-1-

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Erin M. Crotty, Commissioner

FACT SHEET

NEW YORK STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 

(SPDES) DRAFT PERMIT RENEWAL WITH MODIFICATION

INDIAN POINT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION

Buchanan, NY - November 2003

Facility Name: Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3

SPDES #: NY-0004472

DEC Application #s: 3-5522-00011/00004

Fig. 1: Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Station, Hudson River, New York State

I. Introduction:

These fact sheets generally describe the environmental and facility operational issues and draft

permit conditions of a modified SPDES permit which the Department of Environmental

Conservation (Department) proposes to issue for the Indian Point Electric Generating Station in

Buchanan, New York. The draft permit will be the subject of a public review and comment

period, as well as an administrative hearing process (including adjudication, if determined to be

appropriate), before the Department issues a final permit. 

The draft permit contains conditions which address three aspects of operations at Indian Point

regulated under the United States’ Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC §1251, et seq.) and parallel

New York State law and regulations: conventional industrial pollutant discharges, thermal

discharge, and cooling water intake structure. Limits on the conventional industrial discharges

are not significantly changed from the previous permit. New conditions are included to address

the thermal discharge and to implement the “best technology available” (BTA) for minimizing

adverse impacts to aquatic resources from the cooling water intake.

Detailed discussions of water quality and biological components of the permit follow at

Attachments A and B.
-2-

II. Facility Description:

The Indian Point facility is located on the east shore of the Hudson River at about River Mile 42,

in Buchanan, New York (NY), south of Peekskill, in Westchester County, NY (figure 2, below). 

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are nuclear powered steam electric generating plants owned and

operated by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2 LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 LLC

(Entergy - the permittee), respectively. Units 2 and 3 have a combined generating capacity of

1910MW. Indian Point Unit 1, also owned and managed by Entergy Nuclear, is no longer

generating and is awaiting decommissioning; however, cooling and service water is still drawn

through the Unit 1 intake.

Fig. 2: General Location of Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Station on the Hudson

River, New York State

 

The Indian Point facility uses once-through cooling systems that withdraw up to 2.5 billion

gallons of water per day from the Hudson River. This cooling water is drawn in through three

intake structures located on the shoreline of the Hudson River. Heated non-contact cooling

water is discharged back into the Hudson through sub-surface diffuser ports located along the

seaward wall of the discharge canal which is located down-river (south) of the intake structures. 

Some residual industrial chemicals are discharged with the thermal discharge. 

The facility currently operates Ristroph modified traveling screens, a fish handling and return

system, two-speed pumps in Unit 2, and variable-speed pumps in Unit 3 as measures to reduce

mortality of fish and aquatic invertebrates due to operation of the cooling water intake system.

III. Hudson River Settlement Agreement:

Prior SPDES permits for the Indian Point facility (along with the Roseton and Bowline Point

steam electric generating units) reflected the terms of the 1981 - 1991 “Hudson River Settlement
-3-

Agreement” (HRSA) and four subsequent Consent Orders (effective 1992 - 1998) that generally

extended HRSA conditions. The HRSA and Consent Order terms included specific provisions to

partially address thermal discharges, some aquatic organism protection measures and a series of

long-term studies of Hudson River fish species. The last SPDES permit for the Indian Point

facility expired in 1992, but its terms have been continued under provisions of the NY State

Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). 

IV. Overview of the Permit

This draft permit continues the discharge limits on certain metals, solvents and other industrial

pollutants contained in the current permit. In addition, it requires compliance with thermal

discharge standards and includes measures to protect aquatic organisms. The thermal discharge

conditions will generate data that the Department can use to determine whether the thermal

discharges from Units 2 and 3, together or separately, meet New York State thermal criteria. 

The conditions related to the protection of aquatic organisms will reduce impingement and

entrainment of fish and other small aquatic organisms. (Large fish are impinged against the

cooling water intake screens. Smaller organisms are entrained when they are drawn into and

through the plant’s cooling water system.) Finally, the draft permit also mandates the

continuation of certain aquatic resource protection measures and Hudson River monitoring

studies currently in use at the facility. 

A. Conventional Industrial Discharges: Discharges related to the former on-site sewage

treatment plant have been discontinued because sanitary waste from Indian Point is now

routed to the community wastewater treatment plant. No other significant changes are

proposed to existing effluent limits. 

B. Thermal Discharges: The permittee must satisfy the provisions of Section 316(a) of

the CWA and related requirements in 6 NYCRR Section 704.2 which provide that the

thermal discharges from Indian Point to the Hudson River should meet regulatory 

temperature criteria for estuaries, and must meet the NYS standard of ensuring the

propagation and survival of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and other

aquatic species. 

% Within the first two years of the SPDES permit term, the permittee must

conduct a tri-axial (3-dimensional) thermal study to document whether the

thermal discharges from Units 2 and 3 comply with NYS water quality

criteria. 

% In the event that the Indian Point cooling water discharge does not meet

the NYS thermal criteria, the permittee may apply for a modification of

one or more of the criteria as provided for under 6 NYCRR Part 704.4. In

applying for a modification, the permittee must establish to the satisfaction

of the Department that one or more of the criteria are unnecessarily

restrictive and that the modification would not inhibit the existence and
-4-

propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish and

wildlife in the Hudson River. 

