chapter 2: project description a. introduction
TRANSCRIPT
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
Chapter 2: Project Description
As discussed below in section D of this chapter, the water intake would extend from the
shoreline of the Intake Site approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet into the Hudson River. The route
of the water intake pipe would extend approximately 500 feet beyond the grant line of the lands
under water granted to USG, into the public trust waters of the Hudson River.
WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE
The Water Treatment Plant Site is a 9.03-acre site at 555-571 Beach Road in the Town of
Haverstraw (see Figure 2-3). The Water Treatment Plant Site consists of portions of four tax
parcels: 20.16-2-1, 20.16-2-2.1, 20.16-2-2.2, and 20.16-2-5. The Water Treatment Plant Site is
bounded to the east and southeast by the closed Haverstraw Landfill, to the west by a railroad
right-of-way owned by the CSX Corporation. Privately owned industrial properties are located
to the north and south of the Site. The JRSTP is located nearby, to the south of the Haverstraw
Landfill site. The Water Treatment Plant Site is a reclaimed area located within the boundary of
the now closed Haverstraw Landfill. The Site was not used for landfilling, but municipal waste
was historically stored there. This waste was removed during landfill closure and the Site was
excavated to provide soil to cap the adjacent landfill. Some fill material has recently been placed
on the Site. The Site is now vacant; about 1/3 of the Site is vegetated with a mix of grasses,
shrubs, and small trees and the rest is bare earth and a stormwater basin. The Site is substantially
lower in grade than the surrounding areas and is not accessible via roadways.
The Proposed Project also may incorporate a portion of an adjacent, vacant property to the south
of the Water Treatment Plant Site into the Site, for use as a staging area during construction (see
Chapter 15, “Construction Impacts”) or for potential easements or expansion. This property (also
shown in Figure 2-3) consists of one tax parcel, 20.16-2-6, and is 6.35 acres in size. The
property is owned by DSB Realty Associates, LLC and is referred to in this chapter as the DSB
property.
RAW WATER TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE
The raw water transmission line route extends between the Intake Site and Water Treatment
Plant Site. As shown in Figure 2-2, the route follows the public right-of-way, running beneath
Beach Road and Ecology Lane to the JRSTP. Along Beach Road, the water line would cross
Minisceongo Creek either above-grade, alongside the bridge carrying Beach Road, or in a buried
pipe beneath the creek. At the JRSTP, it would continue westward along the south side of the
plant and beyond, finally bending northward to the Water Treatment Plant Site. The pipeline
route from the intake pumping station to the water treatment plant would be approximately 7,500
feet (1.4 miles) long. In addition, the route also passes through sections of USG property near
the Intake Site; the JRSTP; and the privately owned DSB property to the south of the Water
Treatment Plant Site.
POTABLE WATER MAIN ROUTES
At this time, potential routes have been identified but not finalized for the new potable water
main connections that would extend from the new water treatment plant (discussed in section D
later in this chapter). These potential routes are shown in Figure 2-4. As shown in the figure,
some of the potential routes extend westward from the Water Treatment Plant Site, crossing the
CSX railroad tracks and continuing along an east-west street to meet Route 9W. Others extend
south from the Water Treatment Plant Site, along North Wayne Avenue, Carol Street, or the
2-3
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
Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS
CSX access road adjacent to the railroad tracks, and then continue via Railroad Avenue either
westward to Route 9W or eastward to Tanneyanns Lane.
As discussed later in this chapter, it is also possible that some existing water mains would need
to be rehabilitated or replaced with larger mains. This may include an existing main beneath
Route 9W and a main beneath Filors Lane between Route 9W and Thiells Road. This
replacement and/or rehabilitation could be conducted as part of United 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
Chapter 2: Project Description
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
Delaware2 12 10.5 20.6 16.3 n taken from monthly values.
Mississippi7 25 41 67 53 4 plants: 2003-2008.
Missouri9 12 42.4 71.5 53.0
Calcium (mg/L)
Ohio8 30 44 37 n is not known.
