ML11262A072
| ML11262A072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/2011 |
| From: | Logan D NRC/NRR/DLR/RERGUB |
| To: | Balsam B NRC/NRR/DLR/RERGUB |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML11262A072 (15) | |
Text
7N L .o n ,--.e,,
Logan, Dennis From: .Logan, Dennis Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 8:10 AM To: Balsam, Briana
Subject:
RE: Salem/Hope Creek aquatic comments Briana, No, Shelley did not reply (yet?).
One of the comments that Leslie sent earlier included major information that we ignored in the dSEIS, and that I think must be included and may change our conclusions. I am trying to find out if any of the other comments are so substantive-that is why I would like to see the comments themselves.
Thanks for keeping in touch, Dennis From: Balsam, Briana Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 8:05 AM To: Logan, Dennis
Subject:
RE: Salem/Hope Creek aquatic comments We can talk about how to split these comments up at some point today. I am working at home this morning, but am going to be heading in soon in case I can get a hold of Julie Crocker. Did Shelley get back to you on a time to talk today?
From: Logan, Dennis Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:57 AM To: Doyle, Daniel; Balsam, Briana Cc: Perkins, Leslie
Subject:
RE: Salem/Hope Creek aquatic comments Dan, These are just the summaries, no? I need the real comments including attachments. Ifyou don't have them handy, the ML access numbers will do.
Dennis From: Doyle, Daniel Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 5:10 PM To: Balsam, Briana; Logan, Dennis Cc: Perkins, Leslie
Subject:
Salem/Hope Creek aquatic comments Dennis and Briana, Here are the aquatic comments for the Salem/Hope Creek DSEIS. I highlighted in yellow what I believe to be the main concerns. I also generated some draft responses for you to edit as necessary. Please send any changes to me and I will incorporate them into Appendix A.
My take is that there are several categories within the aquatic comments:
0 NRC should require cooling towers(.<1 ,.
10
- The aquatic impact is bigger than the NRC says it is... or.. .the conclusion is wrong 0 Weakfish comments 0 Atlantic sturgeon comments 0 Estuary enhancement program comments I would like to receive your responses by next Wednesday (Feb 2).
Thanks, Dan Doyle Project Manager Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission daniel.doyle(dnrc.oqov (301) 415-3748 From: Doyle, Daniel Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:23 AM To: Perkins, Leslie Cc: Balsam, Briana; Logan, Dennis
Subject:
RE:
- Leslie, I talked to Briana and she is setting up the call with Julie for tomorrow. I have training in the morning, so I told Briana that I can sit in on it as long as the call starts after 1pm. I understand that they will be discussing the status of some other projects (in addition to Salem/Hope Creek) with NMFS as well.
I will send the aquatic comments to Dennis and Briana. Briana said they are splitting up some comments since she did the BA.
Dan Doyle Project Manager Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission daniel.dovleanrc.lov (301) 415-3748 From: Perkins, Leslie Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:14 AM To: Doyle, Daniel Cc: Balsam, Briana; Logan, Dennis
Subject:
Hi Dan, I am in training this week. Briana Balsam and Dennis Logan need to have a brief call with Julie Crocker fromt he NMFS. I wondering if you can sit in on the call. If so, please touch base wtih Briana and Dennis. Also, please send Dennis any comments related to ecology that we need his input on. Please contact me if you have quesitons. I am periodicall checking email. You can also reach me by cell (b)(6)
- Thanks, Leslie 11
("NRC should require cooling towers")
Comment SHC-F-1: Today we will focus on Delaware Riverkeeper Network's concern about the relicensing of the Salem facility, due to continued detrimental environmental effects that the facility's cooling water intake structures have on the aquatic life in the Delaware River.
While we recognize that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has permitting authority over Clean Water Act, Section 316-B, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be aware of the regulatory landscape in this area.
A closed-loop cooling system, at the Salem Nuclear facility would circulate a similar total volume of water, as once-through cooling, but would only withdraw a limited amount of water to replace evaporative loss and blowdown. Section 316-B, of theClean Water Act, requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structure, reflect the-b-est technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Adverse environmental impacts are interpreted, .by EPA, to mean the impingement, mortality of fish, and shell fish, and their entrainment of their eggs and larvae.
EPA implemented three rulemaking phases for 316-B. The phase one rule was promulgated in 2001, and covered new facilities. The phase two rule was promulgated in 2004, and covered large existing facilities. And the phase 3 rule, in 2006, covered certain existing facilities, and offshore oil and gas.