% Closed-cycle cooling is an available technology which can substantially

reduce the amount of heat discharged into the Hudson River by reducing

intake flow.

C. Cooling Water Intake Structure: Pursuant to Section 316(b) of the CWA, and 6

NYCRR Section 704.5, the Department has determined that the site-specific best

technology available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impact of the Indian

Point Units 1, 2 and 3 cooling water intake structures is closed-cycle cooling. However,

the Department will give the permittee the opportunity to propose, within a year of the

permit becoming effective, an alternative technology(s) that can minimize adverse

environmental impact to a level equivalent to that which can be achieved by closed-cycle

cooling at this site. The Department will evaluate any proposal submitted by the

permittee. If the proposed technology(s) is accepted, the Department may modify the

permit accordingly. 

1. Immediate Fish Protection Measures:

In addition to the steps above, upon the effective date of the SPDES permit, the

permittee must take the following steps to reduce or mitigate adverse

environmental impacts from the continued operation of the existing once-through

cooling water intake system while steps are being taken to implement BTA.

% To reduce the number of fish and other aquatic organisms

entrained by reducing water withdrawals at Indian Point, the

permittee must schedule and take annual generation outages of no

fewer than 42 unit-days between 23 February and 23 August of

each calendar year (the entrainment season). These outages must

continue until the permittee has commenced operation of a closedcycle cooling system at the Indian Point facility.

% To minimize injury and mortality to adult and juvenile fish due to

impingement on the intake screens, the permittee must continue

operating the existing, Department-approved fish impingement

mitigation measures (e.g., Ristroph screens, fish return sluiceway).

% To reduce entrainment when the facility is operating, the permittee

must reduce flows throughout the year according to a prescribed

schedule specified in the permit.

% The permittee must also, during each calendar year, continue to

conduct long-term Hudson River fish monitoring programs: Long

River Ichthyoplankton, Fall Shoals Trawls, Beach Seine, and

Striped Bass/Atlantic Tomcod Mark-Recapture Survey.
-5-

2. Additional Compliance Measure:

Upon the effective date of the SPDES permit, the permittee must pay $24 million

annually into an escrow account entitled the Hudson River Estuary Restoration

Fund (HRERF), to be made available to the Department. All of the HRERF funds

shall be held for the benefit of the HRERF, from which the Department will draw

funds for programs or projects that are designed to restore, protect, or enhance

Hudson River Estuary resources. These resources include but are not limited to

aquatic habitat, fish, shellfish and other aquatic species (all life stages), and

Hudson River water quality. This amount represents: a) the difference between

the cost of operating and maintaining the existing facility and the cost of

operating and maintaining a facility using closed-cycle cooling, and b) the

expected return on unspent capital (i.e. the cost to construct cooling towers) that

is instead available for investment. These annual payments will continue until the

permittee has commenced construction of cooling towers for the closed-cycle

cooling system at the Indian Point facility.

D. Pending Issues: Actual construction of a closed-cycle system cannot occur until

certain initial investigations and proceedings have been completed. The permittee must,

therefore, undertake specific steps to implement closed-cycle cooling:

1. Pre-Design Engineering Report

The permittee must complete certain site-related inquiries, including but not

limited to assessing: potential need for blasting as well as any potential impacts

from blasting; cooling tower particulate emissions; potential need to relocate the

Algonquin Gas Company’s natural gas pipeline; whether construction outages for

Units 2 and 3 must occur simultaneously, can be done sequentially, or under an

alternative schedule; and whether the construction outages, 42 day annual

operating outages, or other measures can be undertaken so as to reduce potential

impacts to energy reliability or capacity. Thus, the Department is requiring the

permittee to submit for approval a Pre-Design Engineering Report that addresses

and resolves all regulatory and engineering issues associated with installing

closed-cycle cooling for Units 1, 2, and 3. This submission must occur within one

year of the effective date of the SPDES permit.

2. Detailed Engineering Plans

Within one year after submission of the Pre-Design Engineering Report, the

permittee must submit complete design plans that address all construction issues

for conversion of Units 1, 2 and 3 to closed-cycle cooling. 

3. License Modification and Other Approvals

The permittee must obtain approvals for closed-cycle cooling system construction

from other government agencies having authority over the nuclear power

generation facilities or aspects of the construction site. This includes, but is not

limited to, the permittee’s obtaining modifications of its operating licenses from

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to authorize conversion to closed-
-6-

cycle cooling. The NRC will review operational safety and hazard issues that

arise as a consequence of the permittee’s proposal to convert to closed-cycle

cooling. It also includes obtaining the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) to relocate the Algonquin Gas Company’s natural gas

pipeline, if such relocation is determined to be necessary. Other state and local

agency approvals may also be required. To address these issues, the Department

is requiring the permittee to submit, within 6 months of the effective date of the

SPDES permit, a schedule showing the permittee’s plan for seeking other

necessary government approvals for the construction of closed-cycle cooling for

the Indian Point facility. If the NRC denies or requires changes to Entergy’s

application to modify its licenses, or if FERC does not approve relocation of the

Algonquin pipeline, the Department may initiate a modification of the permit, or

take other appropriate action.

