PHEL PS ST SAM WAY NE AV KNOX ST LN PECK ST CLIFF ST NNS EYA 0 400 TAN Feet N

Figure 2-3 UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project Water Treatment Plant Site

9.25.08 KIM MA P LE D R WAS T LN R LD ND R H BU R RK R A LN R NS L D LE C RD RE N KE DR TE R D AR CLA H EL LS CT SP R LA U TA NN R UC C IEL PIN E DR E AD D S R OC YA LEW IS TH OA GS K LN R GA R ND TU G OV AN SE N SU LL FO BBE IVA N D DR R DR DR FILORS LN T C

K RO N TAM AR AC LN C W IL ES O DR T T A LIO N D AB BA R C

WAL ON B D BO AN D SL A E

SC O TE D R Y DR DE HA LV E M AE N

DR A L HW DR R S ON D R HOK E EWA LD P L RRY S CT CT Town C EN TR D CT UD SKE LILLB URN DR M A RK of Ha W IL L EAS IAM S ROS EB TO N RD ST verst r HUR BO N HOLT DR aw TE C OU R D DR DOG WOO D LN MA J RD H I GH OR A PH Y NDR E DR L LIS FR E D ER LAK E JE R B IES DR int IC EN D R KAY FR ny Po C IR K GE TTY RD wn of Sto VAL L E RI DGE R D T o w LN ST Y V IE erstra L WR D of Hav MI Town E LIL AC LN UT CIR Y BEEC HN RTY L HW Villa S LI B E ge o N OR f Hav T HP DR AR K erstr DR N TR A aw ADLE R CT W A LN UT H DR CT I LL OD AR K N CE EA ST P K WO AKE K DR EC O LO AR PA R G Y LN DR HP GRA CE AV L S O UT NO R TH S T

WO C IN D CE N ER R OD T EN N D RO M IA L A N AC DR R ES D R DR ST AV BLA UVEL L E W IS R D COS GR OV T AV BEACH RD DR ALIC E R S ON D R E

E ST P A TT E AV DEMA RE BEN SO N ST OO D LN 9

RN DR S LIL BU RN C K LN P IN BEEC HW MC GO VE BR U S H CT SU T C TS STATE ROU T E RAILRO N WAYN E AV FF DR SPE CH AD AV CARO L ST PR O W H EMLO ER IC O O APE ON HESTE R PL GR L BR E RAILR OA D AV MA R NP VE LS G AR T AV T LN E O N AV AD ZU G MAD IS ST AI LRO IBE Legend N K O DR WR CT E KEN N JA CKSO N DR CT BU B AV FARL EY IBE Municipal Boundary ED Y ZU G S TR AC K BR O OK LYN C H ST CT CT S CIR CT D YE AV DR N SELL PHEL PS ST LN BR O W Water Treatment Plant Site WAY NE AV R GO LN ARGIR O CT KNOX ST ON S CHU RCH S T S A PECK ST BR ID W CLIF F ST D RO O LN NNS Potential Potable Water AL Main Routes ER N N ST F N OR R IS T EV MAC DO SU F GE S EYA KEY DR EL Service to Pressure District 40/33 T DE C AN O

SA T DR LL Z A R IE L TAN W RT N L O LN O MS N RO MO ST HUN T ST RO ON DA Service to Pressure District 33 ST LE AV CA DR Service to Pressure District 40 PT EAKM AN SHA N KE Y DR NE S T Potential Pipe Rehab or Replacement CARO LI LY ITT S L E T ST BL E T E RR ST HALGR E N CRS NT Other Potential Pipe Routes H ILL S H EW N CT WAL 0 800 AV MA L ID VICTOR BLOO M DR JO TR I ST ST M E NE A Feet ES SD SAN D ST OS S V N R RHODA AV BAR M A IN Figure 2-4 UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project Potential Potable Water Main Routes

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS CSX access road adjacent to the railroad tracks, and then continue via Railroad Avenue either westward to Route 9W or eastward to Tanneyanns Lane.