Extensive litigation followed the promulgation of the phase two rule. Following a decision, in Riverkeeper v EPA, out of the Second Circuit, EPA suspended the cooling water intake structure regulations for existing large power plants. Of course, the Second Circuit decision was challenged to the Supreme Court in 2009. However, the Second Circuit Decision held, in part, that the use of restoration measures, as a means of compliance, is not authorized under 316-B of the Clean Water Act, a decision which was not disturbed by the subsequent Supreme Court opinion.
EPA is now looking to combine, and re-promulgate rules for all existing cooling water intake structure facilities. In the meantime EPA noting that, with so many provisions of the phase 2 rule affected by the Second Circuit decision, the rule should be considered suspended.
And it developed the following policy. All permits for phase 2 facility should include conditions, under Section 316-B, of the Clean Water Act, developed on the best professional judgement basis.
As noted, the phase 2 rule was appealed to the Supreme Court. In 2009 the High Court held that the Agency may consider cost benefit analysis in choosing among regulatory options. But it did not hold that the Agency must consider it. According to certain industry predictions, EPA has signal concerns with using a cost benefit analysis.
EPA's new rulemaking is expected to set significant new national technology-based performance standards to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Current industry predictions expect EPA to favor performance commensurate with .co0iing towers. This regulatory process,
v Im combined for phases 2 and 3, is anticipated quite soon. A revised draft ruIe is expected b Februiar 2011, and a final rule by July of 2012.
It is imperative that any relicensing effort, at Salem, must take thelse recent developments, and any subsequently promulgated rules, into'account. The two major aspects of the 316-B regulatory framework that concern the Delaware Riverkeeper Network at Salem the use of once-through cooling, and the use of restoration measures at the site.
Comment SHC-H-1: My name is Cristina Matteliano, and I will be addressing why _lo sed cycle cooling should be adopted. While the EPA declined to mandate closed cooling systems, it did set national performance standards, which require a nuclear plant to reduce its fish kills by 80 to 95 percent over the baseline. And those are found on the Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 316-B of the Clean Water Act requires that cooling water intake structures utilize the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. While making the decision on whether to implement cooling technology, in a nuclear plant, cost benefit analysis is permissible. However, that cost benefit analysis must be made based on reliable data.
PSEG has overextended the data used in this analysis. It has grossly underestimated the actual total loss of biomass in the Delaware River fisheries.
Due the conversion of the cooling system to the best technology available, as required by the Clean Water Act, the Salem facility could reduce its fish kills to 95 percent, by converting to closed cycle cooling towers, or to 99 percent, if using a dry cooling system.
PS-EG 'hasnot shown that the cost of installing a closed cycle cooling system outweigh the benefits. The cost of a closed cooling system is estimated at 13 dollars a year per rate payer.
This is offset by the millions, even billions of fish which could be saved as a result-of a closed cooling system. The resulting benefits to the fishing industry will also offset the cost of the cooling system.
Comment SHC-F-2: it is clear that under the Clean Water Act, the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures must reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
In order to properly address the extreme and negative effects that the continued use of the cooling system has on aquatic life, within the area, Delaware Riverkeeper Network believes that the relicensing of the Salem Nuclear facility must require a conversion to-_closed cycle -cooling systems, and should end the practice of so-called mitigation to changes necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act.
Comment SHC-A-8: As part of the Stop the Salem Fish Slaughter, and Unplug Salem Coalition, the New Jersey Environmental Federation has called on PSEG to install cooling towers, at Salem 1 and 2, to reduce the fish loss and protect the estuary, the Delaware River.
If PSEG is pot.wil"ing to spenitihe money to install.icooiing0.towers', and protect the fisheries and estuary of the Delaware River, when cooling towers would obviously provide the best
technology available to protect the ecosystem, how areiwetotrusts that,they:wilf maintain'th-eir.
planets for the next 20 years using the safest methods, using the best available technology.
Comment SHC-U-3: If the NRC allows Salem 1 and 2 to operate, for another 20 years, the massive' fish: ki I caused by Salem 1 and 2, needs to be stopped, as part of a permit renewal.
The outdated, destructive, open loop cooling system used at Salem 1 and 2, needs to be changed to a non-destructive closed loop cooling system, a'.col'0ing-tower, the same as used at Hope Creek.
Comment SHC-U-4: To allow Salem 1 and 2 to kdll billions of fish, every year, for another 20 years, is unacceptable, and unexcusable. Salem 1 and 2 draws in over three billion gallons of water a day. Three billion gallons of water a day, every day.
