ML103400276: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings  
{{#Wiki_filter:Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title:        License Renewal for Salem Units 1 and 2 Hope Creek Generating Station Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number:    50-272, 50-311, 50-354 Location:          Woodstown, New Jersey Date:              Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Work Order No.:    NRC-553                          Pages 1-78 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
 
1 1                      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3                              +    +    +    +      +
4    DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5                              PUBLIC MEETING 6                              +    +    +    +      +
7                PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP NUCLEAR 8                LICENSE RENEWAL FOR SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 9                    HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 10                              +    +    +    +        +
11                                  Wednesday.
12                          November 17th, 2010 13                              +    +    +    +      +
14                        Woodstown, New Jersey 15                              +    +    +    +      +
16                    The Public Meeting was held at 1:30 p.m.,
17 at the Salem County Emergency Services Building, 135 18 Cemetery Road, Woodstown, New Jersey, William Burton, 19 Facilitator, presiding.
20 APPEARANCES:
21              WILLIAM BURTON 22              LESLIE PERKINS 23              MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ 24              BO PHAM 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
 
2 1                          A-G-E-N-D-A 2 WELCOME AND PURPOSE OF MEETING 3 Facilitator William Burton ......................... 3 4 OVERVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 5 Leslie Perkins ..................................... 7 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................... 15 7 CLOSING COMMENTS 8 Bo Pham ........................................... 77 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
 
3 1                          P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2                                                                      1:30 p.m.
3                      FACILITATOR BURTON:                  I think we will get 4 started, it is 1:30. I want to try to be prompt.
5                      Welcome, everyone.                    My name is William 6 Burton, in my normal duties I'm a Branch Chief in the 7 Office          of  New  Reactors,          at      the    NRC. But        this 8 afternoon I will be serving as your Facilitator, and I 9 will be assisted by Mr. Mike Rodriguez, over on the 10 side.
11                      I wanted to welcome you.                  We are here, the 12 purpose of this evening's meeting is to take comments 13 from        the  public  on    the      Staff's          Draft  Supplemental 14 Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared in 15 support of the Staff's review of the license renewal 16 application, submitted by Public Service Enterprise 17 Group Nuclear, or PSEG Nuclear, in support of its 18 request for a license renewal for Salem Units 1 and 2, 19 and the Hope Creek Generating Station1.
20                      Now, I do want to say this up front. My 21 name        is  William,  but      I    prefer          Butch,  so    everyone 22 knows.          William was my granddaddy, okay?
23                      I want to talk a little bit about the 24 format of this afternoon's meeting.                            It is the first 25 of two meetings that we are going to be having today.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
4 1  And each meeting is going to be broken up into three 2 parts.
3                    The first part we are going to give you 4 the preliminary findings of the Staff's Environmental 5 Review, followed by a short period, where you will 6 have an opportunity to ask questions about some of the 7 information        that    you      heard,          or  the  Environmental 8 Review process conducted by the Staff.
9                    And we do have some folks here, from the 10 Staff who, hopefully, will be able to answer your 11 questions.
12                    The third part, which is the main part of 13 the meeting, is where we are going to listen to you, 14 as you provide comments to us, on some of the findings 15 that we had in our review.
16                    So that is the general format.                    A couple 17 of things, if you want to provide a comment, we do ask 18 that you sign one of the yellow cards that we have in 19 the back, and we will make sure that we get you up, 20 and you can provide your comment.
21                    If any of you need copies of the slides 22 that are going to be used this afternoon, there are 23 copies in the back, to make sure that you can -- does 24 anyone        need  copies?            It      looks    like,  I    guess, 25 everyone's got them.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
5 1                Also  we have some copies of the Draft 2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, that is a 3 mouthful, I'm going to call it the DSEIS from now on, 4 so that you will know what I'm talking about.
5                We do have a few copies.                  If you don't get 6 a copy, and you would like to get a copy of the 7 report, you can always go to the NRC's website and you 8 can access the report there.
9                And I think in the meeting announcement, 10 it did give the URL where you can get that.
11                This    afternoon's                  meeting  is        being 12 transcribed.      Mr. Ed Johns, in the back, will be 13 transcribing this meeting.              Also, we are always trying 14 to improve the quality of our public meetings. So 15 also, in the back, there are feedback forms that we 16 really encourage you to let us know what you think 17 about how the meeting went, areas for improvement, we 18 are always looking for those kind of helpful comments.
19                A little bit of logistics.                    For those of 20 you who may not know, behind me, through these doors 21 and to the right are the rest rooms.                      If some of you 22 are too embarrassed to go this way, there is another 23 se of -- it is a coed rest room, I need to say that, 24 make that clear.
25                On the other side, if you go through here, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
6 1 past the other door, hang a left, and that rest room 2 is on the right.          Should we need to evacuate, for some 3 reason, we are going to ask that everyone muster in 4 the front, where you came in, so you can go back down 5 the stairs where you came in.
6                    You can also leave, again, through these 7 double doors, there is a door to the left, stairs 8 down.          You will be in the back, but we would like for 9 everybody to muster in the front.                          Should that happen, 10 and hopefully it won't, we will know what to do.
11                    Electronic devices, you have heard this 12 before.          Anything that beeps, and all that kind of 13 stuff, please turn it off, or mute it, or put it on 14 vibrate, that would be appreciated.
15                    Because we are transcribing the meeting, 16 we do want to try to minimize side conversations.                                      I 17 have          been  through    a    number          of    these,  and      these 18 microphones pick up every little thing.
19                    So  if        we      can        minimize    the        side 20 conversations that would be very helpful, it would 21 help us to have a clean transcript.
22                    Last  thing        is    we        are  going  to        hear 23 comments, from speakers, who have very different views 24 and opinions about this project and, perhaps, nuclear 25 power in general.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
7 1                    We do ask that everyone just be respectful 2 of everyone else.          Even if someone is saying something 3 that you may not personally agree with, we do ask that 4 everyone give everyone an opportunity to speak their 5 mind.
6                    And with that, any questions about the 7 format, or the logistics?
8                    (No response.)
9                    FACILITATOR BURTON:                Everyone is good with 10 that, okay.
11                    Well, I'm going to introduce our speaker, 12 Ms.        Leslie  Perkins,      who      is    the      lead  environmental 13 project manager for this review.                          She has been with 14 the NRC for about four years now.
15                    And  before          taking          over    this    license 16 renewal application review, she was actually one of 17 the        project  managers      overseeing            the  review    of        the 18 ESBWR New Reactor design, over in the Office of New 19 Reactors.
20                    So she was kind enough to help out the 21 license renewal team, over here, and picked up the 22 lead for the Environmental Review.                            And with that I 23 will turn it over to Leslie.
24                    MS. PERKINS:            Good afternoon.            Again, my 25 name is Leslie Perkins, and I am the environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
8 1 project        manager    for      Hope      Creek      and  Salem    license 2 renewal reviews.
3                    Today I'm going to give you the results of 4 the NRC's review of the site-specific issues related 5 to        the    proposed      license          renewal      of  Hope        Creek 6 Generating          Station,        and      Salem        Nuclear  Generating 7 Station, Units 1 and 2.
8                    I will discuss the NRC's regulatory role, 9 environmental issues and areas that were addressed and 10 our findings.            I will also give our schedule for 11 receiving          comments        on      our        Environmental        Impact 12 Statement,          as  well      as      for        completing    our        final 13 Environmental Impact Statement.
14                    At the end of the presentation there will 15 be time for you to present your comments.                              For those 16 of you who would prefer to send in your comments, I 17 will explain some options for doing so.
18                    The    NRC      was      established        to    regulate 19 civilian          uses    of      nuclear            materials,    including 20 applications that produce electric power.
21                    The NRC conducts license renewal reviews 22 for plants whose owners wish to operate them beyond 23 their initial license period.
24                    The NRC's license renewal reviews address 25 safety        issues  related        to      managing      the  effects            of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
9 1 aging,          and    environmental            issues        related      to        an 2 additional          20  years      of    operation,        as  well    as        any 3 potential major refurbishment activities the public 4 owner,        or    operator,        may      undertake        during      or        in 5 preparation for additional 20 years of operation.
6                    An aspect of the NRC's regulation, our 7 mission is three-fold.                To ensure adequate protection 8 of public health and safety, to promote common defense 9 and security, and to protect the environment.
10                    In  this        meeting            I  will  discuss          the 11 potential site-specific impacts of license renewal for 12 Hope Creek and Salem.                The site-specific findings are 13 contained          in  the    Draft        Supplemental        Environmental 14 Impact        Statement    that      the      NRC      Staff  published            on 15 October 21st of 2010.
16                    This  document          contains        analyses    of        all 17 applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review 18 of issues common to many or all nuclear power plants.
19                    The issues for which environmental impacts 20 are the same, across some, or all, nuclear power plant 21 sites,        are  discussed        in    the        Generic  Environmental 22 Impact Statement.
23                    The NRC staff reviewed these issues to 24 determine        whether    the      conclusions,            in  the    Generic 25 environmental impact statement are still valid for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
10 1 Salem and Hope Creek.
2                    The    NRC        staff            also    reviewed            the 3 environmental          impacts        of    potential        alternatives            to 4 license renewal.            To determine whether the impacts, 5 expected from license renewal, are unreasonable, in 6 comparison to other power generation options.
7                    An earlier part of this review was the 8 scoping period.            During this period the NRC solicited 9 comments concerning what to focus the review on.
10                    The comments received, during this period, 11 and the responses to those comments, are addressed in 12 Appendix          A    of    the        Draft          Environmental        Impact 13 Statement.
14                    The comments were grouped into categories 15 shown in the second bullet on this slide.                            This slide 16 is a continuation from the previous slide, showing the 17 categories that the comments were placed in.
18                    This slide lists the environmental issues 19 the NRC staff reviewed for Salem and Hope Creek during 20 the proposed license renewal period.
21                    Overall the direct and indirect impact, 22 from license renewal, on all these issues, were found 23 to        be  small.      Which      means          that    there  was        some 24 noticeable          impact,      but      not      enough    to  cause          any 25 permanent          alterations          to      the      ecology    or          the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
11 1 environment.
2                  Next slide, please.                    As part of its NEPA 3 review, which is the National Environmental Policy 4 Act, the Staff also looked at the potential cumulative 5 impacts associated with Salem and Hope Creek.
6                  These impacts include the effects on the 7 environment from other past, present, and reasonable 8 foreseeable future of human actions.                        It is important 9 to note that these impacts may not even be related to 10 relicensing of Salem and Hope Creek.
11                  Nevertheless, the intent of NEPA is that 12 an agency be cognizant of, and ready to be able to 13 disclose      all  the    environmental                impact  activities 14 within the proximity of its action.
15                  This    slide      provides            a  summary    of        our 16 findings,      with  respect        to    the      cumulative    impacts.
17 Overall, the one reasonable foreseeable action, in the 18 near future, is the potential for PSEG to proceed with 19 its request to construct additional reactors on-site.
20                  Which, as you can see, expands the range 21 of potential impacts for socio-economic, aquatic, and 22 terrestrial resources.
23                  We    did        note,          in      the    Supplemental 24 Environmental        Impact      Statement,            however,  that          the 25 specific impacts of that future activity is also being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
12 1 captured, and reviewed, in a separate Environmental 2 Impact Statement by the NRC.
3                      Our staff has been working closely, with 4 the Office of New Reactors, to make sure we coordinate 5 and capture the relevant information within scope.
6                      Next  slide,        please.          A  major    step          in 7 determining whether license renewal is reasonable or 8 not,          is  comparing    the      likely          impacts  of    license 9 renewal with the alternatives, including other methods 10 of power generation, and not renewing Salem and Hope 11 Creek operating licenses.
12                      In    the        Draft            Environmental        Impact 13 Statement the NRC staff considered super-critical coal 14 fired            generation,      natural            gas    combined        cycle 15 generation, new nuclear generation.
16                      And,    as        part            of    the  combination 17 alternative, conservation and efficiency, natural gas 18 combined cycle generation, and solar power.
19                      Finally, as required by NEPA, the NRC also 20 considered the case of no-action alternative, which 21 equates to no license renewal of Salem and Hope Creek 22 at the end of their licenses.
23                      The Staff found that the impacts, from the 24 energy alternatives, would vary widely based on the 25 characteristics of the alternatives.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
13 1                    In  most        cases,            construction        of          new 2 facilities created significant impacts.                              Overall the 3 NRC        staff    concludes        that        continued        operation            of 4 existing          Hope  Creek      Generating              Station,    and      Salem 5 Nuclear        Generating      Station,          is      the  environmentally 6 preferred alternative.
7                    Next slide, please.                    Based on a review of 8 likely environmental impacts from license renewal, as 9 well          as    potential          environmental              impacts            of 10 alternatives to license renewal, the NRC's preliminary 11 recommendation,          and      the      Draft        Environmental        Impact 12 Statement, is the environmental impacts of license 13 renewal, for Hope Creek Generating Station, and Salem 14 Nuclear        Generating      Station,          are        not  so  great        that 15 license renewal would be unreasonable.
16                    Next  slide,        please.            The  Environmental 17 Review, however, is not yet completed.                            Your comments, 18 today, and all written comments received, by the end 19 of comment period on December 17th, will be considered 20 by the NRC Staff as we develop our Final Environmental 21 Impact        Statement,    which        is    scheduled        to  be    issued 22 March 2011.
23                    The Final Environmental Impact Statement 24 will contain the Staff's final recommendation, on the 25 acceptability of the license renewal, based on work NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
14 1 that          we  have  already          performed,          and    the        input 2 received,          in  form    of    comments,            during  the    comment 3 period.
4                      Your comments can help change the Staff's 5 findings in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
6  Next slide, please.
7                      I'm    the        primary            contact      for          the 8 Environmental Review, and Bennett Brady is the primary 9 contact for the Safety Review.                              Hard copies of the 10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement are on the back 11 table, as well as CDs.
12                      In addition, the Salem Free Library has a 13 hard copy available for the public to review.                                You can 14 also find electronic copies of the Draft Supplement, 15 along with other information related to Hope Creek and 16 Salem license renewal, on-line.
17                      Next slide, please. The NRC staff will 18 address          written  comments          in      the    same  way    we      will 19 address the spoken comments received today.
20                      You can submit written comments, by email, 21 to either one of the email addresses, listed on the 22 slide, or you can send in your comments by mail.
23                      You  can      also      submit        your    comments            at 24 regulation.gov and just search the docket numbers.                                      If 25 you have written comments, this afternoon, you may NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
15 1 give them to any NRC staff member.
2                    Thank    you,          and        that    concludes            my 3 presentation.          I will turn it back over to Butch.
4                    FACILITATOR BURTON:                    Thank you, Leslie.
5 Okay, we are going to go into the next part of the 6 meeting.          If anyone has any questions about anything 7 that they heard during Leslie's presentation, or how 8 the        Staff  performed        its      Environmental          Review,            we 9 wanted to take those now, if anyone has anything.
10                    We have a question.                  And please give your 11 -- yes, we will certainly do our best, and please give 12 us your name.
13                    MS. NOGAKI:          My name is Jane Nogaki, from 14 New Jersey Environmental Federation.                          And I'm looking 15 at      the    cumulative    impacts          slide        that  talks        about 16 preliminary          findings        being          small      to  large          for 17 cumulative          impacts      and      socio-economics          small            to 18 moderate cumulative impacts on aquatic resources, and 19 moderate cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources, 20 small impacts on all other areas.
21                    What made the determination that moderate 22 impacts would happen on terrestrial resources, and 23 what terrestrial resources were you talking about, 24 animals, humans, do you want to answer that?
25                    FACILITATOR BURTON:                  First of all, can we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
16 1 get that slide up so that people can see?
2                    MR. PHAM:      This is Bo Pham, I'm the branch 3 chief for license renewal for Salem and Hope Creek.
4 Actually we don't have all the technical staff that 5 did the review for terrestrial, here today.
6                    But I can say, broadly, that the range, 7 the        staff  tried  to      encompass            the  impact    of        the 8 construction        that  would        occur        if  PSEG  were      to      go 9 forward with constructing new units at the site.
10                    So I don't have the specific list of the 11 terrestrial species of concern but, obviously, with 12 any        razing  of  the      ground,            or    alteration      for        a 13 construction site, there are impacts associated with 14 that.
15                    FACILITATOR BURTON:                  And, Bo, would some 16 of that detail, that would address her question, would 17 that be in the DSEIS?
18                    MR. PHAM:        That is a good comment for us 19 to address as part of the DSEIS, basically.
20                    FACILITATOR BURTON:                    Thank you.          Other 21 questions?        Just one.
22                    (No response.)
23                    FACILITATOR BURTON:                    Leslie did such a 24 fantastic job in her presentation, that there are no 25 other questions, just the one.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
17 1                    Well then, with that, we will go into the 2 main part of today's meeting, which is where the Staff 3 will        listen  to  your      comments            on  their  preliminary 4 findings that are documented in the Draft Supplemental 5 Environmental Impact Statement.
6                    So what we will do, we have several people 7 who have filled out yellow cards, and some who have 8 pre-registered.          And so we are going to -- what I'm 9 going to do is I will call out the next speaker, and 10 the next two speakers, so people will have a chance to 11 know when they are on deck, okay?
12                    So we will start with Ms. Julie Acton, 13 Salem County Freeholder, followed by Dr. Peter, and I 14 forgive everybody now, if I mispronounce names.                                      Dr.
15 Peter Contini, President of Salem Community College, 16 followed          by  Mr. Otis        Sistrunk,          member    of        the 17 community.
18                    MS. ACTON:        Good afternoon.              I'm a member 19 of the Salem County Board of Chosen Freeholders.                                    I'm 20 coming before you, this afternoon, to know that PSEG 21 Nuclear is a valuable asset to our county.
22                    Not  only        are      they        a  great  community 23 partner, but they are the county's largest employer.
24 A majority of their employees are local residents, who 25 live in our community.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
18 1                      In  tough        economic            times  PSEG    Nuclear 2 provides an example of integrity and commitment to 3 positive growth, that we all need to see.
4                      PSEG    takes        a    very        proactive    role          in 5 developing positive relationships with members of the 6 Salem          County  community.              Whether        it  is  providing 7 funding          and  support        to    local        community    groups,          or 8 attending community events.
9                      They    are      always              demonstrating        their 10 commitment          to  Salem        County's            proud    heritage,          and 11 bright future.
12                      We  understand            the        hesitation    of      those 13 within          and  surrounding            our        county,    towards        PSEG 14 Nuclear.          Their concerns regarding safety, and plant 15 performance, are valid.
16                      However,      PSEG      Nuclear        has  consistently, 17 and without hesitation, demonstrated its commitment to 18 safety and excellence, through proper planning and 19 transparency.
20                      Furthermore, they have not only been a 21 partner, but a leader in this county, in this area of 22 conservation of our environment.
23                      With unemployment in the county hovering 24 around 12 percent, the economic possibilities of this 25 expansion cannot be underestimated.                            I hope that PSEG NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
19 1 will        have your  support          to    move    forward,    as      they 2 already have our support as a valued partner in this 3 community.
4                  I support PSEG Nuclear, and the renewal of 5 their operating license.                Thank you for your time.
6                  FACILITATOR BURTON:                  Thank you, Ms. Acton.
7  We will have Dr. Peter Contini, I got it right this 8 time, followed by Mr. Otis Sistrunk, and after that 9 Carlos Parada.          I hope I got that right.                    I got it 10 right, okay.
11                  DR. CONTINI:                Good      afternoon.              As 12 indicated,        I'm  Peter      B.      Contini,        President    of        the 13 Salem Community College, a position I have held for 14 more than 13 years.
15                  And  I'm      here,        today,      to  support          the 16 application for renewal and extension of the licenses 17 for Salem Units 1 and 2, as well as Hope Creek.                              And I 18 certainly endorse the preliminary conclusions drawn by 19 the staff of the NRC.
20                  Over this period of time that I have been 21 in Salem County I have had an opportunity, first-hand, 22 on a variety of opportunity and situations to really 23 observe the commitment of PSEG Nuclear to the quality 24 of life of Salem County and its region.
25                  Key among those is safety.                    And I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
20 1 those of us who work closely with them realize that 2 they are there to, certainly, ensure their safety of 3 their          employees    but,        also,          the    safety    of        our 4 community.
5                      And  that they are not just looking to 6 meet, but to exceed standards.                              Their support of the 7 community organizations, which you heard Freeholder 8 Acton speak to, is quite obvious to us.
9                      They are a key role and player in a group 10 called          the  Partners        of    Salem        County,  Stand-Up          for 11 Salem, the Revitalization of our Treasure, Salem City.
12  And, certainly, things such as the United Way, and 13 other organizations.
14                      They    are      an      open        organization.            Open 15 contention at every level, is the experience that we 16 have.          And so no matter what the issue may be, they 17 are there to understand and appreciate the position of 18 the        community    and,      at    the      same      time,  realize          the 19 commitment they have to the community.
20                      In  the      educational              venue  it  is    pretty 21 obvious, as you go across this county, whether it is 22 in our K-12 system, whether it is dealing with our 23 vocational school district, Ranch Hope, a treasure 24 that we do have here in our county that deals with 25 young          men  who  have      many      challenges,        and  certainly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
21 1 Salem Community College.
2                    We see their hand, and their guidance, and 3 their support at every level.                            On a very specific 4 level,        Salem  Community        College          is  proud  to      be      a 5 partner with PSEG Nuclear in the acquisition of a 6 significant grant, that has been provided by the U.S.
7 Department of Labor, it is called the Community Based 8 Job        Training  Grant    that        allowed        us,  through      their 9 support, to acquire 1.7 million dollars, over three 10 years,        to  bring    the      opportunity            for  work      force 11 development, and certainly the expansion of economic 12 development in our county.
13                    Through this grant a major thread of this 14 is a creation of a nuclear energy technology program, 15 an Associate Degree, that is bringing the opportunity 16 to      many    individuals,        both      within      our  county,          and 17 within the region, to focus on the area of maintenance 18 of instrumentation and controls.
19                    We are not only benefiting from the grant, 20 but also the direct involvement with PSEG Nuclear, 21 through their resource center, a house and facilities 22 are state of the art, provided equipment, and also 23 internships and scholarships.
24                    Through them, and with their collaboration 25 at      the    national  level,        through        the  Nuclear    Energy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
22 1 Institute, we are now one of six community colleges in 2 the        country    that  are      working            to  ensure  that          the 3 curriculum            and  the      standards              for  expectation            of 4 employees are consistently forged across the country.
5                      Currently we are only one of six, as I 6 said, colleges working on this.                              And we expect that 7 this will grow and be used as a standard across the 8 country.
9                      There  are      over        85      students  currently 10 enrolled in our NET program.                      And we are proud to tell 11 you that this past spring we graduated four of our 12 first students, three of which qualified for a highly 13 regarded, first in the country, award of certification 14 from          the  Institute      of      Nuclear          Power  Operations, 15 commonly referred to as INPO.
16                      We see this as an opportunity to continue 17 to grow in the field of nuclear energy.                                And, as a 18 result,          we  have  just      recently            applied  for    an        NRC 19 grant,          to  allow  us      to    expand          into  the  unlicensed 20 operator area, as well as electrical maintenance.
21                      It is for these reasons and, obviously, 22 the facts of the influence that this industry has in 23 our county, and our region, that I hope that this 24 grant -- that they will be granted the extension that 25 they well deserve, and that we will see the continued NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
23 1 progress of PSEG Nuclear in Salem County.                            Thank you.
2                      FACILITATOR          BURTON:            Thank    you,          Dr.
3 Contini. If you notice I didn't put a -- try to put a 4 restriction on the time frame for people to speak.
5 That was because we are running ahead of schedule.
6                      And, judging by the number of speakers 7 that we had at that point, it looked like we could be 8 fairly liberal about that.                    If I get a flood of folks 9 who do want to comment, I may need to restrict the 10 time.
11                      But,  so far, it looks like people are 12 running about five minutes, and I think that is pretty 13 doable, so we will try to stay on that.
14                      So next is Mr. Sistrunk, followed by Mr.
15 Parada.          And then, after that, we will have Elizabeth 16 Brown.
17                      MR. SISTRUNK:          Good afternoon.          Aside from 18 being          the  best-dressed        gentleman          in  the  room        this 19 afternoon,          I  stand      before        you      as  a  Salem      County 20 resident, for just under 30 years.
21                      I  have    been        fortunate        enough    to      have 22 worked for a Salem County company for the past 23 23 years, where I'm the manager of safety, health, and 24 environmental.
25                      So this goes right to the heart of what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
24 1 has become my profession.                      And I can say, beyond a 2 shadow of doubt, and with a lot of confidence, that 3 PSEG Nuclear certainly is a leader in that area.
4                      Additionally, in the county, I also have 5 had          the    privilege        to        have        served    on        many 6 organizations, United Way of Salem County, Dr. Contini 7 mentioned that earlier.
8                      I was a Chairman of the Board for a couple 9 of years, and worked hand in hand with several of the 10 PSEG employees.            And a lot of folks talk about focus 11 on it, and rightfully so, and give accolades for the 12 financial          contributions          that        a  company  like        PSEG 13 Nuclear provides.
14                      But I think, just as important if not more 15 important, is the contribution in the forms of the 16 talent          of  their    employees,              that  they    give          to 17 organizations like United Way of Salem County.
18                      Additionally, I am the current chairman of 19 the        Educational    Foundation            for      the  Salem      County 20 Votech.          And, again, PSEG Nuclear is right there at 21 the table.
22                      And because of efforts like theirs, and 23 companies like them, we have been able to give out 24 over          150,000  dollars          in      scholarships        to        needy 25 students.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
25 1                    And that money helps provide uniforms to 2 students registered in the culinary arts program, and 3 the medical assistance program.                          And those kids, they 4 cost money, and a lot of families can't afford them.
5                    So food and generosity of PSEG Nuclear and 6 companies like them, were able to do those kinds of 7 things.
8                    Lastly, I will share this quick story with 9 you.          A lot of folks don't know this about me.                      When I 10 first came out of high school, I went to high school 11 in Salem County, but I came out of high school, I 12 didn't go right to college, I went to work.
13                    And  I worked at a little gas station, 14 right in the middle of Salem.                          A lot of you, on your 15 way to the island, you might notice that there is a 16 gas station at the red light there, Griffer Street.
17                    And  I    was      pumping            gas  there.      And        a 18 gentleman, my mother always told me, no matter what it 19 is that you do, Otis, always be the best.                              So I was 20 the        best. Cars  would        pull in, I would wash the 21 windows, pump the gas, say how are you doing, good 22 morning.
23                    And there was a gentleman who worked at 24 the island.          He would come in there once or twice a 25 week, he would see me work and he would say, boy you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
26 1 have a great attitude, you ought to come down and put 2 an application and come down and work down at the 3 island for a contractor.
4                And I did that, it was in the maintenance 5 department.      And I went down, and I worked on the 6 island, on the Salem side, and I was a janitor.                And I 7 was the best janitor I could be.
8                I can say I went there about a year or two 9 ago, as part of a visit with the Chamber of Commerce, 10 and I saw how clean the floors were, and I had a --
11 you know, good work lasts forever.
12                But the point that I'm trying to make is 13 that I believe that, you know, when you stand out 14 amongst your peers, you should be recognized.
15                PSEG their peers are other nuclear plants 16 throughout the country.              And for a year and a half, 17 when I left Salem, I had an opportunity, I went and 18 worked with this contractor, at other nuclear plants 19 around the United States.
20                So I have been to plenty of them, Indian 21 Point, Oyster Creek, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, some of the 22 NRC folks, I'm sure you are familiar with some of 23 those names.
24                And I can tell you, wholeheartedly, having 25 had that experience, and able to look at other nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701  www.nealrgross.com
 