4. NRC License Extension

An important unsettled issue relates to the potential for Entergy to seek an

extension of its NRC operating licenses. The Department cannot require the

permittee to seek NRC license extensions. If the permittee determines that it will

not extend its NRC licenses, or the NRC denies the license extensions, the

Department will not require the construction of a closed-cycle cooling system. In

that case the Department may also initiate a proceeding to modify the permit,

including revision of the Department’s BTA determination.

This permit does not require the construction of cooling towers unless: (1) the

applicant seeks to renew its NRC operating licenses, (2) the NRC approves

extension of the licenses, and determines that the installation and operation of

closed-cycle cooling is feasible and safe, and (3) all other necessary Federal

approvals are obtained. If the NRC grants extensions of the permittee’s licenses,

the permittee must submit for Department approval a revised construction

schedule to reflect any construction design or schedule changes resulting from the

NRC approval process or other approvals. Entergy has estimated that once

construction begins, the conversion to closed-cycle cooling will take 4 years and

9 months to complete. In order to ensure reliability of the State electric system,

the Department will require that the permittee, in the process of producing the

revised compliance schedule, investigate avoiding construction outages during the

summer months of peak electricity consumption. Implementation of closed-cycle

cooling will be subject to the specific preliminary requirements described above.

V. Attachments:

A: SPDES Permit Fact Sheet and summary of proposed permit changes for

Wastewater Data, Receiving Water Data, and Permit Limit Derivation. 

B: SPDES Permit Biological Fact Sheet and summary of proposed permit

changes for Aquatic Resources and Best Technology Available (BTA)

Determination.
Attachment A

SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET and summary of proposed permit changes: 

Wastewater Data, Receiving Water Data, and Permit Limit Derivation. 
SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET: Wastewater Data, Receiving Water Data, and, Permit Limit

Derivation. (see last pages of fact sheet for explanatory notes).

(1) General Permittee Data:

Permit Number Permittee Name Facility Name Location (C, T, V) County 

0004472 Entergy Nuclear, Indian Point Indian Point Nuclear Generation Facility Buchanan Westchester 

(2) Summary of Final Outfall Flow Rate(s) and Receiving Water Data:

Outfall Information Receiving Water Information

Latitude Longitude Flow Rate (MGD) For u

Outfall

# ° , ‘ , “ ° , ‘ , “ Average

Maximumor Design Name Class

Water Index

Number

7Q10 (MGD)

30Q10

(MGD

001 41 16 07 73 57 19 2500 Once-Through Cooling Water & LVW SB H002-009

“ “ Variable Uncontaminated Stormwater Runoff “ H

01P “ “ TBD Eductor Pit Discharge “ “
SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET: Permit Number NY 0004472 , page 2 of 8 

(3) Individual Outfall Data Summaries and Permit Limit Development:

Outfall 001Source(s) of Wastewater Once-through Cooling Water, contributory treated wastewater streams (low volume wastewater)Existing Wastewater Treatment FacilitiesEPA Point Source Category &Production Rate

Steam Electric Power Generation 40 CFR 423

Effluent Parameter (Units)

(concentration units - mg/l,ug/l or ng/l; mass units - lbs/dor g/d) 

Existing Effluent Quality Technology Based Effluent Limit W

concentration mass PQL A

Avg/Max 95%/99% Avg/Max 95%/99% conc. mass Type conc. Basis c

WET TESTING NA Flow Rate, units = MGD Average Maximum 2500 NA NApH (su) Minimum 6.0 Maximum 9.0 Range 40CFR423Total Residual Chlorine mg/l 0.2 0.2 40CFR423 0.Lithium Hydroxide mg/l 0.01 0.01 BAT/BPJ NBoron - Acid Soluable mg/l 0.7 1.0 525 BAT/BPJ 1.Temperature Degrees F* 110 110 6NYCRR Part 704 * See (4) Additional Issues Page 4of this documentSUM OF 01B,01C, 01D, 01J&01LTotal Suspended Solids mg/l 50 BCT SUM OF 01C & 01DHexavalent Chromium mg/l .1 BAT/BPJ 0.OUTFALL 01GPhosphates as P mg/l 38 BPJ N
SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET: Permit Number NY 0004472 ,page 3 of 8 

(3) Individual Outfall Data Summaries and Permit Limit Development:

Outfalls 01M, 002-

009

Source(s) of Wastewater Uncontaminated Stormwater RunoffExisting Wastewater Treatment FacilitiesEPA Point Source Category &Production Rate

40CFR423

Uncontaminated Stormwater Runoff - NO MONITORING REQUIREDOUTFALLS 01L, 01P and 01N

Effluent Parameter (Units)

(concentration units - mg/l,ug/l or ng/l; mass units - lbs/dor g/d) 

Existing Effluent Quality Technology Based Effluent Limit W

concentration mass PQL A

Avg/Max 95%/99% Avg/Max 95%/99% conc. mass Type conc. Basis c

01L NA 

Flow Rate, units = Average Maximum NApH (su) Minimum 6.0 Maximum 9.0 6.0-9.0 Range BCT Florides 5.0 lb/day AL Iron 4mg/l AL Copper 1.0mg/l AL CONTRIBUTORYWASTEWATER TO 00101P EDUCTOR PITDISCHARGEOil & Grease mg/l 15 BCT Total Suspended Solids mg/l 50 BCT 