The EPA estimates that Salem 1 and 2 kills over 350 million age 1 equivalent fish every year.
And age 1 is a standard of measuring the fish kill. It actually kills billions of little fish, also.
But they, for the statistics, they say that 5,000 little fish equals one age one-equivalent fish. But the statistics, and data, uses age one- equivalent fish as a standard that is common in the fish analysis industry.
This massive amount of fish are needlessly being destroyed. Salem 1 and 2 is, also, in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act, of the 1970s, which requires the best technology avable to protect fisheries.
Salem 1 and 2 is not using the best technology, a closed loop system. Salem 1 and 2 is the largest destroyer of aquatic life on the Delaware River. It has, and is still, destroying the fishing industry along the Delaware River. To say that Salem 1 and 2 is having no negative effect on the Delaware River fishery is absurd, and outrageous.
I'd like to present, as evidence, a Wilmington News Journal Article, dated January 14th, 2007, titled, "Cooling Systems Ravage River", subtitled "Big Industrial Sites on the Delaware Kill Tens of Billions of Fish in Crabs Each Year".
It is an excellent article about the fish kill along the Delaware River. The EPA estimate of 350 age one-equivalent fish kill by Salem 1 and 2, every year, is shown in this article. The facts show the destruction Salem is causing.
Comments SHC-U-7: The NRC needsto rNecqommend that the non-destructive closed lpgp cooling system be used at Salem 1 and 2 to stop the fish kill, and protect the fisheries and the fishing industry.
The NRC needs to step up to the plate and do the right thing. We, the Coalition to Protect the Fisheries, are just trying to stop the needless and senseless destruction of the fisheries.
If you want to create jobs build the cooling towers, which would create hundreds of 'cons ruction jobs. Also the fish that are no longer killed by Salem 1 and 2, will create hundreds of jobs in commercial and recreationalris.hing.
The fishing docks at Salem, should be packed with fish, fishing boats, and there should be a fishing industry, like there used to be. That is the way Salem should be if you want to create jobs.
Comment SHC-F-3: DRN's review of the DSEIS reveals glaring deficiencies which undermine the NRC's conclusion that the environmental impacts of Salem and Hope Creek's operations are not severe enough to preclude renewing its operating license. DRN absolutely disagrees with this determination, and submits that if the NRC Staff had performed the proper assessments, they would have reached the opposite conclusion, in particular with regard to impacts on aquatic resources. DRN urges the NRC Staff to fully consider and address our comments prior to issuing the Final SEIS for License Renewal of Salem. DRN would like to reaffirm its longstanding position to convert Salem to closedcycle cooling as mandated by Se'tion 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. The Act states that generating plants such as Salem "shall be required that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology a-vai laible for minimizing adverse environmental impact."
Comment SHC-F-4: The NRC DSEIS does not call for compliance with the Clean Water Act as it relates to best technology available, and even fails to acknowledge the significant environmental impact occurring in the absence of this technology. Every year the Salem Nuclear Generating Station kills over 3 billion Delaware River fish including:
- Over 59 million Blueback Herring
- Over 77 million Weakfish
" Over 134 million Atlantic Croaker
" Over 412 million White Perch
- Over 448 million Striped Bass
- Over 2 billion Bay Anchovy The Salem facility is already cleary having a significant environmental impact on the Estuary, and another twenty years of this destruction will lead to further significant impacts.
Response: (This draft response came from the S/HC DSEIS) These comments relate to the impact on aquatic ecology associatedwith Salem's once-through cooling systems and call for the installationof cooling towers at Salem. The impacts of impingement and entrainmentfrom Salem's once-through cooling system is discussed in Section 4.5 of the SEIS. However, with respect to the comments regardingmandating a closed-cycle cooling system at Salem, the New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Planning (NJDEP)Division of Water Quality is the regulatoryauthoritythat mandates alterationsto a plant's cooling system. The NJDEP accomplishes this through its review and approval of the New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES)permit for each facility. In 2006, PSEG submitted to the NJDEP an applicationfor renewal of its 2001 NJPDESpermit for Salem, which included a Section 316(b) determination under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C 1251 et seq.). Until that request is reviewed and approved by the NJDEP, the 2001 NJPDESremains in effect. In accordance with the 2001 NJPDES permit, PSEG has not been requiredto replace its once-through cooling system at Salem with cooling towers. (See Appendix B of PSEG, 2009 for Salem's 2001 NJPDESpermit.
