ML102280560
| ML102280560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/2009 |
| From: | Stine F Delaware Riverkeeper Network |
| To: | Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch |
| References | |
| 74FR5459 00006, FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML102280560 (4) | |
Text
~-J-Cl* " .':D E L , A W <,:. -.A R .-E " ... ........./"R* I- " ' .,, .;; .> RIVERKEEPER
.....<I Fred Stine, Citizen Action fCoordiniator for the ..Delaware Rive6rkeeper'Network 11/5/2009i, I would like tod.thank the opportunityto speak to0the l-icense6r'enewal application submitted by.PSE&G and .Exceloh. .Weuniderstand the 0purpose of today's duel public meetings is-to discuss:theprocessesarou nd. the license r.enewa Iand requisite EIS scopingand Iwillspeak directly to that.But~first, the Delaware Riveerkeeper Networl':kwants tor'eaffirm our long-standing position and call to conve.rt.theSam
..Gnating...Sta.tionto closed cyclecoohlingas mandated b.y Section< 316(b) of the Clean: Water Act. The Act states thiat generatingplants such as Salem "shall be required that the location, design; construction, and capacity ofcoolingwater intake structures reflect the:best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental.impact" Theeapplication .before the NRC does not call for the. compliance ofthe Clean>-Water Act as it relates to-best technology available.
According'to a study conducted by a NIJDEP biredlexpert in 1989R9 well as experiences at other.facilities, installation of closed-cycle coolingdtowers:zat"Salem wouidtreduce their fish kills by 95%.Anddry cooling at Salem could reduce their flsh 'kills by 99%.Speaking now directly to the environmental impact study, the DelaWare Riverkeeper Network callsonthe NRC and oth her reviewing agencies to.hold the applicant to the highest scientific and regulatory standards as.they prepare the EIS. Previous permits issued to PSE&G were based on data which were found to be faulty, misleading, biased and incomplete.
In 1999 for instance, when PSE&G's permit came up for renewal, the company submitted over 150 volumes of information,, data and arguments to'support its case that it should beallowed to continue to kill Delaware River fish unimpeded.
Every year the Salem'Nuclear-Generating Station killsoyvr 3 billion Delaware River fish including:
Over 59 million Blueback Herring Over 77:million Weakfish Over 134 million Atlantic Croaker Over 412 million WhitePerch
....Delawa're Riverkeee'r:Nletwork.
300 Pond Sterel. Floo.'r Ptslol;PA 1900T1...-.-el 1 (. 369 f188 lax:: (H ) V69- t:1[8 (YP(d r lk~ eIwar,, rwcrv cc o 1r:o-?,"www de .<, 'u'crvr" oe r")X~9~~ cs-.e9
-Over 448million Striped Bass-,Over 2 billion {Bay Anchovy Even NjJDEP'sown expert agreesithat PSE&G' assertions were not credible andw erenot backed bythe data and studies PSE&G hadpresented.
