Indian Point Fish Study Reveals Nuclear Plant's Effect On Endangered Fish Species

AP | By By JIM FITZGERALD Posted: 02/05/2013 2:59 pm EST

Get Green Alerts:

Follow:

Teen Impact, Video, Indian Point Fish Study, Indian Point Nuclear Plant, Indian Point Nuclear Plant Endangered Fish, Indian Point Nuclear Plant Sturgeon, New York Fish, Nuclear Power, Ny Fish, Ny Sturgeon, Green News

In this May 10, 2011, file photo, the nuclear power plant at Indian Point in Buchanan, N.Y., is visible with the Hudson River in the foreground. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) — The federal fisheries service says the continued operation of two nuclear plants in the New York City suburbs would have an "adverse effect" on two endangered species of sturgeon, but would not come close to wiping them out.

The conclusion appears to help the argument for extending licenses for the Indian Point plants on the Hudson River, although one critic called it wrong and irrelevant.

The National Marine Fisheries Service prepared the document at the request of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is conducting hearings on whether Indian Point's owner, Entergy Nuclear, should get 20-year license extensions.

The 168-page opinion, made public Tuesday by the NRC, says nearly 1,000 shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon would be killed during the extended lives of the plants, but that would be only a small percentage of the stock.

The deaths, usually caused when fish are caught against water intake screens, are "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of either species, the study concludes.

It also found no threat from the warmer water that is discharged back into the river or from any radioactive elements escaping from the plants into the Hudson.

In a cover letter, NMFS regional administrator John Bullard cautioned that the study applies only to the way the Indian Point reactors currently operate, using the screens to block fish from being drawn into the plant with the millions of gallons of river water used for cooling.

New York state is currently insisting that Indian Point switch to closed-cycle cooling, which uses much less water and is safer for fish. For that reason, the study is "a waste of time and resources," said Phillip Musegaas of the environmental group Riverkeeper.

Musegaas believes Indian Point will have to either shut down or switch to closed-cycle cooling, which Entergy is challenging. But even on its face, he says, the report is flawed because there's been no sampling data on sturgeon since the 1990s.

"We believe the science shows Indian Point has a serious impact, especially on Atlantic sturgeon," he said.

A spokeswoman for the regional office of the state Department of Environmental Conservation did not immediately return a call for comment.

A call to New Orleans-based Entergy was not immediately returned.

The study refers to a 1998 estimate of 57,000 adult shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson. It predicts the population "will continue to be stable at high numbers" for the 20-year license extension period.

The numbers of Atlantic sturgeon are believed to be much smaller, and it was recently listed as an endangered species. The study mentions a 2007 estimate of 863 adults in the Hudson, but says most fish killed at Indian Point would be juveniles, and only "a very small percentage" of them.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the document will be considered as the NRC works on a revised environmental impact statement for the license renewals. The impact statement is due by April 30.

Another revised statement, on safety at the plant, is due July 31, and the NRC has asked that hearings on the new licenses be delayed until after then.

The licenses for Indian Point 2 and 3 expire this year and in 2015, respectively, but the plants are permitted to keep running until a license decision is made — and through any appeals.