The staff's evaluation of Salem and HCGS's effect on aquatic ecology is discussed in Chapter2 and 4 (Sections 2.2.5 and 4.5, respectively) of the SEIS.
("The impact is bigger than the NRC says it is" or "the conclusion is wrong")
Comment SHC-A-10: And a lot of the problems, and issues that I brought up in my testimony on May 3rd, including sea level rise, climate change, tritium in groundwater, radioactive releases to the atmosphere.
A lot of those issues have been discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement, but dismissed as being small. Small, okay? And, yet, in the Environmental Impact Statement it says that the water withdrawal from the combined two nuclear stations, and Hope Creek, is combined to the total withdrawal of all other industrial, power, and public water uses in the Delaware estuary, in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
These plants are this single largest user of water inthe river system, in three states. Again, their combined use of water exceeds all other industrial uses combined.
And I just don't think that that impact can be called small. If that is not large, I don't know what large is. How large does it'have to be tolbe considered a large impIact?
The comparison in millions of gallons, between Hope Creek and Salem 1 and 2, is orders of magnitude. The numbers are so large that I would have to write them on the board, and I might do that, because I can't even - you know, is it trillions of billions? I'm not sure.
Comment SHC-G-1: My name is Benjamin Wharton, and I will address once-through cooling impacts. The 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, for Salem, determined BTA to continue to be once-through cooling based on, one, the reduction of permitted intake flow of Salem to its maximum actual operating capacity.
Two, intake screen modifications, and three, a feasibility study for a sound deterrent system.
Yet the Salem Nuclear Generating Station kills over three billion fish in the Delaware River every year, taking a huge toll on the living resources of the Delaware River. But in seeking to argue that its adverse environmental impacts are limited, the plant has, consistently, underestimated these numbers by two-fold or more.
The idea that three billion fish, killed peryear, is not great enough adverse environmental impact to affect the license renewal process, is simply unt-enable and_,absud.
Comment SHC-U-6: Salem 1 and 2 has destroyed, and is continuing to destroy the fishing industry. It is not right that Salem continues to needlessly destroy the fishing industry, while commercial and recreational fishermen suffer.
The water intake issue, the fish kill issue, is relegated to be a state permit de-isi-o. The federal rules say that the state decides the water intake.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as part of a permit renewal, considers environmental impacts. As part of an overall environmental review, the NRC comments on various aspects, the water intake fish kill being one part.
For the NRC to say that Salem 1 and 2 drawing in over three billion gallons of water a day, and killing over 350 million age one-equivalent fish every year, is causing iitileharm- to the fishery, is totally wrong and unexcusable.
The NRC's environmental evaluation on the fish needs to state the truth and the facts. Salem 1 and 2 draws in over three billion gallons of water a day, Salem 1 and 2 kills 350 age one-equivalent fish every year.
Salem 1 and 2 is the largest destroyer of aquatic life in the Delaware River. Salem 1 and 2 has, and is, destroying the fishery and will continue to destroy the fishery for another 20 years, if the destructive open loop cooling systems are still used.
Comment SHC-U-9: The second sentence, or the following sentence: "Operation of Salem, during relicensing period, likely would continue to contribute substantially to cumulative impacts on aquatic resources, in conjunction with HCGS, and other facilities, that withdraw water from, or discharge to the Delaware River".
This is a true statement. It will continue to cause harm to the fishery, because of all the water being withdrawn. And it is not just the Salem facility. There are dozens of them, all along the river, that draw in. Salem happens to be the one single biggest.
But you must consider the cumulative effect of all the facilities. So, you know, it wouldn't be so bad if you only had one facility that took a little bit of water, but you have many, and Salem is the biggest. So that statement is true.
Comment SHC-U-10: The next sentence, "However, given long-term improvements in the estuarine community, during the recent decades while these facilities were operating, NRC expects cumulative impacts expected to be limited, with effects on individual species populations, potentially ranging from negligible, to noticeable."
Well, the first part is wrong, because the fish populations have declined. And the last part is just saying, well, there is the fish kill, but it is okay, don't worry about it, you know?
It is not okay, they are destroying the fisheries. And this is the statement, and the sentences that I want to critique. And, specifically, I find incorrect.
So for the NRCto conclude tha-t oh, it is o.kay it is wrorng, itis not otkay. And I will provide the data and the information that I was talking about, previously.
The moral code we should live by is, if something is causing harm, it should be stopped. The open loop cooling system is causing great harm to the fisheries, and should be stopped.
Salem knows they are causing great harm. Why do they continue to destroy the fishery?
