Written Statement of
President
Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy
For the
Presented to the
February 12, 2009
My name is Norris McDonald and I am the President of the Center for
Environment, Commerce & Energy (Center).
The Center, founded in 1985, is an organization dedicated to protecting
the environment, enhancing human, animal and plant ecologies and promoting the
efficient use of natural resources. The
Center supports the 20-year License Renewal for the Indian Point nuclear power
plant located in Buchanan, New York. My
comments today address the General Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) of the
License Renewal Application (LRA) and other environmental issues of concern to
the Center regarding this proposed action.
The Center agrees with
the preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff:
“…that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts
of license renewals for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that not preserving the
option of license renewals for energy planning decision makers would be
unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in
the GEIS, (2) the ER submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with other Federal,
State, and local agencies, (4) the staff’s own independent review, and (5) the
staff’s consideration of public comments received during the scoping process.”[1]
Federal and State Water Permit Issues
Constituents of the
Center live and work – and breathe the air in a Clean Air Act Nonattainment
Area. Of particular import is the
promotion of clean air in New York metropolitan area communities. Because nuclear power is emission-free and
has a demonstrated safety record, whereas fossil-fuel power contributes to
numerous health issues, the Center seeks to promote the safe use of nuclear
power. The Center specifically supports
the Indian Point 2 and 3 nuclear power facilities because these facilities
provide significant electrical capacity to the State of New York with minimal
human, animal, air, water, and land impacts.
The license renewal of Indian Point is needed because if units two and
three are not producing emission free electricity then the air pollution will
increase throughout the region. Closure
of Indian Point would result in compliance issues for the State with respect to
the federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan ("SIP").
Additionally, Indian Point provides reliable energy without contributing
pollutants that exacerbate asthma.
In order to reduce the levels of impingement and entrainment of Hudson River fish, the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (“DEC”) Draft SPDES Permit could substantially limit the ability of Indian Point 2 and 3 to generate electricity, and may even lead to the closure of the facilities. Any substantial reduction in the amount of electricity generated by Indian Point 2 and 3 will spark demand for replacement electricity from nearby power plants. As production at these fossil-fuel plants increases, the air quality in and around these plants will further deteriorate, causing a spike in the incidences of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in the communities where these plants are based.
EPA suspended the
Cooling Water Intake Structure Regulations for existing large power plants on
July 2, 2007. This suspension is in response to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
decision in Riverkeeper, Inc., v. EPA. In the meantime, all
permits for Phase II facilities should include conditions under section 316(b)
of the Clean Water Act developed on a Best Professional Judgment basis. See 40
C.F .R. § 401 .14.[2] This
issue is of vital importance because an unacceptable permit could cause Entergy
to close the facility, which would exacerbate air quality issues in the
region. We are submitting this
information in the hope that NRC will utilize it for the Final EIS (FEIS) and will
also see the important environmental implications of this facility.
The Center is deeply concerned about the potential
effects of climate change described in the GEIS, which warns about sea level
rise, salinity changes and wind and water circulation changes. The GEIS says
that these changes result in the reduction or redistribution of submerged
aquatic vegetation, affect spawning patterns or success, change the nature of
sediment and nutrient inputs and generally influence the estuarine food web on
many levels. The GEIS concludes that:
The extent and magnitude of climate change impacts to the aquatic resources of
the lower Hudson River are an important component of the cumulative assessment
analyses and could be substantial.[3] IP2 and IP3 do not contribute to global
warming and actually serve to mitigate global warming, and thus, the problems
described above.
Fossil-Fuel
Power Causes Serious Adverse Health Effects
In
1999, coal-fired power plants in the United States emitted into the environment
11.3 million tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), a
criteria air pollutant that is correlated to asthma and impaired lung
functions, 6.5 million tons of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) which, when combined with other pollutants and
sunlight, forms ozone, another lung irritant linked to asthma, and 1.9 billion
tons of carbon dioxide (“CO2”), yet
another contributor to increased ozone levels and global climate change.[4] This equates to approximately 60% of all SO2 emissions, 25% of all NOx emissions, and 32% of all CO2 emissions nationwide.[5]
These
and other airborne pollutants emitted by fossil-fuel power stations may have a
direct and significant effect on human health.
