an.m3 Cgn?~. .:.xcg.

,

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation --

50 wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 hU

February 21, 1979 Robert F. FlackeCommissioner

The Honorable Donald F. CarsonNYS Department of Environmental Conservation50 Wolf RoadAlbany, New York 12233

-1 icvThe Honorable Edward D. Cohen @ gAdministrative Law JudgePublic Service Cocmission // 4,xe""

, NNyC 4Empire State Plaza 2Albany, New York 12223 gT. g@0 g1

#Dr. Richard F. Cole 9

bAtomic Safety and Licensing Board ,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g y

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dr. George A. FergusonProfessor of Nuclear EngineeringHoward UniversityWashington, D.C. 20001

Andrew C. Goodhope, ChairmanAtomic Safety and Licensing BoardU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Re: Case 80006 and NRC 50-549 in the Matter of Power Authority'* of the State of New York Greene County Nuclear Power Plant

Dear Sirs:

Please find herewith testimony of Robert E. Henshaw on thesubject of Terrestrial Ecology in the Greene County NuclearPower Plant case.

We apologize for submitting this testimony late. However,staff was not able to complete its efforts in this area in timefor this testimany to be included with our mailing of February 8.

Sincerely,.

'_r - Y-*

- -, ,

David A. EngelSenior Attorney for Energy

Enc.

cc- All Parties

7 9 0 3 2 6 014|

.

~. .

_

xa- - x

' 'qf..

BEFORE THE STATE CF NEW YORK -

' '

30A?O ON EI.ECTRIC GE:EEATICN2

SITI: G A'O THE E P/ IRON E:7"

In the Matter of Case 8000c Qj

w .gs.

ANDBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND

LICENSING BOARD

'

In the Maeter of the POWER AUTHORITYOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(Greene County Nuclear Power Plant)NRC Docket No. 50-549

Prepared Testimony of

Robert E. HenshawAssociate Aquatic and

Terrestrial EcologistNew York State Department of

Environmental Conservation50 Wolf RoadAlbany, New York 12233

,

e

.

.

1 Eibernation Society, and others.

2 Q. Please describe your professional experience prior to

3 assu=ing your posicion a: DEC.

c A. Frec 1963-1965, I was Instructor of Physiology a: :he

5 University of Iowa, teaching medical, pharmacy, dental

6 mad nursing students. Subsequently, I became an

7 Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences at Carnegle-

a Mellon University (1965-1968) and Pennsylvania State

9 University (1968-1972). During this time, my responsi-

10 bilities were equally dividcd between teaching under-

11 graduate and gradt. ate courses and engaging in research

12 in environmental physiology.

13 Until ,1968, I conducted environmental studies of

14 the endangered Indiana bat. From 1966 through 1975, I

15 conducted a continuing serias of investigations of the

16 adaptations of at ctic mamma.ts which relate to their

survival in arctic climates. These studies considered17

13 the physiology, ecology, and behavior of =any species ,

19 including gray volf, wolverine, arctic fox, polar bear,

20 caribou, =ar=ot, lecmings, weasels, and others. Addi-

tionally I was associated with the U.S. Tundra Biome21

22 Study of the International Biological Program, studying

the ecology of terrestrial consumer species.23

2s Q. Have any of these srudies been reported or published?

25 A. Yes. The Results of =any of these studies were reported

-2-.

..

.

1 Q. Please state your name and address.

2 A. Robert E. Henshaw; Office of Environmental Analysis,

3 Depart =ent of Enviren= ental Conservation, 50 Wolf Read,

4 Albany, '.iY 12233.

5 Q. In what capacity are you e= ployed?

6 A. I as an Associate Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecologist

7 with the Bureau of Energy.

8 Q. How long have you held your present position?

9 A. Since 1 July 1974.

10 Q. Please describe your professional training.

11 A. I have earned the following degress:

12 B.A. in zoology and premedicine, Ohio Wesleyan University,

13 1956; M.S. in zoology (emphasis on human ecology and

14 environmental physiology), University of Michigan,

15 1958; and Ph.D. in environmental physiology, University

16 of Iowa, 1965. In addition, I have continued my post-

17 graduace training through membership in and participation

la in the activities of professional societies, including

19 the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

20 American Society of Mammalogists, American Society of

21 Zoologis ts, National Speleological Society, The Wildlife

2-2 Society (Chapter President, 1977), American Polar

23 Society, Alaska Conservation Society, Hudson River

24 Research Council (Chair:an 1977, 1978), Hudson River

25 Environ = ental Society (3 card of Directors), International

-1-

.