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow

List Provided By Zoological Society Of London/ International Union For Conservation Of Nature
Scientific Name: Poecilotheria metallica Common Name: Peacock Parachute Spider Category: Spider Population: Unknown Threats To Survival: Habitat loss and degradation as a result of deforestation, firewood collection and civil unrest
Scientific Name: Abies beshanzuensis Common Name: Baishan Fir Category: Conifer Population: 5 mature individuals Threats To Survival: Agricultural expansion and fire
Scientific Name: Actinote zikani Common Name: None Category: Butterfly Population: Unknown, one population remaining Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation due to pressure from human populations
Scientific Name: Aipysurus foliosquama Common Name: Leaf Scaled Sea-Snake Category: Sea snake Population: Unknown, two subpopulations remain Threats To Survival: Unknown - likely degradation of coral reef habitat
Scientific Name: Amanipodagrion gilliesi Common Name: Amani Flatwing Category: Damselfly Population: < 500 individuals est. Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation due to increasing population pressure and water pollution
Scientific Name: Antilophia bokermanni Common Name: Araripe Manakin Category: bird Population: 779 individuals (est 2010) Threats To Survival: Habitat destruction due to expansion of agriculture and recreational facilities and water diversion
Scientific Name: Antisolabis seychellensis Common Name: Seychelles Earwig Category: Earwig Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Invasive species and climate change
Scientific Name: Aphanius transgrediens Common Name: None Category: Freshwater fish Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Competition and predation by Gambusia and road construction
Scientific Name: Ardeotis nigriceps Common Name: Great Indian Bustard Category: Bird Population: 50 -249 mature individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat loss and modification due to agricultural development
Scientific Name: Aproteles bulmerae Common Name: Bulmer's Fruit Bat Category: Bat Population: 150 individuals (est) Threats To Survival: Hunting and cave disturbance
Scientific Name: Ardea insignis Common Name: White Bellied Heron Category: Bird Population: 70-400 individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat destruction and degradation due to hydropower development
Scientific Name: Astrochelus yniphora Common Name: Ploughshare Tortoise / Angonoka Category: Tortoise Population: 440-770 Threats To Survival: Illegal collection for international pet trade
Scientific Name: Atelopus balios Common Name: Rio Pescado Stubfoot Toad Category: Toad Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Chytridiomycosis and habitat destruction due to logging and agricultural expansion
Scientific Name: Aythya innotata Common Name: Madagascar Pochard Category: Bird Population: Approximately 20 mature individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation due to slash-and-burn agriculture, hunting, and fishing / introduced fish
Scientific Name: Azurina eupalama Common Name: Galapagos damsel fish Category: Pelagic fish Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Climate Change - oceanographic changes associated with the 1982 / 1983 El Nino are presumed to be responsible for the apparent disappearance of this species from the Galapagos
Scientific Name: Bahaba taipingensis Common Name: Giant yellow croaker Category: Pelagic fish Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Over-fishing, primarily due to value of swim-bladder for traditional medicine - cost per kilogram exceeded that of gold in 2001
Scientific Name: Batagur baska Common Name: Common Batagur/ Four-toed terrapin Category: Turtle Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Illegal export and trade from Indonesia to China
Scientific Name: Bazzania bhutanica Common Name: None Category: Liverwort Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation and destruction due to forest clearance, overgrazing and development
Scientific Name: Beatragus hunteri Common Name: Hirola Category: Antelope Population: < 1000 individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat loss and degradation, competition with livestock, poaching
Scientific Name: Bombus franklinii Common Name: Franklin's Bumble Bee Category: Bee Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Disease from commercially bred bumblebees and habitat destruction and degradation
Scientific Name: Brachyteles hypoxanthus Common Name: Northern muriqui Category: Primate Population: < 1,000 individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat loss and fragmentation due to large-scale deforestation and selective logging
Scientific Name: Bradypus pygmaeus Common Name: Pygmy sloth Category: Sloth Population: < 500 individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat loss due to illegal logging of mangrove forests for firewood and construction and hunting of the sloths
Scientific Name: Callitriche pulchra Common Name: None Category: Freshwater plant Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Exploitation of the species' habitat by stock, and modification of the pool by local people
Scientific Name: Calumma tarzan Common Name: Tarzan's Chameleon Category: Chameleon Population: Unknown Threats To Survival: Habitat destruction for agriculture
Scientific Name: Cavia intermedia Common Name: Santa Catarina's Guinea Pig Category: Guinea Pig Population: 40-60 individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat disturbance and possible hunting; small population effects