27 1 plants, I know they do a good job, by comparison, in 2 my personal opinion, having cleaned a lot of floors at 3 nuclear plants in my time, and worked with people, and 4 looking at the leadership, and the security, and the 5 professionalism, to this day it was a great feeling 6 for me to go back there as part of a tour with the 7 Chamber of Commerce, last year, to see that those same 8 values are still there today.
9                So I wholeheartedly support the renewal of 10 their application, and I certainly thank you for this 11 opportunity to get up and make these comments today, 12 thank you.
13                FACILITATOR          BURTON:          Thank  you,          Mr.
14 Sistrunk.      Next we will have Carlos Parada, followed 15 by Elizabeth Brown.        And, after that, Charles Hassler.
16                MR. PARADA:          Good afternoon.      My name is 17 Carlos Parada. I'm a mechanical maintenance supervisor 18 at the Hope Creek generating station.                      I have been 19 working there for almost three years now.
20                And  I wanted to come here, today, and 21 voice my support for the license extension for the 22 Hope Creek and Salem Generating Stations.
23                I'm a member of a group at Hope Creek and 24 Salem, called the North American Young Generation of 25 Nuclear Power.      And I wanted to share my experience, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
28 1 as to why young people join Nuclear Power, and what I 2 have seen, in the short time that I have been at Hope 3 Creek.
4                  Like many of my peers I became familiar 5 with nuclear power through my service in the military.
6  I did a six year stint in the Navy, where I was 7 trained as an operator in nuclear power plants.
8                  And after that I wanted to learn a little 9 bit more about the industry, so I went to college, and 10 I studied hard, and I got a couple of degrees.                                  And 11 PSEG was kind enough to offer me a position right out 12 of school.
13                  And when I came down here, the position 14 that I was appointed to was in an organization called 15 Nuclear Oversight.          And it is something that I wasn't 16 familiar with.        It is a department within PSEG that 17 specializes        on  doing      nothing            but  checking    up        on 18 everyone else.
19                  And what is amazing to me is how open 20 everyone is that to that particular job at Hope Creek.
21  In        other words,  when        I    came        to look  everyone's 22 shoulder, everyone welcomed me, they asked me, can we 23 make a -- can we give you any information about what 24 is going on?
25                  And they really wanted everyone to know NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
29 1 that the work that they were doing was high quality, 2 it        was  safe,  and      that        they        were  following          all 3 appropriate procedures and guidelines.
4                  And after I did that, for about a year, I 5 was offered a position in maintenance, and since then 6 my experience, from actually working with the workers, 7 has actually reinforced my feeling that at Hope Creek, 8 and at Salem, they really care about nuclear safety.
9                  Now, it is spoken about every day, at the 10 morning briefs.          It is emphasized at every job they 11 do, and it is something that we really care about 12 deeply.
13                  And  for      young        professionals,        who          are 14 starting out our careers, something like this, the 15 license renewal of these sites, is very important.
16 And it is something that we are strongly in favor.
17 Thank you very much.
18                  FACILITATOR          BURTON:              Thank  you,          Mr.
19 Parada.        Next will be Ms. Elizabeth Brown, followed by 20 Charles Hassler, and I'm going to have to apologize 21 Cristina Matteliano.              Did I get that right?                          All 22 right, very good.
23                  So  all    of    you      are        together.      I      have 24 several speakers altogether.                  All right.
25                  MS. BROWN:        Hi, good afternoon. My name is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
30 1 Elizabeth          Brown,    I'm        a      director      of    Strategic 2 Initiatives at the Delaware River-Keeper Network.
3                    I want to thank the Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission, and the Salem County Emergency Services 5 Department, for hosting this meeting today, and for 6 the public outreach that they are conducting, with 7 regard to the Salem relicensing process.
8                    With  me,      today,            are  several      student 9 interns from Temple University's Beasley School of 10 Law, who will assist me in delivering Delaware River-11 Keeper Network's comments.
12                    Today      we        will          focus    on    Delaware 13 Riverkeeper Network's concern about the relicensing of 14 the        Salem  facility,      due      to      continued    detrimental 15 environmental        effects      that        the      facility's      cooling 16 water intake structures have on the aquatic life in 17 the Delaware River.
18                    While we recognize that the New Jersey 19 Department of Environmental Protection has permitting 20 authority over Clean Water Act, Section 316-B, the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be aware of the 22 regulatory landscape in this area.
23                    And DRN will be submitting more detailed 24 written          comments        regarding              the    Supplemental 25 Environmental Impact Statement that has been prepared NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
31 1 during the written comment period.
2                  A closed-loop cooling system, at the Salem 3 Nuclear        facility    would        circulate          a  similar        total 4 volume of water, as once-through cooling, but would 5 only withdraw a limited amount of water to replace 6 evaporative loss and blowdown.
7                  Section 316-B, of the Clean Water Act, 8 requires that the location, design, construction, and 9 capacity of cooling water intake structure, reflect 10 the best technology available for minimizing adverse 11 environmental impacts.
12                  Adverse          environmental                impacts            are 13 interpreted,        by    EPA,        to      mean        the  impingement, 14 mortality        of    fish,      and        shell        fish,    and        their 15 entrainment of their eggs and larvae.
16                  EPA  implemented            three        rulemaking      phases 17 for 316-B.          The phase one rule was promulgated in 18 2001, and covered new facilities.                          The phase two rule 19 was promulgated in 2004, and covered large existing 20 facilities.        And the phase 3 rule, in 2006, covered 21 certain existing facilities, and offshore oil and gas.
22                  Extensive          litigation              followed            the 23 promulgation        of  the      phase      two        rule. Following            a 24 decision, in Riverkeeper v EPA, out of the Second 25 Circuit,        EPA  suspended          the        cooling    water      intake NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
32 1 structure regulations for existing large power plants.
2                    Of course, the Second Circuit decision was 3 challenged to the Supreme Court in 2009.                            However, the 4 Second Circuit Decision held, in part, that the use of 5 restoration measures, as a means of compliance, is not 6 authorized          under  316-B        of    the        Clean  Water    Act,          a 7 decision which was not disturbed by the subsequent 8 Supreme Court opinion.
9                    EPA is now looking to combine, and re-10 promulgate rules for all existing cooling water intake 11 structure        facilities.            In    the        meantime  EPA    noting 12 that, with so many provisions of the phase 2 rule 13 affected        by  the  Second        Circuit          decision,  the        rule 14 should be considered suspended.
15                    And  it    developed            the    following    policy.
16 All        permits    for  phase        2    facility        should    include 17 conditions, under Section 316-B, of the Clean Water 18 Act,        developed    on    the      best        professional      judgement 19 basis.
20                    As noted, the phase 2 rule was appealed to 21 the Supreme Court.              In 2009 the High Court held that 22 the        Agency    may  consider          cost          benefit  analysis          in 23 choosing among regulatory options.
24                    But it did not hold that the Agency must 25 consider          it.        According              to      certain    industry NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
33 1 predictions, EPA has signal concerns with using a cost 2 benefit analysis.
3                  EPA's new rulemaking is expected to set 4 significant new national technology-based performance 5 standards to minimize adverse environmental impacts.
6 Current        industry    predictions              expect  EPA    to      favor 7 performance commensurate with cooling towers.
8                  This    regulatory            process,      combined            for 9 phases 2 and 3, is anticipated quite soon.                          A revised 10 draft rule is expected by February 2011, and a final 11 rule by July of 2012.
12                  It  is    imperative              that  any  relicensing 13 effort, at Salem, must take these recent developments, 14 and any subsequently promulgated rules, into account.
15                  The    two      major        aspects      of    the        316-B 16 regulatory        framework        that        concern    the      Delaware 17 Riverkeeper Network at Salem the use of once-through 18 cooling, and the use of restoration measures at the 19 site.
20                  MR. WHARTON:          My name is Benjamin Wharton, 21 and I will address once-through cooling impacts.                                  The 22 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, for Salem, determined 23 BTA to continue to be once-through cooling based on, 24 one, the reduction of permitted intake flow of Salem 25 to its maximum actual operating capacity.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
34 1                    Two,    intake          screen          modifications,            and 2 three,        a  feasibility        study        for      a  sound  deterrent 3 system.          Yet  the    Salem        Nuclear          Generating    Station 4 kills over three billion fish in the Delaware River 5 every year, taking a huge toll on the living resources 6 of the Delaware River.
7                    But in seeking to argue that its adverse 8 environmental          impacts        are      limited,          the  plant        has, 9 consistently, underestimated these numbers by two-fold 10 or more.
11                    The idea that three billion fish, killed 12 per year, is not great enough adverse environmental 13 impact        to  affect    the      license            renewal    process,          is 14 simply untenable and absurd.
15                    MS. MATTELIANO:                  My    name  is    Cristina 16 Matteliano, and I will be addressing why closed cycle 17 cooling should be adopted.
18                    While the EPA declined to mandate closed 19 cooling          systems,    it      did      set        national      performance 20 standards, which require a nuclear plant to reduce its 21 fish kills by 80 to 95 percent over the baseline.                                      And 22 those are found on the Code of Federal Regulations.
23                    Section      316-B        of        the    Clean  Water          Act 24 requires that cooling water intake structures utilize 25 the best technology available for minimizing adverse NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
35 1 environmental impact.
2                    While making the decision on whether to 3 implement cooling technology, in a nuclear plant, cost 4 benefit analysis is permissible.                          However, that cost 5 benefit analysis must be made based on reliable data.
6                    PSEG has overextended the data used in 7 this        analysis. It    has      grossly        underestimated          the 8 actual total loss of biomass in the Delaware River 9 fisheries.
10                    Due the conversion of the cooling system 11 to the best technology available, as required by the 12 Clean Water Act, the Salem facility could reduce its 13 fish kills to 95 percent, by converting to closed 14 cycle cooling towers, or to 99 percent, if using a dry 15 cooling system.
16                    PSEG  has      not      shown        that  the    cost          of 17 installing a closed cycle cooling system outweigh the 18 benefits.          The cost of a closed cooling system is 19 estimated at 13 dollars a year per rate payer.
20                    This  is      offset        by      the  millions,        even 21 billions of fish which could be saved as a result of a 22 closed cooling system.              The resulting benefits to the 23 fishing industry will also offset the cost of the 24 cooling system.
25                    MS. CHARLES-VOLTAIRE:                    My name is Jane NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
36 1 Charles-Voltaire, and I will address why restoration 2 is not working.
3                      In an effort to mitigate its impact, in 4 1996,          NJDP    issued      an      NJD        permit,    with    special 5 conditions,            including        a      wetland        restoration            and 6 enhancement            program,        fish          ladder    project,            and 7 biological monitoring program.
8                      PSEG is required to engage in the wetlands 9 initiative until 2012, in New Jersey, and 2013 for 10 Delaware wetlands.                  The purpose of the restoration 11 program was to enhance the production of fish, in the 12 estuary,          in    an  effort        to    offset      losses    of      fish 13 associated with entrainment and impingement at the 14 cooling water intake structure.
15                      In  other      words,        to      mitigate  the      harms 16 caused          by  once-through          cooling.            However,      PSEG's 17 wetlands restoration experiment, fails to meet the 18 requirements of the Clean Water Act.
19                      The experiment has resulted in over 22,000 20 pounds of herbicide to be dumped over valuable wetland 21 resources.            PSEG has failed to demonstrate that this 22 experiment provides any environmental benefit.
23                      The fact remains that there has been no 24 demonstrated              increase            in          abundance,      values, 25 represented            as    important            fish      species.            And, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
37 1 importantly, PSEG has not shown that the wetlands will 2 sustain themselves once the herbicide treatment has 3 ended.
4                    This    mitigation              project    is    a      clear 5 failure, and in no way offsets the millions, the costs 6 of millions of fish lost each year as a result of 7 PSEG's failure to install a closed cooling system.
8                    DRN    commissioned                a    2003  study        that 9 reviewed          and  evaluated          the        effectiveness      of        the 10 wetland          restoration        project,            in  increasing        fish 11 production, based on the success of the established 12 plant          community,      plant          densities,          invasion            by 13 phragmites, and other invasive species, utilization of 14 marshes by fish, and the potential for the marshes to 15 increase fish populations in the estuary.
16                    With    regard          to        wetlands    restoration 17 efforts, the DRN study concluded that although some 18 phragmites            reductions                were          achieved,            the 19 sustainability          of    that        reduction          was  dependent          on 20 annual herbicide treatment, and the true success of 21 the program could not be determined until herbicide 22 treatment, and marsh manipulation efforts, such as 23 burning, were discontinued.
24                    With regard to fish response, the study 25 did          not  support      the        assertion          that  phragmites NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
38 1 eradication was resulting in an increased utilization 2 of the site, and increased fish production.
3                      MR. HERNANDEZ:              Hello, my name is Jason 4 Hernandez, and I will address why restoration is no 5 longer a valid measure.
6                      For 20 years PSEG has claimed that the 7 exorbitant          cost    of    conversion              make  a  closed        cycle 8 cooling system an untenable option.                                The New Jersey 9 DEPA          has    accordingly          allowed          PSEG    to    rely          on 10 mitigation practices, in order to counter the negative 11 effects of the continued operation of their cooling 12 system, on fish.
13                      Since 1993, the DRN has addressed several 14 concerns with the mitigation practices proposed by 15 PSEG, including real data showing that the restoration 16 plans are simply not working.
17                      Whereas the 2009 Supreme Court Decision in 18 Entergy Corp. v Riverkeeper, Inc., held that the cost 19 benefit          analysis      was      an      appropriate        measure            in 20 determining the best available technology for cooling 21 methods,          it  has  not      overturned            the  previous        2007 22 decision, in which it determined that after the fact 23 restoration            measures          are          not      appropriate            for 24 addressing the environmental impacts highlighted by 25 Section 316-B.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
39 1                    This means that going forward the failed 2 restoration          measures      at    Salem        should    not  count          as 3 valid          means  of    minimizing                adverse    environmental 4 impacts.
5                    MS. BROWN:            In conclusion, it is clear 6 that under the Clean Water Act, the location, design, 7 construction, and capacity of cooling water intake 8 structures must reflect the best technology available 9 for minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
10                    In order to properly address the extreme 11 and negative effects that the continued use of the 12 cooling system has on aquatic life, within the area, 13 Delaware          Riverkeeper          Network            believes    that          the 14 relicensing of the Salem Nuclear facility must require 15 a      conversion      to  closed        cycle        cooling    systems,          and 16 should end the practice of so-called mitigation to 17 changes necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act.
18                    Thank you for your consideration of these 19 comments.
20                    FACILITATOR BURTON:                    Thank you for your 21 comments, and very well coordinated.                            Again, that was 22 Ms. Elizabeth Brown, followed by Ben Wharton, Cristina 23 Matteliano,          Jane  Charles-Voltaire,                  Jason  Hernandez, 24 and then close-out by Ms. Brown, again, representing 25 Delaware Riverkeeper.                Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
40 1                      Next we will have Mr. Charles Hassler, 2 followed by Jane Nogaki, and then after that Chris 3 Davenport.
4                      MR. HASSLER:            Good afternoon.          My name is 5 Charles          Hassler,    and      I'm      here        today  to  speak          in 6 support of the relicensing process of Salem and Hope 7 Creek.
8                      I am a lifetime resident of Salem city.                              I 9 have also worked at the plant for over 34 years, and I 10 currently hold the position of business agent, for the 11 IBEW Local 94.
12                      I'm also a member of the New Jersey IBEW, 13 who are both on record as supporting the relicensing 14 process.
15                      For    several          years          the  workers          have 16 performed          their    duties          to      very    high    standard, 17 resulting          in    the    units        running          at  a  very        high 18 capacity, outages being more efficient, and processes 19 and procedures continually being upgraded.
20                      This is an important issue to consider, 21 when you are looking at adding years of operation and 22 maintenance to the plant. Management is committed to 23 both          radiological        and        personal          safety    of          all 24 employees, and the general public.
25                      Their production of electricity is vital NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
41 1 to the state of New Jersey, and the region, both now 2 and in the future.              It is needed to meet demands for 3 reliable delivery to businesses and to residential 4 customers.
5                    It  is    a    production            free  of  greenhouse 6 gases, which is important when we talk about global 7 warming.          Nuclear power has to be part of a sound 8 national energy policy.
9                    We  know      that      relicensing        is  not        open-10 ended, though.          The NRC will continue to monitor the 11 plants        for  continued          safe          operation.        And          if 12 discrepancies        are    found,        you      do  have  the    ultimate 13 power to make sure they are fixed, or at worst, shut 14 these plants down.
15                    Thank you for the opportunity to speak 16 today.
17                    FACILITATOR          BURTON:            Thank  you,          Mr.
18 Hassler.        Next we will have Ms. Jane Nogaki, followed 19 by        Chris  Davenport.            And      after      that,    again          my 20 apologies, Bob Molzahn.                I hope I'm at least close.
21                    MS. NOGAKI:            Good afternoon, my name is 22 Jane Nogaki, I represent the New Jersey Environmental 23 Federation,          the      state's            largest      environmental 24 organization        with      over        100,000        members,    and          100 25 membered groups.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
42 1                    We    oppose            PSEG's          application              for 2 relicensing          the  three      nuclear          plants    at  the      Salem 3 site,          as the  Garden      State        Chapter      of  Clean      Water 4 Action, we oppose nuclear power in general, because it 5 is unsafe, unsustainable, and unnecessary.
6                    We also oppose the building of a fourth 7 nuclear plant at the Salem site.                              And let me just 8 pause          to acknowledge        that      while      we  recognize          the 9 stewardship of the important economic viability that 10 PSEG contributes to this county, and to the state, to 11 the          dedication    of      the      workers,        professionalism, 12 nevertheless          it    is    this      means        of  power    that          we 13 dispute, and not the credibility of the workers, or 14 the management of the plant.
15                    The Environmental Federation believes that 16 conservation,          efficiency,            and        sustainable        energy 17 sources, such as wind power, solar power, and wave 18 power, should be invested in, rather than federally 19 subsidizing nuclear energy and fossil fuels.
20                    America      will        never        wean    itself        from 21 unsustainable coal, nuclear, and natural gas energy, 22 until alternatives are aggressively supported.                                If the 23 playing field were leveled, whether by eliminating all 24 subsidies, or providing equal subsidy, wind, solar, 25 and        efficiency    would        out-compete            nuclear    and        coal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
43 1 plants every time.
2                    Governor Christie has committed to much 3 more aggressive implementation of the strong goals 4 contained in the 2007 Global Warming Response Act, and 5 the 2008 Energy Master Plan.
6                    For example, 25 percent renewable by 2025, 7 a renewable portfolio standard, and 20 percent by 2020 8 energy efficiency portfolio standard.
9                    These efforts provide the path to a safe, 10 clean,        reliable  green      energy          future,    and  a    fourth 11 plant at Salem is not part of that path.
12                    Specific      to    Salem        and    Hope  Creek          the 13 existing        three  nuclear          plants          produce  radioactive 14 waste that remains a danger for thousands of years 15 into the future.
16                    This nuclear waste has outgrown its spent 17 fuel pools, and is now contained in above-ground dry 18 cask storage sheds.                How much more waste will be 19 produced by relicensing the three nuclear plants for 20 another 20 years?
21                    With no future in sight for a permanent 22 safe storage site, other than on-site, in the Lower 23 Alloways        Creek. It      pretty        much      dooms  that      area, 24 forever, to be a nuclear waste dump that will never go 25 away, it will always be a residual radioactive hazard NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
44 1 in Salem County.
2                    Further, the safety hazard associated with 3 the        malfunction    and      potential            release  of      toxic 4 radiation,        into  the      vicinity          of  the  three    nuclear 5 plants, would only be exacerbated by the aging of the 6 facilities.
7                    Aging of the facilities is a significant 8 environmental concern, it is a maintenance problem, 9 but it can have very severe environmental impacts.
10                    Tritium leaks at the Salem reactors have 11 occurred, despite redundant safeguards, and are an 12 indication that the safety culture at the plant, and 13 that the preventive maintenance, were a significant 14 improvement.
15                    Recent EPA internal documents have raised 16 a      concern    that    in      the      case        of  a  major    nuclear 17 accident,        or  release,        it      is      unclear  whether          the 18 Federal        Government,        and        the        Nuclear  Regulatory 19 Commission, would have the authority and the finances 20 to clean up a radioactive release to the environment.
21                    Would the EPA be in charge of overseeing a 22 cleanup,        and    would        the        regulations,      under          the 23 Superfund Act apply?              Would the NRC, or PSEG, care to 24 answer that question, as a part of their relicensing 25 process?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
45 1                I think the public has a right to know who 2 would be paying for such a clean up, and who would be 3 supervising it, and if the money is set aside to do 4 so.
5                It  doesn't          bode          well  that  the          NRC 6 recently, in a case nearby, in Newfield, New Jersey, a 7 shieldalloy radioactive dump site                    , the NRC recently 8 gave jurisdiction for the New Jersey DEP to oversee a 9 cleanup of that radioactive waste in Newfield.
10                Then    challenged              the    court  decision, 11 successfully, to gain back control of the site, when 12 it was clear that the New Jersey DEP's cleanup would 13 direct the waste to be shipped to a radioactive waste 14 disposal site in another state, instead of being left 15 on-site.
16                The NRC, against all local public opinion, 17 and the opinion of DEP scientists, wanted to contain 18 the nuclear waste in Newfield, that being the cheaper 19 option.
20                The NRC is not an agency that the public 21 has confidence in, to protect the environment, because 22 often or in most every case, go for the cheapest 23 solution, and that is not always the safest.
24                Salem 1 and 2 are also huge consumers of 25 water, for cooling, as well as Delaware Riverkeeper NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
46 1 recently          attested    to,      in      their      testimony,      killing 2 three          billion  fish    a    year      through      entrainment          and 3 impingement.
4                      I      read          the            Draft      Supplemental 5 Environmental Impact Statement, according to their own 6 permit renewal application, it states that one-sixth 7 of the production of the Delaware River is being lost 8 to impingement and entrainment in the facility.
9                      And, furthermore, the application states 10 that          between    2000    and      2006,        the  fish  loss        from 11 impingement and entrainment were 2.4 million alewifes, 12 87        million      croaker,        two        thousand      million            bay 13 anchovies, 14 million striped bass, 32 million weak 14 fish, and that is just a partial list.
15                      At    the      same      time        PSEG    stated        that 16 increased production of fish, from restored salt hay 17 farms, is estimated at 2.3 times the annual production 18 lost from impingement and entrainment at Salem.
19                      PSEG did not evaluate the fish populations 20 at        the    phragmites        sites.              Although    I'm    not          a 21 scientist, I find it hard to believe that restoration 22 mitigates the fish loss.
23                      But even if it did, it does not make up 24 for the years of damage done to the ecosystem before 25 the salt hay farms were restored to Wetlands, nor does NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
47 1 it offset the continuing loss of fish, on a daily 2 basis, from the once-through cooling system.
3                    As  part      of      the        Stop    the  Salem        Fish 4 Slaughter, and Unplug Salem Coalition, the New Jersey 5 Environmental Federation has called on PSEG to install 6 cooling towers, at Salem 1 and 2, to reduce the fish 7 loss and protect the estuary, the Delaware River.
8                    If PSEG is not willing to spend the money 9 to install cooling towers, and protect the fisheries 10 and estuary of the Delaware River, when cooling towers 11 would obviously provide the best technology available 12 to protect the ecosystem, how are we to trust that 13 they will maintain their plants for the next 20 years 14 using the safest methods, using the best available 15 technology.
16                    FACILITATOR BURTON:                Ms. Nogaki, let me --
17 I don't want to interrupt.                        But let me give you a 18 couple        of  options,      because        we      do  have  some      other 19 speakers, and you have kind of gone over the time.
20                    So let me do this.                      First of all, you 21 know, you can submit your entire statement for the 22 record,        so  we  will      have      it.          If  you  do  want          to 23 complete your statement, it looks like we will have 24 time after all of the registered speakers, if you want 25 to come back and finish.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
48 1                MS. NOGAKI:        I will do that.
2                FACILITATOR        BURTON:            Okay, all    right, 3 thank you.
4                MS. NOGAKI:        Let me just note where I left 5 off here.      I will just have a couple of paragraphs, 6 but I will finish.
7                FACILITATOR        BURTON:            Okay, thank        you.
8 Next we will have Chris Davenport, followed by Bob 9 Molzahn, and then Mr. Paul Davison.
10                MR. DAVENPORT:              I'm Chris Davenport, I'm 11 going to speak for my non-profit organization, even 12 though I haven't run it by our board, you know how 13 that works, it would be too slow.
14                And then I'm going to speak personally.                        I 15 work as the Executive Director of Stand Up for Salem, 16 and Salem Main Street Program, in Salem City.                      I have 17 been doing that for the past 11 years.
18                And we have a positive bias towards PSEG.
19  And I will just tell you the four main reasons for 20 that.          Myself,      as        an        economic  development 21 professional, I have seen what PSEG has done for the 22 county, in terms of jobs, taxes, assistance, and the 23 retail and the wholesale purchases by the company, and 24 employees.
25                I have seen that on the city level of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701        www.nealrgross.com
 