'i Lam -Z ,, irnjr~ -~ri Comment SHC-F-7: The DSEIS concludes that "impacts to fish and shellfish from the collective effects of entrainment, impingement and heat shock at Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL." DSEIS 4-46. ,This is completely unsuppoable pos.ition. As a starting point, NMFS has gone on record that:
Evidence suggests that northeast coast estuaries have lost much of their rich former fishery productivity because of habitat degradation or loss, but lack of absolute species abundance data for early historical periods prior to significant human disturbances makes this conclusion somewhat inferential. Yet the linkage is supported by strong evidence, particularly that stock sizes for most estuarine dependent fishery resources under thejurisdiction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, New England or Mid-Atlantic Management Councils, or the states of New York and New Jersey fishery management agencies, are not currently over fished, but fall below historic levels (NEFMC 1998; ASMFC 2005). This observation suggests that the Hudson River's ability to support and produce living aquatic organisms has been compromised over the years by lost habitat quality and quantity as humans have dredged, filled, and withdrawn river water for a myriad of uses, resulting in conflicts of use with fishery resources.
Oct. 12, 2010 Letter from NMFS (Colosi) to NRC at 3-4. The, DbSEISreIies heavily onr industry-provided dat6a to evaluate effects of impingement and entrainment. However, the DSEIS concedes that its analysis is flawed, "due to the differences in methods used during the more than 30 years since Salem Unit 1 began commercial operation in 1978, it is difficult to compare' impingement estimates across studies." DSEIS at 4-28. Additionally, study resultslreported in the GElS are decades pld, with the most recent information collected in 1990. This was identified as a concern by NMFS in a 2010 letter to NRC regarding another facility in the Northeast, noting, "This concerns us on two counts: 1) the data may not accurately depict contemporary habitat usage of the [mid-Hudson region] by fishes, invertebrates, and other aquatic life, and 2) the project proponents have not evaluated the effectiveness of adaptive measures that have been implemented since the original [agreement] was put into place."
Comment SHC-F-8: The Draft SEis faiIlsto consiiderEPA's 2004 repoir entitled "Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule." The report detailed EPA's section 316(b) Phase II benefits analysis and study results. This critical information is missing from the NRC analysis and provides evidence and data 'challenging the DSEIS'S finding that "the Staff concludes that impacts to fish and shellfish from the collective effects of entrainment, impingement and heat shock at Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL." DSEIS 4-46.
EPA itself has acknowledged significant impacts from once-through cooling. EPA has determined that operation of industrial scale cooling water intakes results in a wide spectrum of undesirable and unacceptable adverse effects on aquatic resources including entrainment and impingement; disrupting the food chain; and losses to aquatic populations that may result in reductions in biological diversity or other undesirable effects on ecosystem structure or function.
See, 66 Federal Register 65,256, 65,292 (December 18, 2001), 69 Federal Register 41,576, 41,586 (July 9, 2004); NMFS letter at 4.
Expert federal agency NMFS has also explicitly identified significant impacts from intake structures that are ignored in the DSEIS for Salem.
According to NMFS' assessment of the DSEIS for another Northeastern facility:
The intake impacts for once-through cooling systems largely surround physical habitatloss associated with construction of the intakes themselves as well as the inability ofaquatic species from being successfully able to use habitat within the volumes of waterwithdrawn from the source supply. These impacts may include changing particularecological features such as local hydrological patterns as suggested in the foregoingsection, but the preponderance of the impacts usually are associated with organismimpingement and entrainment. Impingement impacts tend to accrue to larger species and life stages that cannot pass through the impingement screens nor avoid the intake current, but become trapped on cooling water screens and sometimes cannot escape beforesuffering exhaustion, injury or even mortality.
Unlike impingement impacts, which tend to exhibit some selective characteristics in that they largely accrue to larger tax a or more mature life stages, entrainment of organisms into the cooling water source stream are relatively indiscriminate and may adversely affect any organism that fits through the screens and cannot counter the suction force of the intake. While the review material indicate that the IP2 and IP3 cooling systems have been retrofitted with dual-speed and variable-flow pumps in order that intake flows can be regulated to some degree to provide some level of mitigation or protection, we note that the dGEIS also indicates that using planned seasonal outages or maximum pump speeds does not eliminate the losses of fishes and other organisms to entrainment.
Regarding.these collective intake impact matters, NMFS disagrees withthie NRCs approach to.presenting and anal yzing the impingement and entrainment.-data. We particularly dispute the NRCs decision to attempt correlating overall population level trends with operation of the Indian Point nuclear generating facilities.