.

1 and wri :en tes:i=ony.

2 I a= also involved in non-Article VIII energy

3 issues; fc instance, I 22 DEC's cec dina:cr in the I?A

4 Censolidated Hearing on Fcur ?cwer Plants on the Hudsen

5 River. As a member of the Hudson River Research Council,

6 I lead and track research activities on the Hudson.

7 I have also participated in several Article VII

8 cases in which terrestrial issues were of generalized

9 importance, and in the coc=en hearings on health and

10 s.sfety of 765 kV transmission lines (Cases 26529,

11 26559). I was DEC's coordinator on the Tenneco Atlantic

12 Pipeline Company's application to FERC to construct a

13 =ajor natural gas pipeline through the northeast. In

14 1978 I designed and taught a 13 week course " Ecology

15 and Environmental Decision Making" for New York State

16 agency biologists.

17 Q. In evaluating issues relating to terrestrial ecology

13 what laws, rules and regulations did you censider?

19 A. I considered the following:

20 1. Article VIII of the New York State Public

Service Law and the Article VIII Rules of Procedure of21

22 the Public Service Cet=ission in particular 16 NYCRR,

23 Par: 79, Terrestrial Ecology.

2s 2. Inviren= ental Conserva:icn Law Article 15,

23 Title 27, '4ild, Scenic and Recreational River Syste=s.

-4-

.

1 at national =ee:ings of several scientific societies

2 and I have published a nu=ber of papers frem these

3 studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Addi-

4 tionally, o:her scien:ists working in =y labora:ory

5,

have co-published our resul:s.

6 Q. Please describe your professional experience related to

7 energy generation and transmission.

8 A. In 1969 and 1970, during hearings on the Trans Alaska

9 011 Pipeline, I authored a part of the Intervenor's

10 case against the U.S. Department of Interior's EIS. My

11 conclusions concerned the likely effects of oil drilling,

12 production, and transport systa=s on large ra--als.

13 During 1972 and 1973 I was the terrestrial ecology

14 consultant for the Boston Edison Cecpany's environ-

15 = ental report on the Ply =outh Nuclear Power Station

16 Unit Two. During 1973 and 1974, I was e= ployed as

17 Senior Environ = ental Analyst by Environ = ental Analysis,

18 Inc. As Director of Terrestrial 31 ology, I hired and

19 directed biologists to work on four proposed power

20 plant sites.

21 Since joining DEC, I have had sole responsibility

22 for terrestrial ecological analysis on all Article VIII

23 applications and lead responsibility for acuatic eco-

24 logical maalysis on several applica:icns. I have

25 reviewed all applications , developed interrogatories ,

-3-

1 biologists representing PASNY and its consultants. On

2 or about 15 April 1977, I visited the segments of the

3 proposec transcission RCW fr:= Ce enton. Cn 30 March

4 1973, I walked the Athens site and drove en and around

5 both sites and along the proposed relocatien route for

6 highway 9W. I have reviewed all =aterial pertinent to

7 Part 79, Terrestrial Ecology, submitted by PASNY.

8 Q. What is the purpose of your testiseny?

9 A. The purpose of my testimony is to compare the overall

10 acceptability of the Cementon and Athens sites frem af

11 terrestrial ecology viewpoint and address other selected

12 issues. I have collaborated with PSC biologist Jackson

13 for over two years during my review of the terrestrial

14 biological ramifications of the proposed construction.

15 I have reviewed and agree with his draft prefiled

16 testimony prepared for this proceeding.

17 Q. Does this =ean that you agree with Mr. Jackson's,

"

conclusion on the probable i= pacts of the preposed13

construction as presented in the prefiled testimony?19

20 A. Yes. While Mr. Jackson's and my methods are different

(below), we arrived at sisilar conclusions on general21

22 copics of i=pactability of the site and acceptability

23 of the proposed locatiens for structures, access routes,

and transmission rights of way.24

25 With regard to specific issues , e.g., bird collisions

-6-

1 3. Envirec= ental Conservation Law Article 25,

2 Freshwa:er Wetlands.

3 4. Environnental Conservation Law Sectica 9-1503

4 (?rotected Plancs) and the List of Protec:ed Na:ive5 Plants (6 NYCRR Part 1933).

6 5. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (?ublic

7 Law 93-205; 87 Stat. 884), Endangered and Threatened

8 Wildlife and Plants (United States Departnent of

9 Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1977, 42 Fed.