01NOil & Grease mg/l 15 BCT Total Suspended Solids mg/l 50 BCT 
SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET: Permit Number NY 0004472 ,page 4 of 8 

4) Additional Issues (see next page)
SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET: Permit Number NY 0004472 , page 5 of 8 Date 11/12/03

(4) Additional Issues

Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs):

New York State water quality regulations (for surface waters) are implemented by applying the

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process to watersheds, drainage basins or waterbody

segments on a pollutant specific basis. The analysis determines if there is a “reasonable

potential” that the discharge of a pollutant will result in exceedance of ambient water quality

criteria (AWQC). If there is a reasonable potential for an exceedance of AWQC, the TMDL is

used to establish waste load allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint

sources of the pollutant. For point sources, the waste load allocations are translated to WQBELs

for inclusion in SPDES permits. 

Reference - TOGS 1.3.1; USEPA Guidance for Water Quality - Based Decisions: The TMDL

Process; 40 CFR 130; and the Clean Water Act 303(d).

See also thermal discharge discussion, below.

Statistics:

The statistical methods utilized are consistent with TOGS 1.2.1 and the USEPA, Office of

Water, Technical Support Document For Water Quality-based Toxics Control, March 1991,

Appendix E. They are generally based on log normal analysis. If other data distributions such

as normal or delta-lognormal are utilized, it is noted below. Statistical calculations were not

performed for parameters with insufficient data. Generally, ten or more data points are needed to

calculate percentiles. Two or more data points are necessary to calculate an average and a

maximum. Non-detects were included in the statistical calculations at the reported detection

limit unless otherwise noted.

Monitoring data collected during the following time period was used to calculate statistics: N/A

This data was taken from the following source(s): N/A

Internal Waste Stream Monitoring:

40 CFR 122.45(h)(1) allows the permit authority to monitor and limit parameters at internal

locations when controlling them solely at the final outfall is impractical or infeasible. Dilution

of a process wastewater with large volumes of cooling water and/or storm water is one example

of when the use of an internal monitoring point is justified. Monitoring at the following internal

outfalls is necessary: 01B, 01C, 01D, 01G, 01L, & 01P. 
SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET: Permit Number NY 0004472 , page 6 of 8 Date 11/12/03

WET Testing:

Testing is required, in accordance with TOGS 1.3.2, for the following reasons: NOT

REQUIRED

Indicator Parameters:

In accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(e)(2), The permit writer has determined that effective

treatment and/or acceptable performance for specific parameters is indicated by one or more

other parameters which are limited and therefore a decision has been made to not limit or

monitor these specific parameters. This judgement is based on the similarity between this and

the regulated parameter(s) and historical data where available. The use of indicator parameters

is not appropriate for WQBELs. Following is a list of the affected parameters: N/A

Thermal: 

Under Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a permittee may submit a demonstration

that its thermal discharge does not threaten the survival of indigenous aquatic populations even if

it does not meet state water quality criteria. Such a study was prepared in 1978 by the prior

owners of the Indian Point units, but it was superseded by provisions of the 1981 - 1991 Hudson

River Settlement Agreement and subsequent Consent Orders effective 1992 - 1998. Based on

that older “316(a) demonstration”, the former operators of the Indian Point units asserted that the

facility complied with the NYS thermal standard (6 NYCRR Part 704). 

Based on modeling submitted with the 1999 DEIS by the prior owners of Indian Point (along

with owners of two other Hudson River generating stations), the thermal criteria outlined in 6

NYCRR Part 704.2 are not being consistently maintained under the present operation of the

facility. Appendix VI Chapter 6 of the 1999 DEIS, “Near-field Temperature Modeling”,

concludes that newer analyses of the discharge from Indian Point "... indicate that it is highly

likely that the exceedance of the top-width criterion, and possible the cross-sectional area

criterion, would occur under slack conditions. Top-width exceedances occur under all flood

scenarios . . . ." In more general terms, this means that temperatures measured at the water

surface along a line running from the outfall across the river to the far shore, and measured at

varying depths along the cross-section below that line from outfall to far shore, likely exceed the

thermal criteria in the Department’s regulations during periods with lowest river flow velocities,

that is, during the transition between tidal cycles. Furthermore, temperatures at the water surface

along that same line from outfall to far shore appear to exceed the thermal criteria at all flow

levels classified as “flood”, that is, during high tides. 
SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET: Permit Number NY 0004472 , page 7 of 8 Date 11/12/03

The permit therefore requires the permittee to conduct additional thermal studies to verify actual

in-stream conditions of the thermal component of the discharge. The in-stream tri-axial study 

mandated by Special Condition 7 will require actual measurement of river and outfall

temperatures at multiple points on the surface and at depth, along the surface and in cross-section

running from the outfall and across the river to the far shore, as well as temperature

measurements on the surface and at various depths at specified points running parallel to the

course of the river. Using this additional data plus existing sources, the Department will be able

to determine if the Indian Point facility complies with the thermal standard and whether to grant

Indian Point a variance from NYS thermal criteria.