First of all, analyzing the data over the entire range of a species instead of a more meaningful population segment does not follow the spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act nor the implementing regulations for EFH in the MSA because it ignores real and obvious impacts that could adversely affect a local stock.
It is rare for the preponderance of a particular species be extirpated unless it already is endangered or threatened, but it certainly is quite plausible that a more local segment of an otherwise healthy population could be effectively decimated in an acute event or after years of suffering chronic or cumulative impacts. Thus, when considering the impacts of cooling water withdrawal on more local stock contributions emanating from the Hudson River and potentially recruiting to a greatly dispersed coastal fishery, the effects of cooling withdrawal even from a limited portion of the total available habitat'(as it is construed in the dGEIS) could be quite profound.
Finally, we are critical of this type of data transformation because it also has great potential for creating undesirable artifacts because it assumes all fishery habitats, regardless of their geographic location, size, and ecological condition, are equally valuable to the living resources that they support. The scientific literature is replete with studies that organisms do not use habitats uniformly over their ranges, and this observation is borne out in our own status and trends data that have been used to select closed areas or to make similar resource management decisions for certain federally managed fishery resources.
Comment SHC-F-9: Specific to this site, NJDEP reviewed PSEG data as part of its state permit application in 2006. NJDEP's expert (ESSA) found that PSEG's assertions were not credible and were not backed by the data and studies PSEG had presented. According to the ESSA report, PSEG "underestimated" blrmasso'lost from the ecosystem by perhaps ,greater than 2-fold." (ESSA report p. xi) And "... the actual total biomass of fish lost to the ecosystem ... is at least 2.2 times greater than that listed" by PSEG. (ESSA Report p. 75)
ESSAi.`echtno.ogies' 154 page, review of PSEG's permit application documented ongoing problems with PSEG's assertions and findings including bias, misleading conclusions, data gaps, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of their findings and damage. Some examples of ESSA's findings:
& With regards to fisheries data and population trends, ESSA said "The conclusions of the analyses generally 'overextend th..e ..data or results." (p. ix) 0 PSEG "underestimates biomass lost from the ecosystem by perhaps greater than 2-fold."(p. xi) "... the actual total biomass of fish lost to the ecosystem ... is at least 2.2 times greater than that listed in the Application." (p. 75) 0 "Inconsistency in the use of terminology, poorly defined terms, and a tendency to draw conclusions that are not supported by the information presented detract from the rigor of this section and raige*slskepticism about the results. In particular, there is a tendency to draw subjective and unsupported conclusions about the importance of Salem's impact on RIS finfish species." (p. 77)
Referring to PSEG's discussion and presentation of entrainment mortality rates ESSA found PSEG's "discussion in this section of the Application to be misleading." (p. 13) The NRC's DSEIS"fails totake this anay*sis into account.
In concluding Section 4.5.6 of the DSEIS, NRC names several potential mitigation options, but neither arrives at the specific conclusions that the units should be retrofitted with closed-cycle cooling systems, nor selects particular alternatives that they would recommend inlieu of closed-cycle cooling. Moreover, NRC unfairly minjimizes its. role, and stresses NJDEP's responsibility to issue permits and impose mitigation requirements. This is completely separate from an analysis of environmental impacts for purposes of NEPA and should not p1revent N r-o;;f-uertaking' afulll*6d fair analysis of the impacts.
Comment SHC-U-1: I'm with the Coalition to Protect Fisheries. We feel that Salem 1 and 2 should not be permitted to operate for another 20 years, because of many areas of concern.
If, however, it is allowed to, by the NRC, to operate for another 20 years, the needless and senseless dst.ruction.of aquatic-.life, millions of dead fish and crabs every year, must not be allowed to continue.
There are several aspects that are troubling. First, the Salem 1 and 2 units 40y old. The projected life of these nuclear plants was designed for 40 years. To extend the operation of these old plants is very risky.
Response: (response)
(weakfish comments)
Comment SHC-U-5: The NRC needs to know that weakfish are so few in numbers, now in the Delaware River, that the fishing regulation is you can only legally catch one weakfish a day, recreationally, fishing.
So the fisherman goes out, on his boat, is only allowed to keep one weakfish, and that is it. All that effort, trying to go fishing recreationally, and that is all he can keep. The weakfish are low.
I'd also like to present, as evidence, a fish kill report by Dr. Desmond Kahn, of the Delaware Department of Environmental Control, DENREC, on the fish kill damage to the weakfish, and stripers, in the Delaware River caused by Salem 1 and 2.