As discussed later in this chapter, it is also possible that some existing water mains would need to be rehabilitated or replaced with larger mains. This may include an existing main beneath Route 9W and a main beneath Filors Lane between Route 9W and Thiells Road. This replacement and/or rehabilitation could be conducted as part of United Waters regular water main rehabilitation program.

C. HUDSON RIVER SOURCE WATER QUALITY During the conceptual design phase for the Proposed Project, detailed information on water quality in Haverstraw Bay and upstream and downstream along the river was collected to obtain the current water quality characteristics. The data collected were used to refine the water treatment processes to be best suited to the range of water quality conditions identified. This section of the DEIS summarizes the water quality information collected, which the Proposed Project will be designed to address. These data are also summarized in Chapter 9, Natural Resources, and more detailed information is provided in Appendices 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. In addition, as described later in this section, hydrodynamic water quality modeling was conducted to evaluate the potential effects of wastewater discharges to the river in the vicinity of the proposed water intake.

WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS The Hudson River is currently being used as a drinking water source by the City of Poughkeepsie, the Town of Lloyd, the Village of Halfmoon, and the City of Latham. In addition, it has also been used by the City of New York at Chelsea, NY during past drought emergencies.

Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 below compare a subset of water quality data collected in the vicinity of the proposed location for the water intake for the Proposed Project with that of the other water treatment plant withdrawals on the Hudson River. The tables also provide a comparison of Hudson River water quality with data collected from the Delaware, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, and Susquehanna Rivers, which are also used as sources of drinking water.

The data in the tables show that for many of the basic water quality parameters, the Hudson River quality is similar to that of the other river supplies. One exception is the salinity of the Hudson River, which is higher than that in the other rivers because of the tidal conditions south of Poughkeepsie. For some parameters, the Hudson River exhibits better water quality than some other major rivers that are used for drinking water supply. For example, sampling and analysis were performed for Giardia and Cryptosporidium monthly from May 2007 to April 2008. A total of 38 samples were collected from five sites within the vicinity of the proposed location of the Haverstraw Water Supply Projects new intake. With the exception of one sample that tested positive for Giardia at the detection limit of 0.1 cyst/L, all other samples were below the detection limit for Giardia and Cryptosporidium.

Potential issues for drinking water can include the presence of radionuclides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and endocrine disrupting compounds/pharmaceuticals and personal care products. A brief discussion of the monitoring results for each of these constituents is discussed below.

2-4

Chapter 2: Project Description Table 2-1 Water Quality Information Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments 1

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) Hudson 215 5 110 59 2

Delaware 12 28 56 44 n taken from monthly averages.

7 Mississippi 70 124 230 176 4 plants: 2006-2008 9

Missouri 12 136 226 164 8

Ohio 48 80 66 n is not known.

6 Susquehanna 15 80 n is not known.

1 Ammonia (mg/L) Hudson 40 1 1.9 1.1 36/40 <DL.

Ammonia reported as Nitrogen 3

Delaware 12 0.043 0.181 0.116 n taken from monthly values.

9 Missouri 12 0.03 0.18 0.07 4

Conductivity (µS/cm @ 25C) Hudson 169 24000 5730 5

Hudson 25 238 539 328 8/07-11/07 2

Delaware 12 144 235 179 n taken from monthly averages.

9 Missouri 12 421 693 531 1

Dissolved Organic Carbon Hudson 215 1.2 4.4 2.4 (mg/L) 4 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) Hudson 3.1 14.7 8.8 1

Calcium (mg/L) Hudson 39 5 140 61 2

Delaware 12 10.5 20.6 16.3 n taken from monthly values.

7 Mississippi 25 41 67 53 4 plants: 2003-2008.

9 Missouri 12 42.4 71.5 53.0 8

Ohio 30 44 37 n is not known.

1 Magnesium (mg/L) Hudson 39 5 300 110 2

Delaware 12 3.01 7.72 5.73 n taken from monthly values.

7 Mississippi 25 18 26 23 4 plants:2003-2008 9

Missouri 12 12.5 25.3 17.1 8

Ohio 6 13 10 n is not known.