10 Reg.: 36419-36431), and Section 11-0535 of the New

11 York State Environmental Conservation Law and 7 NYCRR

12 Parc 182.

13 6. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Coenission's

14 (NRC) Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 and United States

15 Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory Guides 4.2, Revisiont

16 1, " Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear

17 Power Plants" (January 1975), and NRC's regulatory

la guide 4.7 " Draft General Site Suitability Criteria for

19 Nuclear Power Stations" (S ep tanb er , 1974).

20 Q. Are you fzniliar with the Cementon and Athens sites and

21 the terrestrial ecology studies conducted by PASNY at

22 these sites, and the access routes and the propcsed

23 associated transmission right of way?

24 A. Yes. I visi:ed the Cecenton and Athens si:es on 9

25 Septe=cer 1976, when I walked the sites with terrestrial

-5-

-

1 productivity includes pri=ary p~oduction, either =easured

2 or esti=ated, and secondary production, to the exten:

3 it can be es:L:a:ed or reasured. Given otherwise

4 stailar sites, I would prefer to protect the core

5 productive. Further, higher productivity cay indicate

6 a greater resilience of the ecosystem to impacts.

7 Biological replacement time is the eine necessary if

8 the present ecosystem is destroyed and then must regrow

9 to the same successional stage. This includes time for

10 growth and replacement of developmental seral stages

11 preceeding climax or other later cccmunities. It is

12 possible, although difficult for a forest to be managed

13 to grow directly into a climax stage. Cli=ax ecosystems

14 are not necessarily more important or desirable than

15 earlier stages, but if they are desired, the necessary

16 replacement time must be considered. Biological

17 fitness, as I use it here 'ncludes estimates ofr

18 ef fects of any stressful coaditions which =ay be

19 present in an ecosyste=, both natural and anthropogenic,

20 including poor soil, excess or inadequate wa:er, plant

21 diseases, infestations, etc. Generally, I would prefer

22 to protect ecosystems which have the greatest likelihood

23 of perpetuating themselves and are not likely to be

24 damaged or retarded by fac ors other chan the proposec

25 construction. "3icadminstrative" issues. include any

3-

1 with cooling towers, we are in general agree =ent unless

2 noted otherwise. I have therefore elected no: to

3 replica:e =any points in this testirony.

4 Q. Wha: criteria do ycu apply in taking ycur environ = ental

5 Lapact analysis?

6 A. I judge biological inpacts critical to biota prirarily

7 as ones which endanger populations or the spccles. I

8 judge a site with respect to a very wide region, then

9 in relation to the i==ediate surrounding region.

10 Finally I examine biological issues of the site using

11 site specific information.

12 In my estination of the biological value of a site

13 I examine four energent ecological properties of the

14 ecosystem:

15 1. unusualness or uniqueness,

16 2. productivity,

17 3. replacenent ti=e , and

18 4. fitness.

19 Finally, I evaluate administrative issues as they

20 relate to biology.

21 In determining biological unusualness or uniqueness

22 I interpret relative abundance of species, species

23 cc= position, and physical ec=ponen:s of ecosyste=s.

2a Q. 'c==on or unusual ecosysta=s may be core i=portant to

25 protect from disruption :han ecc=on ones. Biological

-7-

1 support a nu=ber of ma==als and birds . These ecotypes

2 are not unique by any =eans , but are continuous with

3 si=ilar cc== unities and are of sufficient i=portance so

4 that they should not be encreached upcn.

5 At the Ce=enton site re=arkably tall sumac trees

6 and various deciduous traes line Duck Cove. These

7 trees should provide i=portant separation of plant

8 activities fran the Cove so that waterfowl will continue

9 to use the cove. Along the Hudson River deciduous

10 forests provide i=portant continu!.ty of " natural"

11 habitats for transient species. These sections of

12 forest should be retained to the =axt=um extent, if the

13 Ce=enton site is developed. Maps of the site layout

14 ahow a te=porary building encroaching well into the

15 stipulated 50 foot vegetative buffer strip of su=acs

16 along Duck Cove. Clearly, this location is not necessary

17 'and should be moved. I also strongly reco==end retaining

la =uch core than a 50 foot strip of vegetation along the

19 Eudson River. If too narrew a strip is retained,

20 facility personnel might be inclined to =ow undergrowth,

21 and =anage the strip as a waterfront park severely

22 reducing its ecological value as a wild forest. Further,

23 the wet forest at the southeast corner of the site

21 surely is ecologically linked with the contiguous

25 =arsh. The partial destruction of this forest =ay

-10-

1 legal or sisilar designations, e.g., endangered species,

2 agricultural districts, state or federal parks , etc.