In a study by Abt Associates, one of the largest for-profit government and
business research consulting firms in the world, it was found that over 30,000
deaths each year are attributable to air pollution from U.S. power plants.[6] Another study found that air pollution from
power plants was a contributing factor to higher infant mortality rates and
higher incidences of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (“SIDS”).[7] Research has further shown that pollutants
from fossil-fuel power plants form tiny particles (called fine particulate
matter) that are linked to diseases of both the respiratory and cardiovascular
systems.[8]
Not
surprisingly, air pollution has been characterized as one of the largest
threats to public health.[9]
New Yorkers Pay the Price for Fossil-Fuel Air Pollution
In
New York City, it is estimated that there are 2,290 deaths, 1,580
hospitalizations, 546 asthma-related emergency room visits, 1,490 cases of
chronic bronchitis, and 46,200 asthma attacks yearly attributable to power
plant pollution.[10] The New York City area has also been ranked
as one of the top five U.S. metropolitan areas for particulate air pollution.[11] Another study found that, of the 23 counties
in New York State that fail to meet Federal air pollution standards.[12]
Lost Production From Indian Point Will Be Replaced By
In-City and Other Nearby Facilities
If generation at Indian
Point 2 and 3 were to be significantly limited or were to cease altogether, the
lost electricity could not be completely replaced with existing resources. However, any attempts to do so would most
likely be replaced by nearby facilities.
Increasing
Generation at Facilities Near Indian Point Will Increase Air Pollution in the
Communities Where These Facilities Are Based
The
TRC Report further found that, if Indian Point were brought offline, the air
quality in New York would decrease dramatically. For instance, if the gap created by Indian Point’s closure were
to be filled by the power plants located in New York City, CO2 plant emissions would increase by 101% (or
12,494,172 tons), SO2 plant
emissions would increase by 106% (or 8,020 tons), and NOx plant emissions would increase by 105% (or 16,107
tons). Even if replacement electricity
were spread out more broadly, to include all of the Hudson Valley and New York
City plants, CO2 plant emissions would
still increase by 57% (to 13,686,648 tons), SO2 plant emissions would increase by 62% (to 35,961
tons), and NOx emissions would increase
by 57% (to 20,258 tons).
And
as the level of air pollution increases, so do the incidences of death and
respiratory and cardiovascular ailments.
For instance, in the National Morbidity and Mortality Air Pollution
Study (“NMMAPS”), a team of investigators from Johns Hopkins University and the
Harvard School of Public Health found, among other things, strong evidence
linking daily increases in particle pollution to increases in death in the
largest U.S. cities.[13] Links have also been found between fine
particle levels and increased hospital admissions for asthma, cardiovascular
disease, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[14] The Air Quality in Queens County Report
states that, “Epidemiological studies tell us that on days when air pollution
levels are high, more people get sick or die.
Based
on the above data and studies, it is clear that if Indian Point 2 and 3 were to
be brought offline, forced to close, or if their production were limited, the
void in electricity production would be filled by power plants located in
minority communities, with a corresponding increase in the rates of asthma and
other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and even infant mortality
in these communities.
The Benefits of Indian Point 2 and 3
The
Indian Point facilities, located in the affluent and predominantly white
Westchester County, have a combined generating capacity of approximately 2000
megawatts (MW). The facilities provide
approximately 20-30% of the electricity for New York City and its northern
suburbs. And, unlike New York’s
fossil-fuel burning facilities, Indian Point 2 and 3 do not pollute the
air.
Draft
SPDES Permit Hinders Indian Point’s Ability to Produce Non-Air-Polluting
Electricity
Several conditions of the DEC’s Draft SPDES Permit for
Indian Point 2 and 3 significantly limit Indian Point’s ability to generate
electricity for the State of New York.
For example, Special Condition 28 of the Draft Permit requires the
construction of cooling towers. NYSDEC issued a draft SPDES
permit for IP1, IP2, and IP3 in 2003 that, among other conditions, requires the
design and, if appropriate, the installation of closed-cycle cooling systems
for IP2 and IP3 if the site seeks and receives from NRC license renewals for
IP2 and IP3.
The Center understands
that, under conservative estimates, it would take approximately 10 months of
Indian Point being offline for a closed-cycle cooling system to be
installed. The Center further
understands that the costs of installing cooling towers are sufficiently
prohibitive so that Indian Point’s owners may elect to shut down the plants
rather than invest in the retrofit.
