Chapter 2: Project Description A. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2: Project Description

A. INTRODUCTION

The Proposed Project is the Haverstraw Water Supply Project—a water intake, intake pumping

station, water treatment plant, and transmission and distribution mains to be located in the Town

of Haverstraw, Rockland County, New York. The Proposed Project would draw and treat water

from the Hudson River and deliver up to 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water to

the existing United Water New York Inc. (United Water) distribution system serving Rockland

County. This Project would allow United Water to increase the capacity of its water supply

system to meet the projected future demands for water in Rockland County, and therefore is

critical to United Water’s ability to continue to provide water for the County, including

providing adequate quantity, quality, and water pressure to meet the projected future demands

for County residents, businesses, and firefighting capabilities.

The Proposed Project would draw water through an intake structure located in Haverstraw Bay,

in the Hudson River, through an intake pumping station, to a water treatment plant. At the water

treatment plant, water would be treated to remove impurities and salinity, and chlorinated. The

potable water would be transmitted from the plant via new underground water transmission lines

that would connect to United Water’s existing water distribution network. The impurities and

salt removed from the water would be processed and disposed of in accordance with applicable

laws and regulations.

The Proposed Project would include the following elements:

! Water intake located in the Hudson River.

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

intake.

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

! Piping for transmission of water between project elements, including piping for raw water

transmitted between the intake pumping station and the water treatment plant; piping to

transmit wastewater to the Haverstraw Joint Regional Sewage Treatment Plant (JRSTP); and

piping to convey potable water to the existing United Water distribution system.

! Potential upgrades to the JRSTP to increase the capacity of the plant’s outfall.

The Proposed Project is being designed to treat and deliver up to 7.5 mgd of potable water for

the exclusive use of United Water’s Rockland County customers. When the facility opens for

operation, it would treat and deliver less water, potentially 2.5 mgd to 5 mgd. As Rockland

County’s water demand increases, the Proposed Project would be expanded to meet that

demand, with the ultimate capacity at 7.5 mgd. Except where otherwise noted, this Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes and evaluates the Proposed Project at its full

capacity of 7.5 mgd.

This chapter of the DEIS includes the following discussions:

2-1

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

Section B: Project Location, which describes the Project Sites.

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

Hudson River.

Section D: Haverstraw Water Supply Project: Operations and Facilities, which describes the

water treatment operations and facilities proposed at each site.

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

Proposed Project.

Section F: Overall Design Principles: Sustainability Measures, which describes the Proposed

Project’s design principles and sustainability measures.

Section G: Project Approvals, listing the anticipated permits and approvals that would be

required for the Proposed Project.

Section H: Environmental Review under SEQRA, describing the process of environmental

review under New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

Section I: Analysis Framework and Format of this DEIS, describing the analysis framework

used in the following chapters of this DEIS.

B. PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed Haverstraw Water Supply Project would be located in the Town of Haverstraw, in

Rockland County, New York, as shown in Figure 2-1. The buildings associated with the

Proposed Project would occupy two sites, referred to throughout this DEIS as the Intake Site and

the Water Treatment Plant Site. In addition to these two sites, the Proposed Project would also

have several other features that would occupy sites: the intake structure in the Hudson River, the

underground pipe for transmission of raw water from the Intake Site to the Water Treatment

Plant Site, and the underground pipes for conveying potable water from the treatment plant to

the existing United Water distribution mains. The various Project Sites are described below and

shown together on Figure 2-2. The facilities proposed for these sites are described later in this

chapter in section D, “Haverstraw Water Supply Project: Operations and Facilities.”

INTAKE SITE

The Intake Site consists of a one-acre portion of one tax parcel in the Town of Haverstraw,

21.09-2-1, located at 710 Beach Road. As shown in Figure 2-2, the Intake Site is on the south

side of Beach Road on a point of land that extends into the Hudson River. The Intake Site is

bounded to the north by the road and to the east by the Hudson River. To the west and south, it

abuts property used by the U.S. Gypsum Company (USG) in connection with its manufacturing

plant on the north side of Beach Road in the Town of Stony Point. An enclosed conveyor rises

from the Hudson River across the USG site that abuts the Intake Site, and crosses Beach Road.