49 1 Salem City, jobs, retail support.                                As a community 2 development worker I have seen PSEG benefit Stand Up 3 for        Salem,  in  our    efforts          to      help  Salem  City          on 4 different levels.
5                    On  just      the      financial          level  they        have 6 helped us when we started our organization, in 1988, 7 they have helped us when we restarted our organization 8 in 1999, as a Main Street Program.
9                    They sponsor events that would not happen 10 otherwise, such as our annual block party in town, our 11 B-B-Que fest, other fund raisers, special events, the 12 clean up of Peterson Park in town, and assistance in 13 community planning grants, that help us in Salem.
14                    We  have      also      had      the    benefit    of      PSEG 15 employees on our Board, on our committees, outside on 16 company time, and outside of company time, helping us 17 to do things we would not be able to do without them.
18                    Thirdly, we recently awarded PSEG Stand Up 19 for        Salem,  our  highest          community          service  award          we 20 could give, which is the Peterson Campbell award, an 21 annual award for the contributions to Stand Up for 22 Salem, and the Salem City community.
23                    Lastly, PSEG was a chief corporate entity 24 to make possible our current application to the state 25 for            what  is    called            an          NRTC,    Neighborhood NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
50 1 Revitalization Tax Credit Program, which was the only 2 company to step up and help us with that.
3                  If  we    are      awarded            that,  which    we        are 4 optimistic about, we will have funds to be able to, 5 for        the first    time,      directly            assist  Salem        City 6 residents neighborhood improvement, which is sorely 7 needed.
8                  So as an organization we wouldn't be here, 9 I wouldn't be here without PSEG.
10                  On a personal level, quickly, I came to 11 Salem City about 11 years ago, from New York City.                                    I 12 sleep better here in Salem City, than I did in New 13 York City.
14                  I  do    not      feel          unsafe    being    in        the 15 immediate vicinity of the Salem nuclear plant.                                  This 16 is because of the different reasons, going back to 17 growing up, I had a science teacher come to our high 18 school science class, and talk about nuclear power.
19                  That convinced me that it was safe.                                  I 20 went to college, in the college of the shadow of Three 21 Mile Island in Pennsylvania.                          College I was never 22 worried about that.
23                  And my parents lived near the Shoreham 24 Plant in Long Island.                    If anyone knows about the 25 Shoreham Plant, it never actually happened because of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
51 1 the excitability of the community.
2                  I got to see, first-hand, from my parents 3 living there, the loss of potential jobs that that 4 plant -- I know this is not why we are here, but I got 5 to see what that county missed out on, by not having 6 the jobs there.
7                  And so going back to myself, I feel safe, 8 I'm not a nuclear expert.                  I feel safe because I have 9 a personal knowledge of numerous PSEG employees, PSEG 10 leadership.          They      are      my    friends,    they    are        my 11 neighbors.
12                  The closest PSEG employee lives about two 13 houses away from me in Salem City.                      And so I have -- I 14 generally feel safe, and I'm in the shadow of the 15 plant to some extent.
16                  In conclusion, last summer, in 2009 --
17 this is an anecdotal story.                        There was a tremendous 18 jolt        to Salem  County,          and      Salem    City.      I      mean, 19 literally, a jolt.
20                  The ground and buildings literally shook, 21 and I was on Main and Broadway on Salem.                            We heard 22 many -- we didn't know what happened.                      The building we 23 were in shook.
24                  We started to depend on unofficial reports 25 on what had happened.              We went outside.            Word on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
52 1 street, after a few minutes and phone calls, was --
2 there were different rumors.
3                    And  the      first        explanation        was    that          a 4 refinery tank exploded in Delaware.                            The second was 5 that an industrial accident in Pennsville.                            And then, 6 thirdly, someone was sure that it was a plane crash.
7                    As  it    turns        out      it    was,  actually,          an 8 earthquake. Which no one, including me, had thought 9 remotely possible.            And it just occurred to me, that 10 another idea, which no one thought remotely possible, 11 was that it could be the nuclear power plant, because 12 as an outsider you would think we would be worried 13 about that in Salem City.
14                    We weren't and we are not.                    So the next 15 time          we  feel  a    jolt,        we      will      think  about          the 16 possibility of an earthquake, before we think about 17 the        possibility    of      something              happening  with          the 18 island.          That is how safe we feel.
19                    So that is my organizational support for 20 this license renewal, and personal support for the 21 license renewal.
22                    The only other thing I would say is that 23 when you get your license renewed, if you could just 24 try to get a better picture than I, myself, was able 25 to get on the last license I got.                          Just advice.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
53 1                    So other than that, thank you.
2                    FACILITATOR          BURTON:            Thank  you,          Mr.
3 Davenport.        Next we will have Bob Molzahn, followed by 4 Mr. Paul Davison.          And our final registered speaker is 5 Richard Horowitz.
6                    MR. MOLZAHN:            Good afternoon. My name is 7 Robert        Molzahn,  and      I'm      President        of  the        Water 8 Resources Association of the Delaware River basin, or 9 WBRA.
10                    WBRA is a 501-C3 non-profit organization, 11 which was established in 1959, by representatives from 12 industry, the public, private utilities, and other 13 organizations that had wide-ranging interests in water 14 resources, and sought to ensure public participation 15 in      the    management    of    the      Delaware      River    and        its 16 tributaries.
17                    WBRA  is      interested              in this  relicensing 18 effort by PSEG for Salem and Hope Creek, because the 19 three nuclear units are major users, and they are all 20 located within the Delaware River basin, and are an 21 important part of the economy of New Jersey, and the 22 region as a whole.
23                    And,  for      our      organization,        the        water 24 related impacts are, really, of prime concern.                                  At a 25 recent public meeting that the NRC held on a proposed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
54 1 new nuclear unit at the site, I commented on the 2 importance            of    providing              sufficient        electrical 3 generation to meet the energy needs of New Jersey 4 residents and businesses.
5                      The existing three nuclear units at the 6 Salem          site,    and      their        continued          operation,            are 7 essential          for    New    Jersey's            well-being,      since          the 8 amount        of  electrical        energy        consumed      in  the      state 9 exceeds the capacity of electrical generation located 10 within the state by almost 30 percent.
11                      Although renewable energy projects, such 12 as wind and solar, can contribute to the state-wide 13 shortfall, and available generation capacity, they do 14 not operate on a 24/7 day basis, and have their own 15 set of significant and often understated environmental 16 impacts.
17                      Nuclear generation is a clean and green 18 option,          as  compared        to      fossil        fuel  power      plants, 19 especially those burning coal.                              They have no green 20 house gas emissions, such as CO2 or methane, no SO2 or 21 NOX emissions, that would contribute to acid rain, or 22 nitrification            of    our      waterways,            and    no    mercury 23 emissions that could detrimentally affect aquatic life 24 in the Delaware River and Bay.
25                      They also produce no coal ash byproducts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
55 1 that          could    impact      ground        or        surface    waters          and 2 landfills.
3                      In  reviewing            the        PSEG    license    renewal 4 application,            and    the      Draft          Environmental        Reports, 5 including PSEG's 2006 permit renewal application, we 6 focused          on  the  impacts          of    the      intake  and    cooling 7 systems          of  the    existing          units,        and  especially          the 8 once-through cooling systems in Salem 1 and 2.
9                      We  were      especially              concerned  about          the 10 possible impact of the Salem plant on the composition, 11 diversity, and abundance of fish species in Delaware 12 bay, and the region in general.                              That is the coastal 13 region in general.
14                      The issue is near and dear to me, because 15 I spent about a decade of my early career, almost 16 beginning          40  years      ago,      as      a    fishery  biologist, 17 investigating            the    impacts        of      power    plants    on        the 18 aquatic          community,      so    I    have        a  long  history        with 19 looking at these types of impacts.
20                      That being said, we are pleased to see 21 that extensive studies have continued to be conducted 22 by the state environmental agencies, and PSEG, over 23 several decades to determine the plant's impact.
24                      I think some of those studies began in 25 1966, when I was back in college.                              From the data and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
56 1 analysis          presented      for      the        post-1986      operational 2 period,          including      the        rare        faction      trends,          and 3 richness trends, there does not seem to be any long-4 term trend that could be considered adverse for these 5 indicators.
6                    Moreover the species density curve seems 7 to        indicate    an      improvement                in    the    post-1986 8 operational period.                  In summary, the data supports 9 PSEG's        conclusion    that      there        has    been  very    little 10 change        in  the  fish      community,            in  the  vicinity          of 11 Salem, since the start-up of the plant in 1978.
12                    With 20 years of additional sampling, the 13 diversity of fish species present, in the vicinity of 14 Salem, as measured both by the species' richness, and 15 the species' density metrics, is generally higher than 16 during the 1970s.
17                    But there is no evident long-term trend.
18 These results support the conclusion that the station 19 operations have not adversely affected the composition 20 of the Delaware Estuary fin fish community.
21                    The    pre-operational                    and    operational 22 species' lists are virtually identical.                            Another test, 23 for the Salem plant, is whether it balanced indigenous 24 population of fish and shellfish, as being maintained 25 despite the plant's operations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
57 1                      Although this is a complicated issue to 2 assess, and comment on at this hearing, PSEG's data 3 collection efforts, and analyses seem to be thorough, 4 deliberate, and complete.
5                      They  noted,        in    their      conclusions,          that 6 statistically significant increases in abundance were 7 found for Alewife, american shad, atlantic croaker, 8 striped bass, wheat fish, white perch, and blue crab.
9                      The  fact      that        most      populations          have 10 increased, during the period of Salem's operations, 11 appears          to  demonstrate          that          there    has  been          no 12 continuing          decline      in      the        abundance      of    aquatic 13 species.
14                      PSEG also assessed the impact of Salem on 15 a      long-term      sustainability            of      fish  stocks,        using 16 generally          accepted    models        that        are  widely  used          in 17 fishery science and management.
18                      The objective of this assessment was to 19 determine whether, compared to known effects to fish, 20 on        fish    populations,        the      future        impact  of      Salem 21 operation could jeopardize the sustainability of any 22 of these stocks.
23                      The stock jeopardy analyses showed that 24 for          all    the  important            harvested          species,          the 25 incremental effects of Salem are negligible small, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
58 1 compared to the effects of fishing.
2                    Their conclusion, which we agree with, is 3 that          reducing    or      eliminating              entrainment            and 4 impingement at Salem will not measurably increase the 5 reproductive potential, or spawning stock biomass of 6 any of these species.
7                    Consumptive water use is another important 8 issue on the Delaware River basin, especially during 9 drought periods.            Although the plant is located in the 10 saline estuary, fresh water is still evaporated by the 11 cooling towers and, thereby, consumed.
12                    During    declared          drought      emergencies          the 13 fresh          water  consumed        should            be  replaced      in        an 14 appropriate ratio, by using water from the Merrill 15 Creek reservoir, near Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
16                    PSEG, along with several other electric 17 generation companies, are co-owners of Merrill Creek, 18 and water released from Merrill Creek, compensates for 19 their consumptive use, and holds the salt line from 20 encroaching on the Philadelphia water intakes.
21                    WRA recognizes that PSEG has demonstrated 22 a long-standing commitment to the environment, and to 23 their          credit,  has    been        a    national        leader    in        the 24 electric            utility          industry,              for    emphasizing 25 environmental            sustainable                solutions      in        their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
59 1 operations.
2                    WRA  also      recognizes            that  PSEG's        award 3 winning Estuary Enhancement Program was specifically 4 developed and implemented to restore, as we heard, 5 about 20,000 acres of wetlands. And I don't think the 6 importance        of  this        restoration            efforts    can          be 7 underestimated.
8                    In summary, WRA believes that PSEG, using 9 sound science, and all -- and certainly all of the 10 studies that they have done, has met the burden of 11 proof, showing that the operation of the Salem and 12 Hope Creek units is not having a significant impact on 13 the ecology.
14                    And, therefore, we hope that the renewal 15 application will be approved.                        And that concludes my 16 remarks, thank you.
17                    FACILITATOR          BURTON:            Thank  you,          Mr.
18 Molzahn.        Next we have Mr. Paul Davison, followed by 19 our last registered speaker, Richard Horowitz.
20                    MR. DAVISON:            Thank you, Mr. Burton, and 21 good afternoon.
22                    Again, my name is Paul Davison, I'm the 23 vice president of operations support for PSEG Nuclear.
24  I'm also part of the leadership team responsible for 25 the        safe operation      of    both        Salem  and  Hope        Creek NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
60 1 stations.
2                    I also happen to be the executive sponsor 3 for the license renewal application.                            On behalf of 4 PSEG          Nuclear,  we    look        forward        to  today's      public 5 meetings, and the opportunity to continue to work with 6 the NRC, as well as the public, on our license renewal 7 application for an additional 20 years of operation of 8 both sites.
9                    In addition to our assessment, and as part 10 of the Environmental Protection Agency, the NRC hosted 11 two public meetings in November 2009, to discuss the 12 scoping          of  its        license            renewal    Supplemental 13 Environmental Impact Statement, for both stations.
14                    The NRC also spent a week at the station, 15 earlier          this    year,          gather          in    plant-specific 16 documentation, related to the '92 industrial -- excuse 17 me, industry wide environmental issues associated with 18 the license renewal process.
19                    During the plant visit the NRC put special 20 emphasis          on  the      21      plant-specific          attributes.
21 Multiple          interviews      and      tours        were  made    at        the 22 station, as well as the surrounding community.
23                    The process has led to the NRC's recent 24 publication of its Draft Supplemental Environmental 25 Impact Statement.            Since this meeting is to discuss NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
61 1 that impact statement, I would like to make a few 2 comments on PSEG's positive environmental impacts.
3                  In addition to producing no green house 4 gases, the Salem and Hope Creek plants have led to no 5 radiological          impact,          adverse          impact,    on          the 6 environment.
7                  The NRC requires that PSEG Nuclear as well 8 as all United States nuclear power plants, to maintain 9 an environmental monitoring program.                          We are closely 10 monitored by New Jersey's Department of Environmental 11 Protection's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering.
12                  The    Bureau            of        Nuclear    Engineering 13 independently monitors the local environment around 14 our        site, through    a    remote        monitoring      system        that 15 provides live-time data.
16                  This sampling and monitoring has shown no 17 adverse impact to the environment.                        We are also proud 18 of our stewardship of the Delaware Estuary, through 19 our Estuary Enhancement program.
20                  This      program            involves        the      ongoing 21 restoration,        enhancement,            and      preservation    of      more 22 than 20,000 acres of degraded salt marsh, and the 23 adjacent uplands within the estuary.
24                  Studies show that overall health of the 25 estuary continues to improve.                      In addition analysis of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
62 1 long-term fish populations, in the estuary, shows that 2 in most cases populations are stable, or increasing.
3                  And    that      fish        population        trends          are 4 similar to other areas along the coast.                                We also 5 recognize our impact on the local community, 1,500 6 local employees work at the site, including 40 percent 7 directly from Salem County.
8                  The    purchase          of        goods    and    services, 9 totaling      more  than    81    million            dollars,  from      south 10 Jersey businesses, and more than 2 million dollars a 11 year in local property taxes.
12                  We support dozens of local organizations, 13 and have launched innovative partnerships, with local 14 schools, to develop training and educational programs, 15 to provide career opportunities for local residents.
16                  Having said all of that, our relationship 17 with the community is something that we do not take 18 for granted.        With them there are no surprises. We 19 proactively engage in the community.
20                  When there is a plant issue we directly 21 communicate with our local communities, so that they 22 can have their questions directly answered by us.
23                  We    operate            within          a    safety            and 24 transparency culture.            This year we have provided more 25 than 35 site tours for stakeholder groups, close to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
63 1 600 elected officials, educators, students, community 2 and trade groups, have been given an inside look to 3 PSEG Nuclear.
4                  What better way to answer questions than 5 to let people look, first-hand, at the important role 6 of nuclear power.        Earlier this year we opened our new 7 Energy and Environmental Resource Center, housed at 8 our        old training  facility,            on      Chestnut  street,          in 9 Salem.
10                  This    new          information            center          uses 11 interactive        displays      to      educate        the  public        about 12 climate change, and the various ways that we can all 13 have a positive impact on our environment. To date 14 more than 3,000 people have toured the state of the 15 art facility.
16                  In closing, PSEG Nuclear looks forward to 17 continuing to work with the NRC, and the public, as 18 you review our license renewal application, and the 19 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
20                  We  have      worked        hard      to  provide        safe, 21 reliable, and economic, and green energy, for more 22 than 30 years.        And we certainly look forward to the 23 opportunity to build on that success in the future.
24 Thank you.
25                  FACILITATOR          BURTON:              Thank  you,          Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
64 1 Davison.          Finally, our last registered speaker is Mr.
2 Richard Horowitz.
3                      DR. HOROWITZ:                Good afternoon, I'm Dr.
4 Richard          Horowitz,      lead        scientist          in  the    fishery 5 section          of  the    Patrick          Center        for    Environmental 6 Research.
7                      The Patrick Center is part of the Academy 8 of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.                              I'm pleased to 9 have        this  opportunity        to    comment,          briefly,    on        the 10 environmental            aspect          of        PSEG        application            for 11 relicensing          of  the      Salem        and        Hope    Creek    nuclear 12 facilities.
13                      My    testimony              will        focus      on          the 14 environmental aspects of the PSEG current operations, 15 and          the    anticipated          impacts            as    a  result            of 16 relicensing.
17                      The Academy of Natural Sciences is one of 18 the oldest natural history institutions in America.
19 For over 60 years we have been engaged in ecological 20 research, particularly on understanding interactions 21 between humans, and the natural environment.
22                      The    Patrick            Center          is    an      inter-23 disciplinary            scientific            research          institute,          that 24 specializes in assessing human environmental impacts, 25 especially          as  related          to      water        sheds,    wetlands, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com


Title:   License Renewal for Salem Units 1 and 2     Hope Creek Generating Station Public Meeting: Afternoon Session
65 1 rivers, and streams.
2                    In    that      role      we        have  done   extensive 3 research            on      the        physical              and    biological 4 characteristics          of    the      Delaware        Estuary,    including 5 some        components    of      PSEG      projects        in  the    Delaware 6 watershed.
7                    For over 20 years the Academy has acted, 8 in an advisory capacity, to monitor and evaluate the 9 impact of various PSEG projects on the Delaware.                                        My 10 testimony is based on the observations we have made, 11 in that time, particularly of PSEG's efforts to reduce 12 environmental impacts.
13                    There is no -- in the natural systems of 14 the        Delaware    River        and      estuaries,        are    critical 15 environments with major significance for both regional 16 and global biodiversity, for regional water supply, 17 and        water  quality,        and       for        supporting    important 18 economic activities.
19                    In carrying out its operations, on the 20 Delaware          River,      PSEG        has        been      mindful    of        the 21 significant          potential        environmental            impacts    of        its 22 operations.
23                    There is no indication that major changes 24 will          be  made    in     the        physical        configuration,            or 25 operations,          at    the      Salem          sites.        So    existing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com


Docket Number: 50-272, 50-311, 50-354
66 1 conditions provide a basis for analyzing environmental 2 impacts for future plant operations.
3                  One    of      the      major          concerns    regarding 4 operation        of  the    plants        has        been  the  potential 5 negative        impacts    on      fisheries,              and  other    aquatic 6 resources        by    cooling          water          intake    operations, 7 particularly at Salem.
8                  To address these concerns PSEG implemented 9 changes in the intake structures to reduce impingement 10 and entrainment, used a series of accepted fisheries 11 analysis,        to    demonstrate              that        entrainment            and 12 impingement does not lead to significant environmental 13 impacts.
14                  Notably,          they        did        this    evaluating 15 alternative hypotheses, concerning various causes of 16 trends in fish populations, and adverse impacts by the 17 plant was not the supported hypothesis.
18                  PSEG    extended          its        estuarine    monitoring 19 programs,        and    developed            the        Estuary    Enhancement 20 Program        to    mitigate        entrainment              and  impingement 21 losses.
22                  Begun in 1984, now the largest private 23 program in the world, for wetlands restoration, the 24 EEP has restored, enhanced and/or preserved, more than 25 20,000 acres of salt marsh, and adjacent uplands, to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com


Location:   Woodstown, New Jersey
67 1 vital healthy habitat for fish and wildlife.
2                      The  EEP      has      had      beneficial    impacts          on 3 portions of the Delaware estuary, throughout south 4 Jersey, and Delaware, and encompasses more than 32 5 square miles.
6                      Restoration            efforts          have      included 7 replacing former salt hay farms and marshes, dominated 8 by invasive phragmites australis, with other native 9 plant species typical of undisturbed coastal marshes.
10                      Phragmites, and invasive reed grass, is 11 often          found  in  disturbed          marsh        areas,  where      plant 12 communities,          hydrology          and        topography    have        been 13 altered.
14                      Phragmites      displaces            native  plants,          and 15 has a negative impact on biodiversity.                              The Estuary 16 Enhancement Program has been successful in greatly 17 reducing phragmites abundance, restoring typical salt 18 marsh conditions at the site, with establishment of 19 salt core grass, and other native species as dominant 20 vegetation.
21                      The   EEP      has      also        conducted    numerous 22 monitoring            studies        to        determine        success            of 23 restoration.            And    to    determine            whether  additional 24 restoration or activities, and has implemented actions 25 to increase restoration success.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com


Date:   Wednesday, November 17, 2010
68 1                      The Academy studied many of the EEP sites, 2 prior          to  restoration,          and        we    visited    a    number 3 afterwards.            Among other improvements, of restored 4 sites, tidal flow, and development of tidal channels 5 have increased, allowing for recolonization of salt 6 core grass and other species.
7                      The restored marshes support large numbers 8 of fish, and invertebrates, including target species.
9  These        populations    contribute              to   bay  productivity, 10 most notably at the Salt Hay Farms, which were part of 11 the EEP efforts.
12                      The    restoration                sites    also      support 13 terrapins, birds, mammals.                    For example, several sites 14 are part of New Jersey Audubon designated important 15 bird areas.
16                      In addition to ecological restoration, the 17 EEP has had important benefits for the community with 18 the        development    of      recreational,              and  educational 19 opportunities, by developing increased opportunities 20 for        people    to  experience            and      interact    with          the 21 estuary.
22                      This has included improved access to many 23 restoration sites, and other sites, by land and water, 24 with boat access and parking.
25                      Public use areas were designed to meet the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com


Work Order No.: NRC-553 Pages 1-78
69 1 general          education      public          access,    and  ecotourism 2 interest of each community hosting an EEP site.
3                      PSEG    has      also        installed    fish    passage 4 structures at dams in Delaware and New Jersey.                                    The 5 fish ladders have established river herring spawning 6 and          nursery    areas,          and          several  impoundments, 7 increasing bay wide populations of these species.
8                      The    extensive          monitoring      programs,            at 9 Delaware bay fish populations, greatly increases our 10 knowledge of Delaware bay fisheries.                            The restored 11 areas have also become significant research sites, and 12 research by EEP and other organizations, has advance 13 our knowledge of tidal marsh ecology.
14                      The      basic            restoration        activities, 15 particularly          controlling            phragmites,      and  fostering 16 development of tidal marsh topography, and hydrology, 17 have advanced the field of ecological restoration.
18                      The ecological engineering techniques of 19 forming            primary    channels,              and  using    estuarian 20 processes to further develop channels and topography 21 is especially notable.
22                      As such the Estuary Enhancement Program 23 has            provided    important            models      for    marshland 24 restoration.
25                      The    Academy          commends      PSEG    on          its NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com


NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
70 1 demonstrated initiative, and long-term commitment to 2 restoring critical wetlands of the Delaware estuary.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
3 The Estuary Enhancement Program has numerous positive 4 impacts          on  the    ecology,          and        biodiversity      to        the 5 region, and has made important contributions to the 6 recreational and educational opportunities available 7 to the local communities.
8                      We anticipate that the relicensing of the 9 Salem plants will not have a significant additional 10 impact          on  the    aquatic          resources        of  the    Delaware 11 estuary.
12                      The programs that PSEG has developed, to 13 mitigate potential impacts, will continue to provide 14 substantial benefits for fisheries of the Delaware, 15 and        will    offset      the      ecological          impacts    of        the 16 operation of the plants.
17                      Finally, although this does not relate, 18 directly,          to    the    environmental              impacts  of      PSEG's 19 operations,            I    would        note          that    climate      change 20 represents the single greatest environmental threat of 21 this century.
22                      Development of low carbon energy sources, 23 and reduced energy use are critical to the future of 24 human          society,    and      economy.              Many  experts        have 25 indicated          that    nuclear          power        represents    a    viable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
71 1 alternative, in the short-term, and must be part of 2 any mix of conservation and new energy sources that 3 are used to make the transition to a zero carbon 4 future.
5                    The overall carbon footprint of nuclear 6 plants          must  consider        the        total      energy    imbedded, 7 throughout the construction process, and energy cost 8 of      operations,      and    energy        utilized        to develop          raw 9 materials.
10                    As    existing            plants,         imbedded      energy 11 associated with construction has been expended.                                         We 12 would          expect    that      the      carbon        footprint    of        the 13 continued          operation          of        the        plants    would            be 14 significantly lower than conventional energy sources, 15 and         similar    to,    or      lower        than,      newly  developed 16 renewable energy sources.
17                    Let me conclude by saying that I have had 18 the opportunity to observe PSEG's operations for a 19 number          of    years,        and      I'm        impressed    by        their 20 willingness to respond to environmental constraints in 21 their planning.
22                    They have embraced ecological science as a 23 planning          tool,    for        engineering,            and  have        been 24 proactive          in  seeking        the      guidance        of  experts,            to 25 reduce their ecological impacts.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
72 1                The Estuary Enhancement Program represents 2 a long-term commitment to the region, and its natural 3 resources.      And I would expect that commitment to 4 continue with relicensing.              Thank you.
5                FACILITATOR BURTON:                  Mr. Horowitz was our 6 last registered speaker.              At this point I wanted to 7 open it up, if there is anyone who hasn't spoken, 8 already, who would like to make a comment, anyone?
9                (No response.)
10                FACILITATOR BURTON:                  Then, with that, I'm 11 going to go back, quickly, to Ms. Nogaki.                          Did you 12 want to finish your statement?
13                MS. NOGAKI:            Yes, I just have a couple 14 more points.
15                FACILITATOR BURTON:                    Okay. And, again, 16 anyone who wants to leave a written statement, you can 17 leave it with Mr. Johns, our transcriber, and it will 18 be there for the record.
19                MS. NOGAKI:          Jane Nogaki, again, from New 20 Jersey Environmental Federation.
21                Just to finish up my statement, I refer 22 again to the concern about the restoration project 23 using herbicides as a method of phragmites control, 24 that introduced over 22,000 pounds of glyphosate into 25 the estuary, in an effort to control phragmites.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com
 
73 1                Granted that in the salt hay farms, where 2 tidal inundation was used as a measure to restore 3 wetlands, that was a rather effective method to get 4 spartina to regrow, and phragmites to diminish.
5                But  in    the      areas        that  were  phragmite 6 dominated,    that  weren't        salt        hay  farms, that        were 7 higher elevation, and lower salinity, it has taken 8 repeated annual applications of herbicide to control 9 the phragmites, applications that continue to this 10 day, and will continue, probably two more years.
11                And  after that I'm sure that they are 12 going to continue even after that.                    It doesn't seem to 13 be a sustainable method, or an ecological method of 14 restoration, and we strongly object to that.
15                PSEG has said that they can't afford to 16 build a fourth nuclear plant without massive federal 17 subsidies.      They have also made a commitment to wind 18 and solar power, and we believe that PSEG needs to do 19 more in this area, rather than proposing a fourth 20 nuclear plant.
21                I wanted to raise a couple of issues that 22 I was taking notes on, as I read through the document, 23 the Supplemental EIS.          And a lot of the problems, and 24 issues that I brought up in my testimony on May 3rd, 25 including sea level rise, climate change, tritium in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701          www.nealrgross.com
 
74 1 groundwater, radioactive releases to the atmosphere.
2                    A lot of those issues have been discussed 3 in the Environmental Impact Statement, but dismissed 4 as      being    small.      Small,        okay?        And, yet, in the 5 Environmental Impact Statement it says that the water 6 withdrawal from the combined two nuclear stations, and 7 Hope Creek, is combined to the total withdrawal of all 8 other industrial, power, and public water uses in the 9 Delaware          estuary,    in      Delaware,            New  Jersey,            and 10 Pennsylvania.
11                    These plants are this single largest user 12 of water in the river system, in three states.                              Again, 13 their          combined  use      of      water        exceeds  all        other 14 industrial uses combined.
15                    And I just don't think that that impact 16 can be called small.                If that is not large, I don't 17 know what large is.              How large does it have to be to 18 be considered a large impact?
19                    The  comparison            in      millions    of    gallons, 20 between Hope Creek and Salem 1 and 2, is orders of 21 magnitude.          The numbers are so large that I would have 22 to write them on the board, and I might do that, 23 because I can't even -- you know, is it trillions of 24 billions?          I'm not sure.
25                    And the other thing that I wanted to raise NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
75 1 was that while the tritium issue in groundwater is 2 said to have been addressed, and that the leak has 3 been fixed, and there is no longer going to be an 4 issue          with  it,  and      that      the        tritium    levels            in 5 groundwater are decreasing, and that the source was a 6 spent fuel pool water leak.
7                    I'm  concerned          that        if  a  leak    happened 8 once,          it  can  happen        again.              And  with  the        aging 9 infrastructure, you know, the pipes that are replaced 10 every few years, you know, because they start to leak, 11 because they are made of metal, the salinity in the 12 area, to concrete structures which will leak.
13                    I'm not assured that this isn't going to 14 happen again.          And so I think that the tritium issue 15 should not be considered small, the impact should not 16 be considered small.
17                    Also there was a section, in section 4 on 18 -- although the executive here says that there are no 19 environmental impacts, adverse impacts from emissions 20 from the plant, that there are no green house gases 21 emitted, there is low levels of radioactive effluents 22 emitted to the air and water.                      Low levels.
23                    These    effluents            are        considered      small.
24 Again, radioactivity isn't something that disappears 25 by itself.          And I'm concerned that over a cumulative NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
76 1 period          of  time,      that        these          air  emissions,          and 2 effluents going into the river, could build up, and 3 begin to build up a residual in the plant life, the 4 fish populations, the sediments of the river.
5                      There was a calculation that said that 6 these          effluents    do    not      exceed          the  human  criteria, 7 which is 25 millirems.                  It gave a calculation of what 8 the actual emissions are.
9                      But I cannot really understand these.                              So 10 I would like them to be written in a way that they 11 compare          to  the  25    millirems,              because  how    it        was 12 expressed, the actual emissions, was 7.26 times ten to 13 the minus three millirems.
14                      That doesn't really tell me, you know, 15 what that compares to, to the 25 millirems analysis.
16 And so I would like that clarified.                            And that if these 17 exposures are going to be calculated, that they be 18 done in such a way that it is more transparent to the 19 general public.
20                      So I think that concludes the points that 21 I wanted to bring up.                The point about sea level rise, 22 the          point    about      climate            change        is,  actually, 23 acknowledged in the Environmental Impact Statement, to 24 be more significant than some of the other issues that 25 I think are equally significant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701              www.nealrgross.com
 
77 1                And so I just want to dispute the findings 2 of the impact statement that says that these concerns 3 about tritium, radioactive emissions, cooling water 4 loss, you know, I don't consider those issues small, 5 at all.
6                Thank you.
7                FACILITATOR          BURTON:            Thank  you,          Ms.
8 Nogaki, I appreciate it.
9                Second call for any additional comments, 10 for the record?
11                (No response.)
12                FACILITATOR        BURTON:            Hearing  none,          I'm 13 going to ask Mr. Bo Pham to, who is our senior agency 14 official, to close us out.
15                MR. PHAM:        Hello, my name is Bo Pham, I'm 16 a      branch chief    at      the      headquarters        branch          for 17 performing the license renewal review for Salem and 18 Hope Creek.
19                I just want to thank you, everybody, for 20 coming out and providing comments.                      We got a lot of 21 good comments heard today, and I just want to give you 22 an idea of what is going to happen next.
23                The  Staff          has        been    receiving          some 24 comments, already, and as part of the public meeting 25 your comments are on the transcript.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701            www.nealrgross.com


NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
78 1                    The Staff will be gathering those, and 2 from        there,  look  through          all        the comments,        fully 3 consider        the  comments.             We      may    sometimes      agree, 4 sometimes disagree, but in any case, we will be fully 5 considering all the comments that were provided, and 6 we will go ahead and prepare the final EIS that Leslie 7 had indicated that we will be issuing in March of 8 2011.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2  +  +  +  +  +
9                    So, once again, thank you very much.                            The 10 Staff, most of us will be here for a few minutes after 11 the meeting, if you have any questions that we can 12 address for you.          I want to thank you again.
3  DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 4  PUBLIC MEETING 5 +  +  +  +  +
13                    (Whereupon,         at      3:05        p.m.,   the      above-14 entitled matter was concluded.)
6 PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP NUCLEAR 7 LICENSE RENEWAL FOR SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 8 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 9  +  +  +  +  +
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
10  Wednesday.
(202) 234-4433               WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701             www.nealrgross.com}}
11  November 17th, 2010 12  +  +  +  +  +
13  Woodstown, New Jersey 14  +  +  +  +  +
15  The Public Meeting was held at 1:30 p.m., 16 at the Salem County Emergency Services Building, 135 17 Cemetery Road, Woodstown, New Jersey, William Burton, 18 Facilitator, presiding.
19 APPEARANCES:
20 WILLIAM BURTON 21 LESLIE PERKINS 22 MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ 23 BO PHAM 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 A-G-E-N-D-A 1 WELCOME AND PURPOSE OF MEETING 2 Facilitator William Burton
......................... 3 3 OVERVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 4 Leslie Perkins
..................................... 7 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS
................................... 15 6 CLOSING COMMENTS 7 Bo Pham ........................................... 77 8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1  1:30 p.m.
2  FACILITATOR BURTON:  I think we will get 3 started, it is 1:30. I want to try to be prompt.
4  Welcome, everyone. My name is William 5 Burton, in my normal duties I'm a Branch Chief in the 6 Office of New Reactors, at the NRC. But this 7 afternoon I will be serving as your Facilitator, and I 8 will be assisted by Mr. Mike Rodriguez, over on the 9 side. 10  I wanted to welcome you. We are here, the 11 purpose of this evening's meeting is to take comments 12 from the public on the Staff's Draft Supplemental 13 Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared in 14 support of the Staff's review of the license renewal 15 application, submitted by Public Service Enterprise 16 Group Nuclear, or PSEG Nuclear, in support of its 17 request for a license renewal for Salem Units 1 and 2, 18 and the Hope Creek Generating Station1.
19  Now, I do want to say this up front. My 20 name is William, but I prefer Butch, so everyone 21 knows. William was my granddaddy, okay?
22  I want to talk a little bit about the 23 format of this afternoon's meeting. It is the first 24 of two meetings that we are going to be having today.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 And each meeting is going to be broken up into three 1 parts. 2  The first part we are going to give you 3 the preliminary findings of the Staff's Environmental 4 Review, followed by a short period, where you will 5 have an opportunity to ask questions about some of the 6 information that you heard, or the Environmental 7 Review process conducted by the Staff.
8  And we do have some folks here, from the 9 Staff who, hopefully, will be able to answer your 10 questions.
11  The third part, which is the main part of 12 the meeting, is where we are going to listen to you, 13 as you provide comments to us, on some of the findings 14 that we had in our review.
15  So that is the general format. A couple 16 of things, if you want to provide a comment, we do ask 17 that you sign one of the yellow cards that we have in 18 the back, and we will make sure that we get you up, 19 and you can provide your comment.
20  If any of you need copies of the slides 21 that are going to be used this afternoon, there are 22 copies in the back, to make sure that you can -- does 23 anyone need copies?  It looks like, I guess, 24 everyone's got them.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5  Also we have some copies of the Draft 1 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, that is a 2 mouthful, I'm going to call it the DSEIS from now on, 3 so that you will know what I'm talking about.
4  We do have a few copies. If you don't get 5 a copy, and you would like to get a copy of the 6 report, you can always go to the NRC's website and you 7 can access the report there.
8  And I think in the meeting announcement, 9 it did give the URL where you can get that.
10  This afternoon's meeting is being 11 transcribed. Mr. Ed Johns, in the back, will be 12 transcribing this meeting. Also, we are always trying 13 to improve the quality of our public meetings. So 14 also, in the back, there are feedback forms that we 15 really encourage you to let us know what you think 16 about how the meeting went, areas for improvement, we 17 are always looking for those kind of helpful comments.
18  A little bit of logistics. For those of 19 you who may not know, behind me, through these doors 20 and to the right are the rest rooms. If some of you 21 are too embarrassed to go this way, there is another 22 se of -- it is a coed rest room, I need to say that, 23 make that clear.
24  On the other side, if you go through here, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 past the other door, hang a left, and that rest room 1 is on the right. Should we need to evacuate, for some 2 reason, we are going to ask that everyone muster in 3 the front, where you came in, so you can go back down 4 the stairs where you came in.
5  You can also leave, again, through these 6 double doors, there is a door to the left, stairs 7 down. You will be in the back, but we would like for 8 everybody to muster in the front. Should that happen, 9 and hopefully it won't, we will know what to do.
10  Electronic devices, you have heard this 11 before. Anything that beeps, and all that kind of 12 stuff, please turn it off, or mute it, or put it on 13 vibrate, that would be appreciated.
14  Because we are transcribing the meeting, 15 we do want to try to minimize side conversations. I 16 have been through a number of these, and these 17 microphones pick up every little thing.
18  So if we can minimize the side 19 conversations that would be very helpful, it would 20 help us to have a clean transcript.
21  Last thing is we are going to hear 22 comments, from speakers, who have very different views 23 and opinions about this project and, perhaps, nuclear 24 power in general.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7  We do ask that everyone just be respectful 1 of everyone else. Even if someone is saying something 2 that you may not personally agree with, we do ask that 3 everyone give everyone an opportunity to speak their 4 mind. 5  And with that, any questions about the 6 format, or the logistics?
7  (No response.)
8  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Everyone is good with 9 that, okay.
10  Well, I'm going to introduce our speaker, 11 Ms. Leslie Perkins, who is the lead environmental 12 project manager for this review. She has been with 13 the NRC for about four years now.
14  And before taking over this license 15 renewal application review, she was actually one of 16 the project managers overseeing the review of the 17 ESBWR New Reactor design, over in the Office of New 18 Reactors.
19  So she was kind enough to help out the 20 license renewal team, over here, and picked up the 21 lead for the Environmental Review. And with that I 22 will turn it over to Leslie.
23  MS. PERKINS:  Good afternoon. Again, my 24 name is Leslie Perkins, and I am the environmental 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8project manager for Hope Creek and Salem license 1 renewal reviews.
2  Today I'm going to give you the results of 3 the NRC's review of the site-specific issues related 4 to the proposed license renewal of Hope Creek 5 Generating Station, and Salem Nuclear Generating 6 Station, Units 1 and 2.
7  I will discuss the NRC's regulatory role, 8 environmental issues and areas that were addressed and 9 our findings. I will also give our schedule for 10 receiving comments on our Environmental Impact 11 Statement, as well as for completing our final 12 Environmental Impact Statement.
13  At the end of the presentation there will 14 be time for you to present your comments. For those 15 of you who would prefer to send in your comments, I 16 will explain some options for doing so.
17  The NRC was established to regulate 18 civilian uses of nuclear materials, including 19 applications that produce electric power.
20  The NRC conducts license renewal reviews 21 for plants whose owners wish to operate them beyond 22 their initial license period.
23  The NRC's license renewal reviews address 24 safety issues related to managing the effects of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9aging, and environmental issues related to an 1 additional 20 years of operation, as well as any 2 potential major refurbishment activities the public 3 owner, or operator, may undertake during or in 4 preparation for additional 20 years of operation.
5  An aspect of the NRC's regulation, our 6 mission is three-fold. To ensure adequate protection 7 of public health and safety, to promote common defense 8 and security, and to protect the environment.
9  In this meeting I will discuss the 10 potential site-specific impacts of license renewal for 11 Hope Creek and Salem. The site-specific findings are 12 contained in the Draft Supplemental Environmental 13 Impact Statement that the NRC Staff published on 14 October 21st of 2010.
15  This document contains analyses of all 16 applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review 17 of issues common to many or all nuclear power plants.
18  The issues for which environmental impacts 19 are the same, across some, or all, nuclear power plant 20 sites, are discussed in the Generic Environmental 21 Impact Statement.
22  The NRC staff reviewed these issues to 23 determine whether the conclusions, in the Generic 24 environmental impact statement are still valid for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 0 Salem and Hope Creek.
1  The NRC staff also reviewed the 2 environmental impacts of potential alternatives to 3 license renewal. To determine whether the impacts, 4 expected from license renewal, are unreasonable, in 5 comparison to other power generation options.
6  An earlier part of this review was the 7 scoping period. During this period the NRC solicited 8 comments concerning what to focus the review on.
9  The comments received, during this period, 10 and the responses to those comments, are addressed in 11 Appendix A of the Draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement.
13  The comments were grouped into categories 14 shown in the second bullet on this slide. This slide 15 is a continuation from the previous slide, showing the 16 categories that the comments were placed in.
17  This slide lists the environmental issues 18 the NRC staff reviewed for Salem and Hope Creek during 19 the proposed license renewal period.
20  Overall the direct and indirect impact, 21 from license renewal, on all these issues, were found 22 to be small. Which means that there was some 23 noticeable impact, but not enough to cause any 24 permanent alterations to the ecology or the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 1 environment.
1  Next slide, please. As part of its NEPA 2 review, which is the National Environmental Policy 3 Act, the Staff also looked at the potential cumulative 4 impacts associated with Salem and Hope Creek.
5  These impacts include the effects on the 6 environment from other past, present, and reasonable 7 foreseeable future of human actions. It is important 8 to note that these impacts may not even be related to 9 relicensing of Salem and Hope Creek.
10  Nevertheless, the intent of NEPA is that 11 an agency be cognizant of, and ready to be able to 12 disclose all the environmental impact activities 13 within the proximity of its action.
14  This slide provides a summary of our 15 findings, with respect to the cumulative impacts.
16 Overall, the one reasonable foreseeable action, in the 17 near future, is the potential for PSEG to proceed with 18 its request to construct additional reactors on-site.
19  Which, as you can see, expands the range 20 of potential impacts for socio-economic, aquatic, and 21 terrestrial resources.
22  We did note, in the Supplemental 23 Environmental Impact Statement, however, that the 24 specific impacts of that future activity is also being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 2captured, and reviewed, in a separate Environmental 1 Impact Statement by the NRC.
2  Our staff has been working closely, with 3 the Office of New Reactors, to make sure we coordinate 4 and capture the relevant information within scope.
5  Next slide, please. A major step in 6 determining whether license renewal is reasonable or 7 not, is comparing the likely impacts of license 8 renewal with the alternatives, including other methods 9 of power generation, and not renewing Salem and Hope 10 Creek operating licenses.
11  In the Draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement the NRC staff considered super-critical coal 13 fired generation, natural gas combined cycle 14 generation, new nuclear generation.
15  And, as part of the combination 16 alternative, conservation and efficiency, natural gas 17 combined cycle generation, and solar power.
18  Finally, as required by NEPA, the NRC also 19 considered the case of no-action alternative, which 20 equates to no license renewal of Salem and Hope Creek 21 at the end of their licenses.
22  The Staff found that the impacts, from the 23 energy alternatives, would vary widely based on the 24 characteristics of the alternatives.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 3  In most cases, construction of new 1 facilities created significant impacts. Overall the 2 NRC staff concludes that continued operation of 3 existing Hope Creek Generating Station, and Salem 4 Nuclear Generating Station, is the environmentally 5 preferred alternative.
6  Next slide, please. Based on a review of 7 likely environmental impacts from license renewal, as 8 well as potential environmental impacts of 9 alternatives to license renewal, the NRC's preliminary 10 recommendation, and the Draft Environmental Impact 11 Statement, is the environmental impacts of license 12 renewal, for Hope Creek Generating Station, and Salem 13 Nuclear Generating Station, are not so great that 14 license renewal would be unreasonable.
15  Next slide, please. The Environmental 16 Review, however, is not yet completed. Your comments, 17 today, and all written comments received, by the end 18 of comment period on December 17th, will be considered 19 by the NRC Staff as we develop our Final Environmental 20 Impact Statement, which is scheduled to be issued 21 March 2011.
22  The Final Environmental Impact Statement 23 will contain the Staff's final recommendation, on the 24 acceptability of the license renewal, based on work 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 4that we have already performed, and the input 1 received, in form of comments, during the comment 2 period. 3  Your comments can help change the Staff's 4 findings in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
5  Next slide, please.
6  I'm the primary contact for the 7 Environmental Review, and Bennett Brady is the primary 8 contact for the Safety Review. Hard copies of the 9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement are on the back 10 table, as well as CDs.
11  In addition, the Salem Free Library has a 12 hard copy available for the public to review. You can 13 also find electronic copies of the Draft Supplement, 14 along with other information related to Hope Creek and 15 Salem license renewal, on-line.
16  Next slide, please. The NRC staff will 17 address written comments in the same way we will 18 address the spoken comments received today.
19  You can submit written comments, by email, 20 to either one of the email addresses, listed on the 21 slide, or you can send in your comments by mail.
22  You can also submit your comments at 23 regulation.gov and just search the docket numbers. If 24 you have written comments, this afternoon, you may 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 5 give them to any NRC staff member.
1  Thank you, and that concludes my 2 presentation. I will turn it back over to Butch.
3  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Leslie.
4 Okay, we are going to go into the next part of the 5 meeting. If anyone has any questions about anything 6 that they heard during Leslie's presentation, or how 7 the Staff performed its Environmental Review, we 8 wanted to take those now, if anyone has anything.
9  We have a question. And please give your 10 -- yes, we will certainly do our best, and please give 11 us your name.
12  MS. NOGAKI:  My name is Jane Nogaki, from 13 New Jersey Environmental Federation. And I'm looking 14 at the cumulative impacts slide that talks about 15 preliminary findings being small to large for 16 cumulative impacts and socio-economics small to 17 moderate cumulative impacts on aquatic resources, and 18 moderate cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources, 19 small impacts on all other areas.
20  What made the determination that moderate 21 impacts would happen on terrestrial resources, and 22 what terrestrial resources were you talking about, 23 animals, humans, do you want to answer that?
24  FACILITATOR BURTON:  First of all, can we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 6 get that slide up so that people can see?
1  MR. PHAM:  This is Bo Pham, I'm the branch 2 chief for license renewal for Salem and Hope Creek.
3 Actually we don't have all the technical staff that 4 did the review for terrestrial, here today.
5  But I can say, broadly, that the range, 6 the staff tried to encompass the impact of the 7 construction that would occur if PSEG were to go 8 forward with constructing new units at the site.
9  So I don't have the specific list of the 10 terrestrial species of concern but, obviously, with 11 any razing of the ground, or alteration for a 12 construction site, there are impacts associated with 13 that. 14  FACILITATOR BURTON:  And, Bo, would some 15 of that detail, that would address her question, would 16 that be in the DSEIS?
17  MR. PHAM:  That is a good comment for us 18 to address as part of the DSEIS, basically.
19  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you. Other 20 questions?  Just one.
21  (No response.)
22  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Leslie did such a 23 fantastic job in her presentation, that there are no 24 other questions, just the one.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 7  Well then, with that, we will go into the 1 main part of today's meeting, which is where the Staff 2 will listen to your comments on their preliminary 3 findings that are documented in the Draft Supplemental 4 Environmental Impact Statement.
5  So what we will do, we have several people 6 who have filled out yellow cards, and some who have 7 pre-registered. And so we are going to -- what I'm 8 going to do is I will call out the next speaker, and 9 the next two speakers, so people will have a chance to 10 know when they are on deck, okay?
11  So we will start with Ms. Julie Acton, 12 Salem County Freeholder, followed by Dr. Peter, and I 13 forgive everybody now, if I mispronounce names. Dr.
14 Peter Contini, President of Salem Community College, 15 followed by Mr. Otis Sistrunk, member of the 16 community.
17  MS. ACTON:  Good afternoon. I'm a member 18 of the Salem County Board of Chosen Freeholders. I'm 19 coming before you, this afternoon, to know that PSEG 20 Nuclear is a valuable asset to our county.
21  Not only are they a great community 22 partner, but they are the county's largest employer.
23 A majority of their employees are local residents, who 24 live in our community.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 8  In tough economic times PSEG Nuclear 1 provides an example of integrity and commitment to 2 positive growth, that we all need to see.
3  PSEG takes a very proactive role in 4 developing positive relationships with members of the 5 Salem County community. Whether it is providing 6 funding and support to local community groups, or 7 attending community events.
8  They are always demonstrating their 9 commitment to Salem County's proud heritage, and 10 bright future.
11  We understand the hesitation of those 12 within and surrounding our county, towards PSEG 13 Nuclear. Their concerns regarding safety, and plant 14 performance, are valid.
15  However, PSEG Nuclear has consistently, 16 and without hesitation, demonstrated its commitment to 17 safety and excellence, through proper planning and 18 transparency.
19  Furthermore, they have not only been a 20 partner, but a leader in this county, in this area of 21 conservation of our environment.
22  With unemployment in the county hovering 23 around 12 percent, the economic possibilities of this 24 expansion cannot be underestimated. I hope that PSEG 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 9will have your support to move forward, as they 1 already have our support as a valued partner in this 2 community.
3  I support PSEG Nuclear, and the renewal of 4 their operating license. Thank you for your time.
5  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Ms. Acton.
6  We will have Dr. Peter Contini, I got it right this 7 time, followed by Mr. Otis Sistrunk, and after that 8 Carlos Parada. I hope I got that right. I got it 9 right, okay.
10  DR. CONTINI:  Good afternoon. As 11 indicated, I'm Peter B. Contini, President of the 12 Salem Community College, a position I have held for 13 more than 13 years.
14  And I'm here, today, to support the 15 application for renewal and extension of the licenses 16 for Salem Units 1 and 2, as well as Hope Creek. And I 17 certainly endorse the preliminary conclusions drawn by 18 the staff of the NRC.
19  Over this period of time that I have been 20 in Salem County I have had an opportunity, first-hand, 21 on a variety of opportunity and situations to really 22 observe the commitment of PSEG Nuclear to the quality 23 of life of Salem County and its region.
24  Key among those is safety. And I think 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 0 those of us who work closely with them realize that 1 they are there to, certainly, ensure their safety of 2 their employees but, also, the safety of our 3 community.
4  And that they are not just looking to 5 meet, but to exceed standards. Their support of the 6 community organizations, which you heard Freeholder 7 Acton speak to, is quite obvious to us.
8  They are a key role and player in a group 9 called the Partners of Salem County, Stand-Up for 10 Salem, the Revitalization of our Treasure, Salem City.
11  And, certainly, things such as the United Way, and 12 other organizations.
13  They are an open organization. Open 14 contention at every level, is the experience that we 15 have. And so no matter what the issue may be, they 16 are there to understand and appreciate the position of 17 the community and, at the same time, realize the 18 commitment they have to the community.
19  In the educational venue it is pretty 20 obvious, as you go across this county, whether it is 21 in our K-12 system, whether it is dealing with our 22 vocational school district, Ranch Hope, a treasure 23 that we do have here in our county that deals with 24 young men who have many challenges, and certainly 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 1 Salem Community College.
1  We see their hand, and their guidance, and 2 their support at every level. On a very specific 3 level, Salem Community College is proud to be a 4 partner with PSEG Nuclear in the acquisition of a 5 significant grant, that has been provided by the U.S.
6 Department of Labor, it is called the Community Based 7 Job Training Grant that allowed us, through their 8 support, to acquire 1.7 million dollars, over three 9 years, to bring the opportunity for work force 10 development, and certainly the expansion of economic 11 development in our county.
12  Through this grant a major thread of this 13 is a creation of a nuclear energy technology program, 14 an Associate Degree, that is bringing the opportunity 15 to many individuals, both within our county, and 16 within the region, to focus on the area of maintenance 17 of instrumentation and controls.
18  We are not only benefiting from the grant, 19 but also the direct involvement with PSEG Nuclear, 20 through their resource center, a house and facilities 21 are state of the art, provided equipment, and also 22 internships and scholarships.
23  Through them, and with their collaboration 24 at the national level, through the Nuclear Energy 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 2Institute, we are now one of six community colleges in 1 the country that are working to ensure that the 2 curriculum and the standards for expectation of 3 employees are consistently forged across the country.
4  Currently we are only one of six, as I 5 said, colleges working on this. And we expect that 6 this will grow and be used as a standard across the 7 country. 8  There are over 85 students currently 9 enrolled in our NET program. And we are proud to tell 10 you that this past spring we graduated four of our 11 first students, three of which qualified for a highly 12 regarded, first in the country, award of certification 13 from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, 14 commonly referred to as INPO.
15  We see this as an opportunity to continue 16 to grow in the field of nuclear energy. And, as a 17 result, we have just recently applied for an NRC 18 grant, to allow us to expand into the unlicensed 19 operator area, as well as electrical maintenance.
20  It is for these reasons and, obviously, 21 the facts of the influence that this industry has in 22 our county, and our region, that I hope that this 23 grant -- that they will be granted the extension that 24 they well deserve, and that we will see the continued 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 3 progress of PSEG Nuclear in Salem County. Thank you.
1  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Dr.
2 Contini. If you notice I didn't put a -- try to put a 3 restriction on the time frame for people to speak.
4 That was because we are running ahead of schedule.
5  And, judging by the number of speakers 6 that we had at that point, it looked like we could be 7 fairly liberal about that. If I get a flood of folks 8 who do want to comment, I may need to restrict the 9 time. 10  But, so far, it looks like people are 11 running about five minutes, and I think that is pretty 12 doable, so we will try to stay on that.
13  So next is Mr. Sistrunk, followed by Mr.
14 Parada. And then, after that, we will have Elizabeth 15 Brown. 16  MR. SISTRUNK:  Good afternoon. Aside from 17 being the best-dressed gentleman in the room this 18 afternoon, I stand before you as a Salem County 19 resident, for just under 30 years.
20  I have been fortunate enough to have 21 worked for a Salem County company for the past 23 22 years, where I'm the manager of safety, health, and 23 environmental.
24  So this goes right to the heart of what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 4has become my profession. And I can say, beyond a 1 shadow of doubt, and with a lot of confidence, that 2 PSEG Nuclear certainly is a leader in that area.
3  Additionally, in the county, I also have 4 had the privilege to have served on many 5 organizations, United Way of Salem County, Dr. Contini 6 mentioned that earlier.
7  I was a Chairman of the Board for a couple 8 of years, and worked hand in hand with several of the 9 PSEG employees. And a lot of folks talk about focus 10 on it, and rightfully so, and give accolades for the 11 financial contributions that a company like PSEG 12 Nuclear provides.
13  But I think, just as important if not more 14 important, is the contribution in the forms of the 15 talent of their employees, that they give to 16 organizations like United Way of Salem County.
17  Additionally, I am the current chairman of 18 the Educational Foundation for the Salem County 19 Votech. And, again, PSEG Nuclear is right there at 20 the table.
21  And because of efforts like theirs, and 22 companies like them, we have been able to give out 23 over 150,000 dollars in scholarships to needy 24 students.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 5  And that money helps provide uniforms to 1 students registered in the culinary arts program, and 2 the medical assistance program. And those kids, they 3 cost money, and a lot of families can't afford them.
4  So food and generosity of PSEG Nuclear and 5 companies like them, were able to do those kinds of 6 things. 7  Lastly, I will share this quick story with 8 you. A lot of folks don't know this about me. When I 9 first came out of high school, I went to high school 10 in Salem County, but I came out of high school, I 11 didn't go right to college, I went to work.
12  And I worked at a little gas station, 13 right in the middle of Salem. A lot of you, on your 14 way to the island, you might notice that there is a 15 gas station at the red light there, Griffer Street.
16  And I was pumping gas there. And a 17 gentleman, my mother always told me, no matter what it 18 is that you do, Otis, always be the best. So I was 19 the best. Cars would pull in, I would wash the 20 windows, pump the gas, say how are you doing, good 21 morning. 22  And there was a gentleman who worked at 23 the island. He would come in there once or twice a 24 week, he would see me work and he would say, boy you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 6have a great attitude, you ought to come down and put 1 an application and come down and work down at the 2 island for a contractor.
3  And I did that, it was in the maintenance 4 department. And I went down, and I worked on the 5 island, on the Salem side, and I was a janitor. And I 6 was the best janitor I could be.
7  I can say I went there about a year or two 8 ago, as part of a visit with the Chamber of Commerce, 9 and I saw how clean the floors were, and I had a --
10 you know, good work lasts forever.
11  But the point that I'm trying to make is 12 that I believe that, you know, when you stand out 13 amongst your peers, you should be recognized.
14  PSEG their peers are other nuclear plants 15 throughout the country. And for a year and a half, 16 when I left Salem, I had an opportunity, I went and 17 worked with this contractor, at other nuclear plants 18 around the United States.
19  So I have been to plenty of them, Indian 20 Point, Oyster Creek, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, some of the 21 NRC folks, I'm sure you are familiar with some of 22 those names.
23  And I can tell you, wholeheartedly, having 24 had that experience, and able to look at other nuclear 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 7 plants, I know they do a good job, by comparison, in 1 my personal opinion, having cleaned a lot of floors at 2 nuclear plants in my time, and worked with people, and 3 looking at the leadership, and the security, and the 4 professionalism, to this day it was a great feeling 5 for me to go back there as part of a tour with the 6 Chamber of Commerce, last year, to see that those same 7 values are still there today.
8  So I wholeheartedly support the renewal of 9 their application, and I certainly thank you for this 10 opportunity to get up and make these comments today, 11 thank you.
12  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Mr.
13 Sistrunk. Next we will have Carlos Parada, followed 14 by Elizabeth Brown. And, after that, Charles Hassler.
15  MR. PARADA:  Good afternoon. My name is 16 Carlos Parada. I'm a mechanical maintenance supervisor 17 at the Hope Creek generating station. I have been 18 working there for almost three years now.
19  And I wanted to come here, today, and 20 voice my support for the license extension for the 21 Hope Creek and Salem Generating Stations.
22  I'm a member of a group at Hope Creek and 23 Salem, called the North American Young Generation of 24 Nuclear Power. And I wanted to share my experience, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 8as to why young people join Nuclear Power, and what I 1 have seen, in the short time that I have been at Hope 2 Creek. 3  Like many of my peers I became familiar 4 with nuclear power through my service in the military.
5  I did a six year stint in the Navy, where I was 6 trained as an operator in nuclear power plants.
7  And after that I wanted to learn a little 8 bit more about the industry, so I went to college, and 9 I studied hard, and I got a couple of degrees. And 10 PSEG was kind enough to offer me a position right out 11 of school.
12  And when I came down here, the position 13 that I was appointed to was in an organization called 14 Nuclear Oversight. And it is something that I wasn't 15 familiar with. It is a department within PSEG that 16 specializes on doing nothing but checking up on 17 everyone else.
18  And what is amazing to me is how open 19 everyone is that to that particular job at Hope Creek.
20  In other words, when I came to look everyone's 21 shoulder, everyone welcomed me, they asked me, can we 22 make a -- can we give you any information about what 23 is going on?
24  And they really wanted everyone to know 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 9that the work that they were doing was high quality, 1 it was safe, and that they were following all 2 appropriate procedures and guidelines.
3  And after I did that, for about a year, I 4 was offered a position in maintenance, and since then 5 my experience, from actually working with the workers, 6 has actually reinforced my feeling that at Hope Creek, 7 and at Salem, they really care about nuclear safety.
8  Now, it is spoken about every day, at the 9 morning briefs. It is emphasized at every job they 10 do, and it is something that we really care about 11 deeply. 12  And for young professionals, who are 13 starting out our careers, something like this, the 14 license renewal of these sites, is very important.
15 And it is something that we are strongly in favor.
16 Thank you very much.
17  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Mr.
18 Parada. Next will be Ms. Elizabeth Brown, followed by 19 Charles Hassler, and I'm going to have to apologize 20 Cristina Matteliano. Did I get that right?  All 21 right, very good.
22  So all of you are together. I have 23 several speakers altogether. All right.
24  MS. BROWN:  Hi, good afternoon. My name is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 0Elizabeth Brown, I'm a director of Strategic 1 Initiatives at the Delaware River-Keeper Network.
2  I want to thank the Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission, and the Salem County Emergency Services 4 Department, for hosting this meeting today, and for 5 the public outreach that they are conducting, with 6 regard to the Salem relicensing process.
7  With me, today, are several student 8 interns from Temple University's Beasley School of 9 Law, who will assist me in delivering Delaware River-10 Keeper Network's comments.
11  Today we will focus on Delaware 12 Riverkeeper Network's concern about the relicensing of 13 the Salem facility, due to continued detrimental 14 environmental effects that the facility's cooling 15 water intake structures have on the aquatic life in 16 the Delaware River.
17  While we recognize that the New Jersey 18 Department of Environmental Protection has permitting 19 authority over Clean Water Act, Section 316-B, the 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be aware of the 21 regulatory landscape in this area.
22  And DRN will be submitting more detailed 23 written comments regarding the Supplemental 24 Environmental Impact Statement that has been prepared 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 1 during the written comment period.
1  A closed-loop cooling system, at the Salem 2 Nuclear facility would circulate a similar total 3 volume of water, as once-through cooling, but would 4 only withdraw a limited amount of water to replace 5 evaporative loss and blowdown.
6  Section 316-B, of the Clean Water Act, 7 requires that the location, design, construction, and 8 capacity of cooling water intake structure, reflect 9 the best technology available for minimizing adverse 10 environmental impacts.
11  Adverse environmental impacts are 12 interpreted, by EPA, to mean the impingement, 13 mortality of fish, and shell fish, and their 14 entrainment of their eggs and larvae.
15  EPA implemented three rulemaking phases 16 for 316-B. The phase one rule was promulgated in 17 2001, and covered new facilities. The phase two rule 18 was promulgated in 2004, and covered large existing 19 facilities. And the phase 3 rule, in 2006, covered 20 certain existing facilities, and offshore oil and gas.
21  Extensive litigation followed the 22 promulgation of the phase two rule. Following a 23 decision, in Riverkeeper v EPA, out of the Second 24 Circuit, EPA suspended the cooling water intake 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 2 structure regulations for existing large power plants.
1  Of course, the Second Circuit decision was 2 challenged to the Supreme Court in 2009. However, the 3 Second Circuit Decision held, in part, that the use of 4 restoration measures, as a means of compliance, is not 5 authorized under 316-B of the Clean Water Act, a 6 decision which was not disturbed by the subsequent 7 Supreme Court opinion.
8  EPA is now looking to combine, and re-9 promulgate rules for all existing cooling water intake 10 structure facilities. In the meantime EPA noting 11 that, with so many provisions of the phase 2 rule 12 affected by the Second Circuit decision, the rule 13 should be considered suspended.
14  And it developed the following policy.
15 All permits for phase 2 facility should include 16 conditions, under Section 316-B, of the Clean Water 17 Act, developed on the best professional judgement 18 basis. 19  As noted, the phase 2 rule was appealed to 20 the Supreme Court. In 2009 the High Court held that 21 the Agency may consider cost benefit analysis in 22 choosing among regulatory options.
23  But it did not hold that the Agency must 24 consider it. According to certain industry 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 3predictions, EPA has signal concerns with using a cost 1 benefit analysis.
2  EPA's new rulemaking is expected to set 3 significant new national technology-based performance 4 standards to minimize adverse environmental impacts.
5 Current industry predictions expect EPA to favor 6 performance commensurate with cooling towers.
7  This regulatory process, combined for 8 phases 2 and 3, is anticipated quite soon. A revised 9 draft rule is expected by February 2011, and a final 10 rule by July of 2012.
11  It is imperative that any relicensing 12 effort, at Salem, must take these recent developments, 13 and any subsequently promulgated rules, into account.
14  The two major aspects of the 316-B 15 regulatory framework that concern the Delaware 16 Riverkeeper Network at Salem the use of once-through 17 cooling, and the use of restoration measures at the 18 site. 19  MR. WHARTON:  My name is Benjamin Wharton, 20 and I will address once-through cooling impacts. The 21 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, for Salem, determined 22 BTA to continue to be once-through cooling based on, 23 one, the reduction of permitted intake flow of Salem 24 to its maximum actual operating capacity.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 4  Two, intake screen modifications, and 1 three, a feasibility study for a sound deterrent 2 system. Yet the Salem Nuclear Generating Station 3 kills over three billion fish in the Delaware River 4 every year, taking a huge toll on the living resources 5 of the Delaware River.
6  But in seeking to argue that its adverse 7 environmental impacts are limited, the plant has, 8 consistently, underestimated these numbers by two-fold 9 or more. 10  The idea that three billion fish, killed 11 per year, is not great enough adverse environmental 12 impact to affect the license renewal process, is 13 simply untenable and absurd.
14  MS. MATTELIANO:  My name is Cristina 15 Matteliano, and I will be addressing why closed cycle 16 cooling should be adopted.
17  While the EPA declined to mandate closed 18 cooling systems, it did set national performance 19 standards, which require a nuclear plant to reduce its 20 fish kills by 80 to 95 percent over the baseline. And 21 those are found on the Code of Federal Regulations.
22  Section 316-B of the Clean Water Act 23 requires that cooling water intake structures utilize 24 the best technology available for minimizing adverse 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 5 environmental impact.
1  While making the decision on whether to 2 implement cooling technology, in a nuclear plant, cost 3 benefit analysis is permissible. However, that cost 4 benefit analysis must be made based on reliable data.
5  PSEG has overextended the data used in 6 this analysis. It has grossly underestimated the 7 actual total loss of biomass in the Delaware River 8 fisheries.
9  Due the conversion of the cooling system 10 to the best technology available, as required by the 11 Clean Water Act, the Salem facility could reduce its 12 fish kills to 95 percent, by converting to closed 13 cycle cooling towers, or to 99 percent, if using a dry 14 cooling system.
15  PSEG has not shown that the cost of 16 installing a closed cycle cooling system outweigh the 17 benefits. The cost of a closed cooling system is 18 estimated at 13 dollars a year per rate payer.
19  This is offset by the millions, even 20 billions of fish which could be saved as a result of a 21 closed cooling system. The resulting benefits to the 22 fishing industry will also offset the cost of the 23 cooling system.
24  MS. CHARLES-VOLTAIRE:  My name is Jane 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 6Charles-Voltaire, and I will address why restoration 1 is not working.
2  In an effort to mitigate its impact, in 3 1996, NJDP issued an NJD permit, with special 4 conditions, including a wetland restoration and 5 enhancement program, fish ladder project, and 6 biological monitoring program.
7  PSEG is required to engage in the wetlands 8 initiative until 2012, in New Jersey, and 2013 for 9 Delaware wetlands. The purpose of the restoration 10 program was to enhance the production of fish, in the 11 estuary, in an effort to offset losses of fish 12 associated with entrainment and impingement at the 13 cooling water intake structure.
14  In other words, to mitigate the harms 15 caused by once-through cooling. However, PSEG's 16 wetlands restoration experiment, fails to meet the 17 requirements of the Clean Water Act.
18  The experiment has resulted in over 22,000 19 pounds of herbicide to be dumped over valuable wetland 20 resources. PSEG has failed to demonstrate that this 21 experiment provides any environmental benefit.
22  The fact remains that there has been no 23 demonstrated increase in abundance, values, 24 represented as important fish species. And, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 7importantly, PSEG has not shown that the wetlands will 1 sustain themselves once the herbicide treatment has 2 ended. 3  This mitigation project is a clear 4 failure, and in no way offsets the millions, the costs 5 of millions of fish lost each year as a result of 6 PSEG's failure to install a closed cooling system.
7  DRN commissioned a 2003 study that 8 reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the 9 wetland restoration project, in increasing fish 10 production, based on the success of the established 11 plant community, plant densities, invasion by 12 phragmites, and other invasive species, utilization of 13 marshes by fish, and the potential for the marshes to 14 increase fish populations in the estuary.
15  With regard to wetlands restoration 16 efforts, the DRN study concluded that although some 17 phragmites reductions were achieved, the 18 sustainability of that reduction was dependent on 19 annual herbicide treatment, and the true success of 20 the program could not be determined until herbicide 21 treatment, and marsh manipulation efforts, such as 22 burning, were discontinued.
23  With regard to fish response, the study 24 did not support the assertion that phragmites 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 8eradication was resulting in an increased utilization 1 of the site, and increased fish production.
2  MR. HERNANDEZ:  Hello, my name is Jason 3 Hernandez, and I will address why restoration is no 4 longer a valid measure.
5  For 20 years PSEG has claimed that the 6 exorbitant cost of conversion make a closed cycle 7 cooling system an untenable option. The New Jersey 8 DEPA has accordingly allowed PSEG to rely on 9 mitigation practices, in order to counter the negative 10 effects of the continued operation of their cooling 11 system, on fish.
12  Since 1993, the DRN has addressed several 13 concerns with the mitigation practices proposed by 14 PSEG, including real data showing that the restoration 15 plans are simply not working.
16  Whereas the 2009 Supreme Court Decision in 17 Entergy Corp. v Riverkeeper, Inc., held that the cost 18 benefit analysis was an appropriate measure in 19 determining the best available technology for cooling 20 methods, it has not overturned the previous 2007 21 decision, in which it determined that after the fact 22 restoration measures are not appropriate for 23 addressing the environmental impacts highlighted by 24 Section 316-B.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3 9  This means that going forward the failed 1 restoration measures at Salem should not count as 2 valid means of minimizing adverse environmental 3 impacts. 4  MS. BROWN:  In conclusion, it is clear 5 that under the Clean Water Act, the location, design, 6 construction, and capacity of cooling water intake 7 structures must reflect the best technology available 8 for minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
9  In order to properly address the extreme 10 and negative effects that the continued use of the 11 cooling system has on aquatic life, within the area, 12 Delaware Riverkeeper Network believes that the 13 relicensing of the Salem Nuclear facility must require 14 a conversion to closed cycle cooling systems, and 15 should end the practice of so-called mitigation to 16 changes necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act.