1 Sodium (mg/L) Hudson 39 5 3400 1044 7

Mississippi 25 11 33 18 4 plants:2003-2008 9

Missouri 12 15.5 43.5 32.2 8

Ohio 13 23 17 n is not known.

1 Potassium (mg/L) Hudson 39 5 21 61 7

Mississippi 25 - - - 24/25<DL (5mg/L); 1 value@ 5mg/L.

4 plants:2003-2008 9

Missouri 12 4.8 12.0 6.5 1

Nitrate as Nitrogen (mg/L) Hudson 40 0.26 4.9 0.95 2

Delaware 12 0.71 1.53 1.11 n taken from monthly values.

7 Mississippi 10 2.59 5.14 4.05 4 plants:2004-2008.

9 Missouri 12 0.72 3.07 1.79 8

Ohio 0.53 1.78 1.06 n is not known..

6 Susquehanna 0 3 n is not known.

1 Nitrite as Nitrogen (mg/L) Hudson 40 0.01 0.16 0.03 7 #

Mississippi 10 0 0.01 0.04 4 plants: 2004-2008 1 datum stated as zero.

1 Nitrogen, Total (mg/L) Hudson 40 1 4.9 1.35 33/40<DL 1

ortho-Phosphate as Hudson 32 - - - All obs < DL (0.5 mg/L).

2 Phosphorus (mg/L) Delaware 11 0.08 0.10 0.10 n taken from monthly values.

9 Missouri 12 0.27 0.57 0.40 4

pH Hudson 6.7 8.4 7.5 2

Delaware 7.3 7.6 7.5 9

Missouri 12 7.89 8.28 8.09 8

Ohio 7.5 8.8 7.8 n is not known.

6 Susquehanna 6.5 8.5 n is not known.

1 Phosphorus, Total (mg/L) Hudson 40 0.1 0.24 0.13 21/40<DL 1

Settleable Solids (mL/L) Hudson 40 0.1 0.1 0.1 22/40<DL 2-5

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS Table 2-1 (contd)

Water Quality Information Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments 1

Chlorine (mg/L) Hudson 215 5 40,000 1,930 5

Hudson 298 2.22 86.3 25.1 1/06-11/07 2

Delaware 12 14.4 33.3 24.1 n taken from monthly values.

7 Mississippi 25 17.6 52.7 29.6 4 plants: 2003-2008.

9 Missouri 12 12.8 32.5 20.8 8

Ohio 20 57 37 n is not known.

3 Sulfate Iron (SO4) (mg/L) Delaware 12 9.9 21.8 16.0 n taken from monthly values.

1 Hudson 215 5 770 246 7

Mississippi 20 22.1 57 37.1 4 plants: 2003-2008.

9 Missouri 12 50.5 91.1 73.3 8

Ohio 50 98 76 n is not known.

1 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) Hudson 215 94 11,000 3,347 8

Ohio 135 345 240 n is not known..

9 Missouri 12 273 554 353 1

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) Hudson 215 1.2 4.7 2.5 2

Delaware 12 1.77 2.97 2.33 n taken from monthly averages.

6 Susquehanna 1.2 7 1.8 n is not known.

8 Ohio 1.92 3.84 2.52 n is not known.

1 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Hudson 215 4.4 100 26.1 2 and 3 Delaware 12 0 56 21 n taken from monthly averages.

9 Missouri 12 69 801 268 1

Total Volatile Suspended Solids Hudson 40 1 35 4.4 (mg/L) 5 1 Turbidity (NTU) Hudson 215 0.75 69 17.5 2

Delaware 12 7.8 28.5 13.2 n taken from monthly averages.

8 Ohio 0.75 275 66 n is not known.

9 Missouri 12 6 1306 275 6

Susquehanna 5 300 n is not known.

Notes:

n = number of samples.