3 In the following ersluation I vill presen: anal /ses

4 and conclusions based on date. proviced by the applican:

5 in its application and on field trips I made to the

6 sites.

7 Q. Please evaluate the biological uniqueness of the two

8 sites.

9 A. The Cementon site contains stressed secondary growth

10 forest.and shrub communities composed of species which

11 are common in the region. The Athens site is comprised

12 primarily of a large wet meadow which appears to be

13 nearly a monoculture of purple loosestrife, a common

14 wetland species. Although the size of this wet meadow

15 is unusually large, I would consider it as merely an

16 ecological dyselimax cecmunity resulting frem restricted

17 drainage from the valley floor. Both sites contain

13 fauna, both transient and per=anent which are coc=on to

19 surrounding areas. Displacement and resultant loss of

20 these individuals , as well as loss of the habitats on

21 either site would not be expected to stress populations

22 in the Hudson Valley. Sene pools of respective species

23 are sufficiently large : hat they should not be endangered.

2s Upland areas a: the periphery of :he Athens site

contain late successional forest associations which25

_9_

1 reduce the value of the carsh and also =ay endanger the

2 water supply to the =arsh.

3 Jich respect to specific aspects of the Cecenten

4 site, the Applicant has subtiered a plan for development

5 which is both ecologically insensitive and unjustified.

6 (e.g., Fig. 6.2-16). Seeningly desiring level final

7 contours and straight line edges throughout the site

8 for convenience, PASNY proposes thrt fill be added on

9 forest land where no construction or plant operations

10 are to take place; this is unnecessary. For instance

11 the northeast sector between the barge slip and Duck

12 Cove is elevated inexplicably to a uniform 26 feet.

13 Similarly the region east of the plant site north and

14 south of the sedi=entation basin are also leveled,

13 requiring extensive fill and revegetation. This fill

16 would destroy a portion of the =arsh with no apparent

17 gain ce the applicant, save perhaos balancing cut and

is fill. It 1: clear that retention of wild forests

19 throughou~ ~~se areas with their greater diversity,

20 resilience, productivity and bioaesthetic appeal, is

21 far superior to destruction for convenience of drafting.

22 In addition, the proposed encroachment into the narsh

23 is wholly unneessary and should be considered totally

24 unacceptable site construction practice.

25 Q. Do the Cementon and Athens sites contribute significantly

-11-

1 to a wide-regional biolegically unusual character?

2 A. Yes, they are part of a regional wild feres: and pas:cral

3 character. Few wculd cen:es: :ha: the Hudsen 'Jalley

4 has unusual scenic, cultural, anc recrea:icnal signi-

5 ficance to New York S: ate. The Hudsen River slices

6 through some of New York's grandest scenery including

7 ,the forested Catskill Mo:mtains and their foothills ,

8 the forested and pastoral highlands of Colu=bia and

9 Dutchess Counties, and the =ostly forested Hudson

10 Highlands. From Orange and Putnam counties through

11 Greene and Colcabia counties forest and pastoral eco-

12 systems predomint e. The New York State Office of

13 Parks and Recreation has long recognized the unusual

14 quality of the Hudson Valley. Many parks, historical

15 sites and other areas are =anaged in the Valley and its

16 vicinity. In addition the River Valley is rich in

17 historic values and folklore.Natural ecosystems and low intensi:y agricultural13

19 lands, abandoned land and hedgerews predc=inate :hroughcu:

20 the Hudson Valley. Clearly the " wild" and " natural"

21 charectaristics of the regien significan:ly contribute

22 to i:s unique importance as one of the State's najor

23 na: ural resources.

24 The Cerenton and A: hens sites =us: be jucged in

25 this contex:. The ceren:on s'. e , in easy view frc=

-12-

1 Secondary produe:ivity a: the Cecenton site likely

2 is only parcially ccupied to the on-site pr'-ary

3 production. Ani=al species inhabi:ing the site,

4 undoubtedly obtain =uch food off site.

5 At the Athens site, biological production appears

6 to be limited. Here, like at Cementon, it is probable

7 that transient animals obtain food on site to some

8 degree, and resident birds and small mammals cove out

9 of the wet meadow to find a large percentage of their

10 diet.

11 Q. Please estimate replacement times for the vegetative

12 association on the two sites.