17  Thank you for your consideration of these 18 comments.
19  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you for your 20 comments, and very well coordinated. Again, that was 21 Ms. Elizabeth Brown, followed by Ben Wharton, Cristina 22 Matteliano, Jane Charles-Voltaire, Jason Hernandez, 23 and then close-out by Ms. Brown, again, representing 24 Delaware Riverkeeper. Thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 0  Next we will have Mr. Charles Hassler, 1 followed by Jane Nogaki, and then after that Chris 2 Davenport.
3  MR. HASSLER:  Good afternoon. My name is 4 Charles Hassler, and I'm here today to speak in 5 support of the relicensing process of Salem and Hope 6 Creek. 7  I am a lifetime resident of Salem city. I 8 have also worked at the plant for over 34 years, and I 9 currently hold the position of business agent, for the 10 IBEW Local 94.
11  I'm also a member of the New Jersey IBEW, 12 who are both on record as supporting the relicensing 13 process. 14  For several years the workers have 15 performed their duties to very high standard, 16 resulting in the units running at a very high 17 capacity, outages being more efficient, and processes 18 and procedures continually being upgraded.
19  This is an important issue to consider, 20 when you are looking at adding years of operation and 21 maintenance to the plant. Management is committed to 22 both radiological and personal safety of all 23 employees, and the general public.
24  Their production of electricity is vital 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 1 to the state of New Jersey, and the region, both now 1 and in the future. It is needed to meet demands for 2 reliable delivery to businesses and to residential 3 customers.
4  It is a production free of greenhouse 5 gases, which is important when we talk about global 6 warming. Nuclear power has to be part of a sound 7 national energy policy.
8  We know that relicensing is not open-9 ended, though. The NRC will continue to monitor the 10 plants for continued safe operation. And if 11 discrepancies are found, you do have the ultimate 12 power to make sure they are fixed, or at worst, shut 13 these plants down.
14  Thank you for the opportunity to speak 15 today. 16  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Mr.
17 Hassler. Next we will have Ms. Jane Nogaki, followed 18 by Chris Davenport. And after that, again my 19 apologies, Bob Molzahn. I hope I'm at least close.
20  MS. NOGAKI:  Good afternoon, my name is 21 Jane Nogaki, I represent the New Jersey Environmental 22 Federation, the state's largest environmental 23 organization with over 100,000 members, and 100 24 membered groups.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 2  We oppose PSEG's application for 1 relicensing the three nuclear plants at the Salem 2 site, as the Garden State Chapter of Clean Water 3 Action, we oppose nuclear power in general, because it 4 is unsafe, unsustainable, and unnecessary.
5  We also oppose the building of a fourth 6 nuclear plant at the Salem site. And let me just 7 pause to acknowledge that while we recognize the 8 stewardship of the important economic viability that 9 PSEG contributes to this county, and to the state, to 10 the dedication of the workers, professionalism, 11 nevertheless it is this means of power that we 12 dispute, and not the credibility of the workers, or 13 the management of the plant.
14  The Environmental Federation believes that 15 conservation, efficiency, and sustainable energy 16 sources, such as wind power, solar power, and wave 17 power, should be invested in, rather than federally 18 subsidizing nuclear energy and fossil fuels.
19  America will never wean itself from 20 unsustainable coal, nuclear, and natural gas energy, 21 until alternatives are aggressively supported. If the 22 playing field were leveled, whether by eliminating all 23 subsidies, or providing equal subsidy, wind, solar, 24 and efficiency would out-compete nuclear and coal 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 3 plants every time.
1  Governor Christie has committed to much 2 more aggressive implementation of the strong goals 3 contained in the 2007 Global Warming Response Act, and 4 the 2008 Energy Master Plan.
5  For example, 25 percent renewable by 2025, 6 a renewable portfolio standard, and 20 percent by 2020 7 energy efficiency portfolio standard.
8  These efforts provide the path to a safe, 9 clean, reliable green energy future, and a fourth 10 plant at Salem is not part of that path.
11  Specific to Salem and Hope Creek the 12 existing three nuclear plants produce radioactive 13 waste that remains a danger for thousands of years 14 into the future.
15  This nuclear waste has outgrown its spent 16 fuel pools, and is now contained in above-ground dry 17 cask storage sheds. How much more waste will be 18 produced by relicensing the three nuclear plants for 19 another 20 years?
20  With no future in sight for a permanent 21 safe storage site, other than on-site, in the Lower 22 Alloways Creek. It pretty much dooms that area, 23 forever, to be a nuclear waste dump that will never go 24 away, it will always be a residual radioactive hazard 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 4 in Salem County.
1  Further, the safety hazard associated with 2 the malfunction and potential release of toxic 3 radiation, into the vicinity of the three nuclear 4 plants, would only be exacerbated by the aging of the 5 facilities.
6  Aging of the facilities is a significant 7 environmental concern, it is a maintenance problem, 8 but it can have very severe environmental impacts.
9  Tritium leaks at the Salem reactors have 10 occurred, despite redundant safeguards, and are an 11 indication that the safety culture at the plant, and 12 that the preventive maintenance, were a significant 13 improvement.
14  Recent EPA internal documents have raised 15 a concern that in the case of a major nuclear 16 accident, or release, it is unclear whether the 17 Federal Government, and the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission, would have the authority and the finances 19 to clean up a radioactive release to the environment.
20  Would the EPA be in charge of overseeing a 21 cleanup, and would the regulations, under the 22 Superfund Act apply?  Would the NRC, or PSEG, care to 23 answer that question, as a part of their relicensing 24 process? 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 5  I think the public has a right to know who 1 would be paying for such a clean up, and who would be 2 supervising it, and if the money is set aside to do 3 so. 4  It doesn't bode well that the NRC 5 recently, in a case nearby, in Newfield, New Jersey, a 6 shieldalloy radioactive dump site , the NRC recently 7 gave jurisdiction for the New Jersey DEP to oversee a 8 cleanup of that radioactive waste in Newfield.
9  Then challenged the court decision, 10 successfully, to gain back control of the site, when 11 it was clear that the New Jersey DEP's cleanup would 12 direct the waste to be shipped to a radioactive waste 13 disposal site in another state, instead of being left 14 on-site.
15  The NRC, against all local public opinion, 16 and the opinion of DEP scientists, wanted to contain 17 the nuclear waste in Newfield, that being the cheaper 18 option. 19  The NRC is not an agency that the public 20 has confidence in, to protect the environment, because 21 often or in most every case, go for the cheapest 22 solution, and that is not always the safest.
23  Salem 1 and 2 are also huge consumers of 24 water, for cooling, as well as Delaware Riverkeeper 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 6recently attested to, in their testimony, killing 1 three billion fish a year through entrainment and 2 impingement.
3  I read the Draft Supplemental 4 Environmental Impact Statement, according to their own 5 permit renewal application, it states that one-sixth 6 of the production of the Delaware River is being lost 7 to impingement and entrainment in the facility.
8  And, furthermore, the application states 9 that between 2000 and 2006, the fish loss from 10 impingement and entrainment were 2.4 million alewifes, 11 87 million croaker, two thousand million bay 12 anchovies, 14 million striped bass, 32 million weak 13 fish, and that is just a partial list.
14  At the same time PSEG stated that 15 increased production of fish, from restored salt hay 16 farms, is estimated at 2.3 times the annual production 17 lost from impingement and entrainment at Salem.
18  PSEG did not evaluate the fish populations 19 at the phragmites sites. Although I'm not a 20 scientist, I find it hard to believe that restoration 21 mitigates the fish loss.
22  But even if it did, it does not make up 23 for the years of damage done to the ecosystem before 24 the salt hay farms were restored to Wetlands, nor does 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 7it offset the continuing loss of fish, on a daily 1 basis, from the once-through cooling system.
2  As part of the Stop the Salem Fish 3 Slaughter, and Unplug Salem Coalition, the New Jersey 4 Environmental Federation has called on PSEG to install 5 cooling towers, at Salem 1 and 2, to reduce the fish 6 loss and protect the estuary, the Delaware River.
7  If PSEG is not willing to spend the money 8 to install cooling towers, and protect the fisheries 9 and estuary of the Delaware River, when cooling towers 10 would obviously provide the best technology available 11 to protect the ecosystem, how are we to trust that 12 they will maintain their plants for the next 20 years 13 using the safest methods, using the best available 14 technology.
15  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Ms. Nogaki, let me --
16 I don't want to interrupt. But let me give you a 17 couple of options, because we do have some other 18 speakers, and you have kind of gone over the time.
19  So let me do this. First of all, you 20 know, you can submit your entire statement for the 21 record, so we will have it. If you do want to 22 complete your statement, it looks like we will have 23 time after all of the registered speakers, if you want 24 to come back and finish.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 8  MS. NOGAKI:  I will do that.
1  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Okay, all right, 2 thank you.
3  MS. NOGAKI:  Let me just note where I left 4 off here. I will just have a couple of paragraphs, 5 but I will finish.
6  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Okay, thank you.
7 Next we will have Chris Davenport, followed by Bob 8 Molzahn, and then Mr. Paul Davison.
9  MR. DAVENPORT:  I'm Chris Davenport, I'm 10 going to speak for my non-profit organization, even 11 though I haven't run it by our board, you know how 12 that works, it would be too slow.
13  And then I'm going to speak personally. I 14 work as the Executive Director of Stand Up for Salem, 15 and Salem Main Street Program, in Salem City. I have 16 been doing that for the past 11 years.
17  And we have a positive bias towards PSEG.
18  And I will just tell you the four main reasons for 19 that. Myself, as an economic development 20 professional, I have seen what PSEG has done for the 21 county, in terms of jobs, taxes, assistance, and the 22 retail and the wholesale purchases by the company, and 23 employees.
24  I have seen that on the city level of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 9Salem City, jobs, retail support. As a community 1 development worker I have seen PSEG benefit Stand Up 2 for Salem, in our efforts to help Salem City on 3 different levels.
4  On just the financial level they have 5 helped us when we started our organization, in 1988, 6 they have helped us when we restarted our organization 7 in 1999, as a Main Street Program.
8  They sponsor events that would not happen 9 otherwise, such as our annual block party in town, our 10 B-B-Que fest, other fund raisers, special events, the 11 clean up of Peterson Park in town, and assistance in 12 community planning grants, that help us in Salem.
13  We have also had the benefit of PSEG 14 employees on our Board, on our committees, outside on 15 company time, and outside of company time, helping us 16 to do things we would not be able to do without them.
17  Thirdly, we recently awarded PSEG Stand Up 18 for Salem, our highest community service award we 19 could give, which is the Peterson Campbell award, an 20 annual award for the contributions to Stand Up for 21 Salem, and the Salem City community.
22  Lastly, PSEG was a chief corporate entity 23 to make possible our current application to the state 24 for what is called an NRTC, Neighborhood 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 0Revitalization Tax Credit Program, which was the only 1 company to step up and help us with that.
2  If we are awarded that, which we are 3 optimistic about, we will have funds to be able to, 4 for the first time, directly assist Salem City 5 residents neighborhood improvement, which is sorely 6 needed. 7  So as an organization we wouldn't be here, 8 I wouldn't be here without PSEG.
9  On a personal level, quickly, I came to 10 Salem City about 11 years ago, from New York City. I 11 sleep better here in Salem City, than I did in New 12 York City.
13  I do not feel unsafe being in the 14 immediate vicinity of the Salem nuclear plant. This 15 is because of the different reasons, going back to 16 growing up, I had a science teacher come to our high 17 school science class, and talk about nuclear power.
18  That convinced me that it was safe. I 19 went to college, in the college of the shadow of Three 20 Mile Island in Pennsylvania. College I was never 21 worried about that.
22  And my parents lived near the Shoreham 23 Plant in Long Island. If anyone knows about the 24 Shoreham Plant, it never actually happened because of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 1 the excitability of the community.
1  I got to see, first-hand, from my parents 2 living there, the loss of potential jobs that that 3 plant -- I know this is not why we are here, but I got 4 to see what that county missed out on, by not having 5 the jobs there.
6  And so going back to myself, I feel safe, 7 I'm not a nuclear expert. I feel safe because I have 8 a personal knowledge of numerous PSEG employees, PSEG 9 leadership. They are my friends, they are my 10 neighbors.
11  The closest PSEG employee lives about two 12 houses away from me in Salem City. And so I have -- I 13 generally feel safe, and I'm in the shadow of the 14 plant to some extent.
15  In conclusion, last summer, in 2009 --
16 this is an anecdotal story. There was a tremendous 17 jolt to Salem County, and Salem City. I mean, 18 literally, a jolt.
19  The ground and buildings literally shook, 20 and I was on Main and Broadway on Salem. We heard 21 many -- we didn't know what happened. The building we 22 were in shook.
23  We started to depend on unofficial reports 24 on what had happened. We went outside. Word on the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 2 street, after a few minutes and phone calls, was --
1 there were different rumors.
2  And the first explanation was that a 3 refinery tank exploded in Delaware. The second was 4 that an industrial accident in Pennsville. And then, 5 thirdly, someone was sure that it was a plane crash.
6  As it turns out it was, actually, an 7 earthquake. Which no one, including me, had thought 8 remotely possible. And it just occurred to me, that 9 another idea, which no one thought remotely possible, 10 was that it could be the nuclear power plant, because 11 as an outsider you would think we would be worried 12 about that in Salem City.
13  We weren't and we are not. So the next 14 time we feel a jolt, we will think about the 15 possibility of an earthquake, before we think about 16 the possibility of something happening with the 17 island. That is how safe we feel.
18  So that is my organizational support for 19 this license renewal, and personal support for the 20 license renewal.
21  The only other thing I would say is that 22 when you get your license renewed, if you could just 23 try to get a better picture than I, myself, was able 24 to get on the last license I got. Just advice.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 3  So other than that, thank you.
1  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Mr.
2 Davenport. Next we will have Bob Molzahn, followed by 3 Mr. Paul Davison. And our final registered speaker is 4 Richard Horowitz.
5  MR. MOLZAHN:  Good afternoon. My name is 6 Robert Molzahn, and I'm President of the Water 7 Resources Association of the Delaware River basin, or 8 WBRA. 9  WBRA is a 501-C3 non-profit organization, 10 which was established in 1959, by representatives from 11 industry, the public, private utilities, and other 12 organizations that had wide-ranging interests in water 13 resources, and sought to ensure public participation 14 in the management of the Delaware River and its 15 tributaries.
16  WBRA is interested in this relicensing 17 effort by PSEG for Salem and Hope Creek, because the 18 three nuclear units are major users, and they are all 19 located within the Delaware River basin, and are an 20 important part of the economy of New Jersey, and the 21 region as a whole.
22  And, for our organization, the water 23 related impacts are, really, of prime concern. At a 24 recent public meeting that the NRC held on a proposed 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 4new nuclear unit at the site, I commented on the 1 importance of providing sufficient electrical 2 generation to meet the energy needs of New Jersey 3 residents and businesses.
4  The existing three nuclear units at the 5 Salem site, and their continued operation, are 6 essential for New Jersey's well-being, since the 7 amount of electrical energy consumed in the state 8 exceeds the capacity of electrical generation located 9 within the state by almost 30 percent.
10  Although renewable energy projects, such 11 as wind and solar, can contribute to the state-wide 12 shortfall, and available generation capacity, they do 13 not operate on a 24/7 day basis, and have their own 14 set of significant and often understated environmental 15 impacts.
16  Nuclear generation is a clean and green 17 option, as compared to fossil fuel power plants, 18 especially those burning coal. They have no green 19 house gas emissions, such as CO2 or methane, no SO2 or 20 NOX emissions, that would contribute to acid rain, or 21 nitrification of our waterways, and no mercury 22 emissions that could detrimentally affect aquatic life 23 in the Delaware River and Bay.
24  They also produce no coal ash byproducts 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 5that could impact ground or surface waters and 1 landfills.
2  In reviewing the PSEG license renewal 3 application, and the Draft Environmental Reports, 4 including PSEG's 2006 permit renewal application, we 5 focused on the impacts of the intake and cooling 6 systems of the existing units, and especially the 7 once-through cooling systems in Salem 1 and 2.
8  We were especially concerned about the 9 possible impact of the Salem plant on the composition, 10 diversity, and abundance of fish species in Delaware 11 bay, and the region in general. That is the coastal 12 region in general.
13  The issue is near and dear to me, because 14 I spent about a decade of my early career, almost 15 beginning 40 years ago, as a fishery biologist, 16 investigating the impacts of power plants on the 17 aquatic community, so I have a long history with 18 looking at these types of impacts.
19  That being said, we are pleased to see 20 that extensive studies have continued to be conducted 21 by the state environmental agencies, and PSEG, over 22 several decades to determine the plant's impact.
23  I think some of those studies began in 24 1966, when I was back in college. From the data and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 6analysis presented for the post-1986 operational 1 period, including the rare faction trends, and 2 richness trends, there does not seem to be any long-3 term trend that could be considered adverse for these 4 indicators.
5  Moreover the species density curve seems 6 to indicate an improvement in the post-1986 7 operational period. In summary, the data supports 8 PSEG's conclusion that there has been very little 9 change in the fish community, in the vicinity of 10 Salem, since the start-up of the plant in 1978.
11  With 20 years of additional sampling, the 12 diversity of fish species present, in the vicinity of 13 Salem, as measured both by the species' richness, and 14 the species' density metrics, is generally higher than 15 during the 1970s.
16  But there is no evident long-term trend.
17 These results support the conclusion that the station 18 operations have not adversely affected the composition 19 of the Delaware Estuary fin fish community.
20  The pre-operational and operational 21 species' lists are virtually identical. Another test, 22 for the Salem plant, is whether it balanced indigenous 23 population of fish and shellfish, as being maintained 24 despite the plant's operations.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 7  Although this is a complicated issue to 1 assess, and comment on at this hearing, PSEG's data 2 collection efforts, and analyses seem to be thorough, 3 deliberate, and complete.
4  They noted, in their conclusions, that 5 statistically significant increases in abundance were 6 found for Alewife, american shad, atlantic croaker, 7 striped bass, wheat fish, white perch, and blue crab.
8  The fact that most populations have 9 increased, during the period of Salem's operations, 10 appears to demonstrate that there has been no 11 continuing decline in the abundance of aquatic 12 species. 13  PSEG also assessed the impact of Salem on 14 a long-term sustainability of fish stocks, using 15 generally accepted models that are widely used in 16 fishery science and management.
17  The objective of this assessment was to 18 determine whether, compared to known effects to fish, 19 on fish populations, the future impact of Salem 20 operation could jeopardize the sustainability of any 21 of these stocks.
22  The stock jeopardy analyses showed that 23 for all the important harvested species, the 24 incremental effects of Salem are negligible small, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 8 compared to the effects of fishing.
1  Their conclusion, which we agree with, is 2 that reducing or eliminating entrainment and 3 impingement at Salem will not measurably increase the 4 reproductive potential, or spawning stock biomass of 5 any of these species.
6  Consumptive water use is another important 7 issue on the Delaware River basin, especially during 8 drought periods. Although the plant is located in the 9 saline estuary, fresh water is still evaporated by the 10 cooling towers and, thereby, consumed.
11  During declared drought emergencies the 12 fresh water consumed should be replaced in an 13 appropriate ratio, by using water from the Merrill 14 Creek reservoir, near Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
15  PSEG, along with several other electric 16 generation companies, are co-owners of Merrill Creek, 17 and water released from Merrill Creek, compensates for 18 their consumptive use, and holds the salt line from 19 encroaching on the Philadelphia water intakes.
20  WRA recognizes that PSEG has demonstrated 21 a long-standing commitment to the environment, and to 22 their credit, has been a national leader in the 23 electric utility industry, for emphasizing 24 environmental sustainable solutions in their 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 9 operations.
1  WRA also recognizes that PSEG's award 2 winning Estuary Enhancement Program was specifically 3 developed and implemented to restore, as we heard, 4 about 20,000 acres of wetlands. And I don't think the 5 importance of this restoration efforts can be 6 underestimated.
7  In summary, WRA believes that PSEG, using 8 sound science, and all -- and certainly all of the 9 studies that they have done, has met the burden of 10 proof, showing that the operation of the Salem and 11 Hope Creek units is not having a significant impact on 12 the ecology.
13  And, therefore, we hope that the renewal 14 application will be approved. And that concludes my 15 remarks, thank you.
16  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Mr.
17 Molzahn. Next we have Mr. Paul Davison, followed by 18 our last registered speaker, Richard Horowitz.
19  MR. DAVISON:  Thank you, Mr. Burton, and 20 good afternoon.
21  Again, my name is Paul Davison, I'm the 22 vice president of operations support for PSEG Nuclear.
23  I'm also part of the leadership team responsible for 24 the safe operation of both Salem and Hope Creek 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 0 stations.
1  I also happen to be the executive sponsor 2 for the license renewal application. On behalf of 3 PSEG Nuclear, we look forward to today's public 4 meetings, and the opportunity to continue to work with 5 the NRC, as well as the public, on our license renewal 6 application for an additional 20 years of operation of 7 both sites.
8  In addition to our assessment, and as part 9 of the Environmental Protection Agency, the NRC hosted 10 two public meetings in November 2009, to discuss the 11 scoping of its license renewal Supplemental 12 Environmental Impact Statement, for both stations.
13  The NRC also spent a week at the station, 14 earlier this year, gather in plant-specific 15 documentation, related to the '92 industrial -- excuse 16 me, industry wide environmental issues associated with 17 the license renewal process.
18  During the plant visit the NRC put special 19 emphasis on the 21 plant-specific attributes.
20 Multiple interviews and tours were made at the 21 station, as well as the surrounding community.
22  The process has led to the NRC's recent 23 publication of its Draft Supplemental Environmental 24 Impact Statement. Since this meeting is to discuss 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 1that impact statement, I would like to make a few 1 comments on PSEG's positive environmental impacts.
2  In addition to producing no green house 3 gases, the Salem and Hope Creek plants have led to no 4 radiological impact, adverse impact, on the 5 environment.
6  The NRC requires that PSEG Nuclear as well 7 as all United States nuclear power plants, to maintain 8 an environmental monitoring program. We are closely 9 monitored by New Jersey's Department of Environmental 10 Protection's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering.
11  The Bureau of Nuclear Engineering 12 independently monitors the local environment around 13 our site, through a remote monitoring system that 14 provides live-time data.
15  This sampling and monitoring has shown no 16 adverse impact to the environment. We are also proud 17 of our stewardship of the Delaware Estuary, through 18 our Estuary Enhancement program.
19  This program involves the ongoing 20 restoration, enhancement, and preservation of more 21 than 20,000 acres of degraded salt marsh, and the 22 adjacent uplands within the estuary.
23  Studies show that overall health of the 24 estuary continues to improve. In addition analysis of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 2long-term fish populations, in the estuary, shows that 1 in most cases populations are stable, or increasing.
2  And that fish population trends are 3 similar to other areas along the coast. We also 4 recognize our impact on the local community, 1,500 5 local employees work at the site, including 40 percent 6 directly from Salem County.
7  The purchase of goods and services, 8 totaling more than 81 million dollars, from south 9 Jersey businesses, and more than 2 million dollars a 10 year in local property taxes.
11  We support dozens of local organizations, 12 and have launched innovative partnerships, with local 13 schools, to develop training and educational programs, 14 to provide career opportunities for local residents.
15  Having said all of that, our relationship 16 with the community is something that we do not take 17 for granted. With them there are no surprises. We 18 proactively engage in the community.
19  When there is a plant issue we directly 20 communicate with our local communities, so that they 21 can have their questions directly answered by us.
22  We operate within a safety and 23 transparency culture. This year we have provided more 24 than 35 site tours for stakeholder groups, close to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 3600 elected officials, educators, students, community 1 and trade groups, have been given an inside look to 2 PSEG Nuclear.
3  What better way to answer questions than 4 to let people look, first-hand, at the important role 5 of nuclear power. Earlier this year we opened our new 6 Energy and Environmental Resource Center, housed at 7 our old training facility, on Chestnut street, in 8 Salem. 9  This new information center uses 10 interactive displays to educate the public about 11 climate change, and the various ways that we can all 12 have a positive impact on our environment. To date 13 more than 3,000 people have toured the state of the 14 art facility.
15  In closing, PSEG Nuclear looks forward to 16 continuing to work with the NRC, and the public, as 17 you review our license renewal application, and the 18 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
19  We have worked hard to provide safe, 20 reliable, and economic, and green energy, for more 21 than 30 years. And we certainly look forward to the 22 opportunity to build on that success in the future.
23 Thank you.
24  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Mr.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 4Davison. Finally, our last registered speaker is Mr.
1 Richard Horowitz.
2  DR. HOROWITZ:  Good afternoon, I'm Dr.
3 Richard Horowitz, lead scientist in the fishery 4 section of the Patrick Center for Environmental 5 Research.
6  The Patrick Center is part of the Academy 7 of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. I'm pleased to 8 have this opportunity to comment, briefly, on the 9 environmental aspect of PSEG application for 10 relicensing of the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear 11 facilities.
12  My testimony will focus on the 13 environmental aspects of the PSEG current operations, 14 and the anticipated impacts as a result of 15 relicensing.
16  The Academy of Natural Sciences is one of 17 the oldest natural history institutions in America.
18 For over 60 years we have been engaged in ecological 19 research, particularly on understanding interactions 20 between humans, and the natural environment.
21  The Patrick Center is an inter-22 disciplinary scientific research institute, that 23 specializes in assessing human environmental impacts, 24 especially as related to water sheds, wetlands, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 5 rivers, and streams.
1  In that role we have done extensive 2 research on the physical and biological 3 characteristics of the Delaware Estuary, including 4 some components of PSEG projects in the Delaware 5 watershed.
6  For over 20 years the Academy has acted, 7 in an advisory capacity, to monitor and evaluate the 8 impact of various PSEG projects on the Delaware. My 9 testimony is based on the observations we have made, 10 in that time, particularly of PSEG's efforts to reduce 11 environmental impacts.
12  There is no -- in the natural systems of 13 the Delaware River and estuaries, are critical 14 environments with major significance for both regional 15 and global biodiversity, for regional water supply, 16 and water quality, and for supporting important 17 economic activities.
18  In carrying out its operations, on the 19 Delaware River, PSEG has been mindful of the 20 significant potential environmental impacts of its 21 operations.
22  There is no indication that major changes 23 will be made in the physical configuration, or 24 operations, at the Salem sites. So existing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 6 conditions provide a basis for analyzing environmental 1 impacts for future plant operations.
2  One of the major concerns regarding 3 operation of the plants has been the potential 4 negative impacts on fisheries, and other aquatic 5 resources by cooling water intake operations, 6 particularly at Salem.
7  To address these concerns PSEG implemented 8 changes in the intake structures to reduce impingement 9 and entrainment, used a series of accepted fisheries 10 analysis, to demonstrate that entrainment and 11 impingement does not lead to significant environmental 12 impacts.
13  Notably, they did this evaluating 14 alternative hypotheses, concerning various causes of 15 trends in fish populations, and adverse impacts by the 16 plant was not the supported hypothesis.
17  PSEG extended its estuarine monitoring 18 programs, and developed the Estuary Enhancement 19 Program to mitigate entrainment and impingement 20 losses. 21  Begun in 1984, now the largest private 22 program in the world, for wetlands restoration, the 23 EEP has restored, enhanced and/or preserved, more than 24 20,000 acres of salt marsh, and adjacent uplands, to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 7 vital healthy habitat for fish and wildlife.
1  The EEP has had beneficial impacts on 2 portions of the Delaware estuary, throughout south 3 Jersey, and Delaware, and encompasses more than 32 4 square miles.
5  Restoration efforts have included 6 replacing former salt hay farms and marshes, dominated 7 by invasive phragmites australis, with other native 8 plant species typical of undisturbed coastal marshes.
9  Phragmites, and invasive reed grass, is 10 often found in disturbed marsh areas, where plant 11 communities, hydrology and topography have been 12 altered. 13  Phragmites displaces native plants, and 14 has a negative impact on biodiversity. The Estuary 15 Enhancement Program has been successful in greatly 16 reducing phragmites abundance, restoring typical salt 17 marsh conditions at the site, with establishment of 18 salt core grass, and other native species as dominant 19 vegetation.
20  The EEP has also conducted numerous 21 monitoring studies to determine success of 22 restoration. And to determine whether additional 23 restoration or activities, and has implemented actions 24 to increase restoration success.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 8  The Academy studied many of the EEP sites, 1 prior to restoration, and we visited a number 2 afterwards. Among other improvements, of restored 3 sites, tidal flow, and development of tidal channels 4 have increased, allowing for recolonization of salt 5 core grass and other species.
6  The restored marshes support large numbers 7 of fish, and invertebrates, including target species.
8  These populations contribute to bay productivity, 9 most notably at the Salt Hay Farms, which were part of 10 the EEP efforts.
11  The restoration sites also support 12 terrapins, birds, mammals. For example, several sites 13 are part of New Jersey Audubon designated important 14 bird areas.
15  In addition to ecological restoration, the 16 EEP has had important benefits for the community with 17 the development of recreational, and educational 18 opportunities, by developing increased opportunities 19 for people to experience and interact with the 20 estuary. 21  This has included improved access to many 22 restoration sites, and other sites, by land and water, 23 with boat access and parking.
24  Public use areas were designed to meet the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 9 general education public access, and ecotourism 1 interest of each community hosting an EEP site.
2  PSEG has also installed fish passage 3 structures at dams in Delaware and New Jersey. The 4 fish ladders have established river herring spawning 5 and nursery areas, and several impoundments, 6 increasing bay wide populations of these species.
7  The extensive monitoring programs, at 8 Delaware bay fish populations, greatly increases our 9 knowledge of Delaware bay fisheries. The restored 10 areas have also become significant research sites, and 11 research by EEP and other organizations, has advance 12 our knowledge of tidal marsh ecology.
13  The basic restoration activities, 14 particularly controlling phragmites, and fostering 15 development of tidal marsh topography, and hydrology, 16 have advanced the field of ecological restoration.
17  The ecological engineering techniques of 18 forming primary channels, and using estuarian 19 processes to further develop channels and topography 20 is especially notable.
21  As such the Estuary Enhancement Program 22 has provided important models for marshland 23 restoration.
24  The Academy commends PSEG on its 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 0 demonstrated initiative, and long-term commitment to 1 restoring critical wetlands of the Delaware estuary.
2 The Estuary Enhancement Program has numerous positive 3 impacts on the ecology, and biodiversity to the 4 region, and has made important contributions to the 5 recreational and educational opportunities available 6 to the local communities.
7  We anticipate that the relicensing of the 8 Salem plants will not have a significant additional 9 impact on the aquatic resources of the Delaware 10 estuary. 11  The programs that PSEG has developed, to 12 mitigate potential impacts, will continue to provide 13 substantial benefits for fisheries of the Delaware, 14 and will offset the ecological impacts of the 15 operation of the plants.
16  Finally, although this does not relate, 17 directly, to the environmental impacts of PSEG's 18 operations, I would note that climate change 19 represents the single greatest environmental threat of 20 this century.
21  Development of low carbon energy sources, 22 and reduced energy use are critical to the future of 23 human society, and economy. Many experts have 24 indicated that nuclear power represents a viable 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 1alternative, in the short-term, and must be part of 1 any mix of conservation and new energy sources that 2 are used to make the transition to a zero carbon 3 future. 4  The overall carbon footprint of nuclear 5 plants must consider the total energy imbedded, 6 throughout the construction process, and energy cost 7 of operations, and energy utilized to develop raw 8 materials.
9  As existing plants, imbedded energy 10 associated with construction has been expended. We 11 would expect that the carbon footprint of the 12 continued operation of the plants would be 13 significantly lower than conventional energy sources, 14 and similar to, or lower than, newly developed 15 renewable energy sources.
16  Let me conclude by saying that I have had 17 the opportunity to observe PSEG's operations for a 18 number of years, and I'm impressed by their 19 willingness to respond to environmental constraints in 20 their planning.
21  They have embraced ecological science as a 22 planning tool, for engineering, and have been 23 proactive in seeking the guidance of experts, to 24 reduce their ecological impacts.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 2  The Estuary Enhancement Program represents 1 a long-term commitment to the region, and its natural 2 resources. And I would expect that commitment to 3 continue with relicensing. Thank you.
4  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Mr. Horowitz was our 5 last registered speaker. At this point I wanted to 6 open it up, if there is anyone who hasn't spoken, 7 already, who would like to make a comment, anyone?
8  (No response.)
9  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Then, with that, I'm 10 going to go back, quickly, to Ms. Nogaki. Did you 11 want to finish your statement?
12  MS. NOGAKI:  Yes, I just have a couple 13 more points.
14  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Okay. And, again, 15 anyone who wants to leave a written statement, you can 16 leave it with Mr. Johns, our transcriber, and it will 17 be there for the record.
18  MS. NOGAKI:  Jane Nogaki, again, from New 19 Jersey Environmental Federation.
20  Just to finish up my statement, I refer 21 again to the concern about the restoration project 22 using herbicides as a method of phragmites control, 23 that introduced over 22,000 pounds of glyphosate into 24 the estuary, in an effort to control phragmites.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 3  Granted that in the salt hay farms, where 1 tidal inundation was used as a measure to restore 2 wetlands, that was a rather effective method to get 3 spartina to regrow, and phragmites to diminish.
4  But in the areas that were phragmite 5 dominated, that weren't salt hay farms, that were 6 higher elevation, and lower salinity, it has taken 7 repeated annual applications of herbicide to control 8 the phragmites, applications that continue to this 9 day, and will continue, probably two more years.
10  And after that I'm sure that they are 11 going to continue even after that. It doesn't seem to 12 be a sustainable method, or an ecological method of 13 restoration, and we strongly object to that.
14  PSEG has said that they can't afford to 15 build a fourth nuclear plant without massive federal 16 subsidies. They have also made a commitment to wind 17 and solar power, and we believe that PSEG needs to do 18 more in this area, rather than proposing a fourth 19 nuclear plant.
20  I wanted to raise a couple of issues that 21 I was taking notes on, as I read through the document, 22 the Supplemental EIS. And a lot of the problems, and 23 issues that I brought up in my testimony on May 3rd, 24 including sea level rise, climate change, tritium in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 4 groundwater, radioactive releases to the atmosphere.
1  A lot of those issues have been discussed 2 in the Environmental Impact Statement, but dismissed 3 as being small. Small, okay?  And, yet, in the 4 Environmental Impact Statement it says that the water 5 withdrawal from the combined two nuclear stations, and 6 Hope Creek, is combined to the total withdrawal of all 7 other industrial, power, and public water uses in the 8 Delaware estuary, in Delaware, New Jersey, and 9 Pennsylvania.
10  These plants are this single largest user 11 of water in the river system, in three states. Again, 12 their combined use of water exceeds all other 13 industrial uses combined.
14  And I just don't think that that impact 15 can be called small. If that is not large, I don't 16 know what large is. How large does it have to be to 17 be considered a large impact?
18  The comparison in millions of gallons, 19 between Hope Creek and Salem 1 and 2, is orders of 20 magnitude. The numbers are so large that I would have 21 to write them on the board, and I might do that, 22 because I can't even -- you know, is it trillions of 23 billions?  I'm not sure.
24  And the other thing that I wanted to raise 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 5 was that while the tritium issue in groundwater is 1 said to have been addressed, and that the leak has 2 been fixed, and there is no longer going to be an 3 issue with it, and that the tritium levels in 4 groundwater are decreasing, and that the source was a 5 spent fuel pool water leak.
6  I'm concerned that if a leak happened 7 once, it can happen again. And with the aging 8 infrastructure, you know, the pipes that are replaced 9 every few years, you know, because they start to leak, 10 because they are made of metal, the salinity in the 11 area, to concrete structures which will leak.
12  I'm not assured that this isn't going to 13 happen again. And so I think that the tritium issue 14 should not be considered small, the impact should not 15 be considered small.
16  Also there was a section, in section 4 on 17 -- although the executive here says that there are no 18 environmental impacts, adverse impacts from emissions 19 from the plant, that there are no green house gases 20 emitted, there is low levels of radioactive effluents 21 emitted to the air and water. Low levels.
22  These effluents are considered small.
23 Again, radioactivity isn't something that disappears 24 by itself. And I'm concerned that over a cumulative 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 6period of time, that these air emissions, and 1 effluents going into the river, could build up, and 2 begin to build up a residual in the plant life, the 3 fish populations, the sediments of the river.
4  There was a calculation that said that 5 these effluents do not exceed the human criteria, 6 which is 25 millirems. It gave a calculation of what 7 the actual emissions are.
8  But I cannot really understand these. So 9 I would like them to be written in a way that they 10 compare to the 25 millirems, because how it was 11 expressed, the actual emissions, was 7.26 times ten to 12 the minus three millirems.
13  That doesn't really tell me, you know, 14 what that compares to, to the 25 millirems analysis.
15 And so I would like that clarified. And that if these 16 exposures are going to be calculated, that they be 17 done in such a way that it is more transparent to the 18 general public.
19  So I think that concludes the points that 20 I wanted to bring up. The point about sea level rise, 21 the point about climate change is, actually, 22 acknowledged in the Environmental Impact Statement, to 23 be more significant than some of the other issues that 24 I think are equally significant.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 7  And so I just want to dispute the findings 1 of the impact statement that says that these concerns 2 about tritium, radioactive emissions, cooling water 3 loss, you know, I don't consider those issues small, 4 at all. 5  Thank you.
6  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Thank you, Ms.
7 Nogaki, I appreciate it.
8  Second call for any additional comments, 9 for the record?
10  (No response.)
11  FACILITATOR BURTON:  Hearing none, I'm 12 going to ask Mr. Bo Pham to, who is our senior agency 13 official, to close us out.
14  MR. PHAM:  Hello, my name is Bo Pham, I'm 15 a branch chief at the headquarters branch for 16 performing the license renewal review for Salem and 17 Hope Creek.
18  I just want to thank you, everybody, for 19 coming out and providing comments. We got a lot of 20 good comments heard today, and I just want to give you 21 an idea of what is going to happen next.
22  The Staff has been receiving some 23 comments, already, and as part of the public meeting 24 your comments are on the transcript.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS  1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 8  The Staff will be gathering those, and 1 from there, look through all the comments, fully 2 consider the comments. We may sometimes agree, 3 sometimes disagree, but in any case, we will be fully 4 considering all the comments that were provided, and 5 we will go ahead and prepare the final EIS that Leslie 6 had indicated that we will be issuing in March of 7 2011. 8  So, once again, thank you very much. The 9 Staff, most of us will be here for a few minutes after 10 the meeting, if you have any questions that we can 11 address for you. I want to thank you again.
12  (Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the above-13 entitled matter was concluded.)
14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25}}