1 This study, all sites, all samples. 04/2007 thru 04/2008.

2 Delaware River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 2007. Data from Baxter intake (estuary).

3 For the Delaware River, TS-TDS is assumed to be the same as TSS for the Hudson River.

4 This study (see Appendix 2.1). 04/2007 thru 04/2008.

5 Hudson River at Poughkeepsie intake.

6 Susquehanna water quality data from United Water Pennsylvania.

7 Mississippi River data from American Water.

8 Ohio River data from Cincinnati Water Works, 2007 data for Miller plant.

9 Missouri River data from St. Louis City Water Division. 2007 data for Howard Bend plant, monthly composite samples.

2-6

Chapter 2: Project Description Table 2-2 Water Quality Information, Trace Elements Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments 1

Aluminum (µg/L) Hudson 39 200 3100 850 3

Mississippi 25 160 5800 800 4 plants, 2003-2008.

5 Missouri 12 18 46 30 1

Arsenic (µg/L) Hudson 39 - - - All obs <DL (10µg/L).

3 Mississippi 25 - - - 1 detect @ 10µg/L 5

Missouri 12 0.6 3.2 1.9 1

Barium (µg/L) Hudson 39 - - - All obs <DL (200µg/L).

3 Mississippi 25 40 160 76 4 plants, 2003-2008.

5 Missouri 12 93 234 169 1

Boron (µg/L) Hudson 215 50 1300 431 3

Mississippi 25 4 160 76 4 plants, 2003-2008:

8 obs<DL (10µg/L).

5 Missouri 12 90 230 130 1

Bromine (mg/L) Hudson 215 0.08 27 7.1 50/215<DL.

3 Delaware 12 0.020 0.054 0.033 n taken from monthly averages.

5 Missouri 12 0 (sic) 0.58 0.16 1

Cadmium (µg/L) Hudson 39 - - - All obs <DL (5µg/L).

3 Mississippi 25 - - - 4 plants: 2003-2008. All obs stated as

<DL, which is stated to be 0.

5 Missouri 12 - - - All statistics given as 0.1µg/L.

1 Chromium (VI) (µg/L) Hudson 40 - - - All obs <DL (10µg/L).

3 Mississippi 8 - - - Form of Cr not stated. 4 plants, 2006-2008: 1 obs @ DL (10µg/L).

5 Missouri 12 0.1 0.2 0.2 Data are as written.

Form of Cr not specified.

1 Copper (µg/L) Hudson 39 - - - All obs <DL (25µg/L).

3 Mississippi 25 - - - 4 plants, 2003-2008: all obs<DL100

µg/L for 3 plants, 10 µg/L for 1 plant.

5 Missouri 12 0.9 8.2 2.9 1

Cyanide (µg/L) Hudson 40 - - - All obs <DL (10µg/L).

3 Mississippi 26 - - - 4 plants, 2003-2008:

all obs <DL (10µg/L).

1 Fluorine (mg/L) Hudson 40 0.2 0.5 0.46 37/40<DL (0.2mg/L).

3 Mississippi 25 0.04 0.16 0.076 4 plants, 2003-2008.

4 Ohio 0.08 0.30 0.19 n is not known.

5 Missouri 12 0.26 0.39 0.32 1

Iron (mg/L) Hudson 39 0.1 3.60 1.07 2

Delaware 12 0.30 1.74 0.84 n taken from monthly values.

3 Mississippi 25 0.27 9.2 1.31 4 plants: 2003-2008.

4 Ohio - - - n is not known.

All statistics given as 3.42 mg/L.

5 Missouri 12 0.0024 0.0150 0.0061 1

Helium (µg/L) Hudson 40 - - - All obs <DL (0.2µg/L) 3 Mississippi 25 - - - 4 plants: 2003-2008: All obs stated as 0, DL not stated.

5 Missouri 12 - - - All statistics reported as 0.0000mg/L.

1 Magnanese (µg/L) Hudson 39 15 130 66 2

Delaware 12 29 116 64 n taken from monthly values.

3 Mississippi 25 60 620 173 4 plants: 2003-2008.

4 Ohio - - - n is not known.

All statistics given as 200µg/L.