13 A. Even the strip of forest bordering the Hudson River on

14 the Cenenton site which the Applicant plans to leave

15 intact appears to be growing under stressful conditions

16 largely due to thin soil and rock outcrops. Destruction

17 of forest areas during construction would be an extremely

18 i=portant loss because they could not be replaced in

19 kind within the life of the plant, especially under the

20 stressed conditions existing at the site. This under-

21 scores the need for good planning, conservative design,

22 and extreme care in construction.

23 The entire shrub forest and younger fores: throughout

24 :he Cementon size center will be ecmpletely cestroyec

23 by extensive filling. This loss is less critical since

-14-

1 Colu=bia Ccunry and fren :he Hudson River provides

2 nearly one tile of wild fores between two degraded

3 industrial sites of large cecen: cocpanies. Des:ructicn

4 of the forests a: the Ce encon site would leave nearly

5 a three mile s: retch of degrade industrial appearance.

6 The Athens site also contains " 4" ecosystems in full

7 view for cany siles. Loss of these ecosystems and the

8 presence of the facility as proposed would seriously

9 degrade the wild and natural character of the Hudson

10 Valley in this region.

11 In his testi=ony, DEC land cape architect Benas

12 discusses visibility of the proposed structures and

13 their contrast to surrounding scenery.

14 Q. Please discuss biological productivity on the two

15 sites.-

16 A. Neither site has a high biolcgical productivity. The

17 thin poor soil a=ong the outcrops of bedrock on the.

18 Cecenton site suggests that productivity could only be

19 quite linized throughout the site center. Only along

20 the water fronts is the vegetation more luxurient. It

21 would appear that primary production is linited throughout

22 the si:e and possibly also along the water frents .

23 Resilience to inpacts due to construction and cperaticn

2A =ay be e: pected to be reduced due to low pri=ary

25 productivi:7

. -13-

1 endanger:ent of the forests adj acent to the Athens

2 site.

3 Q. Please characcarize the biological fi: ness of both

4 sites.

5 A. The stressful conditions imposed on the vegetation by

6 poor soil conditions mad extensive disruption at the

7 Cementon Site and the high water table at the Athens

8 site have been described. Clearly the vegetative

9 associations at Cenenton do not display a high degree

10 of overall health and vigor, w;:h the possible exception

11 of the forests along the Hudson River. The purple

12 loosestrife association at Athens represents a dyselimax,

13 which may be considered by definition either as mnx4-n117

14 fit for the prevailing wet conditions or as retarded by

15 the wet conditions frcm a vigorous seral development

16 toward dry =eadow.

17 Q. Please surmnrize all of the above points.

la A. Taking productivity and fitness as indicators of likely

19 replacement eine, and allowing subj ective judge =ent of

20 "value" of dif ferent communities on the two sites,

21 overall judgetents may be =ade regarding both sites.

22 Neither site center may be considered a critically

23 L:portant ecological loss and both would be lost fully

24 to construction i pacts . By con:rast, the forests

25 along the Hudson River mad Luck Cove are critically

-16-

1 such forest coult'. be replaced in kind within perhaps 102 to 15 years depen'.ing on the new edaphic condi:icns

3 es:ablished folicwing construe:icn. Ecwever, as ?SC

4 biologist Jackson pointed cut in his draf: prefiled

5 testimony, destruction of any forests for terporary

6 uses such as construction parking is unacceptable when

7 alternaives are available. It appears that the park

8 and ride option for access to the site would provide

9 sufficient off-site parking, thus obviating the need,

10 for such extensive land cccmit==nt in site center.

11 Accordingly, the Applicant should be required to

12 implement plans for off-site construction parking.

13 At the Athens site, the purple loosertrife wet

14 =eadow would quickly replace itself if the specific

15 edaphic conditions to which it is adapted prevail after

16 construction. However, this is not the case since the

17 wet meadow is proposed to be cenpletely filled en si:e.

13 The =ature oak decinated fores: pacches above and

19 to the west of the size woulc not be replaced in kind

20 within perhaps two to four lifetimes of the plant.

21 Even with special =anagement to facilitate skipping

22 otherwise integral preceding seral stages, replacement

23 ti=e might only be reduced by 507.. Again, this under-

24 scores the need for the Applicant :o furnish very

25 precise size development plans which will preclude

-15-

1 Q. '4 hat are the =ost i=portant concerns with respect to

2 terrestrial ecology a: the Ce=enton Site?