Schedule of Compliance:

A schedule of compliance items and submissions has been developed and summarizes all

required submissions for the term of the permit.

5) Summary of Proposed Permit Changes:

Compared to the issued permit this draft is intended to replace, the following significant changes

are proposed:

Deleted outfalls: 01A and 01F

Added outfall 01P - Eductor Pit Discharge.

Added Thermal studies.

Removed all references to the now-expired Hudson River Settlement Agreement.

Includes a schedule of compliance.
SPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET: Permit Number NY 0004472 , page 8 of 8 Date 11/12/03

(6) Explanatory Notes:

Please note that some of these terms are not applicable to every fact sheet. 

AL - Action level calculated in accordance with TOGS 1.2.1 (non POTWs) and TOGS 1.3.3 (POTWs). See the permit for a complete definition.

AVG or Av - Average. The arithmetic mean. 

AWQC - Ambient water quality criteria for the receiving water. The applicable standard, guidance value or estimated value in accordance with TOGS 1.1.1,

TOGS 1.3.1 and 6NYCRR 700-705.

Basis - The technical analysis, internal guidance, regulation and/or law upon which an effluent limit or monitoring requirement is proposed. 

BAT - Best Available Technology Economically Achievable in accordance with TOGS 1.2.1 (non POTWs) and TOGS 1.3.3 (POTWs), 40 CFR 125, 6NYCRR

754, ECL 17-0811 and the Clean Water Act. 

BCT - Best Conventional Control Technology in accordance with TOGS 1.3.4, 40 CFR 125, 6NYCRR 754, ECL 17-0811 and the Clean Water Act. 

BPJ - Best Professional Judgement in accordance with TOGS 1.2.1 (non POTWs) and TOGS 1.3.3 (POTWs), 40 CFR 122 and 125, 6NYCRR 754.1, ECL 17-

0811 and the Clean Water Act. 

BPT - Best Practicable Control Technology in accordance with TOGS 1.2.1, 40 CFR 125, 6NYCRR 754, ECL 17-0811 and the Clean Water Act. 

BTA- Best Technology Available

Conc. - Concentration in units of mg/l, ug/l or ng/l.

Design Flow - Treatment system design capacity as noted in an approved engineering report.

EDP Effective date of permit.

Final - Final permit period requirements. A level of performance that must be achieved according to a schedule specified in either the permit or a consent order.

FERC- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

g/d - Grams per day discharged.

GW - Groundwater effluent limitation developed in accordance with TOGS 1.2.1 (nonPOTWs), TOGS 1.3.3 (POTWs), TOGS 1.1.2 and 6NYCRR 703.

Ind - Indicated parameter. See definition in section (4). 

Interim - Interim permit period requirements. A level of performance that must be achieved while improvements are being implemented in order to achieve final

permit period requirements.

lbs/d or #/d - Pounds per day discharged.

LVW Low volume wastes/wastewater

Mass - Mass discharge in units of #/d or g/d discharge.

Max or Mx - The maximum value. 

MGD - Million gallons per day. 

mg/l - Milligrams per liter.

Dilution/Mixing - Used to determine dilution available in receiving waters. For lakes, estuaries and slowly flowing rivers and streams, mixing zone dilution is generally

assumed to be 10:1 unless data is available to indicate otherwise.

Model - Calibrated water quality model applied in accordance with TOGS 1.3.1.

Mon - Monitor only. 

NA or N/A - The characteristics of this parameter and the reported discharge levels do not justify routine monitoring or a limit. Also indicates “not applicable”.

ng/l - Nanograms per liter. 1000 ng/l = 1 ug/l = 0.001 mg/l.

NRC- Nuclear Regulatory Commission

POTW - Publicly owned treatment works (i.e., sewage treatment plants)

PQL - The DEC published or site specific practical quantitation limit; the concentration in wastewater at which analytical results are thought to be accurate to

within approximately plus or minus thirty percent. 

R - “Rolled Over”, i.e. the specific requirement in this permit is equivalent to the previous permit. R(T) is roll over of a technology based requirement and

R(WQ) is roll over of a WQBEL. 

Range - The discharge is limited to a range of effluent values, e.g. a pH limit of (6.0-9.0) SU.

RREL - EPA’s Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory treatability database.

T - Technology based effluent limit or requirement.

TOGS - Technical and Operational Guidance Series. Internal guidance to permit drafters used by the NYSDEC Division of Water to aid in permit drafting. 

Copies of these guidance documents may be obtained from the internet at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/togs/index.htm.

ug/l - Micrograms per liter. 1000 ug/l = 1 mg/l.

WET- Whole Effluent Toxicity (testing). See TOGS 1.3.2.

WQ - Water quality.

WQBEL - Water quality-based effluent limit. See information in section (4). 

7Q10 - The minimum average 7 consecutive day flow at a recurrence interval of 10 years. Applicable to evaluations involving aquatic health based AWQC.

30Q10 - The minimum average 30 consecutive day flow at a recurrence interval of 10 years. Applicable to evaluations involving human health based AWQC.