5 Missouri 12 1.0 5.2 2.8 1

Lead (µg/L) Hudson 39 5 6 5.03 37/39

DL (10µg/L) @ 10 & 50µg/L. 5 Missouri 12 - - - All data reported as 0.0000mg/L. 1 Sulfur (mg/L) Hudson 40 - - - All obs<DL (0.1mg/L). 2-7 Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS Table 2-2 (contd) Water Quality Information, Trace Elements Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments 1 Selenium (µg/L) Hudson 39 - - - All obs <DL (10µg/L) 5 Missouri 12 1.4 1.9 1.5 1 Silicon Oxide, Silica (mg/L) Hudson 33 1.6 15 6.6 1 Silicon Oxide, Silica Hudson 40 1.3 5.4 3.1 2 Dissolved (mg/L) Delaware 12 1.01 3.48 2.24 n taken from monthly values. 1 Zinc (µg/L) Hudson 39 20 62 23 31/62

DL (10µg/L), 1 @10 & 4 @ 20 µg/L. 5 Missouri 12 - - - All data reported as 0.0 mg/L. Notes: n = number of samples. 1 This study, all sites, all samples. 04/2007 thru 04/2008. 2 Delaware River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 2007. Data from Baxter intake (estuary). 3 Mississippi River data from American Water. 4 Ohio River data from Cincinnati Water Works, 2007 data for Miller plant. 5 Missouri River data from St. Louis City Water Division. 2007 data for Howard Bend plant, monthly composite samples. Table 2-3 Water Quality Information, Microbiological Parameters Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments 1 Cryptosporidium (oocysts/L) Hudson 38 - - - All obs<DL (0.1/L). 2 Delaware 28 0 2 0.021 3 Schuylkill 28 0 7 0.011 Queen Lane intake. 28 0 3 0.036 Belmont intake. 4 Susquehanna ND n is not known. 5 Mississippi 107 0 7.3 0.37 4 plants: 2003-2007. 11 detects. 7 Ohio 13 - - - 1 detect @ 6 oocysts/100L. 1 Total Coliform (CFU/100mL) Hudson 213 2 2420 766 8 Hudson 363 0 36400 2220 2006(n=290)-2007(n=73). 6 Missouri 251 100 20000 3300 7 Ohio  ? 4 4838 786 Daily values. Total coli assumed. 1 Fecal Coliform (CFU/100mL) Hudson 215 10 900 90 2 Delaware 12 27 247 67 n taken from monthly values. 6 Missouri 251 50 28000 3242 4 Susquehanna 4 500 n is not known. 1 E. coli (CFU/100mL) Hudson 215 1 111 2400 2 Delaware 12 16 228 58 n taken from monthly values. Notes: n = number of samples. 1 This study, all sites, all samples. 04/2007 thru 04/2008. 2 Delaware River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 2007. Data from Baxter intake (estuary). 3 Schuykill River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 4 Susquehanna water quality data from United Water Pennsylvania. 5 Mississippi River data from American Water. 6 Missouri River data from St. Louis City Water Division. 2007 data for Howard Bend plant, monthly composite samples. 7 Ohio River data from Cincinnati Water Works, 2007 data for Miller plant. 8 Hudson River at Poughkeepsie intake. 2-8 Chapter 2: Project Description RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Due to the presence of the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the eastern shore of the Hudson River in Buchanan, NY, some have expressed concern regarding the possible radiological contamination of groundwater as well as the Hudson River close to the plant. A summary of the radiological results from United Waters sampling program is provided below. Table 2-4 summarizes the analyses performed for radionuclides in water samples collected at several locations in the Hudson River in 2007 and 2008. Table 2-4 Results of Radionuclide Sampling Results: Results: 1 2 Radionuclide n Range Average MCL Notes Gross alpha 18 0-20 3.5 15 pCi/L Gross beta 19 0-62 10.8 50 pCi/L Dosage: 4 mrems/yr Radium 226/228 16 ND 5 pCi/L (combined) Total uranium 19 0-0.689 0.400 30 ug/L 3 Strontium 90 11 0-0.82 0.680 8 ug/L Not detected in 5 out of 11 samples 3 Tritium 11 0-397 36 20,000 pCi/L Not detected in 10 out of 11 samples Notes: n = Number of samples 1 Not detected treated as 0. 2 MCL = Maximum contaminant level, the standard set by EPA for these radionuclides. MCLs are calculated as the average of four quarterly samples. 