In. onstltahts,-hirdb NJDEP, PSE&G had greatly underestimated its impacts on iDelaware River fish.,According to- ESSA, PSE&G "underestimated, biomass lost from the ecosystem by. perhaps'greater than 2ý-fold.' (ESSA report p. xi) ,And "... the actual total biomasss ýoffish lost to the. ecosystem
... isdat least 2.2 times greater than: that listed" by PSE&G,. (ESSA Report p. 75).ESSA Technologies!'154 page review of PSE&G's permit application:documented ongoing problems with PSE&G's assertions and findings ineluding:bias, misleading conclusions, data gaps,, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of their findings and damage.. Some examples of ESSA's findings: o With regards to. fisheries data and population trends, ESSA"said "Thecoinclusions of theý.analyses'generally .overextend the data or results(p.:
ix)S"PSE&G "underestimates biomass lostkfrom the eco6sstemb, perhaps.greater than2.fold!w'(p xi) "%,. the actual total biomass of rish lost to the ecosystem is:atfleast 22 times greater than.that'listed in the Application6." (p. 75.) "* "Inconsistency in theluse of terminology, poorly defined terms,.and atendency' to'raw conclusions that are not supported by the information presentd detract from the rigor'of this section and raises,skepticism about the results. In' particular, there iCsa tendency to draw subjective and unsupportedconclusions about the importance.ofKSalem's impact on: RIS finfish species." (p. 77)I Referring to PSE&G's discussion and presentatibn ofentrainment mottality rates ESSAfound PSE&G's "discussion in this section of the Application to be misleaiding." :(p..13)The ESSA report contained no lessthan 51 recommendations, for actions which PSE&G needed to take on :2001 permit application ibefore DEP made its decisionh,:
but that did not happen. It is our understanding that whileNJDEPpUrsued some of these:(which ones Wedo not know becauSe.it was not referenced in the draft permit documents)
- fmany oflthem were never addressed, and Still others were turned into. permit requirements to be de'alt with over the next5 years.In addition to ESSA recommendations, NIDEP. received comment~from the State:of Delaware and USF&W, both of whomconducted independent expert review ofI thepermit application
- materials and found important problems with samplingdata, analyses and, conclusions.'
While we are urging you today toh6old the applicant to.high standardsilconclude be:re-stating the fact that because Salem isclearlyhavihng anadverse environmental impacton theiving resources of the Delaware Estuary and .River,.regardless of:PSE&Gs self-sevi.gcaims basedon fault y scientific studies,the0Clean Water Act requires "that the locatimndesign,-construction, and.capacity of cooling-water intake structutes reflect:the bes'ttechnology availabte for minimizing adverse environmen tal impact." END 511 I,&L- Ll Largesi iEWSLETTERS RESOURCES PUSLICATIOKS, UNAS lelaware Estizar -CsjKHere fatr a Priiter FrietidlvPaiie fear..rating Station kills over 3 billion Delaware River fish including::
ferring roaker* 1uver Z)" Over T a Over" ~'Over 4" Over 2 (Figures p med am numbers of fsh Wiled. e, corn US Fish a WAXf Service n oy..DEP, June 30R 2000 relying an PSE&G penil appizbtion data)The pernit asesad was based on data which s man missing information and data provided by PSEhG.n 1999, when l SE&G's permit came up for renewal, the,: company submitted over 150 volum:es.
of.information, data and arguments to support its case that it should be allow.ed to continue to kill Dielaware River fish unimpeded.
To its credit, NJOEP took the advice of environmental groups including1 DetiAvr'e Riverkeeper Netwowtt ALS, NJEF, EAGLE, COA and the Coalition for Peace and Justice, andib 'ired alnýindependenit exert to help them revi~ew PSE&G's materials.
B8ut, to its discredit, NJDEP did not requ~ire PSE&G to address the manry shortcmings andl DEP apparedtly ignored their experfs findings, just asthe6yýdid with Versar in 1994.ESSA Technologies' 154 page review of PSE&G's permit application documented ongoing problems with PSE&G'sassertions and findings including bias, misleading conclusions, data gaps, inaccuracies, an d misrepresentations of their findings and damage, Some examples of ESSA's findings: o With regards to fisheries data and population trends, ESSA said "the conclusions of the analyses generally overextend the data or results." (p. ix)E3PSE&G "underestimates bromass lost from the ecosystem by'perhaps greater than V-old." (p. xi): the actual total biomass of fish lost to the ecosystem
..is at least 22 times greaterthan~that listed in the Application." (p. 75)" "Inconsistency in the use of terminology.