3 A. I a =cs: concerned abcu: protection cf the rarsh in

4 the southeast sector of :he size, the =cve=en: of the

5 cement waste pile in the northwest sector, and protection

6 of the vegetative screen along Duck Cove.

7 Q. Please discuss the carsh.

8 A. The Cementon site contains mostly stressed ecological

9 ccmmunities growing on heavily disturbed rocks and on

10 soils influenced by alkaline ce=ent wastes. Theo

11 exceptions to this are the plant associations bordering

12 the Hudson River. Among these, the marsh appears to be

13 the most noteworthy. On my visits there appeared to be

14 good growth of vegetation and production of rotting

15 stems and leaves to enrich the =arsh and contribute

16 nutrients to the River. Signs of several =a==als and

17 birds were noted. Althcugh the =arsh was described by

la the Applicant as tidal, National Ocean Survey data

19 confirm that the River be expected to reach the elevation

20 of the =arsh only during spring high flow. Groundwater

21 and surface run off frem hills above the =arsh are'

22 probably the pr -ary and only regular source of water.d

23 I'.. =y opinion this =arsh is the =ost valuable

24 habita: en the Ce=enton size, and the ene =cs: likely

25 to be inadvertently des:royed. It is not enough f6:

-13-

.

1 i=portant and fragile. The upland forests a: Athens

2 are relatively i=portant. They are vigorous and fi

3 and should resis nearby construe:icn; however for

4 these reasons they nus: not be encroached upon curing

5 develegnent of the si:e, and must not be endangered by

6 temporary land uses during construction.

7 Q. Are there "bicadministrative" issues at these sites?

8 A. Neither site was reported by the Applicant to contain

9 resident endangered species. PSC biologist Jrckson

10 develope' lists of species of vertebrates which ares

11 reduced to population levels lower than considered

12 optimum. His list is based on others prepared by U.S.

13 Department of Interior, IUCN, N.Y.DEC, mad Audubon

14 Society. These lists in turn were based on a variety of

15 criteria, not necessarily relating to machropogenic

16 causes, and not necessarily nor in each case, indicating

17 true endangerment of the species. The thrust of Jackson's

la testimony is that many species are potentially affected

19 adversely by power plant construction and operation.

20 Such specific and nonspecific, direct and indirect,

21 impacts should be minimized when possible, even if at

22 some added cost. I fully support this generalization.

23 The wetland at Athens is of sufficien: size and

24 character to be regulated under provisions of the

25 Environmental Conservation Law (ECL 524-0101).

-17-

1 to help replace groundwater which will be restricted

2 due to construction.

3 Stor= wa:er from the entire plan: cceplex : gether

4 with surrounding road surfaces is presently proposed Oc

5 be discharged to the Hudson River near Silver Point.

6 Providing no salt is used on the road surface, and no

7 toxic substances or biocides are placed in or become a

8 contaminant.cf the surface runoff, I would favor routing

9 storm water, af ter appropriate treatment, to the narsh

10 to supplement water supply. It should be incumbent on

11 the Applicant to preclude any contamination of the

12 =arsh frca stars sewer waters , or for that matter, from

13 may source within its control.

14 Finally, the location of the cooling tower is

15 perilously close to che marsh. Applicant must be

16 required to restrict construction activities to an

17 elevation above 30 feet and absolutely preclude cen-

13 struction runoff, sile, etc. fran entering the marsh.

19 Inadvertent destruction of valuable habitats is en:irely

20 unacceptable in this era of environmental sensibility;

such losses can never be written off as mere accidents21

22 mad thereby f-emed acceptable.

23 Q. Please discuss the ceren: waste pile in the northwes:

26 corner of the site.

25 A. It is proposed that about half of the very large : ailing

-20-.

1 the Applicant to agree not to encroach on the marsh.

2 Major recontouring and paving of the hills above :he

3 =arsh will undoubtedly reduce water available to the

4 =arsh. Loss of that wa:er supply will likely cause the

5 complete demise of this we: land. A year-round water

6 supply must be guaranteed to this marsh. This can be

7 acccmplished, I believe, without precluding plant

8 construction at the site.

9 The wet forest herediately to the south of the

10 marsh 'must be preserved because it is a likely source

11 of water to the marsh and because it probably serves as

12 an important refuge for animals using the marsh.

13 The stream which enters the site from the west and

14 Presently turns northward to Duck Cove should not be

15 retained in its present course. The stream is not in

16 itself an important enough ecological habitat to

17 justify its retention. Further it is not necessary to.