Scientific Name: Cercopithecus roloway Common Name: Roloway Guenon Category: Primate Population: Unknown Threats To Survival: Hunting for consumption as bushmeat, and habitat loss
Scientific Name: Coleura seychellensis Common Name: Seychelles Sheath-Tailed Bat Category: Bat Population: < 100 mature individuals (est 2008) Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation and predation by invasive species
Scientific Name: Cryptomyces maximus Common Name: None Category: Fungus Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Limited availability of habitat
Scientific Name: Cryptotis nelsoni Common Name: Nelson's Small-Eared Shrew Category: Shrew Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: habitat loss due to logging cattle grazing, fire and agriculture
Scientific Name: Cyclura collei Common Name: Jamaican Iguana Category: Iguana Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Predation by introduced species and habitat destruction
Scientific Name: Dendrophylax fawcettii Common Name: Cayman Islands Ghost Orchid Category: Orchid Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Habitat destruction due to infrastructure development
Scientific Name: Diceros sumatrensis Common Name: Sumatran rhino Category: Rhino Population: < 250 individuals Threats To Survival: Hunting for horn -used in traditional medicine
Scientific Name: Diomedea amsterdamensis Common Name: Amsterdam Island Albatross Category: Bird Population: 100 mature individuals Threats To Survival: Disease and incidental capture in long-line fishing operations
Scientific Name: Diospyros katendei Common Name: None Category: Tree Population: 20 individuals, one population Threats To Survival: High pressure from communities for agricultural activity, illegal tree felling, habitat degradation due to alluvial gold digging and small population
Scientific Name: Dipterocarpus lamellatus Common Name: None Category: Dipterocarp (tree) Population: 12 individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat loss and degradation due to logging of lowland forest and creation of industrial plantations
Scientific Name: Discoglossus nigriventer Common Name: Hula painted frog Category: Frog Population: Unknown (recent rediscovery in 2011) Threats To Survival: Predation by birds and range restriction due to habitat destruction
Scientific Name: Discorea strydomiana Common Name: Wild Yam Category: Yam Population: 200 Individuals Threats To Survival: Collection for medicinal use
Scientific Name: Dombeya mauritiana Common Name: None Category: Flowering plant Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation and destruction due to encroachment by alien invasive plant species and cannabis cultivation
Scientific Name: Eleocarpus bojeri Common Name: None Category: Flowering plant Population: < 10 individuals Threats To Survival: Small population and degraded habitat
Scientific Name: Eleutherodactylus glandulifer Common Name: La Hotte Glanded Frog Category: Frog Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Habitat destruction due to charcoal production and slash-and-burn agriculture
Scientific Name: Eleutherodactylus thorectes Common Name: Macaya Breast-Spot Frog Category: Frog Population: Unknown Threats To Survival: Habitat destruction due to charcoal production and slash-and-burn agriculture Credit: <a href="http://www.robindmoore.com">Robin Moore</a>
Scientific Name: Eriosyce chilensis Common Name: Chilenito Category: Cactus Population: < 500 individuals Threats To Survival: Collection of flowering individuals
Scientific Name: Erythrina schliebenii Common Name: Coral Tree Category: Flowering tree Population: < 50 individuals Threats To Survival: Limited habitat and small population size increasing vulnerability to stochastic events
Scientific Name: Euphorbia tanaensis Common Name: None Category: Semi-deciduous tree Population: 4 mature individuals Threats To Survival: Illegal logging and habitat degradation due to agricultural expansion and infrastructure development
Scientific Name: Eurynorhynchus pygmeus Common Name: Spoon-Billed Sandpiper Category: Bird Population: < 100 breeding pairs Threats To Survival: Trapping on wintering grounds and land reclamation.
Scientific Name: Ficus katendei Common Name: None Category: Tree (ficus) Population: < 50 mature individuals Threats To Survival: Agricultural activity, illegal tree felling and habitat degradation due to alluvial gold digging
Scientific Name: Geronticus eremita Common Name: Northern Bald Ibis Category: Bird Population: 200-249 mature individuals Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation and destruction, and hunting
Scientific Name: Gigasiphon macrosiphon Common Name: None Category: Flowering tree Population: 33 mature individuals Threats To Survival: Timber extraction and habitat degradation due to agricultural encroachment and development, seed predation by wild pigs
Scientific Name: Gocea ohridana Common Name: None Category: Mollusc Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation due to increasing pollution levels, off-take of water and sedimentation events
Scientific Name: Heleophryne rosei Common Name: Table Mountain Ghost Frog Category: Frog Population: Unknown Threats To Survival: Habitat degradation due to invasive plants and water abstraction
Scientific Name: Hemicycla paeteliana Common Name: None Category: Mollusc Population: Unknown (declining) Threats To Survival: Habitat destruction due to overgrazing and trampling by goats and tourists