This is an excellent in-depth report. The report states that $alem 1i and 2 killed m ore, weakfish in one year, than what was caught commercially, and recreationally, in Delaware, in the same year.
Comment SHC-U-8: Another part of my comments pertains to the actual Environmental Statement in the report, there. There are the sentences, and I want to go over, like, three of them that are part of the report, that I need -- that I feel need to be discussed. And I differ on my opinion, or my opinion differs from what was said.
The first sentence, in the statement, about the open loop cooling system, and the impact, is "This analysis found that in the vicinity of Salem and HGS, since 1978, when Salem began in operation, fin fish richness has not changed, and species densities has increased, PSEG 2006C". End of quote.
I disagree with that statement, strongly disagree with it. I would like to present, to the NRC, a report that states -- a fish kill report on another facility, but I was a study done, from the weakfish, from 1980 to 1990, the population 'declined 85 percent. In ten years it was 15 percent of the population that it used to be.
The fish have declined, the weak fish has declined. Also, the weakfish now are so low, that the regulations for weakfish, in the Delaware River, is you are only allowed to catch one fish, recreationally.
And now I would like to provide some information about that. And then also, too, in another'fish kill eport that I have read, and I will provide information. The stnpers w.-ere0oJlw in the 1980s, that commercial stripe fishery industry was banned for five years, from 1985 to 1990.
For five years no commercial stripe fishing industry in the Delaware River. The commercial stripe fishermen were put out of business. But yet the nuclear plant continued to kill them needlessly.
So to say that the fish are doing great, and they have been for decades, isk7kfiualy wrong. And I will provide this information. And just because PSEG cited it in a particular report, does not mean that it is correct. And I will provide this information on the fish kill, and the decline in the fish population.
Response: (response)
(Atlantic sturgeon comments)
Comment SHC-F-10: On .October 6, 2010, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a proposed rule to list five distinct population segments (DPS) of the Atlantic sturgeon, as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In recognition of the many threats to riverine habitat, including dredging, filling, and degraded water quality, facing Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson and Delaware Rivers, NMFS proposed to list a DPS consisting of these populations, the New York Bight (NYB) DPS, as endangered. See, 75 Fed. Reg. 61,872 at 61,881(Oct. 6, 2010). We also note with alarm that the Delaware River population of Atlantic sturgeon is more precariously poised than the Hudson River population, according to research on the record. According to the Delaware River State of the Basin Report, 2008, which is based on science collected in the region, the status of the Atlantic Sturgeon is considered "poor and getting worse" with numbers "estimated to be less than 1,000 and probably less than 100 across the Estuary." Furthermore, there is scientific evidence that the Delaware River is home to a genetically unique population of Atlantic Sturgeon, and that this small but distinct population is currently reproducing. That the Delaware River population is not only genetically unique but also may have a population of fewer than 100 fish makes protection of this portion of the NYB DPS a critical priority.
This change in status means that a critical piece of informatio n is missing fr6omthe OS-lS, and must be evaluated prior to NRC's issuance of a final SEIS. A lack of sufficient data relating to impingement, entrainment and thermal impacts of Salem on Atlantic sturgeon in the vicinity of Salem leads to an at best incomplete and at worst erroneous determination regarding the environmental impact of relicensing on this critical species. Given the impending designation of the Atlantic sturgeon NYB as endangered, NRC Staffs thinly supported assessment and indefinite conclusions are insufficient for purposes of meeting the obligations of NEPA. Thus, the DSEIS should consider and incorporate all relevant information contained in the Proposed Listing prior to reaching any final conclusions related to the impacts of license renewal of Salem on endangered aquatic resources.
Comment SHC-X-29: Page 2-78, lines 23 to 28. PSEG Nuclear recommends that the text on page 2-78, lines 23 to 28, be updated to reflect the recent Endangered Species Act listing notice for Atlantic Sturgeon, which was published in the Fe-ra-l-Register on October 6 2010 (75 FR 61897 Response: (response)
(Estuary enhancement program comments)
Comments SHC-1-1 and SHC-F-11:In an effort to mitigate its impact, in 1996, NJDP issued an NJD permit, with special conditions, including a wetland restoration and enhancement program, fish ladder project, and biological monitoring program.
PSEG is required to engage in the wetlands initiative until 2012, in New Jersey, and 2013 for Delaware wetlands. The purpose of the restoration program was to enhance the production of fish, in the estuary, in an effort to offset losses of fish associated with entrainment and impingement at the cooling water intake structure. In other words, to mitigate the:harms caused by once-through cooling.