Latest revision as of 05:36, 13 November 2019

Transcript of Public Meetings Conducted to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Review of the Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Applica
ML103400276
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 11/17/2010
From:
Division of License Renewal
To:
Perkins L, NRR/DLR/RPB1 415-2375
Shared Package
ML103400283 List:
References
NRC-553, FOIA/PA-2011-0113
Download: ML103400276 (79)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: License Renewal for Salem Units 1 and 2 Hope Creek Generating Station Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number: 50-272, 50-311, 50-354 Location: Woodstown, New Jersey Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Work Order No.: NRC-553 Pages 1-78 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +

4 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5 PUBLIC MEETING 6 + + + + +

7 PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP NUCLEAR 8 LICENSE RENEWAL FOR SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 9 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 10 + + + + +

11 Wednesday.

12 November 17th, 2010 13 + + + + +

14 Woodstown, New Jersey 15 + + + + +

16 The Public Meeting was held at 1:30 p.m.,

17 at the Salem County Emergency Services Building, 135 18 Cemetery Road, Woodstown, New Jersey, William Burton, 19 Facilitator, presiding.

20 APPEARANCES:

21 WILLIAM BURTON 22 LESLIE PERKINS 23 MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ 24 BO PHAM 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2 1 A-G-E-N-D-A 2 WELCOME AND PURPOSE OF MEETING 3 Facilitator William Burton ......................... 3 4 OVERVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 5 Leslie Perkins ..................................... 7 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................... 15 7 CLOSING COMMENTS 8 Bo Pham ........................................... 77 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 1:30 p.m.

3 FACILITATOR BURTON: I think we will get 4 started, it is 1:30. I want to try to be prompt.

5 Welcome, everyone. My name is William 6 Burton, in my normal duties I'm a Branch Chief in the 7 Office of New Reactors, at the NRC. But this 8 afternoon I will be serving as your Facilitator, and I 9 will be assisted by Mr. Mike Rodriguez, over on the 10 side.

11 I wanted to welcome you. We are here, the 12 purpose of this evening's meeting is to take comments 13 from the public on the Staff's Draft Supplemental 14 Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared in 15 support of the Staff's review of the license renewal 16 application, submitted by Public Service Enterprise 17 Group Nuclear, or PSEG Nuclear, in support of its 18 request for a license renewal for Salem Units 1 and 2, 19 and the Hope Creek Generating Station1.

20 Now, I do want to say this up front. My 21 name is William, but I prefer Butch, so everyone 22 knows. William was my granddaddy, okay?

23 I want to talk a little bit about the 24 format of this afternoon's meeting. It is the first 25 of two meetings that we are going to be having today.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4 1 And each meeting is going to be broken up into three 2 parts.

3 The first part we are going to give you 4 the preliminary findings of the Staff's Environmental 5 Review, followed by a short period, where you will 6 have an opportunity to ask questions about some of the 7 information that you heard, or the Environmental 8 Review process conducted by the Staff.

9 And we do have some folks here, from the 10 Staff who, hopefully, will be able to answer your 11 questions.

12 The third part, which is the main part of 13 the meeting, is where we are going to listen to you, 14 as you provide comments to us, on some of the findings 15 that we had in our review.

16 So that is the general format. A couple 17 of things, if you want to provide a comment, we do ask 18 that you sign one of the yellow cards that we have in 19 the back, and we will make sure that we get you up, 20 and you can provide your comment.

21 If any of you need copies of the slides 22 that are going to be used this afternoon, there are 23 copies in the back, to make sure that you can -- does 24 anyone need copies? It looks like, I guess, 25 everyone's got them.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 1 Also we have some copies of the Draft 2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, that is a 3 mouthful, I'm going to call it the DSEIS from now on, 4 so that you will know what I'm talking about.

5 We do have a few copies. If you don't get 6 a copy, and you would like to get a copy of the 7 report, you can always go to the NRC's website and you 8 can access the report there.

9 And I think in the meeting announcement, 10 it did give the URL where you can get that.

11 This afternoon's meeting is being 12 transcribed. Mr. Ed Johns, in the back, will be 13 transcribing this meeting. Also, we are always trying 14 to improve the quality of our public meetings. So 15 also, in the back, there are feedback forms that we 16 really encourage you to let us know what you think 17 about how the meeting went, areas for improvement, we 18 are always looking for those kind of helpful comments.

19 A little bit of logistics. For those of 20 you who may not know, behind me, through these doors 21 and to the right are the rest rooms. If some of you 22 are too embarrassed to go this way, there is another 23 se of -- it is a coed rest room, I need to say that, 24 make that clear.

25 On the other side, if you go through here, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

6 1 past the other door, hang a left, and that rest room 2 is on the right. Should we need to evacuate, for some 3 reason, we are going to ask that everyone muster in 4 the front, where you came in, so you can go back down 5 the stairs where you came in.

6 You can also leave, again, through these 7 double doors, there is a door to the left, stairs 8 down. You will be in the back, but we would like for 9 everybody to muster in the front. Should that happen, 10 and hopefully it won't, we will know what to do.

11 Electronic devices, you have heard this 12 before. Anything that beeps, and all that kind of 13 stuff, please turn it off, or mute it, or put it on 14 vibrate, that would be appreciated.

15 Because we are transcribing the meeting, 16 we do want to try to minimize side conversations. I 17 have been through a number of these, and these 18 microphones pick up every little thing.

19 So if we can minimize the side 20 conversations that would be very helpful, it would 21 help us to have a clean transcript.

22 Last thing is we are going to hear 23 comments, from speakers, who have very different views 24 and opinions about this project and, perhaps, nuclear 25 power in general.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

7 1 We do ask that everyone just be respectful 2 of everyone else. Even if someone is saying something 3 that you may not personally agree with, we do ask that 4 everyone give everyone an opportunity to speak their 5 mind.

6 And with that, any questions about the 7 format, or the logistics?

8 (No response.)

9 FACILITATOR BURTON: Everyone is good with 10 that, okay.

11 Well, I'm going to introduce our speaker, 12 Ms. Leslie Perkins, who is the lead environmental 13 project manager for this review. She has been with 14 the NRC for about four years now.

15 And before taking over this license 16 renewal application review, she was actually one of 17 the project managers overseeing the review of the 18 ESBWR New Reactor design, over in the Office of New 19 Reactors.

20 So she was kind enough to help out the 21 license renewal team, over here, and picked up the 22 lead for the Environmental Review. And with that I 23 will turn it over to Leslie.

24 MS. PERKINS: Good afternoon. Again, my 25 name is Leslie Perkins, and I am the environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 1 project manager for Hope Creek and Salem license 2 renewal reviews.

3 Today I'm going to give you the results of 4 the NRC's review of the site-specific issues related 5 to the proposed license renewal of Hope Creek 6 Generating Station, and Salem Nuclear Generating 7 Station, Units 1 and 2.

8 I will discuss the NRC's regulatory role, 9 environmental issues and areas that were addressed and 10 our findings. I will also give our schedule for 11 receiving comments on our Environmental Impact 12 Statement, as well as for completing our final 13 Environmental Impact Statement.

14 At the end of the presentation there will 15 be time for you to present your comments. For those 16 of you who would prefer to send in your comments, I 17 will explain some options for doing so.

18 The NRC was established to regulate 19 civilian uses of nuclear materials, including 20 applications that produce electric power.

21 The NRC conducts license renewal reviews 22 for plants whose owners wish to operate them beyond 23 their initial license period.

24 The NRC's license renewal reviews address 25 safety issues related to managing the effects of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9 1 aging, and environmental issues related to an 2 additional 20 years of operation, as well as any 3 potential major refurbishment activities the public 4 owner, or operator, may undertake during or in 5 preparation for additional 20 years of operation.

6 An aspect of the NRC's regulation, our 7 mission is three-fold. To ensure adequate protection 8 of public health and safety, to promote common defense 9 and security, and to protect the environment.

10 In this meeting I will discuss the 11 potential site-specific impacts of license renewal for 12 Hope Creek and Salem. The site-specific findings are 13 contained in the Draft Supplemental Environmental 14 Impact Statement that the NRC Staff published on 15 October 21st of 2010.

16 This document contains analyses of all 17 applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review 18 of issues common to many or all nuclear power plants.

19 The issues for which environmental impacts 20 are the same, across some, or all, nuclear power plant 21 sites, are discussed in the Generic Environmental 22 Impact Statement.

23 The NRC staff reviewed these issues to 24 determine whether the conclusions, in the Generic 25 environmental impact statement are still valid for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

10 1 Salem and Hope Creek.

2 The NRC staff also reviewed the 3 environmental impacts of potential alternatives to 4 license renewal. To determine whether the impacts, 5 expected from license renewal, are unreasonable, in 6 comparison to other power generation options.

7 An earlier part of this review was the 8 scoping period. During this period the NRC solicited 9 comments concerning what to focus the review on.

10 The comments received, during this period, 11 and the responses to those comments, are addressed in 12 Appendix A of the Draft Environmental Impact 13 Statement.

14 The comments were grouped into categories 15 shown in the second bullet on this slide. This slide 16 is a continuation from the previous slide, showing the 17 categories that the comments were placed in.

18 This slide lists the environmental issues 19 the NRC staff reviewed for Salem and Hope Creek during 20 the proposed license renewal period.

21 Overall the direct and indirect impact, 22 from license renewal, on all these issues, were found 23 to be small. Which means that there was some 24 noticeable impact, but not enough to cause any 25 permanent alterations to the ecology or the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11 1 environment.

2 Next slide, please. As part of its NEPA 3 review, which is the National Environmental Policy 4 Act, the Staff also looked at the potential cumulative 5 impacts associated with Salem and Hope Creek.

6 These impacts include the effects on the 7 environment from other past, present, and reasonable 8 foreseeable future of human actions. It is important 9 to note that these impacts may not even be related to 10 relicensing of Salem and Hope Creek.

11 Nevertheless, the intent of NEPA is that 12 an agency be cognizant of, and ready to be able to 13 disclose all the environmental impact activities 14 within the proximity of its action.

15 This slide provides a summary of our 16 findings, with respect to the cumulative impacts.

17 Overall, the one reasonable foreseeable action, in the 18 near future, is the potential for PSEG to proceed with 19 its request to construct additional reactors on-site.

20 Which, as you can see, expands the range 21 of potential impacts for socio-economic, aquatic, and 22 terrestrial resources.

23 We did note, in the Supplemental 24 Environmental Impact Statement, however, that the 25 specific impacts of that future activity is also being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

12 1 captured, and reviewed, in a separate Environmental 2 Impact Statement by the NRC.

3 Our staff has been working closely, with 4 the Office of New Reactors, to make sure we coordinate 5 and capture the relevant information within scope.

6 Next slide, please. A major step in 7 determining whether license renewal is reasonable or 8 not, is comparing the likely impacts of license 9 renewal with the alternatives, including other methods 10 of power generation, and not renewing Salem and Hope 11 Creek operating licenses.

12 In the Draft Environmental Impact 13 Statement the NRC staff considered super-critical coal 14 fired generation, natural gas combined cycle 15 generation, new nuclear generation.

16 And, as part of the combination 17 alternative, conservation and efficiency, natural gas 18 combined cycle generation, and solar power.

19 Finally, as required by NEPA, the NRC also 20 considered the case of no-action alternative, which 21 equates to no license renewal of Salem and Hope Creek 22 at the end of their licenses.

23 The Staff found that the impacts, from the 24 energy alternatives, would vary widely based on the 25 characteristics of the alternatives.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1 In most cases, construction of new 2 facilities created significant impacts. Overall the 3 NRC staff concludes that continued operation of 4 existing Hope Creek Generating Station, and Salem 5 Nuclear Generating Station, is the environmentally 6 preferred alternative.

7 Next slide, please. Based on a review of 8 likely environmental impacts from license renewal, as 9 well as potential environmental impacts of 10 alternatives to license renewal, the NRC's preliminary 11 recommendation, and the Draft Environmental Impact 12 Statement, is the environmental impacts of license 13 renewal, for Hope Creek Generating Station, and Salem 14 Nuclear Generating Station, are not so great that 15 license renewal would be unreasonable.

16 Next slide, please. The Environmental 17 Review, however, is not yet completed. Your comments, 18 today, and all written comments received, by the end 19 of comment period on December 17th, will be considered 20 by the NRC Staff as we develop our Final Environmental 21 Impact Statement, which is scheduled to be issued 22 March 2011.

23 The Final Environmental Impact Statement 24 will contain the Staff's final recommendation, on the 25 acceptability of the license renewal, based on work NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

14 1 that we have already performed, and the input 2 received, in form of comments, during the comment 3 period.

4 Your comments can help change the Staff's 5 findings in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

6 Next slide, please.

7 I'm the primary contact for the 8 Environmental Review, and Bennett Brady is the primary 9 contact for the Safety Review. Hard copies of the 10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement are on the back 11 table, as well as CDs.

12 In addition, the Salem Free Library has a 13 hard copy available for the public to review. You can 14 also find electronic copies of the Draft Supplement, 15 along with other information related to Hope Creek and 16 Salem license renewal, on-line.

17 Next slide, please. The NRC staff will 18 address written comments in the same way we will 19 address the spoken comments received today.

20 You can submit written comments, by email, 21 to either one of the email addresses, listed on the 22 slide, or you can send in your comments by mail.

23 You can also submit your comments at 24 regulation.gov and just search the docket numbers. If 25 you have written comments, this afternoon, you may NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

15 1 give them to any NRC staff member.

2 Thank you, and that concludes my 3 presentation. I will turn it back over to Butch.

4 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Leslie.

5 Okay, we are going to go into the next part of the 6 meeting. If anyone has any questions about anything 7 that they heard during Leslie's presentation, or how 8 the Staff performed its Environmental Review, we 9 wanted to take those now, if anyone has anything.

10 We have a question. And please give your 11 -- yes, we will certainly do our best, and please give 12 us your name.

13 MS. NOGAKI: My name is Jane Nogaki, from 14 New Jersey Environmental Federation. And I'm looking 15 at the cumulative impacts slide that talks about 16 preliminary findings being small to large for 17 cumulative impacts and socio-economics small to 18 moderate cumulative impacts on aquatic resources, and 19 moderate cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources, 20 small impacts on all other areas.

21 What made the determination that moderate 22 impacts would happen on terrestrial resources, and 23 what terrestrial resources were you talking about, 24 animals, humans, do you want to answer that?

25 FACILITATOR BURTON: First of all, can we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

16 1 get that slide up so that people can see?

2 MR. PHAM: This is Bo Pham, I'm the branch 3 chief for license renewal for Salem and Hope Creek.

4 Actually we don't have all the technical staff that 5 did the review for terrestrial, here today.

6 But I can say, broadly, that the range, 7 the staff tried to encompass the impact of the 8 construction that would occur if PSEG were to go 9 forward with constructing new units at the site.

10 So I don't have the specific list of the 11 terrestrial species of concern but, obviously, with 12 any razing of the ground, or alteration for a 13 construction site, there are impacts associated with 14 that.

15 FACILITATOR BURTON: And, Bo, would some 16 of that detail, that would address her question, would 17 that be in the DSEIS?

18 MR. PHAM: That is a good comment for us 19 to address as part of the DSEIS, basically.

20 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you. Other 21 questions? Just one.

22 (No response.)

23 FACILITATOR BURTON: Leslie did such a 24 fantastic job in her presentation, that there are no 25 other questions, just the one.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

17 1 Well then, with that, we will go into the 2 main part of today's meeting, which is where the Staff 3 will listen to your comments on their preliminary 4 findings that are documented in the Draft Supplemental 5 Environmental Impact Statement.

6 So what we will do, we have several people 7 who have filled out yellow cards, and some who have 8 pre-registered. And so we are going to -- what I'm 9 going to do is I will call out the next speaker, and 10 the next two speakers, so people will have a chance to 11 know when they are on deck, okay?

12 So we will start with Ms. Julie Acton, 13 Salem County Freeholder, followed by Dr. Peter, and I 14 forgive everybody now, if I mispronounce names. Dr.

15 Peter Contini, President of Salem Community College, 16 followed by Mr. Otis Sistrunk, member of the 17 community.

18 MS. ACTON: Good afternoon. I'm a member 19 of the Salem County Board of Chosen Freeholders. I'm 20 coming before you, this afternoon, to know that PSEG 21 Nuclear is a valuable asset to our county.

22 Not only are they a great community 23 partner, but they are the county's largest employer.

24 A majority of their employees are local residents, who 25 live in our community.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18 1 In tough economic times PSEG Nuclear 2 provides an example of integrity and commitment to 3 positive growth, that we all need to see.

4 PSEG takes a very proactive role in 5 developing positive relationships with members of the 6 Salem County community. Whether it is providing 7 funding and support to local community groups, or 8 attending community events.

9 They are always demonstrating their 10 commitment to Salem County's proud heritage, and 11 bright future.

12 We understand the hesitation of those 13 within and surrounding our county, towards PSEG 14 Nuclear. Their concerns regarding safety, and plant 15 performance, are valid.

16 However, PSEG Nuclear has consistently, 17 and without hesitation, demonstrated its commitment to 18 safety and excellence, through proper planning and 19 transparency.

20 Furthermore, they have not only been a 21 partner, but a leader in this county, in this area of 22 conservation of our environment.

23 With unemployment in the county hovering 24 around 12 percent, the economic possibilities of this 25 expansion cannot be underestimated. I hope that PSEG NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

19 1 will have your support to move forward, as they 2 already have our support as a valued partner in this 3 community.

4 I support PSEG Nuclear, and the renewal of 5 their operating license. Thank you for your time.

6 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Ms. Acton.