The conveyor is used by USG to move supplies from barges that dock at a USG pier in the

Hudson River east of the site. Beyond the USG conveyor site, the Haverstraw Marina is south

and west of the Intake Site. The Intake Site is currently accessible via a driveway from Beach

Road through an adjacent portion of the USG property. A portion of the Site is used as a parking

area and by the adjacent Haverstraw Marina for the off-season storage of approximately 20

recreational boats. A small boathouse/fishing structure is also located just south of the Intake

Site. As described in section D, the Intake Site is proposed for development with an intake

pumping station to draw water from the Hudson River.

2-2

Water Treatment Plant Project Location

Rockland County, NY2-1

Figure

Haverstraw Water Supply Project Location Figure 2-1

Project LocationUNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

ATLANTIC OCEAN

LAKE

ONTARIO

CONNECTICUT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

Water Supply

Project Area

VERMONT

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW

JERSEY

BEACH RD

E R

AIL

RO

AD

AV

BENSON ST

BLAUVELT AV

GAGAN RD

HO

KE

DR

HOLT DR

N WAYNE AVK

AY

FR

IES

DR

DEMAREST AV

COSGROVE AV ZU

GIB

E C

T

EC

OL

OG

Y L

N

CAROL ST

RIVER RD

SLA

TE

R D

R

CE

NT

ER

ST

GR

AS

SY

PO

INT

RD

4T

H S

T

CLIFF ST

5T

H S

T

NO

RT

H S

T

BA

TT

AL

ION

DR

KW

IEC

INS

KI

ST

KNOX ST

PHELPS ST

WAYNE AV

WA

L

NUT HILL

PECK ST

HE

RD

MA

N S

T

CA

ME

RO

N S

T

SAMSONDALE AV

AD

LE

R C

T

RA

ILR

OA

D A

V

080

0 Fe

et

Leg

en

d

PMunic

ipal B

oundary

roje

ct S

ite

s

Po

ten

tial P

rop

ert

y fo

r E

xpan

sio

n/E

ase

ments

Inta

ke P

ipe

Raw

Wate

r T

ransm

issio

n

RLin

e

oute

Po

ten

tial U

tilit

y R

oute

Po

ten

tial S

ite A

cce

ss

9.15

.08

Fig

ure

2-2

Pro

jec

t S

ite

Bo

un

da

rie

sU

NIT

ED W

AT

ER H

aver

stra

w W

ater

Sup

ply

Proj

ect

In

tak

e S

ite

Wa

ter

Trea

tmen

t

Pla

nt

Sit

e


As discussed below in section D of this chapter, the water intake would extend from the

shoreline of the Intake Site approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet into the Hudson River. The route

of the water intake pipe would extend approximately 500 feet beyond the grant line of the lands

under water granted to USG, into the public trust waters of the Hudson River.

WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE

The Water Treatment Plant Site is a 9.03-acre site at 555-571 Beach Road in the Town of

Haverstraw (see Figure 2-3). The Water Treatment Plant Site consists of portions of four tax

parcels: 20.16-2-1, 20.16-2-2.1, 20.16-2-2.2, and 20.16-2-5. The Water Treatment Plant Site is

bounded to the east and southeast by the closed Haverstraw Landfill, to the west by a railroad

right-of-way owned by the CSX Corporation. Privately owned industrial properties are located

to the north and south of the Site. The JRSTP is located nearby, to the south of the Haverstraw

Landfill site. The Water Treatment Plant Site is a reclaimed area located within the boundary of

the now closed Haverstraw Landfill. The Site was not used for landfilling, but municipal waste

was historically stored there. This waste was removed during landfill closure and the Site was

excavated to provide soil to cap the adjacent landfill. Some fill material has recently been placed

on the Site. The Site is now vacant; about 1/3 of the Site is vegetated with a mix of grasses,

shrubs, and small trees and the rest is bare earth and a stormwater basin. The Site is substantially

lower in grade than the surrounding areas and is not accessible via roadways.

The Proposed Project also may incorporate a portion of an adjacent, vacant property to the south

of the Water Treatment Plant Site into the Site, for use as a staging area during construction (see

Chapter 15, “Construction Impacts”) or for potential easements or expansion. This property (also

shown in Figure 2-3) consists of one tax parcel, 20.16-2-6, and is 6.35 acres in size. The

property is owned by DSB Realty Associates, LLC and is referred to in this chapter as the DSB

property.