FOLLOW GREEN

136k

Get Alerts

From our partners

10 Of The Worst Wildfires In U.S. History - Mother Nature Network
5 Energy Projects Being Backed By The U.S. Government - Mother Nature Network
The Stunning Rise In California Solar Generation - EarthTechling

Comments
75
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ

Comments are closed for this entry

View All

Favorites

Recency |

Popularity

voicein the wilderness

166 Fans

08:16 PM on 02/07/2013

Quote from NYT Times Topic 10-12-12
"The Indian Point nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., has been a major source of power to New York City and its northern suburbs since the first reactor went into operation in 1962. But the plant, which is now owned by Entergy, has encountered a string of accidents and mishaps since its beginnings, and has appeared on the federal list of the nation’s worst nuclear power plants"

It has been operating for 50 years. Early on plant life was projected to be 40 years. Now with people worrying about fish, perhaps they need to do some research on the "embrittlement" of the reactor vessel over its lifetime. Interesting topic should one want to check it out. Can do it on NRC website and many others. Just sayin'. Those fish might be "red herrings".

Permalink | Share it

PoloniumMan

196 Fans

05:02 PM on 02/07/2013

This plant was licensed 40 years ago, and NOW the state is worried about a few fish? Is it possible there are other energy sectors influencing government regulators?

HUFFPOST SUPER USER

deweaver

Scientist, businessman, semi-retired

104 Fans

09:04 PM on 02/06/2013

One spawn of a sturgeon raised large enough to avoid the screens released into the river would be more sturgeon that exist in nature. They produce millions of eggs, larva and young fish.

Jtt

1825 Fans

10:01 PM on 02/06/2013

Actually this article for me was more of a endorsement of nuclear power than anything. Considering space and impact from other means of power generation its a godsend.

Genders

Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment

2881 Fans

03:09 PM on 02/07/2013

no, it's worse than coal, less efficiency thermally, more dead fish, plus radiation.

Solar wind and waste bio char all help fish.

Nukes are the devil's weapon, not god's.

professor

Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker

479 Fans

06:24 PM on 02/06/2013

Nuclear causes wars. Renewables do not.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-mali-rebels-niger-areva-idUSBRE90N0K820130124

spqr63

0 Fans

03:01 PM on 02/06/2013

I am certain that those citizens who are outraged over theoretical baby fish deaths and are demanding Indian Point's closure on that logic also fully support a woman's "choice" to abort a human fetus. An troubling dichotomy to say the least; but immoral hypocritical at the worst.

10:07 PM on 02/06/2013

That is not my decision to make and communal energy use decisions should be reasonable.

All water intakes would have similar casualty numbers of small fish. Coal of course would also produce toxins that are routinely released into the environment. The gas from fracking needed to supplement "renewables" has several water quality and geologic implications. Wind and solar have incredible land use issues as well as waste issues.

03:11 PM on 02/07/2013

Solar wind and waste bio char have no inherent water problems, nukes and fossil do.

03:10 PM on 02/07/2013

theoretical baby fish deaths . They are "theoretical", they are real. Perhaps that your problem.

How that related to a women's right to choose the fate of the child she created is another subject, and more akin to angles on a pins, than anything useful.

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

10:19 AM on 02/06/2013

The real person says Japan will PAY for Fukushima forever.

So the tro says "NOBODY DIED," and acts like it refuted the real person.

Typical tro thinking c and p'ing a non sequitur talking point constitutes a refutation.

03:33 PM on 02/06/2013

lol like you even know what a Non sequitur is. And pay forever - is a bit different than a few billion cleanup costs. If you have a argument you should post it

03:13 PM on 02/07/2013

Cleaning it up? you mean spreading cancer around the world in what you call dilution. Throw in some generic damage and yes, we will be paying for it forever.

ThinkCreeps

Seriously, it's time.

2565 Fans

05:36 AM on 02/06/2013

Closed-cycle cooling is rather more susceptible to nefarious interruption.

03:34 PM on 02/06/2013

And much more expensive and inefficient and subject to failure from high temperatures, something nukes already do.

mortonrchrd

How you gonna get down that hill

223 Fans

03:50 PM on 02/06/2013

Looks like a river intake could be stopped up by a few divers with a tarp. Do they even have monitoring, or a contingency plan ? If you read about TMI, they basically didn't know their ah nooses from a hole in the wall.

04:16 PM on 02/06/2013

They'd be rather brave to try. 6GW of thermal power, with a maximum discharge temperature imposed, corresponds to something like 50-100 tons per second.

