Source: https://jonesriver.org/2015-water-pollution-report/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:25:30+00:00

Document:
On June 8, 2015, a state-wide coalition of twenty-four public health and environmental groups issued a call to state and federal regulators to terminate Entergy’s Clean Water Act permit for its outdated “once through” cooling water system.
The groups’ request is based on a new report documenting Pilgrim’s destruction of marine life and pollution of Cape Cod Bay. With the report, Cape Cod Bay Watch released thousands of pages of internal agency documents exposing the fallacy of Entergy’s “permit” that allows the pollution to continue. All documents are available below.
Since 2012, the public has been calling on U.S. EPA and MassDEP to update Entergy’s expired Clean Water Act NPDES permit. EPA and DEP have broken promises to the public to get the permit renewed and better technology and pollution controls implemented. The groups say that since regulators are not doing their jobs, there is no choice but to terminate the permit. This would require Entergy to suspend operations at Pilgrim until the expired NPDES permit is updated.
The NPDES permit does not regulate Entergy’s discharge of radioactivity to the Bay. State law controls discharges, but MassDEP has ignored its responsibility to ensure Entergy meets water quality standards for radioactive substances set forth in 314 CMR 4.0 (5)(d). These releases are only subject to “self-reporting” by Entergy to NRC, which merely sets “acceptable limits” for discharging radioactive toxins. Limits are based on harm to humans (and are inadequate in any event.) Even if Entergy meets NRC’s “acceptable limits,” the radioactivity may be harming the environment or marine resources. Testing marine life for cumulative impacts and concentrations of Entergy’s radioactive toxins has been inadequate or non-existent.
(16) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was first passed in 1972 and is known as the “Clean Water Act.” 33 U.S.C. § 1311, 1312, 1341 and 1342. Massachusetts has had water pollution control laws on the books since the 1960s. The current state law is known as the “Clean Waters Act.” Mass. General Laws, Chapter 21, Sections 26-53.
(17) Pilgrim 1991 NPDES permit.
(31) Mass. General Laws, Chapter 21, Sections 26-53.
(43) In Jul. 2013, the NRC approved Millstone unit 3 to use water as warm as 80⁰F, up from 75⁰F. The agency approved a similar request for the Millstone unit 2 in Apr. 2013.
(44) Personal communication from Robert Brown, Attorney, MassDEP.
(45) This does not include mechanical damage. Bridges W.L. and R.D. Anderson. A brief survey of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant effects upon the marine aquatic environment. In: Observations on the ecology and biology of western Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts. 1984. Eds, Davis, J.D. and D. Merriman. Springer-Verlag.
(53) Entergy Nuclear Generation Company v. MassDEP, 459 Mass 319 (2011). “In addition, States retain the right to impose pollution control limits that are more stringent than the “floor” set by Federal law….Before a Federal permit may issue, the relevant State first must certify that the permittee’s activities will not violate the State’s water quality standards…This “State certification” process ensures that holders of Federal permits respect and uphold State standards….The State Act, G. L. c. 21, §§ 26-53, confers on the department “the duty and responsibility . . . to enhance the quality and value of water resources and to establish a program for prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.” G. L. c. 21, § 27. Like the Federal Act, the State Act creates a comprehensive permitting program to ensure water quality standards are met. Id. at §§ 27 (6), 43-44. No one may “discharge pollutants . . . [or] engage in any other activity that may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in discharge of pollutants into waters of the [C]ommonwealth . . . without a currently valid permit” issued by the department. Id. at § 43 (2). Permits may include not only discharge limitations but also any “additional requirements . . . necessary to safeguard the quality of the receiving waters.” Id. at § 43 (7). Violation of the terms of a permit is punishable by civil and criminal penalties. Id. at § 42.” Despite the strong message the state’s highest court has sent to MassDEP, it continues to shirk its responsibilities to enforce state water quality standards with regard to Pilgrim.
(57) NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Memorandum and Order, ASLBP 12-291-08-LR-BD01, July 20, 2012, page 9.
(59) The expert federal agencies are the USFWS (responsible for terrestrial and fresh water fish species) and NOAA Fisheries (responsible for most marine species).
(61) In Cape Cod Bay and Coastal Zone Management Areas (Barnstable and Plymouth counties only). State-listed rare species include those with special concern, threatened, endangered status as of 2012; includes flora and fauna. Based on data requested from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program of the MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, 2012.
(68) 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
(73) Entergy’s area-swept study was performed for the 20th consecutive year in 2014.
(84) Communication from MassDEP attorney Robert Brown.
(92) Entergy’s discharge of tolyltriazole was theoretically “approved” in a letter from the EPA in 1995, long after Pilgrim’s permit was finalized and outside of the normal permit modification process. Beginning in Feb., 2014 a leak was discovered associated with a valve attached to a “Fire Water Tank,” which discharged trace amounts of sodium nitrite (a corrosion inhibitor and additive to industrial greases) and tolyltriazole into Cape Cod Bay from Pilgrim’s outfall #001. Even if the discharges were lawfully within the NPDES permit, they discharges are allowed only through outfall #011, not outfall #001, where the leak occurred.
(11) The percentages provided in this section represent the number of impinged individuals within a species relative to the estimated extrapolated total number of all fish impinged and reported by Entergy. Percentages representing the impinged individuals within a species relative to estimated natural population sizes are not available.
(12) Taxon (pl. taxa) is often used to refer to a number of distinct forms within a family, or other taxonomic grouping, when there is ambiguity as to whether some of those forms are species or subspecies.
(14) Letter to EPA and MassDEP from Entergy, Sept. 20, 2007. Re: Pilgrim Fish Impingement Incident – Sept. 14-15, 2007, NPDES Permit Number MA0003557.
(36) For example, Pilgrim’s annual capacity factor for 2010 was 98.5%, 77.8% in 2011 (Jan.-Jun only), and 98.0% in 2012. See Entergy’s Marine Ecology Studies for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Report No. 77 (2010 Annual Report, Source PDF), No. 78 (2011 Semi-annual Report, Source PDF), and No. 81 (2012 Annual Report, Source PDF).
(37) According to a report commissioned by Entergy, recapture rates remained low in subsequent years: 0.12% in 2001, 0.13% in 2002, and 1.2% in 2003.
(46) Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Jones River Watershed Association, Congressman Ed Markey, and others sent letters to NOAA Fisheries and/or the NRC regarding issues with the NRC’s 2006 Biological Assessment for Pilgrim as well as problems with NRC Staff 2007 Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
(56) Project SNOWstorm. Feb. 2, 2014 – Duxbury 2013-2014 map. ( Source ); Although the snowy owl is not a federally-listed species, it is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (as are all the bird species discussed in this section).

References: § 1311
 v. 
 § 27
 § 43
 § 43
 § 42