7 We will have Dr. Peter Contini, I got it right this 8 time, followed by Mr. Otis Sistrunk, and after that 9 Carlos Parada. I hope I got that right. I got it 10 right, okay.

11 DR. CONTINI: Good afternoon. As 12 indicated, I'm Peter B. Contini, President of the 13 Salem Community College, a position I have held for 14 more than 13 years.

15 And I'm here, today, to support the 16 application for renewal and extension of the licenses 17 for Salem Units 1 and 2, as well as Hope Creek. And I 18 certainly endorse the preliminary conclusions drawn by 19 the staff of the NRC.

20 Over this period of time that I have been 21 in Salem County I have had an opportunity, first-hand, 22 on a variety of opportunity and situations to really 23 observe the commitment of PSEG Nuclear to the quality 24 of life of Salem County and its region.

25 Key among those is safety. And I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 1 those of us who work closely with them realize that 2 they are there to, certainly, ensure their safety of 3 their employees but, also, the safety of our 4 community.

5 And that they are not just looking to 6 meet, but to exceed standards. Their support of the 7 community organizations, which you heard Freeholder 8 Acton speak to, is quite obvious to us.

9 They are a key role and player in a group 10 called the Partners of Salem County, Stand-Up for 11 Salem, the Revitalization of our Treasure, Salem City.

12 And, certainly, things such as the United Way, and 13 other organizations.

14 They are an open organization. Open 15 contention at every level, is the experience that we 16 have. And so no matter what the issue may be, they 17 are there to understand and appreciate the position of 18 the community and, at the same time, realize the 19 commitment they have to the community.

20 In the educational venue it is pretty 21 obvious, as you go across this county, whether it is 22 in our K-12 system, whether it is dealing with our 23 vocational school district, Ranch Hope, a treasure 24 that we do have here in our county that deals with 25 young men who have many challenges, and certainly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

21 1 Salem Community College.

2 We see their hand, and their guidance, and 3 their support at every level. On a very specific 4 level, Salem Community College is proud to be a 5 partner with PSEG Nuclear in the acquisition of a 6 significant grant, that has been provided by the U.S.

7 Department of Labor, it is called the Community Based 8 Job Training Grant that allowed us, through their 9 support, to acquire 1.7 million dollars, over three 10 years, to bring the opportunity for work force 11 development, and certainly the expansion of economic 12 development in our county.

13 Through this grant a major thread of this 14 is a creation of a nuclear energy technology program, 15 an Associate Degree, that is bringing the opportunity 16 to many individuals, both within our county, and 17 within the region, to focus on the area of maintenance 18 of instrumentation and controls.

19 We are not only benefiting from the grant, 20 but also the direct involvement with PSEG Nuclear, 21 through their resource center, a house and facilities 22 are state of the art, provided equipment, and also 23 internships and scholarships.

24 Through them, and with their collaboration 25 at the national level, through the Nuclear Energy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

22 1 Institute, we are now one of six community colleges in 2 the country that are working to ensure that the 3 curriculum and the standards for expectation of 4 employees are consistently forged across the country.

5 Currently we are only one of six, as I 6 said, colleges working on this. And we expect that 7 this will grow and be used as a standard across the 8 country.

9 There are over 85 students currently 10 enrolled in our NET program. And we are proud to tell 11 you that this past spring we graduated four of our 12 first students, three of which qualified for a highly 13 regarded, first in the country, award of certification 14 from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, 15 commonly referred to as INPO.

16 We see this as an opportunity to continue 17 to grow in the field of nuclear energy. And, as a 18 result, we have just recently applied for an NRC 19 grant, to allow us to expand into the unlicensed 20 operator area, as well as electrical maintenance.

21 It is for these reasons and, obviously, 22 the facts of the influence that this industry has in 23 our county, and our region, that I hope that this 24 grant -- that they will be granted the extension that 25 they well deserve, and that we will see the continued NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

23 1 progress of PSEG Nuclear in Salem County. Thank you.

2 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Dr.

3 Contini. If you notice I didn't put a -- try to put a 4 restriction on the time frame for people to speak.

5 That was because we are running ahead of schedule.

6 And, judging by the number of speakers 7 that we had at that point, it looked like we could be 8 fairly liberal about that. If I get a flood of folks 9 who do want to comment, I may need to restrict the 10 time.

11 But, so far, it looks like people are 12 running about five minutes, and I think that is pretty 13 doable, so we will try to stay on that.

14 So next is Mr. Sistrunk, followed by Mr.

15 Parada. And then, after that, we will have Elizabeth 16 Brown.

17 MR. SISTRUNK: Good afternoon. Aside from 18 being the best-dressed gentleman in the room this 19 afternoon, I stand before you as a Salem County 20 resident, for just under 30 years.

21 I have been fortunate enough to have 22 worked for a Salem County company for the past 23 23 years, where I'm the manager of safety, health, and 24 environmental.

25 So this goes right to the heart of what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

24 1 has become my profession. And I can say, beyond a 2 shadow of doubt, and with a lot of confidence, that 3 PSEG Nuclear certainly is a leader in that area.

4 Additionally, in the county, I also have 5 had the privilege to have served on many 6 organizations, United Way of Salem County, Dr. Contini 7 mentioned that earlier.

8 I was a Chairman of the Board for a couple 9 of years, and worked hand in hand with several of the 10 PSEG employees. And a lot of folks talk about focus 11 on it, and rightfully so, and give accolades for the 12 financial contributions that a company like PSEG 13 Nuclear provides.

14 But I think, just as important if not more 15 important, is the contribution in the forms of the 16 talent of their employees, that they give to 17 organizations like United Way of Salem County.

18 Additionally, I am the current chairman of 19 the Educational Foundation for the Salem County 20 Votech. And, again, PSEG Nuclear is right there at 21 the table.

22 And because of efforts like theirs, and 23 companies like them, we have been able to give out 24 over 150,000 dollars in scholarships to needy 25 students.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

25 1 And that money helps provide uniforms to 2 students registered in the culinary arts program, and 3 the medical assistance program. And those kids, they 4 cost money, and a lot of families can't afford them.

5 So food and generosity of PSEG Nuclear and 6 companies like them, were able to do those kinds of 7 things.

8 Lastly, I will share this quick story with 9 you. A lot of folks don't know this about me. When I 10 first came out of high school, I went to high school 11 in Salem County, but I came out of high school, I 12 didn't go right to college, I went to work.

13 And I worked at a little gas station, 14 right in the middle of Salem. A lot of you, on your 15 way to the island, you might notice that there is a 16 gas station at the red light there, Griffer Street.

17 And I was pumping gas there. And a 18 gentleman, my mother always told me, no matter what it 19 is that you do, Otis, always be the best. So I was 20 the best. Cars would pull in, I would wash the 21 windows, pump the gas, say how are you doing, good 22 morning.

23 And there was a gentleman who worked at 24 the island. He would come in there once or twice a 25 week, he would see me work and he would say, boy you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

26 1 have a great attitude, you ought to come down and put 2 an application and come down and work down at the 3 island for a contractor.

4 And I did that, it was in the maintenance 5 department. And I went down, and I worked on the 6 island, on the Salem side, and I was a janitor. And I 7 was the best janitor I could be.

8 I can say I went there about a year or two 9 ago, as part of a visit with the Chamber of Commerce, 10 and I saw how clean the floors were, and I had a --

11 you know, good work lasts forever.

12 But the point that I'm trying to make is 13 that I believe that, you know, when you stand out 14 amongst your peers, you should be recognized.

15 PSEG their peers are other nuclear plants 16 throughout the country. And for a year and a half, 17 when I left Salem, I had an opportunity, I went and 18 worked with this contractor, at other nuclear plants 19 around the United States.

20 So I have been to plenty of them, Indian 21 Point, Oyster Creek, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, some of the 22 NRC folks, I'm sure you are familiar with some of 23 those names.

24 And I can tell you, wholeheartedly, having 25 had that experience, and able to look at other nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

27 1 plants, I know they do a good job, by comparison, in 2 my personal opinion, having cleaned a lot of floors at 3 nuclear plants in my time, and worked with people, and 4 looking at the leadership, and the security, and the 5 professionalism, to this day it was a great feeling 6 for me to go back there as part of a tour with the 7 Chamber of Commerce, last year, to see that those same 8 values are still there today.

9 So I wholeheartedly support the renewal of 10 their application, and I certainly thank you for this 11 opportunity to get up and make these comments today, 12 thank you.

13 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Mr.

14 Sistrunk. Next we will have Carlos Parada, followed 15 by Elizabeth Brown. And, after that, Charles Hassler.

16 MR. PARADA: Good afternoon. My name is 17 Carlos Parada. I'm a mechanical maintenance supervisor 18 at the Hope Creek generating station. I have been 19 working there for almost three years now.

20 And I wanted to come here, today, and 21 voice my support for the license extension for the 22 Hope Creek and Salem Generating Stations.

23 I'm a member of a group at Hope Creek and 24 Salem, called the North American Young Generation of 25 Nuclear Power. And I wanted to share my experience, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

28 1 as to why young people join Nuclear Power, and what I 2 have seen, in the short time that I have been at Hope 3 Creek.

4 Like many of my peers I became familiar 5 with nuclear power through my service in the military.

6 I did a six year stint in the Navy, where I was 7 trained as an operator in nuclear power plants.

8 And after that I wanted to learn a little 9 bit more about the industry, so I went to college, and 10 I studied hard, and I got a couple of degrees. And 11 PSEG was kind enough to offer me a position right out 12 of school.

13 And when I came down here, the position 14 that I was appointed to was in an organization called 15 Nuclear Oversight. And it is something that I wasn't 16 familiar with. It is a department within PSEG that 17 specializes on doing nothing but checking up on 18 everyone else.

19 And what is amazing to me is how open 20 everyone is that to that particular job at Hope Creek.

21 In other words, when I came to look everyone's 22 shoulder, everyone welcomed me, they asked me, can we 23 make a -- can we give you any information about what 24 is going on?

25 And they really wanted everyone to know NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

29 1 that the work that they were doing was high quality, 2 it was safe, and that they were following all 3 appropriate procedures and guidelines.

4 And after I did that, for about a year, I 5 was offered a position in maintenance, and since then 6 my experience, from actually working with the workers, 7 has actually reinforced my feeling that at Hope Creek, 8 and at Salem, they really care about nuclear safety.

9 Now, it is spoken about every day, at the 10 morning briefs. It is emphasized at every job they 11 do, and it is something that we really care about 12 deeply.

13 And for young professionals, who are 14 starting out our careers, something like this, the 15 license renewal of these sites, is very important.

16 And it is something that we are strongly in favor.

17 Thank you very much.

18 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Mr.

19 Parada. Next will be Ms. Elizabeth Brown, followed by 20 Charles Hassler, and I'm going to have to apologize 21 Cristina Matteliano. Did I get that right? All 22 right, very good.

23 So all of you are together. I have 24 several speakers altogether. All right.

25 MS. BROWN: Hi, good afternoon. My name is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30 1 Elizabeth Brown, I'm a director of Strategic 2 Initiatives at the Delaware River-Keeper Network.

3 I want to thank the Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission, and the Salem County Emergency Services 5 Department, for hosting this meeting today, and for 6 the public outreach that they are conducting, with 7 regard to the Salem relicensing process.

8 With me, today, are several student 9 interns from Temple University's Beasley School of 10 Law, who will assist me in delivering Delaware River-11 Keeper Network's comments.

12 Today we will focus on Delaware 13 Riverkeeper Network's concern about the relicensing of 14 the Salem facility, due to continued detrimental 15 environmental effects that the facility's cooling 16 water intake structures have on the aquatic life in 17 the Delaware River.

18 While we recognize that the New Jersey 19 Department of Environmental Protection has permitting 20 authority over Clean Water Act, Section 316-B, the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be aware of the 22 regulatory landscape in this area.

23 And DRN will be submitting more detailed 24 written comments regarding the Supplemental 25 Environmental Impact Statement that has been prepared NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

31 1 during the written comment period.

2 A closed-loop cooling system, at the Salem 3 Nuclear facility would circulate a similar total 4 volume of water, as once-through cooling, but would 5 only withdraw a limited amount of water to replace 6 evaporative loss and blowdown.

7 Section 316-B, of the Clean Water Act, 8 requires that the location, design, construction, and 9 capacity of cooling water intake structure, reflect 10 the best technology available for minimizing adverse 11 environmental impacts.

12 Adverse environmental impacts are 13 interpreted, by EPA, to mean the impingement, 14 mortality of fish, and shell fish, and their 15 entrainment of their eggs and larvae.

16 EPA implemented three rulemaking phases 17 for 316-B. The phase one rule was promulgated in 18 2001, and covered new facilities. The phase two rule 19 was promulgated in 2004, and covered large existing 20 facilities. And the phase 3 rule, in 2006, covered 21 certain existing facilities, and offshore oil and gas.

22 Extensive litigation followed the 23 promulgation of the phase two rule. Following a 24 decision, in Riverkeeper v EPA, out of the Second 25 Circuit, EPA suspended the cooling water intake NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

32 1 structure regulations for existing large power plants.

2 Of course, the Second Circuit decision was 3 challenged to the Supreme Court in 2009. However, the 4 Second Circuit Decision held, in part, that the use of 5 restoration measures, as a means of compliance, is not 6 authorized under 316-B of the Clean Water Act, a 7 decision which was not disturbed by the subsequent 8 Supreme Court opinion.

9 EPA is now looking to combine, and re-10 promulgate rules for all existing cooling water intake 11 structure facilities. In the meantime EPA noting 12 that, with so many provisions of the phase 2 rule 13 affected by the Second Circuit decision, the rule 14 should be considered suspended.

15 And it developed the following policy.

16 All permits for phase 2 facility should include 17 conditions, under Section 316-B, of the Clean Water 18 Act, developed on the best professional judgement 19 basis.

20 As noted, the phase 2 rule was appealed to 21 the Supreme Court. In 2009 the High Court held that 22 the Agency may consider cost benefit analysis in 23 choosing among regulatory options.

24 But it did not hold that the Agency must 25 consider it. According to certain industry NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

33 1 predictions, EPA has signal concerns with using a cost 2 benefit analysis.

3 EPA's new rulemaking is expected to set 4 significant new national technology-based performance 5 standards to minimize adverse environmental impacts.

6 Current industry predictions expect EPA to favor 7 performance commensurate with cooling towers.

8 This regulatory process, combined for 9 phases 2 and 3, is anticipated quite soon. A revised 10 draft rule is expected by February 2011, and a final 11 rule by July of 2012.

12 It is imperative that any relicensing 13 effort, at Salem, must take these recent developments, 14 and any subsequently promulgated rules, into account.

15 The two major aspects of the 316-B 16 regulatory framework that concern the Delaware 17 Riverkeeper Network at Salem the use of once-through 18 cooling, and the use of restoration measures at the 19 site.

20 MR. WHARTON: My name is Benjamin Wharton, 21 and I will address once-through cooling impacts. The 22 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, for Salem, determined 23 BTA to continue to be once-through cooling based on, 24 one, the reduction of permitted intake flow of Salem 25 to its maximum actual operating capacity.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

34 1 Two, intake screen modifications, and 2 three, a feasibility study for a sound deterrent 3 system. Yet the Salem Nuclear Generating Station 4 kills over three billion fish in the Delaware River 5 every year, taking a huge toll on the living resources 6 of the Delaware River.

7 But in seeking to argue that its adverse 8 environmental impacts are limited, the plant has, 9 consistently, underestimated these numbers by two-fold 10 or more.

11 The idea that three billion fish, killed 12 per year, is not great enough adverse environmental 13 impact to affect the license renewal process, is 14 simply untenable and absurd.

15 MS. MATTELIANO: My name is Cristina 16 Matteliano, and I will be addressing why closed cycle 17 cooling should be adopted.

18 While the EPA declined to mandate closed 19 cooling systems, it did set national performance 20 standards, which require a nuclear plant to reduce its 21 fish kills by 80 to 95 percent over the baseline. And 22 those are found on the Code of Federal Regulations.

23 Section 316-B of the Clean Water Act 24 requires that cooling water intake structures utilize 25 the best technology available for minimizing adverse NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

35 1 environmental impact.

2 While making the decision on whether to 3 implement cooling technology, in a nuclear plant, cost 4 benefit analysis is permissible. However, that cost 5 benefit analysis must be made based on reliable data.

6 PSEG has overextended the data used in 7 this analysis. It has grossly underestimated the 8 actual total loss of biomass in the Delaware River 9 fisheries.

10 Due the conversion of the cooling system 11 to the best technology available, as required by the 12 Clean Water Act, the Salem facility could reduce its 13 fish kills to 95 percent, by converting to closed 14 cycle cooling towers, or to 99 percent, if using a dry 15 cooling system.

16 PSEG has not shown that the cost of 17 installing a closed cycle cooling system outweigh the 18 benefits. The cost of a closed cooling system is 19 estimated at 13 dollars a year per rate payer.

20 This is offset by the millions, even 21 billions of fish which could be saved as a result of a 22 closed cooling system. The resulting benefits to the 23 fishing industry will also offset the cost of the 24 cooling system.

25 MS. CHARLES-VOLTAIRE: My name is Jane NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

36 1 Charles-Voltaire, and I will address why restoration 2 is not working.

3 In an effort to mitigate its impact, in 4 1996, NJDP issued an NJD permit, with special 5 conditions, including a wetland restoration and 6 enhancement program, fish ladder project, and 7 biological monitoring program.

8 PSEG is required to engage in the wetlands 9 initiative until 2012, in New Jersey, and 2013 for 10 Delaware wetlands. The purpose of the restoration 11 program was to enhance the production of fish, in the 12 estuary, in an effort to offset losses of fish 13 associated with entrainment and impingement at the 14 cooling water intake structure.

15 In other words, to mitigate the harms 16 caused by once-through cooling. However, PSEG's 17 wetlands restoration experiment, fails to meet the 18 requirements of the Clean Water Act.

19 The experiment has resulted in over 22,000 20 pounds of herbicide to be dumped over valuable wetland 21 resources. PSEG has failed to demonstrate that this 22 experiment provides any environmental benefit.

23 The fact remains that there has been no 24 demonstrated increase in abundance, values, 25 represented as important fish species. And, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

37 1 importantly, PSEG has not shown that the wetlands will 2 sustain themselves once the herbicide treatment has 3 ended.

4 This mitigation project is a clear 5 failure, and in no way offsets the millions, the costs 6 of millions of fish lost each year as a result of 7 PSEG's failure to install a closed cooling system.

8 DRN commissioned a 2003 study that 9 reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the 10 wetland restoration project, in increasing fish 11 production, based on the success of the established 12 plant community, plant densities, invasion by 13 phragmites, and other invasive species, utilization of 14 marshes by fish, and the potential for the marshes to 15 increase fish populations in the estuary.

16 With regard to wetlands restoration 17 efforts, the DRN study concluded that although some 18 phragmites reductions were achieved, the 19 sustainability of that reduction was dependent on 20 annual herbicide treatment, and the true success of 21 the program could not be determined until herbicide 22 treatment, and marsh manipulation efforts, such as 23 burning, were discontinued.

24 With regard to fish response, the study 25 did not support the assertion that phragmites NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

38 1 eradication was resulting in an increased utilization 2 of the site, and increased fish production.

3 MR. HERNANDEZ: Hello, my name is Jason 4 Hernandez, and I will address why restoration is no 5 longer a valid measure.

6 For 20 years PSEG has claimed that the 7 exorbitant cost of conversion make a closed cycle 8 cooling system an untenable option. The New Jersey 9 DEPA has accordingly allowed PSEG to rely on 10 mitigation practices, in order to counter the negative 11 effects of the continued operation of their cooling 12 system, on fish.

13 Since 1993, the DRN has addressed several 14 concerns with the mitigation practices proposed by 15 PSEG, including real data showing that the restoration 16 plans are simply not working.

17 Whereas the 2009 Supreme Court Decision in 18 Entergy Corp. v Riverkeeper, Inc., held that the cost 19 benefit analysis was an appropriate measure in 20 determining the best available technology for cooling 21 methods, it has not overturned the previous 2007 22 decision, in which it determined that after the fact 23 restoration measures are not appropriate for 24 addressing the environmental impacts highlighted by 25 Section 316-B.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

39 1 This means that going forward the failed 2 restoration measures at Salem should not count as 3 valid means of minimizing adverse environmental 4 impacts.

5 MS. BROWN: In conclusion, it is clear 6 that under the Clean Water Act, the location, design, 7 construction, and capacity of cooling water intake 8 structures must reflect the best technology available 9 for minimizing adverse environmental impacts.

10 In order to properly address the extreme 11 and negative effects that the continued use of the 12 cooling system has on aquatic life, within the area, 13 Delaware Riverkeeper Network believes that the 14 relicensing of the Salem Nuclear facility must require 15 a conversion to closed cycle cooling systems, and 16 should end the practice of so-called mitigation to 17 changes necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act.

18 Thank you for your consideration of these 19 comments.

20 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you for your 21 comments, and very well coordinated. Again, that was 22 Ms. Elizabeth Brown, followed by Ben Wharton, Cristina 23 Matteliano, Jane Charles-Voltaire, Jason Hernandez, 24 and then close-out by Ms. Brown, again, representing 25 Delaware Riverkeeper. Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

40 1 Next we will have Mr. Charles Hassler, 2 followed by Jane Nogaki, and then after that Chris 3 Davenport.

4 MR. HASSLER: Good afternoon. My name is 5 Charles Hassler, and I'm here today to speak in 6 support of the relicensing process of Salem and Hope 7 Creek.

8 I am a lifetime resident of Salem city. I 9 have also worked at the plant for over 34 years, and I 10 currently hold the position of business agent, for the 11 IBEW Local 94.

12 I'm also a member of the New Jersey IBEW, 13 who are both on record as supporting the relicensing 14 process.

15 For several years the workers have 16 performed their duties to very high standard, 17 resulting in the units running at a very high 18 capacity, outages being more efficient, and processes 19 and procedures continually being upgraded.

20 This is an important issue to consider, 21 when you are looking at adding years of operation and 22 maintenance to the plant. Management is committed to 23 both radiological and personal safety of all 24 employees, and the general public.

25 Their production of electricity is vital NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

41 1 to the state of New Jersey, and the region, both now 2 and in the future. It is needed to meet demands for 3 reliable delivery to businesses and to residential 4 customers.

5 It is a production free of greenhouse 6 gases, which is important when we talk about global 7 warming. Nuclear power has to be part of a sound 8 national energy policy.

9 We know that relicensing is not open-10 ended, though. The NRC will continue to monitor the 11 plants for continued safe operation. And if 12 discrepancies are found, you do have the ultimate 13 power to make sure they are fixed, or at worst, shut 14 these plants down.

15 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 16 today.

17 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Mr.

18 Hassler. Next we will have Ms. Jane Nogaki, followed 19 by Chris Davenport. And after that, again my 20 apologies, Bob Molzahn. I hope I'm at least close.

21 MS. NOGAKI: Good afternoon, my name is 22 Jane Nogaki, I represent the New Jersey Environmental 23 Federation, the state's largest environmental 24 organization with over 100,000 members, and 100 25 membered groups.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

42 1 We oppose PSEG's application for 2 relicensing the three nuclear plants at the Salem 3 site, as the Garden State Chapter of Clean Water 4 Action, we oppose nuclear power in general, because it 5 is unsafe, unsustainable, and unnecessary.

6 We also oppose the building of a fourth 7 nuclear plant at the Salem site. And let me just 8 pause to acknowledge that while we recognize the 9 stewardship of the important economic viability that 10 PSEG contributes to this county, and to the state, to 11 the dedication of the workers, professionalism, 12 nevertheless it is this means of power that we 13 dispute, and not the credibility of the workers, or 14 the management of the plant.

15 The Environmental Federation believes that 16 conservation, efficiency, and sustainable energy 17 sources, such as wind power, solar power, and wave 18 power, should be invested in, rather than federally 19 subsidizing nuclear energy and fossil fuels.

20 America will never wean itself from 21 unsustainable coal, nuclear, and natural gas energy, 22 until alternatives are aggressively supported. If the 23 playing field were leveled, whether by eliminating all 24 subsidies, or providing equal subsidy, wind, solar, 25 and efficiency would out-compete nuclear and coal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

43 1 plants every time.

2 Governor Christie has committed to much 3 more aggressive implementation of the strong goals 4 contained in the 2007 Global Warming Response Act, and 5 the 2008 Energy Master Plan.

6 For example, 25 percent renewable by 2025, 7 a renewable portfolio standard, and 20 percent by 2020 8 energy efficiency portfolio standard.

9 These efforts provide the path to a safe, 10 clean, reliable green energy future, and a fourth 11 plant at Salem is not part of that path.

12 Specific to Salem and Hope Creek the 13 existing three nuclear plants produce radioactive 14 waste that remains a danger for thousands of years 15 into the future.

16 This nuclear waste has outgrown its spent 17 fuel pools, and is now contained in above-ground dry 18 cask storage sheds. How much more waste will be 19 produced by relicensing the three nuclear plants for 20 another 20 years?

21 With no future in sight for a permanent 22 safe storage site, other than on-site, in the Lower 23 Alloways Creek. It pretty much dooms that area, 24 forever, to be a nuclear waste dump that will never go 25 away, it will always be a residual radioactive hazard NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

44 1 in Salem County.

2 Further, the safety hazard associated with 3 the malfunction and potential release of toxic 4 radiation, into the vicinity of the three nuclear 5 plants, would only be exacerbated by the aging of the 6 facilities.

7 Aging of the facilities is a significant 8 environmental concern, it is a maintenance problem, 9 but it can have very severe environmental impacts.

10 Tritium leaks at the Salem reactors have 11 occurred, despite redundant safeguards, and are an 12 indication that the safety culture at the plant, and 13 that the preventive maintenance, were a significant 14 improvement.

15 Recent EPA internal documents have raised 16 a concern that in the case of a major nuclear 17 accident, or release, it is unclear whether the 18 Federal Government, and the Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission, would have the authority and the finances 20 to clean up a radioactive release to the environment.

21 Would the EPA be in charge of overseeing a 22 cleanup, and would the regulations, under the 23 Superfund Act apply? Would the NRC, or PSEG, care to 24 answer that question, as a part of their relicensing 25 process?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

45 1 I think the public has a right to know who 2 would be paying for such a clean up, and who would be 3 supervising it, and if the money is set aside to do 4 so.

5 It doesn't bode well that the NRC 6 recently, in a case nearby, in Newfield, New Jersey, a 7 shieldalloy radioactive dump site , the NRC recently 8 gave jurisdiction for the New Jersey DEP to oversee a 9 cleanup of that radioactive waste in Newfield.

10 Then challenged the court decision, 11 successfully, to gain back control of the site, when 12 it was clear that the New Jersey DEP's cleanup would 13 direct the waste to be shipped to a radioactive waste 14 disposal site in another state, instead of being left 15 on-site.

16 The NRC, against all local public opinion, 17 and the opinion of DEP scientists, wanted to contain 18 the nuclear waste in Newfield, that being the cheaper 19 option.

20 The NRC is not an agency that the public 21 has confidence in, to protect the environment, because 22 often or in most every case, go for the cheapest 23 solution, and that is not always the safest.

24 Salem 1 and 2 are also huge consumers of 25 water, for cooling, as well as Delaware Riverkeeper NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

46 1 recently attested to, in their testimony, killing 2 three billion fish a year through entrainment and 3 impingement.

4 I read the Draft Supplemental 5 Environmental Impact Statement, according to their own 6 permit renewal application, it states that one-sixth 7 of the production of the Delaware River is being lost 8 to impingement and entrainment in the facility.

9 And, furthermore, the application states 10 that between 2000 and 2006, the fish loss from 11 impingement and entrainment were 2.4 million alewifes, 12 87 million croaker, two thousand million bay 13 anchovies, 14 million striped bass, 32 million weak 14 fish, and that is just a partial list.

15 At the same time PSEG stated that 16 increased production of fish, from restored salt hay 17 farms, is estimated at 2.3 times the annual production 18 lost from impingement and entrainment at Salem.

19 PSEG did not evaluate the fish populations 20 at the phragmites sites. Although I'm not a 21 scientist, I find it hard to believe that restoration 22 mitigates the fish loss.

23 But even if it did, it does not make up 24 for the years of damage done to the ecosystem before 25 the salt hay farms were restored to Wetlands, nor does NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

47 1 it offset the continuing loss of fish, on a daily 2 basis, from the once-through cooling system.

3 As part of the Stop the Salem Fish 4 Slaughter, and Unplug Salem Coalition, the New Jersey 5 Environmental Federation has called on PSEG to install 6 cooling towers, at Salem 1 and 2, to reduce the fish 7 loss and protect the estuary, the Delaware River.

8 If PSEG is not willing to spend the money 9 to install cooling towers, and protect the fisheries 10 and estuary of the Delaware River, when cooling towers 11 would obviously provide the best technology available 12 to protect the ecosystem, how are we to trust that 13 they will maintain their plants for the next 20 years 14 using the safest methods, using the best available 15 technology.

16 FACILITATOR BURTON: Ms. Nogaki, let me --

17 I don't want to interrupt. But let me give you a 18 couple of options, because we do have some other 19 speakers, and you have kind of gone over the time.

20 So let me do this. First of all, you 21 know, you can submit your entire statement for the 22 record, so we will have it. If you do want to 23 complete your statement, it looks like we will have 24 time after all of the registered speakers, if you want 25 to come back and finish.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

48 1 MS. NOGAKI: I will do that.

2 FACILITATOR BURTON: Okay, all right, 3 thank you.

4 MS. NOGAKI: Let me just note where I left 5 off here. I will just have a couple of paragraphs, 6 but I will finish.

7 FACILITATOR BURTON: Okay, thank you.

8 Next we will have Chris Davenport, followed by Bob 9 Molzahn, and then Mr. Paul Davison.

10 MR. DAVENPORT: I'm Chris Davenport, I'm 11 going to speak for my non-profit organization, even 12 though I haven't run it by our board, you know how 13 that works, it would be too slow.