However, PSEG's wetlands restoration experiment, fails to meet.theire.quirem.en.ts.o.fthe Cle.an Water Act. The experiment has resulted in over 22,000 pounds of herbicide to be dumped over valuable wetland resources. PSEG has failed to demonstrate that this experiment provides any environmental benefit.
The fact remains that there has been no demonstrated increase in abundance, values, represented as important fish species. And, importantly, PSEG has not shown that the wetlands will sustain themselves once the herbicide treatment has ended. This mitigation project is a clear failure, and in no way offsets the millions, the costs of millions of fish lost each year as a result of PSEG's failure to install a closed cooling system.
DRN commissioned a 2003 study that reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the wetland restoration project, in increasing fish production, based on the success of the established plant community, plant densities, invasion by phragmites, and other invasive species, utilization of marshes by fish, and the potential for the marshes to increase fish populations in the estuary.
With regard to wetlands restoration efforts, the DRN study concluded that although some phragmites reductions were achieved, the sustainability of that reduction was dependent on annual herbicide treatment, and the true success of the program could not be determined until herbicide treatment, and marsh manipulation efforts, such as burning, were discontinued.
With regard to fish response, the study did not support the assertion that phragmites eradication was resulting in an increased utilization of the site, and increased fish production.
Comment SHC-A-7: Salem 1 and 2 are also huge consumers of water, for cooling, as well as Delaware Riverkeeper recently attested to, in their testimony, killing three billion fish a year through entrainment and impingement.
I read the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, according to their own permit renewal application, it states that one-sixth of the production of the Delaware River is being lost to impingement and entrainment in the facility.
And, furthermore, the application states that between 2000 and 2006, the fish loss from impingement and entrainment were 2.4 million alewifes, 87 million croaker, two thousand million bay anchovies, 14 million striped bass, 32 million weak fish, and that is just a partial list.
At the same time PSEG stated that increased production of fish, from restored salt hay farms, is estimated at 2.3 times the annual production lost from impingement and entrainment at Salem.
PSEG did not evaluate the fish populations at the phragmites sites. Although I'm not a scientist, fishl'.oss.
I find i* hard to believe'that restoration .mitigatisthe-But even if it did, it does not make up for the years of damage done to the ecosystem before the salt hay farms were restored to Wetlands, nor does it offset the continuing loss of fish, on a daily basis, from the once-through cooling system.
Comments SHC-J-1 and SHC-F-12:
For 20 years PSEG has claimed that the exorbitant cost of conversion make a closed cycle cooling system an untenable option. The New Jersey DEPA has accordingly allowed PSEG to rely on mitigation practices, in order to counter the negative effects of the continued operation of their cooling system, on fish. Since 1993, the DRN has addressed several concerns with the mitigation practices proposed by PSEG, including real data showing that the restoration plans are simply not working.
Whereas the 2009 Supreme Court Decision in Entergy Corp. v Riverkeeper, Inc., held that the cost benefit analysis was an appropriate measure in determining the best available technology for cooling methods, it has not overturned the previous 2007 decision, in which it determined that after the fact restoration measures are not appropriate for addressing the environmental impacts highlighted by Section 316-B.
This means that going forward the-failed restoration measures at Salem should not count as valid means of minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
Comment SHC-W-39: The New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife (DFW) continues to be concerned with the issue of impacts to the eggs, larval forms, juveniles and adults of the fish, shellfish and other invertebrate species which exist in the Delaware River Estuary.
The DFW was initially concerned with the statement in section 9.1 (lines 21-23), however because one of the overall goals of the Estuary Enhancement Program is to minimize the effects of the Salem Generating Station (Station) on Delaware Estuary biota, these issues can be addressed anytime.
Also the DFW feels that this line should include "Additionally, the Staff concludes that impacts to fish and shellfish from entrainment, impingement, and heat shock at Salem and HCGS would not warrant additional mitigation beyond the Estuary Enhancement Program .orthe.purposes of this license renewal."
Response: (This draft response came from the S/HC DSEIS) These comments address the estuary enhancement programcurrently being conducted by PSEG. The estuary enhancement program is a provision of the Salem's 2001 NJPDES permit. (See Appendix B of PSEG, 2009 for Salem's 2001 NJPDES permit.) The impacts of the estuary enhancementprogram will be discussed, as appropriate,in Chapter4 (Section 4.5.5) of the SEIS.