RAW WATER TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE

The raw water transmission line route extends between the Intake Site and Water Treatment

Plant Site. As shown in Figure 2-2, the route follows the public right-of-way, running beneath

Beach Road and Ecology Lane to the JRSTP. Along Beach Road, the water line would cross

Minisceongo Creek either above-grade, alongside the bridge carrying Beach Road, or in a buried

pipe beneath the creek. At the JRSTP, it would continue westward along the south side of the

plant and beyond, finally bending northward to the Water Treatment Plant Site. The pipeline

route from the intake pumping station to the water treatment plant would be approximately 7,500

feet (1.4 miles) long. In addition, the route also passes through sections of USG property near

the Intake Site; the JRSTP; and the privately owned DSB property to the south of the Water

Treatment Plant Site.

POTABLE WATER MAIN ROUTES

At this time, potential routes have been identified but not finalized for the new potable water

main connections that would extend from the new water treatment plant (discussed in section D

later in this chapter). These potential routes are shown in Figure 2-4. As shown in the figure,

some of the potential routes extend westward from the Water Treatment Plant Site, crossing the

CSX railroad tracks and continuing along an east-west street to meet Route 9W. Others extend

south from the Water Treatment Plant Site, along North Wayne Avenue, Carol Street, or the

2-3

E RAILROAD AV

BE

NS

ON

ST

BLA

UV

ELT

AV

N W

AY

NE

AV

CA

RO

L S

T

CLIF

F S

T

ECOLOGY LN

KN

OX

ST

PE

CK

ST

PH

EL

PS

ST

WA

YN

E A

V

KAY FR

IES

DR

SA

MS

ON

DA

LE

AV

BE

AC

H R

D

KWIECINSKI ST

HERDMAN ST

HO

LT

DR

CAMERON ST

TA

NN

EY

AN

NS

LN

ADLER CT

CAM P

BELL

CT

0 400Feet

Legend

P

Municipal Boundary

roject Sites

Potential Property for Expansion/Easements

Raw Water Transmission Line Route

Potential Utility Route

Potential Site Access

Water

Treatment

Plant Site Haverstraw

Landfill

JRSTP

Haverstraw

Landfill

JRSTP

9.25

.08

Figure 2-3

Water Treatment Plant SiteUNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