Hudson1 39 5 300 110
Delaware2 12 3.01 7.72 5.73 n taken from monthly values.
Mississippi7 25 18 26 23 4 plants:2003-2008
Missouri9 12 12.5 25.3 17.1
Magnesium (mg/L)
Ohio8 6 13 10 n is not known.
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)
Ohio8 13 23 17 n is not known.
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
Delaware2 12 0.71 1.53 1.11 n taken from monthly values.
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).
Delaware2 11 0.08 0.10 0.10 n taken from monthly values.
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
Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS
Table 2-1 (cont’d)
Water Quality Information
Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments
Hudson1 215 5 40,000 1,930
Hudson5 298 2.22 86.3 25.1 1/06-11/07
Delaware2 12 14.4 33.3 24.1 n taken from monthly values.
Mississippi7 25 17.6 52.7 29.6 4 plants: 2003-2008.
Missouri9 12 12.8 32.5 20.8
Chlorine (mg/L)
Ohio8 20 57 37 n is not known.
Delaware3 12 9.9 21.8 16.0 n taken from monthly values.
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)
Ohio8 50 98 76 n is not known.
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)
Ohio8 1.92 3.84 2.52 n is not known.
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
Delaware2 12 7.8 28.5 13.2 n taken from monthly averages.
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
Chapter 2: Project Description
Table 2-2
Water Quality Information, Trace Elements
Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments
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
Hudson1 39 - - - All obs <DL (200µg/L).
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.
Delaware3 12 0.020 0.054 0.033 n taken from monthly averages.
Bromine (mg/L)
Missouri5 12 0 (sic) 0.58 0.16
Hudson1 39 - - - All obs <DL (5µg/L).
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.
Hudson1 40 - - - All obs <DL (10µg/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.
Hudson1 39 - - - All obs <DL (25µg/L).
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.
Ohio4 0.08 0.30 0.19 n is not known.
Fluorine (mg/L)
Missouri5 12 0.26 0.39 0.32
Hudson1 39 0.1 3.60 1.07
Delaware2 12 0.30 1.74 0.84 n taken from monthly values.
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
Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS
Table 2-2 (cont’d)
Water Quality Information, Trace Elements
Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments
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.
Notes: n = number of samples.
1 This study, all sites, all samples. 04/2007 thru 04/2008. 2 Delaware River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 2007. Data from
Baxter intake (estuary). 3 Mississippi River data from American Water. 4 Ohio River data from Cincinnati Water Works, 2007 data for Miller plant. 5 Missouri River data from St. Louis City Water Division. 2007 data for Howard Bend plant, monthly composite
samples.
Table 2-3
Water Quality Information, Microbiological Parameters
Analyte (units) River n Min Max Mean Comments
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
Delaware2 12 27 247 67 n taken from monthly values.
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)
Delaware2 12 16 228 58 n taken from monthly values.
Notes: n = number of samples.
1 This study, all sites, all samples. 04/2007 thru 04/2008.
2 Delaware River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA. 2007. Data from
Baxter intake (estuary). 3 Schuykill River data from Water Quality Annual Report for the Philadelphia Water Department, PA.
4 Susquehanna water quality data from United Water Pennsylvania.
5 Mississippi River data from American Water.
6 Missouri River data from St. Louis City Water Division. 2007 data for Howard Bend plant, monthly composite
samples. 7 Ohio River data from Cincinnati Water Works, 2007 data for Miller plant.
8 Hudson River at Poughkeepsie intake.
2-8
Chapter 2: Project Description
RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Due to the presence of the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the eastern shore of the Hudson
River in Buchanan, NY, some have expressed concern regarding the possible radiological
contamination of groundwater as well as the Hudson River close to the plant. A summary of the
radiological results from United 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
Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS
To address potential concerns related to PCBs in the Hudson River, the water quality sampling
program undertaken for the Proposed Project collected 17 samples that were tested for seven
different congeners of PCBs in 2007 and 2008 at five different locations in the Haverstraw-
Stony Point area during both high and low tidal cycles. All samples tested for PCBs exhibited
results that were found to be below detection limits for PCBs.
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