ML103400276
| ML103400276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| 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) | |
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
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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +
3 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 4 PUBLIC MEETING 5 + + + + +
6 PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP NUCLEAR 7 LICENSE RENEWAL FOR SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 8 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 9 + + + + +
10 Wednesday.
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