Town of Stony Point

Town of HaverstrawTown of Stony Point

Town of Haverstraw

Village of Haverstraw

Village of Haverstraw

SU

FF

ER

N L

N

PIN

E D

R

CIN

DE

R R

D

S LIBERTY DR

S LILBURN DR

W R

AIL

RO

AD

AV

MAIN ST

E R

AIL

RO

AD

AV

BRIDGE ST

CENTRAL HWY

N CENTRAL HWY

SA

MS

ON

DA

LE

AV

FONDA DR

BENSON ST

BLAUVELT AV

FIL

OR

S L

N

HO

KE

DR

PECK ST

MA

PLE

DR

KNOX ST

WA

SH

BU

RN

S L

N

CH

UR

CH

ST

EA

KM

AN

DR

SA

ND

ST

KA

Y F

RIE

S D

R

WALL ST

MA

DIS

ON

AV

GO

VA

N

DR

SO

UTH

PA

RK

DR

EA

ST

ON

ST

FR

ED

ER

IC

K ST

WAYNE AV

BO

NT

EC

OU

RD

E

MIL LN

HOLT DR

CLIFF ST

WIL

ES

DR

N WAYNE AV

SP

RU

CE D

R

ZA

RIE

LL

O L

N

NO

RT

HP

AR

K D

R

EWALD PL

STATE ROUT E 9 W

CHAPEL ST

WALDRON DR

RH

OD

A A

V

PHELPS ST

THIELLS R

D

JER

BE

N D

R

MA

JO

R A

ND

RE

DR

LEWIS DR

ZU

GIB

E C

T

TANNEYANNS LN

LAKE RD

LILLBURN DR

RO

W

AN

DR

HEWITT ST

DEMAREST AV

J ONE

S D

R

RO OS EVELT DR

KENNEDY DR

GETTY RD

COSGROVE AV

DOGWOOD LN

NO

RR

IS S

T

CE

NT

EN

NIA

L D

R

DE

HA

LV

E M

AE

N D

R

HIL

LS

IDE A

V

VIC

TO

R A

V

HA

LG

RE

N C

RS

NT

SU

LL

IVA

N D

R

LAUREL DR

RO

MA

N A

CR

ES

DR

CAROL ST

DON

ALD

SON LN

EC

OLO

GY

LN

CA

PT

SH

AN

KE

Y D

R

WOODLAKE DR

BR

US

H C

TB

EE

CH

WO

OD

LN

BUBEN

KO

DR

WALNUT HILL

S

TUB

BE

DR

PR

OS

PE

CT

ST

SLA

TE

R D

R

MA

RG

AR

ET

LN

LYN

CH

CT

DON BOSCO LN

TRIMBLE ST

FA

RL

EY

DR

GROVE ST

TAMARAC LN

SENGSTACKEN DR

DARA LN

MA

CK

EY

CT

ALIC

E S

T

HIGH RIDGE RD

BA

RN

ES DR

BLOOM ST

LIL

AC

LN

PAR

KW

OO

D

DR

AN

DERSON DR

LYLE

TE

RR

HESTER PL

BR

OW

NS

EL

L A

V

DE

LLO

RO

ST

PHYLLIS CIR

MORT

ON

ST

DY

E S

T

HEMLOCK LN

MC

GO

VE

RN

DR

OAK CT

JA

CK

SO

N

AV

WA

RGO CT

GA

RY

A

NN TERR

CLARK RD

NO

RT

H S

T

BEACH RD

BAT

TA

LIO

N D

R

VA

LLE

Y V

IEW

RD

SUFFERN PL

LEW

IS R

D

ROSEBUD DR

CA

RO

LIN

E S

T

PA

TT

ER

SO

N D

R

GR

AC

E A

V

HURD CT

HU

NT

ST

ROCHELLE C

T

MARKS CT

WIL

LIA

MS

RD

BR

OO

KS

CIR

BR

ON

ICO

DR

ARGIRO CT

ST

RA

CK

CT

KIM

LN

BABC

OC

K C

T

OSSMA

N C

T

BE

EC

HN

UT

CIR E

AS

TP

AR

K C

T

AD

LE

R C

T

RA

ILR

OA

D A

V

SKERRY CT

PIN

E D

R

ZU

GIB

E C

T

080

0 Fe

et

Leg

en

d

Wate

r T

reatm

ent P

lant S

ite

Munic

ipal B

oundary

Po

ten

tia

l P

ota

ble

Wa

ter

Main

Ro

ute

s

Se

rvic

e to

Pre

ssu

re D

istr

ict 40

/33

Se

rvic

e to

Pre

ssu

re D

istr

ict 33

Se

rvic

e to

Pre

ssu

re D

istr

ict 40

Po

ten

tial P

ipe R

eha

b o

r R

ep

lace

me

nt

Oth

er

Po

ten

tia

l P

ipe R

ou

tes

9.25

.08

Fig

ure

2-4

Po

ten

tia

l P

ota

ble

Wa

ter

Ma

in R

ou

tes

UN

ITED

WA

TER

Hav

erst

raw

Wat

er S

uppl

y Pr

ojec

t

To

wn

of

Sto

ny P

oin

t

To

wn

of

Havers

traw

To

wn

of

Sto

ny P

oin

t

To

wn

of

Havers

traw

Villa

ge o

f H

avers

traw

Villa

ge o

f H

avers

traw

To

wn

of

Havers

traw


CSX access road adjacent to the railroad tracks, and then continue via Railroad Avenue either

westward to Route 9W or eastward to Tanneyanns Lane.

As discussed later in this chapter, it is also possible that some existing water mains would need

to be rehabilitated or replaced with larger mains. This may include an existing main beneath

Route 9W and a main beneath Filors Lane between Route 9W and Thiells Road. This

replacement and/or rehabilitation could be conducted as part of United Water’s regular water

main rehabilitation program.

C. HUDSON RIVER SOURCE WATER QUALITY

During the conceptual design phase for the Proposed Project, detailed information on water

quality in Haverstraw Bay and upstream and downstream along the river was collected to obtain

the current water quality characteristics. The data collected were used to refine the water

treatment processes to be best suited to the range of water quality conditions identified. This

section of the DEIS summarizes the water quality information collected, which the Proposed

Project will be designed to address. These data are also summarized in Chapter 9, “Natural

Resources,” and more detailed information is provided in Appendices 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. In

addition, as described later in this section, hydrodynamic water quality modeling was conducted

to evaluate the potential effects of wastewater discharges to the river in the vicinity of the

proposed water intake.

WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS

The Hudson River is currently being used as a drinking water source by the City of

Poughkeepsie, the Town of Lloyd, the Village of Halfmoon, and the City of Latham. In addition,

it has also been used by the City of New York at Chelsea, NY during past drought emergencies.

Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 below compare a subset of water quality data collected in the vicinity of

the proposed location for the water intake for the Proposed Project with that of the other water

treatment plant withdrawals on the Hudson River. The tables also provide a comparison of

Hudson River water quality with data collected from the Delaware, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio,

and Susquehanna Rivers, which are also used as sources of drinking water.

The data in the tables show that for many of the basic water quality parameters, the Hudson

River quality is similar to that of the other river supplies. One exception is the salinity of the

Hudson River, which is higher than that in the other rivers because of the tidal conditions south

of Poughkeepsie. For some parameters, the Hudson River exhibits better water quality than some

other major rivers that are used for drinking water supply. For example, sampling and analysis

were performed for Giardia and Cryptosporidium monthly from May 2007 to April 2008. A

total of 38 samples were collected from five sites within the vicinity of the proposed location of

the Haverstraw Water Supply Project’s new intake. With the exception of one sample that tested

positive for Giardia at the detection limit of 0.1 cyst/L, all other samples were below the

detection limit for Giardia and Cryptosporidium.

Potential issues for drinking water can include the presence of radionuclides, polychlorinated

biphenyls, and endocrine disrupting compounds/pharmaceuticals and personal care products. A

brief discussion of the monitoring results for each of these constituents is discussed below.

2-4


Table 2-1

Water Quality Information

Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments

Hudson1 215 5 110 59

Delaware2 12 28 56 44 n taken from monthly averages.

Mississippi7 70 124 230 176 4 plants: 2006-2008

Missouri9 12 136 226 164

Ohio8 48 80 66 n is not known.

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

Susquehanna6

15 80 n is not known.

Hudson1 40 1 1.9 1.1 36/40 <DL.

Ammonia reported as Nitrogen

Delaware3 12 0.043 0.181 0.116 n taken from monthly values.

Ammonia (mg/L)

Missouri9 12 0.03 0.18 0.07

Hudson4 169 24000 5730

Hudson5 25 238 539 328 8/07-11/07

Delaware2 12 144 235 179 n taken from monthly averages.

Conductivity (µS/cm @ 25C)

Missouri9 12 421 693 531

Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/L)

Hudson1 215 1.2 4.4 2.4

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) Hudson4 3.1 14.7 8.8

Hudson1 39 5 140 61


Mississippi7 25 41 67 53 4 plants: 2003-2008.

Missouri9 12 42.4 71.5 53.0

Calcium (mg/L)


Hudson1 39 5 300 110


Mississippi7 25 18 26 23 4 plants:2003-2008

Missouri9 12 12.5 25.3 17.1

Magnesium (mg/L)


Hudson1 39 5 3400 1044

Mississippi7 25 11 33 18 4 plants:2003-2008

Missouri9 12 15.5 43.5 32.2

Sodium (mg/L)


Hudson1 39 5 21 61

Mississippi7 25 - - - 24/25<DL (5mg/L); 1 value@ 5mg/L.

4 plants:2003-2008

Potassium (mg/L)

Missouri9 12 4.8 12.0 6.5

Hudson1 40 0.26 4.9 0.95


Mississippi7 10 2.59 5.14 4.05 4 plants:2004-2008.

Missouri9 12 0.72 3.07 1.79

Ohio8 0.53 1.78 1.06 n is not known..

Nitrate as Nitrogen (mg/L)

Susquehanna6

0 3 n is not known.

Hudson1 40 0.01 0.16 0.03 Nitrite as Nitrogen (mg/L)

Mississippi7 10 0

# 0.01 0.04 4 plants: 2004-2008

#1 datum stated as zero.

Nitrogen, Total (mg/L) Hudson1 40 1 4.9 1.35 33/40<DL

Hudson1 32 - - - All obs < DL (0.5 mg/L).


ortho-Phosphate as Phosphorus (mg/L)

Missouri9 12 0.27 0.57 0.40

Hudson4 6.7 8.4 7.5

Delaware2 7.3 7.6 7.5

Missouri9 12 7.89 8.28 8.09

Ohio8 7.5 8.8 7.8 n is not known.

pH

Susquehanna6

6.5 8.5 n is not known.

Phosphorus, Total (mg/L) Hudson1 40 0.1 0.24 0.13 21/40<DL

Settleable Solids (mL/L) Hudson1 40 0.1 0.1 0.1 22/40<DL

2-5


Table 2-1 (cont’d)

Water Quality Information


Hudson1 215 5 40,000 1,930

Hudson5 298 2.22 86.3 25.1 1/06-11/07


Mississippi7 25 17.6 52.7 29.6 4 plants: 2003-2008.

Missouri9 12 12.8 32.5 20.8

Chlorine (mg/L)



Hudson1 215 5 770 246

Mississippi7 20 22.1 57 37.1 4 plants: 2003-2008.

Missouri9 12 50.5 91.1 73.3

Sulfate Iron (SO4) (mg/L)


Hudson1 215 94 11,000 3,347

Ohio8 135 345 240 n is not known..

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

Missouri9 12 273 554 353

Hudson1 215 1.2 4.7 2.5

Delaware2 12 1.77 2.97 2.33 n taken from monthly averages.

Susquehanna6 1.2 7 1.8 n is not known.

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L)


Hudson1 215 4.4 100 26.1

Delaware2 and 3

12 0 56 21 n taken from monthly averages.

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Missouri9 12 69 801 268

Total Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Hudson1 40 1 35 4.4

Hudson1 215 0.75 69 17.5


Ohio8 0.75 275 66 n is not known.

Missouri9 12 6 1306 275

Turbidity (NTU)5

Susquehanna6 5 300 n is not known.

Notes: n = number of samples.

1 This study, all sites, all samples. 04/2007 thru 04/2008. 2 Delaware River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 2007. Data from

Baxter intake (estuary). 3 For the Delaware River, TS-TDS is assumed to be the same as TSS for the Hudson River. 4 This study (see Appendix 2.1). 04/2007 thru 04/2008. 5 Hudson River at Poughkeepsie intake. 6 Susquehanna water quality data from United Water Pennsylvania. 7 Mississippi River data from American Water. 8 Ohio River data from Cincinnati Water Works, 2007 data for Miller plant. 9 Missouri River data from St. Louis City Water Division. 2007 data for Howard Bend plant, monthly composite samples.

2-6


Table 2-2

Water Quality Information, Trace Elements


Hudson1 39 200 3100 850

Mississippi3 25 160 5800 800 4 plants, 2003-2008.

Aluminum (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 18 46 30

Hudson1 39 - - - All obs <DL (10µg/L).

Mississippi3 25 - - - 1 detect @ 10µg/L

Arsenic (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 0.6 3.2 1.9


Mississippi3 25 40 160 76 4 plants, 2003-2008.

Barium (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 93 234 169

Hudson1 215 50 1300 431

Mississippi3 25 4 160 76 4 plants, 2003-2008:

8 obs<DL (10µg/L).

Boron (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 90 230 130

Hudson1 215 0.08 27 7.1 50/215<DL.


Bromine (mg/L)

Missouri5 12 0 (sic) 0.58 0.16


Mississippi3 25 - - - 4 plants: 2003-2008. All obs stated as

<DL, which is stated to be 0.

Cadmium (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 - - - All statistics given as 0.1µg/L.


Mississippi3 8 - - - Form of Cr not stated. 4 plants, 2006-

2008: 1 obs @ DL (10µg/L).

Chromium (VI) (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 0.1 0.2 0.2 Data are as written.

Form of Cr not specified.


Mississippi3 25 - - - 4 plants, 2003-2008: all obs<DL100

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

Copper (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 0.9 8.2 2.9

Hudson1 40 - - - All obs <DL (10µg/L). Cyanide (µg/L)

Mississippi3 26 - - - 4 plants, 2003-2008:

all obs <DL (10µg/L).

Hudson1 40 0.2 0.5 0.46 37/40<DL (0.2mg/L).

Mississippi3 25 0.04 0.16 0.076 4 plants, 2003-2008.


Fluorine (mg/L)

Missouri5 12 0.26 0.39 0.32

Hudson1 39 0.1 3.60 1.07


Mississippi3 25 0.27 9.2 1.31 4 plants: 2003-2008.

Ohio4 - - - n is not known.

All statistics given as 3.42 mg/L.

Iron (mg/L)

Missouri5 12 0.0024 0.0150 0.0061

Hudson1 40 - - - All obs <DL (0.2µg/L)

Mississippi3 25 - - - 4 plants: 2003-2008: All obs stated as

0, DL not stated.

Helium (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 - - - All statistics reported as 0.0000mg/L.

Hudson1 39 15 130 66

Delaware2 12 29 116 64 n taken from monthly values.

Mississippi3 25 60 620 173 4 plants: 2003-2008.

Ohio4 - - - n is not known.

All statistics given as 200µg/L.

Magnanese (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 1.0 5.2 2.8

Hudson1 39 5 6 5.03 37/39<DL (5µg/L)

Mississippi3 25 - - - 4 plants: 2003-2008: 2 obs >DL

(10µg/L) @ 10 & 50µg/L.

Lead (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 - - - All data reported as 0.0000mg/L.

Sulfur (mg/L) Hudson1 40 - - - All obs<DL (0.1mg/L).

2-7


Table 2-2 (cont’d)

Water Quality Information, Trace Elements


Hudson1 39 - - - All obs <DL (10µg/L) Selenium (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 1.4 1.9 1.5

Silicon Oxide, Silica (mg/L) Hudson1 33 1.6 15 6.6

Hudson1 40 1.3 5.4 3.1 Silicon Oxide, Silica

Dissolved (mg/L) Delaware2 12 1.01 3.48 2.24 n taken from monthly values.

Hudson1

39 20 62 23 31/62<DL (20µg/L).

Mississippi3 25 - - - 4 plants: 2003-2008: 5 obs >DL

(10µg/L), 1 @10 & 4 @ 20 µg/L.

Zinc (µg/L)

Missouri5 12 - - - All data reported as 0.0 mg/L.


1 This study, all sites, all samples. 04/2007 thru 04/2008. 2 Delaware River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 2007. Data from

Baxter intake (estuary). 3 Mississippi River data from American Water. 4 Ohio River data from Cincinnati Water Works, 2007 data for Miller plant. 5 Missouri River data from St. Louis City Water Division. 2007 data for Howard Bend plant, monthly composite

samples.

Table 2-3

Water Quality Information, Microbiological Parameters


Hudson1 38 - - - All obs<DL (0.1/L).

Delaware2 28 0 2 0.021

Schuylkill3 28

28 0 0

7 3

0.011 0.036

Queen Lane intake. Belmont intake.

Susquehanna4 ND n is not known.

Mississippi5 107 0 7.3 0.37 4 plants: 2003-2007. 11 detects.

Cryptosporidium (oocysts/L)

Ohio7 13 - - - 1 detect @ 6 oocysts/100L.

Hudson1 213 2 2420 766

Hudson8 363 0 36400 2220 2006(n=290)-2007(n=73).

Missouri6 251 100 20000 3300

Total Coliform (CFU/100mL)

Ohio7 ? 4 4838 786 Daily values. Total coli assumed.

Hudson1 215 10 900 90


Missouri6 251 50 28000 3242

Fecal Coliform (CFU/100mL)

Susquehanna4 4 500 n is not known.

Hudson1 215 1 111 2400 E. coli (CFU/100mL)



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

2 Delaware River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 2007. Data from

Baxter intake (estuary). 3 Schuykill River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA.

4 Susquehanna water quality data from United Water Pennsylvania.

5 Mississippi River data from American Water.

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

samples. 7 Ohio River data from Cincinnati Water Works, 2007 data for Miller plant.

8 Hudson River at Poughkeepsie intake.

2-8


RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Due to the presence of the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the eastern shore of the Hudson

River in Buchanan, NY, some have expressed concern regarding the possible radiological

contamination of groundwater as well as the Hudson River close to the plant. A summary of the

radiological results from United Water’s sampling program is provided below. Table 2-4

summarizes the analyses performed for radionuclides in water samples collected at several

locations in the Hudson River in 2007 and 2008.

Table 2-4

Results of Radionuclide Sampling

Radionuclide n

Results: Range

Results: Average

1 MCL

2 Notes

Gross alpha 18 0-20 3.5 15 pCi/L

Gross beta 19 0-62 10.8 50 pCi/L Dosage: 4 mrems/yr

Radium 226/228 (combined)

16 ND 5 pCi/L

Total uranium 19 0-0.689 0.400 30 ug/L

Strontium 90 11 0-0.82 0.680 8 ug/L3 Not detected in 5 out of

11 samples

Tritium 11 0-397 36 20,000 pCi/L3 Not detected in 10 out

of 11 samples

Notes: n = Number of samples 1 Not detected treated as 0. 2 MCL = Maximum contaminant level, the standard set by EPA for these radionuclides. MCLs are

calculated as the average of four quarterly samples. 3 Used as guidance when gross beta < 50 pCi/L.

