There are five existing power plants on the Hudson River that continue to rely on 1950s era cooling technology, once-through cooling. Our battle with the three of them traces itself back to the historic Storm King Mountain controversy and the global settlement that became known as the Hudson River Settlement Agreement (HRSA). Under the 1980 Settlement, Con Ed agreed to abandon its Storm King project in exchange for the environmentalists’ agreement not to immediately force the utilities to use closed-cycle cooling. For more about each plant and the status of our efforts to obtain technology upgrades, click on one of these links:
Pursuant to a stipulation with Riverkeeper and other parties, a sixth old once-through plant, the Albany Steam Station, will be repowered and converted to closed-cycle cooling:
As a result of Riverkeeper's lawsuites, DEC is issuing new permits for four existing power plants on the Hudson River.
Together the five major power plants on the Hudson River between Haverstraw and Marlboro withdraw about 5 billion gallons of cooling water per day at peak - four billion in Westchester-Rockland alone - and kill most of the aquatic life in this massive volume. The destruction is entirely unnecessary. Better cooling technology can recirculate the overwhelming majority of the water, and thereby reduce the fish kills proportionately. New power plants already use these "closed- cycle" systems, as do some older facilities around the country. The Clean Water Act requires facilities to use the "best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact," but the State had failed to upgrade the SPDES permits for any of the existing Hudson River plants, except Lovett, since 1987.
DEC has begun to draft and issue new permits, but it is unclear whether it will require the best technology at every plant to minimize impacts as the law demands. The state's commitment to write the permits is a reluctant response to lawsuits brought by Hudson River environmental advocates which resulted in two recent court orders. DEC would prefer to continue its futile 10-year attempt to negotiate new protections with the generators. It has never ordered existing facilities to install closed- cycle cooling, and the senior biologists who have long recognized the need for abating the fish kills have left due to budget constraints.
For years, DEC has considered itself free to do little or nothing about the fish kills because it has only heard from a few groups such as Riverkeeper, Scenic Hudson and NRDC. That's beginning to change, with Clearwater, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky and others suing over the permitting delays, and local newspapers beginning to report on the story. However, increased comment from the Hudson Valley's citizens will be critical if DEC is to overcome its administrative lethargy and fecklessness.
What You Can Do
Protect the Hudson
Send this Campaign to a Friend
Subscribe to Email Alerts about this Campaign
Introduction