13 Duck Cove and the cost of conducting the stream under

19 the planned fill material through a =ajor culvert can

20 not be justified.

21 This unnamed stream however can have a life-

22 sustaining value for the =arsh discussed above, providing

23 hazardous substances are not transported by it. I

24 recc= mend that, providing eleva: ions are appropriate,

25 the stream should be rerouted to :he head of the carsh

-19-

.

1 appropriate technology to guarantee that no high pH

2 contaminated groundwater will discharge into Duck Cove.

3 Q. Please discuss the vegetative screen.

4 The vegetative screen shown in Fig. 6.2-16 of the.

5 application serves several biological purposes. It

6 provides continuous forest habitat with its food and

7 shelter to many transient species as they migrate along

8 ine important fly way, or as they disperse or =ove

9 along the Hudson River during feeding and other activities.

10 Retention of the wet forest in the southeast corner of

11 the site is important to provide for the continuity of

12 habitats along the Hudson River frontage. Such screen

13 provides cover, concealment, and food for resident

14 species on site. Accidental loss of these species from

the area should be considered as unpardonable since15

16 appropriate forest habitat and adequate area can be

17 available.

18 Of perhaps greatest ecological significance isretention of as much forest strip as possible along the

19

20 edge of Duck Cove. This will provide soce separation

of the Cove from the activities on site, so that migrating21

22 waterfowl may be nore inclined to use the cove. Thus I

enphasizing recention of the unusually large su=ac23 m:

24 trees bordering the Ccve. This species is often considerec

c " weed", but should be considered otherwise here.25

-22-

1 pile will be re=oved and used for fill in the center of

2 the si:e. Presently, this pile is eroding down onto

3 the vegeta:ive co== uni:7 below. :: nay be enpected to

4 con:inue in the future. The eroded =aterial =ay be

5 toxic to =any species, i: causes a very high pH in

6 trapped water, and at the least, inundated vegetation

7 will not deverbp into a viable natural or =anaged -

8 cc== unity. Final contours of this pile cust be stable,

9 1.e., at or less than the angle of repose, =ust be

10 covered with topsoil, and cust be vegetated to help

11 res trict further erosion.

12 During construe: ion, tailing pile material which

13 is transferred to the site center below and piled to an

14 elevation of several feet =ay produce a serious secondary

15 proble= - contamination of Duck Cove. It is probable

16 that cenent tailings trapped subsurface in fill =aterial/

17 =ay become water-loaded. This groundwater would probably

13 become very alkaline. If this groundwater discharges

19 into Duck Cove, it could cause serious da= age to resident

20 biota. The Applicant, has indicated that sedi=entation

21 canks will be used to take care of this problem.

22 Clearly high pH is not solved by sedinentation tanks

23 per se. However, the applicant should use sedimentation

24 anks to preven: sil: from being discharged in:o Cuck

25 Ccve. Even more inportantly the Applican =ust apply

-21-

.

1 Q. Please secte your overall opinion on the acceptability

2 of the Ce=enten and Athens sites for construction of a

3 large nuclear genera:ing s:atien.

4 A. Neither site is superior Oc the other based en on-site

5 criteria of biological uniqueness, ecclegical replace-

6 =ent tLne, ecological productivity, biological fitness,

7 and presence of "bicadministrative" issues. Clearly,

8 Athens would be the easier site on which to protect

9 surrounding ecosystems frem construction impe. cts.

10 Further, inadvertent, negligent, or willful destruction,

11 endangerment, or loss of surrounding ecosystems at

Cenenton would have an extremely critical impact on a12

13 regional basis. Therefore the Cenenton site seems less

14 acceptable than Athens.

Athens is a superior site to Cementon when viewed15

16 in a regional context. Freemptive commitment of the

Athens site to power generation would be less of a17

loss than such cccmitment of the ecosyste= at Cementon.18

Overall, hcwever, I would find loss of either site19

power plant construction undesirable given bettere20site alternatives throughout the state. Including all

21

terresrrial biological criteria, as well as aesthetic22

23 perceptiens of natural ecosyste=s , I would rate thefollowing sizes as far superic: to both Ce=en:on and2s

Athens: Femfree, Sheridan, Sc=erset, Jamesport, off-25

-23-

.

1 shore siting in :he Atlan:ic Ocean, and Ginna (no order

2 a=eng these i= plied). Two si:es abou: equal er only

3 scrawhat superior :o Ce=enten and A: hens are Lloyc and

4 Sterling. In testi=cny which I have sub=itted in the

5 Lcng Range Research hearings (?SC d27319) regarding

6 alternative site selection and designation, I have

7 developed a generic discussion of the site selection

a process.

9 Q. Please ccenent on the Access I= prove =ents to the two

10 sites.

11 A. Applicant has developed four options for " improve =ents"

12 of access to the Ce=enton site. I have cc-mented above

13 that the advantage of a park and ride eption (Alternative

14 III) is the reduction of shrub forest destruction for

15 t e=porary us es . I will also cec =ent on Alternatives "1

16 3" and "6 3 & C".

17~ Option "I 3" straightens Route 9'4 and bypasses the

13 village of Catskill by crossing the Ca: skill Creek

19 Gorge. This option is unacceptable in the extre=ebecause of its insensitivity to the value of the ecosysta=20

associated with one of New York's =ost beautiful riverine21

99 s v. s t a = s .-~

The Catskill Creek, the gorge i: penetra:es, and23

26 :he fores: on ei:her side are a=cng New York's =cs:

beautiful and cos produe:ive. -ven as c_,ose :o :he25

-24-

1 Village of Catskill as the proposed bypass would be,

2 the riparian forest is e:cciting and interes:ing.

3 Destructicn of :he forest and gorge by construe: ice cf

4 a new road, sL= ply for the temporary convenience of

5 coc=uting workers, few of when would be in the area

6 care than two years is, to me, an intolerable proposal.

7 I most vigorously rej ect any contention by the applicant

8 that gains in convenience outweigh the lossas of these

9 important biotic communities. I urge the Examiners to,

10 recommend no intrusions on these ecosyste=s by construction

11 of an access route to the Cecenten site.

12 Alternatives "6 3" and "6 C" skirt the Great V1713 Swamp west of the site. The Great V1y is one of the

14 highly inportant ecosystems in eastern New York, both

15 La an individual sense, and in a wide regional context.

16 It is highly productive, providing food and cover to

17 =any transiert and resident species. Water fowl nigrating

18 along the hudson River valley are known to stop at the

19 Great V17 Waterfowl nesting in other areas, e.g.,

20 Duck Cove, have been noted to visit the Great V17

21 daily.

22 In my opinion a road constructed so close to the

23 Great V1y would endanger this significant wetland. EEC

24 'ikely would no: per=i: construction along its borders.

25 under ICL 524-0101. I strongly urge that this evacua: ion

-25-

1 route be eliminated from the list of alternatives.

2 Q. Are there other issues of cerit?

3 A. There are a variety of lesser issues, including bird

4 collisions with cooling ecwers, noise i= pacts, vegetation

5 spoile, dispersion of contaminants from cooling tower

6 plumes, and general questions e.g. , effects on species

7 of fragmentation of their ranges. All of these are

8 addressed adequately in the prefiled testimony of PSC

9 biologist Jackson and need nc further elaboration. I

10 agree with his conclusions.

11 Q. Please comment on the need for compliance filing procedures.

12 A. As implied by previous answers, I consider the use of a

13 ccepliance filing mechanism to be critical to whether

14 the proposed power plant would have a devastating

15 impact or cause only tolerable losses to the terrestrial

16 ecology. I: proper or over sealous construction practices,

17 insersitive or uni =aginative site layout, ritualized

13 demands for temporary space which places tecporary

19 convenience over long ters ecological wellbeing of the

20 biologically important upper Eudson Valley could result

21 from a poor canpliance filing. Ccmprehensive planning,

22 careful writing and equally comprehensive reviews of

23 the document are absolutely necessary.

24 PASNY has proposed to develcp ene of rwo hig':.ly

25 valuable ecological areas of the Upper Hudson Valley.

-26-

.

.

1 Siting a nuclear plant preempts alternative uses of

2 :he site perhaps for centuries. Faul:7 cens: rue: ion3 practices also pree=p: c her cc=pa ible uses of :he

4 remaining biotic syste=s by can and other species. I

5 view the ccmpliance filing as perhaps the cost important

6 stage in the Article VIII prt:ess. The Examiners are

7 urged to explicitly emphasize in their findings, the

8 importance of the ecmpliance filings and the need for

9 adequate detail and sensitive planning. They should

10 also indicate that provision by PAStiY of an adequate

11 document will speed review and acceptance, while sub-

12 mission of documents with less thuught can lead to

13 virtually endless review, unwanted by any party.

14

15

16.

17

13

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-27-