Drinking water standards for radionuclides first require the determination of “gross alpha” and

“gross beta” measurements; these measurements are useful in providing an overall screening to

determine if further analysis of specific radionuclides is needed. Standards of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be satisfied by testing for gross alpha and gross

beta radioactivity. The standards are considered to be met when the gross beta activity is lower

than or at the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by EPA and concentrations of tritium and

strontium 90 are lower than or at the MCL. (MCLs for these radionuclides are calculated as the

average of four quarterly samples.) As shown in Table 2-4, both gross alpha and gross beta were

well below the EPA MCLs. Also, radium, uranium, strontium 90, and tritium were well below

their respective MCLs and /or guidance values.

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were commonly used in manufacturing processes until the

1970s, and were most commonly used in capacitors and transformers. They were also used for

hydraulic fluids, plasticizers, adhesives, fire retardants, dedusting agents, inks, lubricants, cutting

oils, in heat transfer systems, among other uses. However, PCBs have been classified by EPA as

a potential carcinogen and most uses of PCBs were banned by EPA in 1979. In the Upper

Hudson River, upstream of the Troy lock and dam near Albany, elevated levels of PCBs are

present in the river sediment.

2-9


To address potential concerns related to PCBs in the Hudson River, the water quality sampling

program undertaken for the Proposed Project collected 17 samples that were tested for seven

different congeners of PCBs in 2007 and 2008 at five different locations in the Haverstraw-

Stony Point area during both high and low tidal cycles. All samples tested for PCBs exhibited

results that were found to be below detection limits for PCBs.

EPA’s February 2002 Record of Decision for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site addresses

the risks to people and ecological receptors associated with PCBs in the sediments of the Upper

Hudson River. Phase I dredging activities to remove PCB-contaminated sediment are expected

to start in 2009. 1 This remediation will be performed in accordance with performance standards

for resuspension during dredging that establish limits for concentrations of PCBs in river water

and downstream transport of PCBs. The standards include a primary standard of a not-to-exceed

river water PCB concentration and two action levels that trigger efforts to identify and correct

any cause of exceedance of the performance standards. The action levels are defined by far-field

(more than 1 mile downstream of dredging activities) and near-field (within approximately 1,000

feet of the dredging activities) criteria.

The Waterford Dam area is the southernmost area to be dredged for PCBs. Given the results of

the resuspension modeling for PCBs resulting from Phase 1 dredging, it is expected that PCB

levels will not exceed Control Level concentrations or the Primary Standard at one mile

downstream of the Waterford Dam area in Troy and at all points south for the entire duration of

dredging.2 PCBs resulting from the dredging would therefore not affect the Hudson River near

Haverstraw Bay, in light of the results from Phase 1 resuspension modeling, the use of

performance standards during dredging, and, most importantly, because Haverstraw Bay is more

than 100 miles from the area to be dredged and separated from that area by the Troy Dam.

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING COMPOUNDS (EDCS) AND PHARMACEUTICALS AND

PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS (PPCPS)

There are many compounds of emerging concern in both ground and surface waters. Compounds

of concern to health and environmental professionals, as well as the public, include endocrine

disrupting compounds (EDCs), and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs).3 These

constituents are common to many water sources, and are not unique to the Hudson River.

The term “microconstituents” is frequently used to describe these compounds of concern.

Microconstituents have been defined by the Water Environment Foundation (WEF) as natural

and man-made substances, including elements and inorganic and organic chemicals detected

within water and the environment, for which continued assessment of the potential impact on

human health and the environment is a prudent course of action.

1 EPA Region 2, Hudson River PCBs, http://www.epa.gov/hudson/.

2 Source: Phase 1 Final Design Report Dredge Resuspension Modeling. Prepared by Quantitative

Environmental Analysis, LLC. March 21, 2006.

3 The acronym EDC is used to represent the compounds listed by UL Laboratories as phenolic endocrine

disrupting chemicals, estrogens, and other hormones; the acronym PPCPs is used to represent the

compounds listed as pharmaceutically active compounds, both positively and negatively charged, and

the fragrances.

2-10

Documents

Chapter 2: Project Description A. INTRODUCTION