poorly defined terms, and a tendency to draw conclusions that are not supported by the information presented detiact from the rig-or of this secilriion'd rais-es skepticism about the results. In particular, there is a tendency to draw subjective and unsupported conclusions about the importance of Salem's impact on RIS finfish species," (p. 77)a Refenring to PSE&G's discussion and presntation of entrainment mortality~
rates ESSA~found
~ PSE&Gs *discussion in this section of the Application to be misleading." (p. 13)The ESSA report contains no less than 51 recommendations for actions which PSE&G6 needied totake on its;2001 permit application before DEP miade its decision, but that did not hap~pen.~
It is our undeirstand"ing that wyhile NJOEP pursued some of these (which ones we do ot k~nowi because it was not referenced in, the draft permit documents) many of thiem~ were never~ addressed, and still others ware turned inito permit requirements to be dealt with over the nexct 5 years,~In addition, NJDEP receeived com~ment from the State of Delaware and USF&W. both of whom conducted.
in ,dependent expert review of the permit application mnatenials anid found important problems with sampling., data, analyses arid conclusions.
PSE&G Continues to Poison Sensitive Marshlands Annually and Does Not Mitiatn wSatern's.
Fish to date, PSE&G has applied over 22,000 pounds of herbicides, ~aerially.
and by hand, to 2,500acres of sensitive marsh land. (Sourc: NJEF 2003~ gjhostea analysis)
The lossof food,. shelter and habiitatare unacceptable.
pý//www.delawareriveTkeeper,.'O" 11 11/5/2009, Thewetlands experiment.fails to reduce the'impingement and/or entriniment impacts of Salem'and.
th ,erefore doeis niot fulfill the requjireme'nts of.3 116(b),, PSESGis uriabl~cetodeonstrate, that their wetl0 .andsýexpenmeni.
even if successful (which is doubtful at best), actually provides benefits to the estuary ecosystem.
asPSE&G failed to conduct any baseline date that ulddemonstrae wther or not food and habitat were limiting factors for the aquatic communities of atheDeware River system and therefore whether or not wetlands restoration could'have conrfibited positively to their n .umbers.* PSE &G, is unable to.Idemonstrate that the wetlanids It is s ,eeking to restore are superior, intemis of food and habifttfor aqua ticpopulat0ons, than-phragmites.
ScientifiCstudies are, docmntng that Phra gm afactis iot ofe in.feor value to sparin'., %that it does provide usable shelter and cover to both aquatcandterrestia species. Therefore:
PSE&Gbs e air wtads experiment is based on 6a false premise.'a The sustainabi ty'of the voetands phragmfteaireduction is depend ent. nualherbicide.
treatment.." PSE&G has aiedl to demronstrate that even ifi is successful at repla'ding the existinglphragmites in the Cohansey and Alloway sites with 'ýiof plaints, thatithischange in vetion Is sustainable and will inot be overrun by. neighbonng stands of phrogmites within a matter of years;" At the Altoays site the interim'goalý was met throig h the removal f apphiiximateiy.
1;ý000. acresý of Phragmiffs dominated wetlands from the restoration progra-anaction' which thean skewed the p erceive. esus ,by removing frm program a problematic site-Actions by PSE&G in the phrogntes dominated sites is not increasing fish utilization of those areas., PSE&G monitoing atAhowy C k includes sitais(a) domin atd by Pho9ziteS, (b).dominated..by Spairifnsor:(c) tinder treatment for Phrgmitea removal;I
('Treated' sites). PSE&G 2000 smnitoisw that whndthe Alloy Cr study area, fish abundance was similar at all the t s of sites.in2002, fish abundan atthe~ phrogmites.
bminated sste at Alioway Creek was approxirmatly twe" as great as tat en at Salr.dominaesite and the trated site at: Alioway. Creek. Reproduction of mumqmicg and Atlantic silverside was seen in.tharphmnmiteS dominated sites both prir to' adi. following the treatment of phregm'tes andgroth patterns were seen to be simia tr fr umichog and Alanti silverside both p'e'and post treatmrent as welt.stud ies also indicae that mummichog use phragm"Fit as a food source in phraites d0minated sites. Thesee rsults. indicate that Phragmites eradibation has not demonstrated in increased utilizaton of the'site byfih and/or increased fishproduction.