95% - The 95th percent confidence interval for the historical effluent data used to draft the permit.

99% - The 99th percent confidence interval for the historical effluent data used to draft the permit.

133 - Secondary treatment requirements in accordance with TOGS 1.3.3, 40 CFR 133, 6NYCRR 754, ECL 17-0509 and the Clean Water Act.

+

 - These parameters represent scans. Detections vary among the compounds which are included in the scans. The listed value represents the maximum

detected level of any compound in the scan.
Attachment B

SPDES PERMIT BIOLOGICAL FACT SHEET and summary of proposed permit

changes: Aquatic Resources and Best Technology Available (BTA) Determination 
Attachment B - Page 1 of 8

1. Biological Effects

Each year Indian Point Units 2 and 3 (collectively “Indian Point”) cause the mortality of more

than a billion fish from entrainment of various life stages of fishes through the plant and

impingement of fishes on intake screens. Entrainment occurs when small fish larvae and eggs

(with other aquatic organisms) are carried into and through the plant with cooling water, causing

mortality from physical contact with structures and thermal stresses. Impingement occurs when

larger fish are caught against racks and screens at the cooling water intakes, where these

organisms may be trapped by the force of the water, suffocate, or otherwise be injured. Losses at

Indian Point are distributed primarily among 7 species of fish, including bay anchovy, striped

bass, white perch, blueback herring, Atlantic tomcod, alewife, and American shad. Of these,

Atlantic tomcod, American shad, and white perch numbers are known to be declining in the

Hudson River (ASA Analysis and Communications 2002). Thus, current losses of various life

stages of fishes are substantial.

2. Alternatives Evaluated

The following technologies were evaluated to determine whether they would effectively

minimize adverse environmental impact from this facility:

& Relocation of intake structure

& Technologies currently in use at Indian Point:

Fish Handling and Return Systems

Ristroph Modified Traveling Screens

Variable-Speed Pumps

& Aquatic Microfiltration Barriers

& Flow Reductions

& Closed-cycle Cooling

& Generation Outages

Other available technologies, like wedgewire screens, were not evaluated as alternatives

because they were determined not to be feasible for Indian Point’s site and operation. 

3. Discussion of Best Technology Available

According to Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act and 6 NYCRR Part 704.5, the

location (A), design (B), construction (C), and capacity (D) of cooling water intake structures

must reflect the “best technology available” (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental

impact. In addition, the costs of these technologies should not be “wholly disproportionate” to

the environmental benefits derived. The application of BTA is site-specific.

A. Location

The existing intake structure is located on the shoreline of the Hudson River adjacent to

the power plant. Relocation of the intake structure to another shoreline location or an

offshore location would not decrease the mortality of aquatic organisms because fish

eggs and larvae in this area of the Hudson River are equally abundant in all alternate

locations.
Attachment B - Page 2 of 8

B. Design

Technologies currently in use at Indian Point

The current design of the intake structure includes Ristroph modified traveling screens, a

fish handling and return system, two-speed pumps serving Unit 2, and variable-speed

pumps serving Unit 3.

Traveling Screens: The Ristroph modified traveling screens are

designed to reduce the mortality of fishes associated with

traditional traveling screens. The screens at Indian Point also

include a low pressure spray system that washes impinged fish and

other larger aquatic organisms off the screens separately from

debris that is removed using a high pressure spray.

Fish Handling Systems: The fish handling and return systems

convey the fish and other organisms washed off the screens back

into the Hudson River.

Multiple-Speed Pumps: The two-speed and variable-speed pumps

allow Entergy to more precisely adjust the volume of water drawn

into the plant compared to single-speed pumps. This more precise

adjustment allows for a reduction in the volume of cooling water

drawn into the plant, thereby reducing the numbers of aquatic

organisms entrained and impinged.

According to Entergy, this current design, along with seasonal flow reductions and

generation outages (see below), attains an estimated 77% reduction in impingement

mortality but only 35% reduction in entrainment mortality over full flow conditions

(ASA Analysis & Communication 2003). 

Aquatic Microfiltration Barriers (Gunderboom® Marine Life Exclusion SystemTM or

similar technology)

Aquatic microfiltration barriers are designed to prevent

entrainment of organisms by excluding them from the water near

the intake structure. These barriers are made of fabric with a

limited porosity and a large surface area of this fabric is required to

pass large volumes of water. This limited porosity combined with

the large flow of cooling water at this facility (up to 2.5 billion

gallons of water daily) would require an aquatic microfiltration

barrier many thousands of feet in length. An aquatic

microfiltration barrier of this size would be orders of magnitude

larger than any previous deployment. The physical dimensions

combined with logistical constraints of anchoring would make

seasonal deployment difficult, at best. In addition, use of an

aquatic microfiltration barrier would require an offshore location

for the intake structure to avoid hydraulic impacts from the intake
Attachment B - Page 3 of 8

on barrier performance (ASA Analysis & Communication 2003). 

Any offshore location at Indian Point would likely create a hazard

to navigation. Based on all the above factors, installing an aquatic

microfiltration barrier at Indian Point would not be feasible.

C. Construction

There will be no impacts on aquatic organisms from construction

activities for any feasible alternative because these alternatives do

not require physical work in the river. In addition, erosion and

sediment control plans are required for upland construction

activities under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Phase II

stormwater regulations. The requirements contained in these

regulations should prevent incidental impacts to aquatic resources.

D. Capacity

Flow Reductions

Minimizing cooling water intake flow volume by varying or

reducing intake pump speeds is not a feasible alternative for

substantially reducing fish mortality at Indian Point. In order to

operate safely, the Plants must run their cooling water pumps at

60% capacity or greater. Although it is possible to reduce flow by

40%, this can only be done when River water temperatures are

low, primarily during winter months. Since few fish are

susceptible to entrainment during those months, this presents only

a minimal opportunity for reducing fish mortality.

Closed-Cycle Cooling

Closed-cycle cooling recirculates cooling water in a closed system

that substantially reduces the need for taking cooling water from

the River. Entergy’s analysis (Enercon Services 2003) showed

that the construction of hybrid cooling towers is generally feasible

but will require prior review and approval from the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC), which issues Entergy’s operating

licenses. The benefit of hybrid cooling towers for minimizing

adverse environmental impacts is substantial, with greater than a

98% reduction in fish mortality (ASA Analysis and

Communication 2003) that is primarily a result of reducing intake

flow volumes. Although the projected capital cost to construct

hybrid cooling towers is approximately $740 million, with

additional operational and maintenance costs of $145 million

(Enercon Services, Inc. 2003), these costs, projected over the life

of the plant (assuming twenty year license extensions after the

2013 and 2015 license expirations for Units 2 and 3, respectively), 

represent approximately 5-6% of Indian Point’s annual gross 

revenue. The Department considers that these costs are not wholly

disproportionate to the environmental benefits of the near
Attachment B - Page 4 of 8

elimination of fish mortality due to entrainment and impingement

from Indian Point.

Generation Outages

Generation outages are another way to reduce cooling water flow

that could result in substantial decreases in fish mortality. Annual

outages lasting 32 weeks would result in reductions in fish

mortality similar to closed-cycle cooling. Since these generation

outages would be necessary each year, the economic costs to the

operator over a possible 30 year life of the plant (assuming twenty

year license extensions after the 2013 and 2015 license expirations

for Units 2 and 3, respectively) would represent approximately

62% of Indian Point’s annual gross revenue. The Department

considers these costs to be wholly disproportionate to the

environmental benefits derived.

4. Determination of Best Technology Available

After evaluating all of the known and available alternatives, the Department has determined that

in this case closed-cycle cooling represents the best technology available for minimizing adverse

environmental impacts from the cooling water intake structure at Indian Point. As noted above,

the costs of hybrid cooling towers are not wholly disproportionate to the benefits derived,

assuming 20-year license extensions for both units.

Although the Department has determined that closed-cycle cooling represents the best

technology available for this site, several points need to be addressed prior to the construction of

cooling towers. First, a detailed Pre-Design Engineering Report and design plans that identify

and address all regulatory and engineering issues must be developed. Second, the NRC must

review and approve any proposed change to a nuclear power plant. The NRC review will

address safety and hazard considerations related to construction impacts to the reactor systems

and is understood to involve license modification proceedings that would take approximately one

year to complete. Third, construction of closed-cycle cooling, as described in Entergy’s June

2003 submission of a preliminary design to the Department, would likely require the Algonquin

Gas Company (Algonquin) to relocate its gas pipeline, currently located in the vicinity of Indian

Point Unit 3 (Enercon Services, Inc. 2003). Such a relocation would require the approval of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a separate process which may take

approximately a year or more. The actual length of time required to complete all of these

necessary steps is currently unknown and is not regulated by any State permit. Consequently,

this SPDES permit requires Entergy to do the following:

1) Within one year of the effective date of the permit, submit for the Department’s

approval, a Pre-Design Engineering Report addressing regulatory and engineering issues. 

A detailed schedule for regulatory approvals and an interim progress report are also

required (see Special Condition 28. b. of permit);
Attachment B - Page 5 of 8

2) Within one year after submission of the Pre-Design Engineering Report, submit for

the Department’s review and approval detailed engineering drawings for the construction

of closed-cycle cooling towers (see Special Condition 28. e. of permit);

3) Upon the effective date of the permit, continue the use of Ristroph modified traveling

screens in continuous wash mode (see Special Condition 27 of permit);

4) Upon the effective date of the permit, continue the use of the existing fish handling

and return system (see Special Condition 27 of permit);

5) Upon the effective date of the permit, reduce cooling water flow between October and

June of each calendar year (see Special Condition 6 of permit);

6) Upon the effective date of the permit, take an annual 42 unit-day outage during

entrainment season (23 February and 23 August). This requirement is only an interim

measure and Entergy would not be required to take an outage during the entrainment

season following the conversion of Indian Point’s operations to closed-cycle cooling (see

Special Condition 26 of permit);

7) Upon the effective date of the permit, continue to conduct the annual Longitudinal

River Survey, Beach Seine Survey, Fall Shoals Trawls and Striped Bass/Atlantic Tomcod

Mark Recapture Survey. These long term studies monitor the abundance of fishes in the

Hudson River (see Special Condition 25 of permit); and

8) Provide $24 million per year to an escrow account entitled the Hudson River Estuary

Restoration Fund (HRERF) that will provide a mechanism to fund restoration,

enhancement and protection programs and projects benefiting the Hudson River Estuary

(see Special Condition 29 of permit). HRERF monies are intended to benefit the Hudson

River Estuary and eliminate Entergy’s potential financial savings from the delayed

implementation of closed-cycle cooling. The annual amount for this fund represents:

(a) the difference between the cost of operating and maintaining

the existing facility and the cost of operating and maintaining a

facility using closed-cycle cooling; and 

(b) the expected return on unspent capital (i.e., the cost to

construct hybrid cooling towers, approximately $740 million) that

is instead available for investment.