Either way, the results will be devastating in terms of the
pollution-related health effects when New York’s non-clean burning plants
scramble to replace the power lost by Indian Point 2 and 3. And since most of these plants are in African
American and minority communities, the bulk of the adverse health effects –
including asthma and other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disorders, and
even infant mortality – will be borne by these communities. For this reason, the Center objects to any
actions or provisions that impose any significant limit on the facilities’
ability to generate clean-burning electricity, including Special Condition 28.
The
Center has a strong environmental interest in this proceeding because the
Center is an environmental action group, with a chapter in Long Island, New
York, with a stated goal of promoting clean air in low-income and minority
communities by, among other things, supporting the safe use of nuclear
energy. Further, the Center has
publicly supported Indian Point 2 and 3, due to its positive impact on New
York’s air quality, for several years.
For instance, in May 2002, Center President Norris McDonald presented
testimony before the Committee on
Environmental Protection in opposition to Chairman James F.
Gennaro’s Resolution 64, which called for the immediate
shutdown of Indian Point. The Center
also presented testimony on February 28, 2003, before the New York City
Council’s Committee on Environmental Protection, again opposing efforts to shut
down Indian Point. And most recently,
the Center participated in the DEC’s legislative hearing relating to Indian
Point’s Draft SPDES Permit.
Conclusion
The Center supports the 20-year License Renewal (ESP)
for the Indian Point nuclear power plant located in Buchanan, New York. We support this renewal because the facility
is a positive structure for mitigating ground level air pollution, global
warming and environmental injustice.
[1] U.S. NRC GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding IP2 & 3, Draft Report For Comment, Main Report, Executive Summary, p. xvii.
[2]http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b , Federal Register Notice (July 09, 2007) Implementation Memo (PDF) (1 page, 72K, About PDF; March 20, 2007)
[3] GEIS, Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, 4.8.1: Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources, Climate Change, p. 4.58.
[4] See Rachel H. Cease, Adverse Health Impacts of Grandfathered Power Plants and the Clean Air Act: Time to Teach Old Power Plants New Technology, 17 J. Nat. Resources & Envtl. L. 157, 158 (2002-2003); Martha H. Keating, Air Injustice, at 4 (October 2002) (attached hereto as Exhibit B).
[5] 17 J. Nat. Resources & Envtl. L. at 158.
[6] Id. at 159.
[7] See Martha H. Keating, Air Injustice, at 3 (October 2002).
[8] See id. at 4. See also Air Quality in Queens County: Opportunities for Cleaning Up the Air in Queens County and Neighboring Regions, at S-6, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (May 2003) (“Air Quality in Queens County”) (“Epidemiological studies tell us that on days when air pollution levels are high, more people get sick or die.”) (available at http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/Synapse-report-queens-air-quality-exec-summary-05-29-2003.pdf); Children at Risk: How Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America’s Children, at 2, Clean Air Task Force (May 2002) (“Power plant emissions and their byproducts form particulate matter, ozone smog and air toxics. These pollutants are associated with respiratory hospitalizations, lost school days due to asthma attacks, low birth weight, stunted lung growth and tragically, even infant death.”) (available at http://cta.policy.net/fact/children/).
[9] Allison L. Russell, Urban Pollutants: A Review and Annotated Bibliography, at 3, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance 2000 (available at http://www.nyceja.org/pdf/Urban.pdf).
[10] See Death, Disease & Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants, at 24, Clean Air Task Force (October 2000) (“Death, Disease & Dirty Power”) (Exhibit C) (available at http://cta.policy.net/fact/mortality/mortalitylowres.pdf).
[11] See New York’s Dirty Power Plants, Clear the Air – the National Campaign Against Dirty Power (available at http://cta.policy.net/relatives/17841.pdf). The Air Quality in Queens County Report states that “New York City … [is] burdened with significant air quality problems” and “[t]he US EPA has determined that the NY metropolitan area … is in ‘severe nonattainment’ for ozone.” Id. at S-5.
[12] See Clear the Air: People of Color in Non-Attainment Counties (available at http://cta.policy.net/fact/injustice/injustice_non_attainment.pdf).
[13] Cited in Death Disease & Dirty Power, at 14.
[14] Id.