14 And then I'm going to speak personally. I 15 work as the Executive Director of Stand Up for Salem, 16 and Salem Main Street Program, in Salem City. I have 17 been doing that for the past 11 years.

18 And we have a positive bias towards PSEG.

19 And I will just tell you the four main reasons for 20 that. Myself, as an economic development 21 professional, I have seen what PSEG has done for the 22 county, in terms of jobs, taxes, assistance, and the 23 retail and the wholesale purchases by the company, and 24 employees.

25 I have seen that on the city level of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

49 1 Salem City, jobs, retail support. As a community 2 development worker I have seen PSEG benefit Stand Up 3 for Salem, in our efforts to help Salem City on 4 different levels.

5 On just the financial level they have 6 helped us when we started our organization, in 1988, 7 they have helped us when we restarted our organization 8 in 1999, as a Main Street Program.

9 They sponsor events that would not happen 10 otherwise, such as our annual block party in town, our 11 B-B-Que fest, other fund raisers, special events, the 12 clean up of Peterson Park in town, and assistance in 13 community planning grants, that help us in Salem.

14 We have also had the benefit of PSEG 15 employees on our Board, on our committees, outside on 16 company time, and outside of company time, helping us 17 to do things we would not be able to do without them.

18 Thirdly, we recently awarded PSEG Stand Up 19 for Salem, our highest community service award we 20 could give, which is the Peterson Campbell award, an 21 annual award for the contributions to Stand Up for 22 Salem, and the Salem City community.

23 Lastly, PSEG was a chief corporate entity 24 to make possible our current application to the state 25 for what is called an NRTC, Neighborhood NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

50 1 Revitalization Tax Credit Program, which was the only 2 company to step up and help us with that.

3 If we are awarded that, which we are 4 optimistic about, we will have funds to be able to, 5 for the first time, directly assist Salem City 6 residents neighborhood improvement, which is sorely 7 needed.

8 So as an organization we wouldn't be here, 9 I wouldn't be here without PSEG.

10 On a personal level, quickly, I came to 11 Salem City about 11 years ago, from New York City. I 12 sleep better here in Salem City, than I did in New 13 York City.

14 I do not feel unsafe being in the 15 immediate vicinity of the Salem nuclear plant. This 16 is because of the different reasons, going back to 17 growing up, I had a science teacher come to our high 18 school science class, and talk about nuclear power.

19 That convinced me that it was safe. I 20 went to college, in the college of the shadow of Three 21 Mile Island in Pennsylvania. College I was never 22 worried about that.

23 And my parents lived near the Shoreham 24 Plant in Long Island. If anyone knows about the 25 Shoreham Plant, it never actually happened because of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

51 1 the excitability of the community.

2 I got to see, first-hand, from my parents 3 living there, the loss of potential jobs that that 4 plant -- I know this is not why we are here, but I got 5 to see what that county missed out on, by not having 6 the jobs there.

7 And so going back to myself, I feel safe, 8 I'm not a nuclear expert. I feel safe because I have 9 a personal knowledge of numerous PSEG employees, PSEG 10 leadership. They are my friends, they are my 11 neighbors.

12 The closest PSEG employee lives about two 13 houses away from me in Salem City. And so I have -- I 14 generally feel safe, and I'm in the shadow of the 15 plant to some extent.

16 In conclusion, last summer, in 2009 --

17 this is an anecdotal story. There was a tremendous 18 jolt to Salem County, and Salem City. I mean, 19 literally, a jolt.

20 The ground and buildings literally shook, 21 and I was on Main and Broadway on Salem. We heard 22 many -- we didn't know what happened. The building we 23 were in shook.

24 We started to depend on unofficial reports 25 on what had happened. We went outside. Word on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

52 1 street, after a few minutes and phone calls, was --

2 there were different rumors.

3 And the first explanation was that a 4 refinery tank exploded in Delaware. The second was 5 that an industrial accident in Pennsville. And then, 6 thirdly, someone was sure that it was a plane crash.

7 As it turns out it was, actually, an 8 earthquake. Which no one, including me, had thought 9 remotely possible. And it just occurred to me, that 10 another idea, which no one thought remotely possible, 11 was that it could be the nuclear power plant, because 12 as an outsider you would think we would be worried 13 about that in Salem City.

14 We weren't and we are not. So the next 15 time we feel a jolt, we will think about the 16 possibility of an earthquake, before we think about 17 the possibility of something happening with the 18 island. That is how safe we feel.

19 So that is my organizational support for 20 this license renewal, and personal support for the 21 license renewal.

22 The only other thing I would say is that 23 when you get your license renewed, if you could just 24 try to get a better picture than I, myself, was able 25 to get on the last license I got. Just advice.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

53 1 So other than that, thank you.

2 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Mr.

3 Davenport. Next we will have Bob Molzahn, followed by 4 Mr. Paul Davison. And our final registered speaker is 5 Richard Horowitz.

6 MR. MOLZAHN: Good afternoon. My name is 7 Robert Molzahn, and I'm President of the Water 8 Resources Association of the Delaware River basin, or 9 WBRA.

10 WBRA is a 501-C3 non-profit organization, 11 which was established in 1959, by representatives from 12 industry, the public, private utilities, and other 13 organizations that had wide-ranging interests in water 14 resources, and sought to ensure public participation 15 in the management of the Delaware River and its 16 tributaries.

17 WBRA is interested in this relicensing 18 effort by PSEG for Salem and Hope Creek, because the 19 three nuclear units are major users, and they are all 20 located within the Delaware River basin, and are an 21 important part of the economy of New Jersey, and the 22 region as a whole.

23 And, for our organization, the water 24 related impacts are, really, of prime concern. At a 25 recent public meeting that the NRC held on a proposed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

54 1 new nuclear unit at the site, I commented on the 2 importance of providing sufficient electrical 3 generation to meet the energy needs of New Jersey 4 residents and businesses.

5 The existing three nuclear units at the 6 Salem site, and their continued operation, are 7 essential for New Jersey's well-being, since the 8 amount of electrical energy consumed in the state 9 exceeds the capacity of electrical generation located 10 within the state by almost 30 percent.

11 Although renewable energy projects, such 12 as wind and solar, can contribute to the state-wide 13 shortfall, and available generation capacity, they do 14 not operate on a 24/7 day basis, and have their own 15 set of significant and often understated environmental 16 impacts.

17 Nuclear generation is a clean and green 18 option, as compared to fossil fuel power plants, 19 especially those burning coal. They have no green 20 house gas emissions, such as CO2 or methane, no SO2 or 21 NOX emissions, that would contribute to acid rain, or 22 nitrification of our waterways, and no mercury 23 emissions that could detrimentally affect aquatic life 24 in the Delaware River and Bay.

25 They also produce no coal ash byproducts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

55 1 that could impact ground or surface waters and 2 landfills.

3 In reviewing the PSEG license renewal 4 application, and the Draft Environmental Reports, 5 including PSEG's 2006 permit renewal application, we 6 focused on the impacts of the intake and cooling 7 systems of the existing units, and especially the 8 once-through cooling systems in Salem 1 and 2.

9 We were especially concerned about the 10 possible impact of the Salem plant on the composition, 11 diversity, and abundance of fish species in Delaware 12 bay, and the region in general. That is the coastal 13 region in general.

14 The issue is near and dear to me, because 15 I spent about a decade of my early career, almost 16 beginning 40 years ago, as a fishery biologist, 17 investigating the impacts of power plants on the 18 aquatic community, so I have a long history with 19 looking at these types of impacts.

20 That being said, we are pleased to see 21 that extensive studies have continued to be conducted 22 by the state environmental agencies, and PSEG, over 23 several decades to determine the plant's impact.

24 I think some of those studies began in 25 1966, when I was back in college. From the data and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

56 1 analysis presented for the post-1986 operational 2 period, including the rare faction trends, and 3 richness trends, there does not seem to be any long-4 term trend that could be considered adverse for these 5 indicators.

6 Moreover the species density curve seems 7 to indicate an improvement in the post-1986 8 operational period. In summary, the data supports 9 PSEG's conclusion that there has been very little 10 change in the fish community, in the vicinity of 11 Salem, since the start-up of the plant in 1978.

12 With 20 years of additional sampling, the 13 diversity of fish species present, in the vicinity of 14 Salem, as measured both by the species' richness, and 15 the species' density metrics, is generally higher than 16 during the 1970s.

17 But there is no evident long-term trend.

18 These results support the conclusion that the station 19 operations have not adversely affected the composition 20 of the Delaware Estuary fin fish community.

21 The pre-operational and operational 22 species' lists are virtually identical. Another test, 23 for the Salem plant, is whether it balanced indigenous 24 population of fish and shellfish, as being maintained 25 despite the plant's operations.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

57 1 Although this is a complicated issue to 2 assess, and comment on at this hearing, PSEG's data 3 collection efforts, and analyses seem to be thorough, 4 deliberate, and complete.

5 They noted, in their conclusions, that 6 statistically significant increases in abundance were 7 found for Alewife, american shad, atlantic croaker, 8 striped bass, wheat fish, white perch, and blue crab.

9 The fact that most populations have 10 increased, during the period of Salem's operations, 11 appears to demonstrate that there has been no 12 continuing decline in the abundance of aquatic 13 species.

14 PSEG also assessed the impact of Salem on 15 a long-term sustainability of fish stocks, using 16 generally accepted models that are widely used in 17 fishery science and management.

18 The objective of this assessment was to 19 determine whether, compared to known effects to fish, 20 on fish populations, the future impact of Salem 21 operation could jeopardize the sustainability of any 22 of these stocks.

23 The stock jeopardy analyses showed that 24 for all the important harvested species, the 25 incremental effects of Salem are negligible small, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

58 1 compared to the effects of fishing.

2 Their conclusion, which we agree with, is 3 that reducing or eliminating entrainment and 4 impingement at Salem will not measurably increase the 5 reproductive potential, or spawning stock biomass of 6 any of these species.

7 Consumptive water use is another important 8 issue on the Delaware River basin, especially during 9 drought periods. Although the plant is located in the 10 saline estuary, fresh water is still evaporated by the 11 cooling towers and, thereby, consumed.

12 During declared drought emergencies the 13 fresh water consumed should be replaced in an 14 appropriate ratio, by using water from the Merrill 15 Creek reservoir, near Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

16 PSEG, along with several other electric 17 generation companies, are co-owners of Merrill Creek, 18 and water released from Merrill Creek, compensates for 19 their consumptive use, and holds the salt line from 20 encroaching on the Philadelphia water intakes.

21 WRA recognizes that PSEG has demonstrated 22 a long-standing commitment to the environment, and to 23 their credit, has been a national leader in the 24 electric utility industry, for emphasizing 25 environmental sustainable solutions in their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

59 1 operations.

2 WRA also recognizes that PSEG's award 3 winning Estuary Enhancement Program was specifically 4 developed and implemented to restore, as we heard, 5 about 20,000 acres of wetlands. And I don't think the 6 importance of this restoration efforts can be 7 underestimated.

8 In summary, WRA believes that PSEG, using 9 sound science, and all -- and certainly all of the 10 studies that they have done, has met the burden of 11 proof, showing that the operation of the Salem and 12 Hope Creek units is not having a significant impact on 13 the ecology.

14 And, therefore, we hope that the renewal 15 application will be approved. And that concludes my 16 remarks, thank you.

17 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Mr.

18 Molzahn. Next we have Mr. Paul Davison, followed by 19 our last registered speaker, Richard Horowitz.

20 MR. DAVISON: Thank you, Mr. Burton, and 21 good afternoon.

22 Again, my name is Paul Davison, I'm the 23 vice president of operations support for PSEG Nuclear.

24 I'm also part of the leadership team responsible for 25 the safe operation of both Salem and Hope Creek NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

60 1 stations.

2 I also happen to be the executive sponsor 3 for the license renewal application. On behalf of 4 PSEG Nuclear, we look forward to today's public 5 meetings, and the opportunity to continue to work with 6 the NRC, as well as the public, on our license renewal 7 application for an additional 20 years of operation of 8 both sites.

9 In addition to our assessment, and as part 10 of the Environmental Protection Agency, the NRC hosted 11 two public meetings in November 2009, to discuss the 12 scoping of its license renewal Supplemental 13 Environmental Impact Statement, for both stations.

14 The NRC also spent a week at the station, 15 earlier this year, gather in plant-specific 16 documentation, related to the '92 industrial -- excuse 17 me, industry wide environmental issues associated with 18 the license renewal process.

19 During the plant visit the NRC put special 20 emphasis on the 21 plant-specific attributes.

21 Multiple interviews and tours were made at the 22 station, as well as the surrounding community.

23 The process has led to the NRC's recent 24 publication of its Draft Supplemental Environmental 25 Impact Statement. Since this meeting is to discuss NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

61 1 that impact statement, I would like to make a few 2 comments on PSEG's positive environmental impacts.

3 In addition to producing no green house 4 gases, the Salem and Hope Creek plants have led to no 5 radiological impact, adverse impact, on the 6 environment.

7 The NRC requires that PSEG Nuclear as well 8 as all United States nuclear power plants, to maintain 9 an environmental monitoring program. We are closely 10 monitored by New Jersey's Department of Environmental 11 Protection's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering.

12 The Bureau of Nuclear Engineering 13 independently monitors the local environment around 14 our site, through a remote monitoring system that 15 provides live-time data.

16 This sampling and monitoring has shown no 17 adverse impact to the environment. We are also proud 18 of our stewardship of the Delaware Estuary, through 19 our Estuary Enhancement program.

20 This program involves the ongoing 21 restoration, enhancement, and preservation of more 22 than 20,000 acres of degraded salt marsh, and the 23 adjacent uplands within the estuary.

24 Studies show that overall health of the 25 estuary continues to improve. In addition analysis of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

62 1 long-term fish populations, in the estuary, shows that 2 in most cases populations are stable, or increasing.

3 And that fish population trends are 4 similar to other areas along the coast. We also 5 recognize our impact on the local community, 1,500 6 local employees work at the site, including 40 percent 7 directly from Salem County.

8 The purchase of goods and services, 9 totaling more than 81 million dollars, from south 10 Jersey businesses, and more than 2 million dollars a 11 year in local property taxes.

12 We support dozens of local organizations, 13 and have launched innovative partnerships, with local 14 schools, to develop training and educational programs, 15 to provide career opportunities for local residents.

16 Having said all of that, our relationship 17 with the community is something that we do not take 18 for granted. With them there are no surprises. We 19 proactively engage in the community.

20 When there is a plant issue we directly 21 communicate with our local communities, so that they 22 can have their questions directly answered by us.

23 We operate within a safety and 24 transparency culture. This year we have provided more 25 than 35 site tours for stakeholder groups, close to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

63 1 600 elected officials, educators, students, community 2 and trade groups, have been given an inside look to 3 PSEG Nuclear.

4 What better way to answer questions than 5 to let people look, first-hand, at the important role 6 of nuclear power. Earlier this year we opened our new 7 Energy and Environmental Resource Center, housed at 8 our old training facility, on Chestnut street, in 9 Salem.

10 This new information center uses 11 interactive displays to educate the public about 12 climate change, and the various ways that we can all 13 have a positive impact on our environment. To date 14 more than 3,000 people have toured the state of the 15 art facility.

16 In closing, PSEG Nuclear looks forward to 17 continuing to work with the NRC, and the public, as 18 you review our license renewal application, and the 19 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

20 We have worked hard to provide safe, 21 reliable, and economic, and green energy, for more 22 than 30 years. And we certainly look forward to the 23 opportunity to build on that success in the future.

24 Thank you.

25 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Mr.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

64 1 Davison. Finally, our last registered speaker is Mr.

2 Richard Horowitz.

3 DR. HOROWITZ: Good afternoon, I'm Dr.

4 Richard Horowitz, lead scientist in the fishery 5 section of the Patrick Center for Environmental 6 Research.

7 The Patrick Center is part of the Academy 8 of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. I'm pleased to 9 have this opportunity to comment, briefly, on the 10 environmental aspect of PSEG application for 11 relicensing of the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear 12 facilities.

13 My testimony will focus on the 14 environmental aspects of the PSEG current operations, 15 and the anticipated impacts as a result of 16 relicensing.

17 The Academy of Natural Sciences is one of 18 the oldest natural history institutions in America.

19 For over 60 years we have been engaged in ecological 20 research, particularly on understanding interactions 21 between humans, and the natural environment.

22 The Patrick Center is an inter-23 disciplinary scientific research institute, that 24 specializes in assessing human environmental impacts, 25 especially as related to water sheds, wetlands, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

65 1 rivers, and streams.

2 In that role we have done extensive 3 research on the physical and biological 4 characteristics of the Delaware Estuary, including 5 some components of PSEG projects in the Delaware 6 watershed.

7 For over 20 years the Academy has acted, 8 in an advisory capacity, to monitor and evaluate the 9 impact of various PSEG projects on the Delaware. My 10 testimony is based on the observations we have made, 11 in that time, particularly of PSEG's efforts to reduce 12 environmental impacts.

13 There is no -- in the natural systems of 14 the Delaware River and estuaries, are critical 15 environments with major significance for both regional 16 and global biodiversity, for regional water supply, 17 and water quality, and for supporting important 18 economic activities.

19 In carrying out its operations, on the 20 Delaware River, PSEG has been mindful of the 21 significant potential environmental impacts of its 22 operations.

23 There is no indication that major changes 24 will be made in the physical configuration, or 25 operations, at the Salem sites. So existing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

66 1 conditions provide a basis for analyzing environmental 2 impacts for future plant operations.

3 One of the major concerns regarding 4 operation of the plants has been the potential 5 negative impacts on fisheries, and other aquatic 6 resources by cooling water intake operations, 7 particularly at Salem.

8 To address these concerns PSEG implemented 9 changes in the intake structures to reduce impingement 10 and entrainment, used a series of accepted fisheries 11 analysis, to demonstrate that entrainment and 12 impingement does not lead to significant environmental 13 impacts.

14 Notably, they did this evaluating 15 alternative hypotheses, concerning various causes of 16 trends in fish populations, and adverse impacts by the 17 plant was not the supported hypothesis.

18 PSEG extended its estuarine monitoring 19 programs, and developed the Estuary Enhancement 20 Program to mitigate entrainment and impingement 21 losses.

22 Begun in 1984, now the largest private 23 program in the world, for wetlands restoration, the 24 EEP has restored, enhanced and/or preserved, more than 25 20,000 acres of salt marsh, and adjacent uplands, to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

67 1 vital healthy habitat for fish and wildlife.

2 The EEP has had beneficial impacts on 3 portions of the Delaware estuary, throughout south 4 Jersey, and Delaware, and encompasses more than 32 5 square miles.

6 Restoration efforts have included 7 replacing former salt hay farms and marshes, dominated 8 by invasive phragmites australis, with other native 9 plant species typical of undisturbed coastal marshes.

10 Phragmites, and invasive reed grass, is 11 often found in disturbed marsh areas, where plant 12 communities, hydrology and topography have been 13 altered.

14 Phragmites displaces native plants, and 15 has a negative impact on biodiversity. The Estuary 16 Enhancement Program has been successful in greatly 17 reducing phragmites abundance, restoring typical salt 18 marsh conditions at the site, with establishment of 19 salt core grass, and other native species as dominant 20 vegetation.

21 The EEP has also conducted numerous 22 monitoring studies to determine success of 23 restoration. And to determine whether additional 24 restoration or activities, and has implemented actions 25 to increase restoration success.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

68 1 The Academy studied many of the EEP sites, 2 prior to restoration, and we visited a number 3 afterwards. Among other improvements, of restored 4 sites, tidal flow, and development of tidal channels 5 have increased, allowing for recolonization of salt 6 core grass and other species.

7 The restored marshes support large numbers 8 of fish, and invertebrates, including target species.

9 These populations contribute to bay productivity, 10 most notably at the Salt Hay Farms, which were part of 11 the EEP efforts.

12 The restoration sites also support 13 terrapins, birds, mammals. For example, several sites 14 are part of New Jersey Audubon designated important 15 bird areas.

16 In addition to ecological restoration, the 17 EEP has had important benefits for the community with 18 the development of recreational, and educational 19 opportunities, by developing increased opportunities 20 for people to experience and interact with the 21 estuary.

22 This has included improved access to many 23 restoration sites, and other sites, by land and water, 24 with boat access and parking.

25 Public use areas were designed to meet the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

69 1 general education public access, and ecotourism 2 interest of each community hosting an EEP site.

3 PSEG has also installed fish passage 4 structures at dams in Delaware and New Jersey. The 5 fish ladders have established river herring spawning 6 and nursery areas, and several impoundments, 7 increasing bay wide populations of these species.

8 The extensive monitoring programs, at 9 Delaware bay fish populations, greatly increases our 10 knowledge of Delaware bay fisheries. The restored 11 areas have also become significant research sites, and 12 research by EEP and other organizations, has advance 13 our knowledge of tidal marsh ecology.

14 The basic restoration activities, 15 particularly controlling phragmites, and fostering 16 development of tidal marsh topography, and hydrology, 17 have advanced the field of ecological restoration.

18 The ecological engineering techniques of 19 forming primary channels, and using estuarian 20 processes to further develop channels and topography 21 is especially notable.

22 As such the Estuary Enhancement Program 23 has provided important models for marshland 24 restoration.

25 The Academy commends PSEG on its NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

70 1 demonstrated initiative, and long-term commitment to 2 restoring critical wetlands of the Delaware estuary.

3 The Estuary Enhancement Program has numerous positive 4 impacts on the ecology, and biodiversity to the 5 region, and has made important contributions to the 6 recreational and educational opportunities available 7 to the local communities.

8 We anticipate that the relicensing of the 9 Salem plants will not have a significant additional 10 impact on the aquatic resources of the Delaware 11 estuary.

12 The programs that PSEG has developed, to 13 mitigate potential impacts, will continue to provide 14 substantial benefits for fisheries of the Delaware, 15 and will offset the ecological impacts of the 16 operation of the plants.

17 Finally, although this does not relate, 18 directly, to the environmental impacts of PSEG's 19 operations, I would note that climate change 20 represents the single greatest environmental threat of 21 this century.

22 Development of low carbon energy sources, 23 and reduced energy use are critical to the future of 24 human society, and economy. Many experts have 25 indicated that nuclear power represents a viable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

71 1 alternative, in the short-term, and must be part of 2 any mix of conservation and new energy sources that 3 are used to make the transition to a zero carbon 4 future.

5 The overall carbon footprint of nuclear 6 plants must consider the total energy imbedded, 7 throughout the construction process, and energy cost 8 of operations, and energy utilized to develop raw 9 materials.

10 As existing plants, imbedded energy 11 associated with construction has been expended. We 12 would expect that the carbon footprint of the 13 continued operation of the plants would be 14 significantly lower than conventional energy sources, 15 and similar to, or lower than, newly developed 16 renewable energy sources.

17 Let me conclude by saying that I have had 18 the opportunity to observe PSEG's operations for a 19 number of years, and I'm impressed by their 20 willingness to respond to environmental constraints in 21 their planning.

22 They have embraced ecological science as a 23 planning tool, for engineering, and have been 24 proactive in seeking the guidance of experts, to 25 reduce their ecological impacts.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

72 1 The Estuary Enhancement Program represents 2 a long-term commitment to the region, and its natural 3 resources. And I would expect that commitment to 4 continue with relicensing. Thank you.

5 FACILITATOR BURTON: Mr. Horowitz was our 6 last registered speaker. At this point I wanted to 7 open it up, if there is anyone who hasn't spoken, 8 already, who would like to make a comment, anyone?

9 (No response.)

10 FACILITATOR BURTON: Then, with that, I'm 11 going to go back, quickly, to Ms. Nogaki. Did you 12 want to finish your statement?

13 MS. NOGAKI: Yes, I just have a couple 14 more points.

15 FACILITATOR BURTON: Okay. And, again, 16 anyone who wants to leave a written statement, you can 17 leave it with Mr. Johns, our transcriber, and it will 18 be there for the record.

19 MS. NOGAKI: Jane Nogaki, again, from New 20 Jersey Environmental Federation.

21 Just to finish up my statement, I refer 22 again to the concern about the restoration project 23 using herbicides as a method of phragmites control, 24 that introduced over 22,000 pounds of glyphosate into 25 the estuary, in an effort to control phragmites.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

73 1 Granted that in the salt hay farms, where 2 tidal inundation was used as a measure to restore 3 wetlands, that was a rather effective method to get 4 spartina to regrow, and phragmites to diminish.

5 But in the areas that were phragmite 6 dominated, that weren't salt hay farms, that were 7 higher elevation, and lower salinity, it has taken 8 repeated annual applications of herbicide to control 9 the phragmites, applications that continue to this 10 day, and will continue, probably two more years.

11 And after that I'm sure that they are 12 going to continue even after that. It doesn't seem to 13 be a sustainable method, or an ecological method of 14 restoration, and we strongly object to that.

15 PSEG has said that they can't afford to 16 build a fourth nuclear plant without massive federal 17 subsidies. They have also made a commitment to wind 18 and solar power, and we believe that PSEG needs to do 19 more in this area, rather than proposing a fourth 20 nuclear plant.

21 I wanted to raise a couple of issues that 22 I was taking notes on, as I read through the document, 23 the Supplemental EIS. And a lot of the problems, and 24 issues that I brought up in my testimony on May 3rd, 25 including sea level rise, climate change, tritium in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

74 1 groundwater, radioactive releases to the atmosphere.

2 A lot of those issues have been discussed 3 in the Environmental Impact Statement, but dismissed 4 as being small. Small, okay? And, yet, in the 5 Environmental Impact Statement it says that the water 6 withdrawal from the combined two nuclear stations, and 7 Hope Creek, is combined to the total withdrawal of all 8 other industrial, power, and public water uses in the 9 Delaware estuary, in Delaware, New Jersey, and 10 Pennsylvania.

11 These plants are this single largest user 12 of water in the river system, in three states. Again, 13 their combined use of water exceeds all other 14 industrial uses combined.

15 And I just don't think that that impact 16 can be called small. If that is not large, I don't 17 know what large is. How large does it have to be to 18 be considered a large impact?

19 The comparison in millions of gallons, 20 between Hope Creek and Salem 1 and 2, is orders of 21 magnitude. The numbers are so large that I would have 22 to write them on the board, and I might do that, 23 because I can't even -- you know, is it trillions of 24 billions? I'm not sure.

25 And the other thing that I wanted to raise NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

75 1 was that while the tritium issue in groundwater is 2 said to have been addressed, and that the leak has 3 been fixed, and there is no longer going to be an 4 issue with it, and that the tritium levels in 5 groundwater are decreasing, and that the source was a 6 spent fuel pool water leak.

7 I'm concerned that if a leak happened 8 once, it can happen again. And with the aging 9 infrastructure, you know, the pipes that are replaced 10 every few years, you know, because they start to leak, 11 because they are made of metal, the salinity in the 12 area, to concrete structures which will leak.

13 I'm not assured that this isn't going to 14 happen again. And so I think that the tritium issue 15 should not be considered small, the impact should not 16 be considered small.

17 Also there was a section, in section 4 on 18 -- although the executive here says that there are no 19 environmental impacts, adverse impacts from emissions 20 from the plant, that there are no green house gases 21 emitted, there is low levels of radioactive effluents 22 emitted to the air and water. Low levels.

23 These effluents are considered small.

24 Again, radioactivity isn't something that disappears 25 by itself. And I'm concerned that over a cumulative NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

76 1 period of time, that these air emissions, and 2 effluents going into the river, could build up, and 3 begin to build up a residual in the plant life, the 4 fish populations, the sediments of the river.

5 There was a calculation that said that 6 these effluents do not exceed the human criteria, 7 which is 25 millirems. It gave a calculation of what 8 the actual emissions are.

9 But I cannot really understand these. So 10 I would like them to be written in a way that they 11 compare to the 25 millirems, because how it was 12 expressed, the actual emissions, was 7.26 times ten to 13 the minus three millirems.

14 That doesn't really tell me, you know, 15 what that compares to, to the 25 millirems analysis.

16 And so I would like that clarified. And that if these 17 exposures are going to be calculated, that they be 18 done in such a way that it is more transparent to the 19 general public.

20 So I think that concludes the points that 21 I wanted to bring up. The point about sea level rise, 22 the point about climate change is, actually, 23 acknowledged in the Environmental Impact Statement, to 24 be more significant than some of the other issues that 25 I think are equally significant.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

77 1 And so I just want to dispute the findings 2 of the impact statement that says that these concerns 3 about tritium, radioactive emissions, cooling water 4 loss, you know, I don't consider those issues small, 5 at all.

6 Thank you.

7 FACILITATOR BURTON: Thank you, Ms.

8 Nogaki, I appreciate it.

9 Second call for any additional comments, 10 for the record?

11 (No response.)

12 FACILITATOR BURTON: Hearing none, I'm 13 going to ask Mr. Bo Pham to, who is our senior agency 14 official, to close us out.

15 MR. PHAM: Hello, my name is Bo Pham, I'm 16 a branch chief at the headquarters branch for 17 performing the license renewal review for Salem and 18 Hope Creek.

19 I just want to thank you, everybody, for 20 coming out and providing comments. We got a lot of 21 good comments heard today, and I just want to give you 22 an idea of what is going to happen next.

23 The Staff has been receiving some 24 comments, already, and as part of the public meeting 25 your comments are on the transcript.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

78 1 The Staff will be gathering those, and 2 from there, look through all the comments, fully 3 consider the comments. We may sometimes agree, 4 sometimes disagree, but in any case, we will be fully 5 considering all the comments that were provided, and 6 we will go ahead and prepare the final EIS that Leslie 7 had indicated that we will be issuing in March of 8 2011.

9 So, once again, thank you very much. The 10 Staff, most of us will be here for a few minutes after 11 the meeting, if you have any questions that we can 12 address for you. I want to thank you again.

13 (Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the above-14 entitled matter was concluded.)

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML103400276&oldid=2124178"