i" Tidalfliow has successflly returned to the New Jersesalt hayfans. Notall sites haye attained percent coverage goals for spartina coverage ,but, sparfhi"a and oth~er target spce ~iododminate the three s ;ite The restored salt hay farms thatwer domintd b1 y Sprtna havethe set goal of marsh coverage1 after repeatedherbicide applications (Den nis Township and-Maurice River) but the onelefarm that, was dominated by p'hr'a'grnhtes (Commerci-al To'wns'hipO) has not yet rea theintenm gol ofq 5% "a coveage andd1't. m c It the vegetative coverage of the -refeMnce maish at M6ores Beach.*Youn g of ftheyear fIs assmbege in the sal hay fam wer similr ,between the restored salt marshes and the reference marshes indluding s ie cm position seasonal pattems of occurrence a.nd spcies composition.
ile e'ssuth as stri bass, and whita were found to be! utilizdin the etoredsalt hay farm mashes with al' higher diveirsity'of species arnd, a. hiher.densityof fishas comparedtothe rferencemarshes, frage studies idicated eat food hatits of the flsh simlar between the restored salt marshes and the reference marshes".a According to PSE&G data::2000-200 terI has n Little to no usageof fih la ,der I.nstale"d.
at, Gasoni LakeIor Coope Lake .Whi1e eden of spawning wasefe in all sites .excpt Garrison Lake, it dosntapathttesoknefrs haebn sucsf l sablish Iing thei retum of off'sprn to the fish ladder sihtes. "Thr ofthefor siteswithzlargeinum rs of fih utlizng the Idders reevd limited stocig niaigta h ihuiiigtefs adr r otlkl pioner, aterthn retming stocked .fish.or offspring of, sto~cked fish;. The sltes th~at have.receivd the largest number ofs ed fishcontinue to show limiteduseof th4e fishladders by'adults.PS i&G 's , rigaolreratlenh' efot s a r notiiaigthamigmn adetane t Imacts.of the Sailm faciltity.
PSE&G dat'aand analysis on'the recordas of 2003 does not demonstrate.an in:baywide abunidance values of the representative important spece or Atlantic silverside
- sinice PSEG compileted the marsh rest rationand fish. ladder installations.
Stibasodata Isdifficult to interpret as the abundance.nuber'sin theDela'wr'eiaraparently:linkedto .abudance Chesapeake Bay. Overall, itappears that'stinpe'd bass haveiýnreas"ed, although th1isincrease Wis nttatitically sigtni-ficant.
weaklsihand Whitei=9rci declinedin numbers afer 1997 alth h t ewasn isicaly nificait:.
A dedinerwas also sen for, spot, bay Alanlpcsiv i (1994-2001), ,and Aerican sfiad, with the dedine being stati.stically signifcantfr ircan shadwhen comparng 1i991- 4 a:da to ,1997-2001 data: Inc1 ases have' 6be seen in although these increases are-not ststically sig nificant' PSE&Gds mitigationlrestoration:
efforts are not m'itigatiing the impingementand entrainment
- impacts of the Salem facility..me co~sts, of closed cycle cooling at Sallem has net been demonstrated to oteg t eois It woutd cost only about $13 a year per ra'tepayer (assuming an av, gege' electric bW of $100 wa month) .to install ciosedcyce oolfing at Salem. This,$13:would benefitthe health f. our fishenes as wellasw commercal arid recreational and businesses.
PSE&G hasibeen given over a decade tocarry out its altemative strategy 'for "mitigating" the impacts of Salem. , it hias been unable temrraehipordi isbeneiciatltote environment and resiidents of New Jersey'. It is time to holdIPSE&G acciunitable and to require implementation of closed ce cooling at,, ,Salem htp://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/newsresources/faCtsheetýasplD-=1 i 1 1I1 1/5/2009: