ML20150C401
| ML20150C401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1978 |
| From: | Gasser R OCEAN COUNTY, NJ |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150C393 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811240032 | |
| Download: ML20150C401 (6) | |
Text
!
4, O
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. GASSER OCEAN COUNTY FREEHOLDER CONCERNING PR9 POSED SALT WATER COOLING TOWER FOR THE FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR STATION NOVEMBER 1, 1978 Mr. hearing officer, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Robert Gasser and I am here to-I am a member of the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders.
night to express my concern and the concern of the entire Board of Freeholders with regard to the construction of a huge concrete monolith in southern Ocean The Freeholder Board is concerned about the objectionable intrusion County.
We of this structure into the sensitive coastal and Pineland environments.
1 are equally concerned with the impucts, envirenmental and otherwise of its f
i long term operation.
A variance from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's emission standards is requested by Jersey Central Power and Licht because the proposed cooling tower, operating under maximum efficiency, will emit 282 pounds of particulate salt per hour.
This represents an 840 percent increase While over the allowable emission rate of 30 pounds of particulate per hour.
the issue tonight involves a deviation from the State's Air Quality Standards, the violation of emission limitations represents only one more item in the 78112403;p L
J growing list of concerns regarding the use and legitimacy of nuclear energy.
Serious questions have arisen concerning the operational safety of nuclear plants, the dangers associated with disposal of spent fuels and other radio-q n
l' active wasces, and the inheront problems of decommissioning nuclear plants.
in the face of these questions, alternative forms of energy are becomming increasingly attractive and the federal energy policy is calling for expanded research and development of wind and solar power as clean, safe alternatives Continued reliance to nuclear or conventienal fossil fuel generating stations.
on nuclear power as a major segment of State and national energy supplies must be re-evaluated considering environmental impacts and the health, safety and welfare of the general public.
Ocean County has recognized the overriding importance of State and national As we all know, Ocean County interests in the development of energy resources.
has contributed a fair share to meeting the energy needs of New Jersey and this The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station is located metropolitan region.
In all here and was one of the first nuclear plants in the United States.
likelihood,0cean County will soon fac the problem of locating pipelines and perhaps other on-shore facilities associated with the development of offshore We do not, however, wish to become a major State energy oil and gas reserves.
It This would be alien to our resort and recreational orientation.
center.
would adversely impact the unique natural resources and environment of Ocean County and it would be totally inappropriate in view of the shif ting population trends in this State and the doubling of the County's population in the summer months.
There are State and National interests in protecting coastal New Jersey L
which are equally as significant as the need for increased energy supplies.
l This is demonstrated by the recent completion and federal approval of the l
State Coastal Zone Management Plan and by the recent federal law creating the Pinelands National Reserve and earmarking $26 million for its preservation and protecilon.
Further, Coastal New Jersey and Ocean County have tradition-I ally been recognized as a recreational area of national and international significance. The recreational attributes of Ocean County lie within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> l
traveling time of more than 15 million people from six States. The summer l
visitors in turn play an integral part in the County's economy supporting an estimated 14,000 jobs and generating 400 to 500 million dollars of spending in Ocean County.
In addition to Ocean County's recreational and environmental significance, the County is a major provider of housing opportunities for the State of New Jersey. The proximity of Ocean County to employment and financial centers in the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas in combination with other factors have made this the fastest growing County in New Jersey. This trend has continued for the past 20 years.
The County has grown from a population of 56,000 in 1950 to approximately 320,000 today.
Both State and County pro-jections forecast close to 600,000 people residing in Ocean County by the year 2000.
Ocean County and local municipalities have invested considerable sums for highways, schools, sewerage, health care and other needed facilities in anti-cipation of the'3 rowing needs of our residents. Major environmental planning 1
programs have been implemented to insure that future growth will not have a detrimental impact on the area's sensitive environment.
These local initiatives 1.
I and the recent State and Federal measures to protect the coastal area and the Pinelands are being ignored.
I call upon the State of New Jersey, the Depart-ment of Environmental Protection, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration, the Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection l
Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to re-evaluate the appropriateness of this second nuclear plant in Ocean County. Clearly, in view of population increases and environmental and resort-recreational significance of the area, Ocean County should no longer be considered an acceptable location for energy facilities of this magnitude.
The Ocean County Board of Freeholders will oppose such facilities in every possible way.
1 Ocean County finds itself tonight in a totally untenable position, faced with a choice among several undesireable alternatives. The applicant asserts that the proposed 550 foot cooling tower will have the least environmental impact and is the most economically feasible method of cooling. This may well be the case.
We are concerned, however, that all possible environmental econo-mic and human impacts may not have been addressed or even considered.
The original cooling system employing a direct ocean discharge is reported as " economically unacceptable". by the applicant.
Construction of a cooling tower will save Jersey Central Power and Light and consumers perhaps $100 million.
But, is this really a savings if Ocean County loses millions of dollars in tourism revenues? Also, have the indirect impacts and costs associated with the towers operation been considered? Jersey Central Power and Light was forced to buy several marinas after the Oyster Creek Station began operation because of an unanticipated shipworm problem. The Department of Environmental Protection imposed a ban on new construction within 4 miles.
s i
of the Oyster Creek plant.
Have these costs been considered? Will State and Federal agencies impose further bans on the future growth of Ocean County?
Jersey Central Power and Light proposes to build this monument and cool their plant with salt water.
The application indicates that the salt partic-ulates emitted from the tower will not significantly damage nearby structures and the surrounding environment.
Mathematical models were used to detennine
)
drift rates.
Their models, however, utilized data based on freshwater towers and did not consider the most recent experiences in salt water cooling, Since this application for a variance is being considered in 1978, it seems reasonable to request that associated mathematical calculations be based on the most recent experience.
In Chalk Point Maryland, a slightly smaller but similar tower has been in operation for approximately one year in an area with similar climate and geography. This experience should be reviewed and considered as part of the variance procedure.
In addition, the affects of the deposition of other compounds present in sea water should also be considered.
j If, in the final analysis, the decision is made to grant a variance and permit construction of a cooling tower, the County would request that indepen-i dent monitoring of the tower emissions be required. The variance request for 282 pounds per hour of emissions is based on a 99% efficiency. What will be the effects if this efficiency level is not met or is interrupted for a signi-ficant period of time?
If the tower does fail and emits more than 282 pounds per hour of partic-ulates, what contingency plans will be put into effect to eliminate the pro-blem? Will the nuclear plant be shut down to allow for modifications to the
tower? Will the cooling water be discharged to the bay? How long will the emissions continue before the plant is closed and the tower can be brought into compliance? Will there be an impact from this tower on police, fire and other emergency communications systems? Will the tower create dead spots for television and radio reception? What steps will be taken to alleviate these problems?
1 Further, the visual intrusion of the proposed cooling tower into Ocean County's landscape and the psychological effect of what would be the largest structure in New Jersey should be studied.
How will a structure roughly one half the size of the World Trade Center with a plume which will be visable for more than 20 miles affect the attitudes of sunmer vacationers, year round residents and future homebuyers?
In closing, I would like to again emphasize the concern of the Board of Chosen Freeholders concerning this application.
Clearly, Ocean County is not a suitable area for siting additional energy facilities.
The fragile ecosystem of the coast and the unique environment of the Pinelands preclude further energy development with there associated environmental impacts.
In addition to these environmental concerns there are major consideations and unresolved questions regarding the socio-economic and indirect impacts of 'the proposed cooling tower which must be answered prior to the construction of any additional energy facilities, including the proposed cooling tower.
If appropriate, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce Dr.
David Morell " rom Princeton University to also testify on behalf of Ocean County. - - -,
- -