Entergy would not be required to contribute additional money to the HRERF in the event

that it commences construction of cooling towers.

5. Legal Requirements

The requirements for the cooling water intake structure in this SPDES permit are consistent with

the policies and requirements embodied in the New York State Environmental Conservation

Law, in particular Sections 1-0101.1.; 1-0101.2.; 1-0101.3.b., c.; 1-0303.19.; 3-0301.1.b., c., i., s.
Attachment B - Page 6 of 8

and t.; 11-0303.; 11-0535.2; 17-0105.17.; 17-0303.2., 4.g.; 17-0701.2. and the rules thereunder,

specifically 6 NYCRR Section 704.5. Additionally, the requirements are consistent with the

Clean Water Act, in particular Section 316(b).

6. References

ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc. 2003. Response to New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation Request for Information on Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3,

Items 3 & 4. June 2003.

ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc. 2002. 1999 Year Class Report for the Hudson River

Estuary Monitoring Program. August 2002.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc, New

York Power Authority, 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. December 1999.

Enercon Services, Inc. 2003. Economic and Environmental Impacts Associated with

Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water

Configuration. June 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. Final Environmental

Impact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits for the Roseton 1 & 2, Bowline 1 & 2,

and Indian Point 2 & 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland, and

Westchester Counties. June 25, 2003.

7. Summary of Proposed Permit Changes

Page 2 of 19

Condition 3 of the previous permit allowed the permittee to exceed the maximum cooling

water flows stipulated in the Hudson River Settlement Agreement (HRSA) in order to meet

thermal limits required in conditions 1 and 2. As HRSA has expired this condition is no

longer relevant.

Condition 4 of the previous permit provided for increased cooling water flows above

stipulated HRSA limits in order to meet thermal limits contained in the permit. As HRSA

has expired this condition is no longer relevant.

Condition 5 of the previous permit referenced the HRSA and is no longer relevant.

Condition 6 of the previous permit stated that no thermal effluent limitations (other than

existing conditions 1 through 4) would be imposed at the Indian Point facility. This

condition relates to the agreement that the terms of the HRSA would satisfy the New York

State Criteria Governing Thermal Discharges. As HRSA has expired, this condition is no

longer relevant.
Attachment B - Page 7 of 8

Additional Conditions

Condition 2 of the previous permit pertaining to the handling of solid waste and aquatic

organisms has been deleted. The requirement to return organisms to the Hudson River

through the sluices has been incorporated into the draft permit as condition 27.

Condition 4 of the previous permit referencing biological monitoring at Indian Point,

which was a requirement of HRSA has been deleted, as no impingement or entrainment

monitoring at the facility are required during this permit period.

Conditions 7 and 11 of the previous permit referencing the expired HRSA have been

deleted. Relevant requirements contained in the HRSA are incorporated in this permit as

conditions 25, 26, and 27.

New conditions:

Condition 25 requires the continuation of Hudson River Monitoring programs ( which were

previously embodied in HRSA).

Condition 26 requires a minimum of 42 unit-days of outages between February 23 and

August 23 for each calendar year of the permit term. These outages must continue until

complete conversion of Indian Point’s operations to closed-cycle cooling. This is a

continuation of the same level of outages required by HRSA.

Condition 27 requires that the modified Ristroph modified traveling screens number 21

through 26 and 31 through 36 must be operated on continuous wash when the corresponding

cooling water circulation pump is on at the correct pressure in order to maximize the

survival of fish impinged on the traveling screens.

Condition 28 requires the following submissions:

1) a schedule for obtaining all necessary approvals during this permit term from the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and other

governmental agencies to enable the construction of closed-cycle cooling at Indian Point;

2) a report on the progress to date of the Pre-Design Engineering Report;

3) a Pre-Design Engineering Report addressing regulatory and engineering issues associated

with installing closed cycle cooling at Units 1, 2, and 3;

4) engineering design plans that address all construction issues for the conversion of the

cooling water systems for Units 1, 2, and 3 to a closed-cycle system; 

5) within 30 days after receipt of license extensions from the NRC, the permittee must

submit a revised or updated construction schedule for the Department’s approval reflecting

any changes resulting from the NRC license extension process; and
Attachment B - Page 8 of 8

6) notification to the Department’s Division of Environmental Permits, in writing, within 5

business days of the submission of an application for license modification or extension to

the NRC.

Condition 29 requires the permittee to pay $24 million dollars annually into a Hudson River

Estuary Restoration Fund escrow account.