3 Used as guidance when gross beta < 50 pCi/L. Drinking water standards for radionuclides first require the determination of gross alpha and gross beta measurements; these measurements are useful in providing an overall screening to determine if further analysis of specific radionuclides is needed. Standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be satisfied by testing for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity. The standards are considered to be met when the gross beta activity is lower than or at the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by EPA and concentrations of tritium and strontium 90 are lower than or at the MCL. (MCLs for these radionuclides are calculated as the average of four quarterly samples.) As shown in Table 2-4, both gross alpha and gross beta were well below the EPA MCLs. Also, radium, uranium, strontium 90, and tritium were well below their respective MCLs and /or guidance values. POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were commonly used in manufacturing processes until the 1970s, and were most commonly used in capacitors and transformers. They were also used for hydraulic fluids, plasticizers, adhesives, fire retardants, dedusting agents, inks, lubricants, cutting oils, in heat transfer systems, among other uses. However, PCBs have been classified by EPA as a potential carcinogen and most uses of PCBs were banned by EPA in 1979. In the Upper Hudson River, upstream of the Troy lock and dam near Albany, elevated levels of PCBs are present in the river sediment. 2-9 Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS To address potential concerns related to PCBs in the Hudson River, the water quality sampling program undertaken for the Proposed Project collected 17 samples that were tested for seven different congeners of PCBs in 2007 and 2008 at five different locations in the Haverstraw-Stony Point area during both high and low tidal cycles. All samples tested for PCBs exhibited results that were found to be below detection limits for PCBs. EPAs February 2002 Record of Decision for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site addresses the risks to people and ecological receptors associated with PCBs in the sediments of the Upper Hudson River. Phase I dredging activities to remove PCB-contaminated sediment are expected to start in 2009. 1 This remediation will be performed in accordance with performance standards for resuspension during dredging that establish limits for concentrations of PCBs in river water and downstream transport of PCBs. The standards include a primary standard of a not-to-exceed river water PCB concentration and two action levels that trigger efforts to identify and correct any cause of exceedance of the performance standards. The action levels are defined by far-field (more than 1 mile downstream of dredging activities) and near-field (within approximately 1,000 feet of the dredging activities) criteria. The Waterford Dam area is the southernmost area to be dredged for PCBs. Given the results of the resuspension modeling for PCBs resulting from Phase 1 dredging, it is expected that PCB levels will not exceed Control Level concentrations or the Primary Standard at one mile downstream of the Waterford Dam area in Troy and at all points south for the entire duration of dredging. 2 PCBs resulting from the dredging would therefore not affect the Hudson River near Haverstraw Bay, in light of the results from Phase 1 resuspension modeling, the use of performance standards during dredging, and, most importantly, because Haverstraw Bay is more than 100 miles from the area to be dredged and separated from that area by the Troy Dam. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING COMPOUNDS (EDCS) AND PHARMACEUTICALS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS (PPCPS) There are many compounds of emerging concern in both ground and surface waters. Compounds of concern to health and environmental professionals, as well as the public, include endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). 3 These constituents are common to many water sources, and are not unique to the Hudson River. The term microconstituents is frequently used to describe these compounds of concern. Microconstituents have been defined by the Water Environment Foundation (WEF) as natural and man-made substances, including elements and inorganic and organic chemicals detected within water and the environment, for which continued assessment of the potential impact on human health and the environment is a prudent course of action. 1 EPA Region 2, Hudson River PCBs, http://www.epa.gov/hudson/. 2 Source: Phase 1 Final Design Report Dredge Resuspension Modeling. Prepared by Quantitative Environmental Analysis, LLC. March 21, 2006. 3 The acronym EDC is used to represent the compounds listed by UL Laboratories as phenolic endocrine disrupting chemicals, estrogens, and other hormones; the acronym PPCPs is used to represent the compounds listed as pharmaceutically active compounds, both positively and negatively charged, and the fragrances. 2-10