Kenz300

2491 Fans

08:58 PM on 02/05/2013

Wind, solar wave energy and geothermal are the future.

Safer and cleaner energy sources are available.

The cost to decommission and clean up this site will be high.

speedfreak2112

16 Fans

03:18 PM on 02/06/2013

I'm sure the cost to build those farms are extremely high too.....in fact they are extremely high.

Billions for 5MW < 600 RELIABLE MW a Unit

03:17 PM on 02/07/2013

In fact, they are cheaper than nukes. per GWH. get real.

03:19 PM on 02/06/2013

The future, at least beyond that which you can see, will still be nuclear. That includes "solar." Wind and geothermal will continue to be interesting sideshows, but will never provide anything close to a real solution. Fusion will be the answer.

08:46 AM on 02/07/2013

Fusion's always been the answer for the next 50 years.

07:08 PM on 02/07/2013

27GW of solar installed last year, and doubling every year or so. More than nukes of ngas.

08:57 PM on 02/05/2013

The disaster at Fukishima continues today with no end in sight.

NHK news has released a report from TEPCO that says they plan to have the disaster site stabilized and decommissioned by 2051. 2051 -- 40 years after the disaster.

They have not even stabilized the spent fuel rod pools yet two years after the disaster.

We need to learn the lessons of Fukishima and Chernobyl. Nuclear energy is too costly and too dangerous.

The taxpayers of Japan will be paying for this disaster FOREVER.

10:22 PM on 02/05/2013

No they wont. How many casualties are we up to from radiation? Zero?

05:37 AM on 02/06/2013

Probably still, but the unnamed casualties will start to mount before too long as their tumors develop.

03:38 PM on 02/06/2013

A million cancer deaths and you have returned to your fetal position of zero deaths?

400k deaths http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.htm

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/thyroidcancer-fracking-nuclear-power/ thyroid cancer way up, and more near reactors too.

07:42 PM on 02/05/2013

Thermal power plants: nukes, coal, combined cycle gas, all kill billions of fish per year per plant.

Eliminate fossils and nukes power within 10 years, ending our whole need to wage wars and control the middle east. End the massive 100B$, 500M$ per reactor per year breaks that fossils and nukes get, remove the gov fees that double and triple the costs of residential solar in the USA. Invest massively, everything we take out of the war budget, and fossils nukes gifts into rooftop/parking lot solar, offshore, rural wind, electric hybrid cars used for grid stabilization, backed up with hydro and waste bio char fuels running in existing peak gas and diesel generators. Use the char as fertilizer. That's Clean, safe, carbon, land and WATER negative, 24/7, forever, and cheaper.

That will restore prosperity for all, forever.

Only the Progressive Caucus dems and the green party are even suggesting the big step needed to restore prosperity for all. That's not Obama's gang.

Elron Aven

29 Fans

07:50 PM on 02/05/2013

Do you have any estimates of the water usage to go all solar? Panel efficiency drops dramatically when they're even a bit dirty.

08:09 PM on 02/05/2013

No they don't go down much with dirt, and rain washes them off.
Solar panels work well even through a few inches of snow.

05:39 AM on 02/06/2013

You lose about 20% with a heavy dust covering. Cleaning when there's no rain does bring back that loss. A bucket of (gray)water every few months - I suspect it's not the end of the world.

06:50 PM on 02/05/2013

"The deaths, usually caused when fish are caught against water intake screens, are "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of either species, the study concludes.

It also found no threat from the warmer water that is discharged back into the river or from any radioactive elements escaping from the plants into the Hudson." - to the effect is virtually non existent especially when compared to the impacts of other power generation methods.

Joffan

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

405 Fans

12:04 AM on 02/14/2013

This is where people don't understand what "ecology" means. The fish killed in the screens at Indian Point are not a factor that alters the balance of species in the river. Millions of fish larvae die from all sorts of other effects as a natural reduction from the vast numbers of eggs down to the stable adult populations. Predation and food availability balance the equations.

06:45 PM on 02/05/2013

If only wind power was as closely scrutinized .

Thomas Rowe

"What Me worry"?

68 Fans

11:27 AM on 02/06/2013

Wow!!! You get upset with wind mills killing birds,,,but you do'nt give a fig about fish dieing near nukes ? The canary in the coal mine comes to mind.