Unanswered questions about Riverbank Sparta-
Here are some questions we believe Riverbank Power must provide satisfactory answers to before being granted any permits or license to construct their proposed Riverbank Sparta pumped storage facility. If you have questions you would like us to post here, send them to info@stopriverbank.com.
What are Riverbank’s plans to protect the aquifer that this project encroaches upon? Most of the people living in the region rely on the ground water for all of their water needs, including drinking. We expect Riverbank and the land owner to develop water contingency plans and to post bonds in the amount of the estimated cost to provide adequate water to all people and land owners who could potentially be impacted by the loss of, or damage to, their water supply.
How will the proposed pumping down of ground water to more than 2,000 below the land’s surface over the estimated four year construction period impact water tables and numerous private and public wells dependent on this water? We expect Riverbank and the land owner to develop water contingency plans and to post bonds in the amount of the estimated cost to provide water to all people and land owners who could potentially be impacted by the loss of or damage to their water supply.
How will Riverbank inspect their pump-turbines, constructed reservoirs, tunnels, shafts, and other subterranean equipment? How frequently do they propose these inspections and reporting to ensure their equipment is operating properly and not causing harm to the aquifer and geology?
How will Riverbank prevent their people and equipment from contaminating the aquifer and impacting environmentally sensitive lands and species during construction and operation?
What studies will be conducted prior to construction to ensure no damage will be done to homes, property and land from significant construction blasting and excavating?
How will such large volumes of rock and aggregate materials be removed from the proposed site? The volumes proposed are of unprecedented levels.
What studies will be done on pollution impacts from construction of a project of this scope and magnitude? Who will monitor and protect area residents and their property from this? Riverbank has not addressed this nor do they indicate that this will be included in their feasibility studies.
Do the existing water pumping permits for the property match or exceed Riverbank’s water pumping needs for this project as it is proposed in their FERC application?
Land was acquired using open space funds. For this reason, this property may have restrictions on its use. Can Riverbank and the land owners show that the property proposed for this project does not carry any legal restrictions that would prohibit the usage proposed by Riverbank?
What is the source of the electricity to be used to power this facility? No specific information has been provided by the Riverbank on this. While Riverbank references the use of renewal energy sources such as wind to power this facility in the media, there has been no specific information provided by them.
Is it feasible to pump water at the proposed volumes to heights over 2,000 feet vertically? Has Riverbank demonstrated their capability to achieve this on a sustained basis?
Has Riverbank shown that they have firm and exact plans and approvals to connect their facility to the existing energy grid? We do not see how any permits can be granted for a project that relies on other transmission line and switching projects that have not yet been approved. Riverbank has identified a switching station for interconnection in their application that does not exist, has changed its proposed location once, and has not been approved. We do not believe it would be responsible to approve any permits until this is known.
If acquisition of people’s properties is necessary for this project as proposed, why has Riverbank had no communication or negotiations with land owners along their proposed transmission line route identified in their application? We do not believe it would be responsible to approve any project application knowing that no discussions with implicated property owners have taken place.
Where specifically does Riverbank propose burying its transmission lines? Riverbank states “the electric interconnection will either be buried or overhead on compact structures and will run parallel to existing overhead electric right-of-ways”. We believe more specific information is required on where lines will be buried and where they will be overhead. It is also imperative for Riverbank to clarify what is meant by “parallel to existing overhead electric right-of-ways”. This is a critical and highly charged issue related to this project. Area residents are very concerned about this and it would be socially responsible for the Riverbank to provide answers on this.
What is the actual transmission line voltage Riverbank intends to use for this project? Riverbank states “The proposed new transmission line will consist of a double circuit 500 kVac line...” Riverbank has since stated in public forums and meetings with local and state officials that this voltage is not necessarily their intention.
What is the correct distance from Riverbank’s proposed pumped storage facility and the switching, or substation, destination identified in their FERC application, and how was this measured? Riverbank states that their plans call for “connecting the Riverbank Sparta pumped storage facility to the new Jefferson substation located approximately 5.7 miles southeast of Limecrest Quarry.” Riverbank needs to explanation how they arrived at this 5.7 mile distance and its relevance to the project considering their proposed transmission line routing in their application takes a circuitous path that is more than twice this distance.
Riverbank’s proposed transmission line routing passes closely to the Andover-Aeroflex Airport in Andover, NJ and its sole runway. What information regarding this has been provided by Riverbank to FERC and FAA? And what studies have been conducted on the safety issues this presents?
Can Riverbank prove they have the financial resources and intellectual capital to construct and run such a facility? We believe this is imperative before any permits are granted for this proposed project.
Will this facility be viable in one, five, 10, 25, 50 or 100 years? We do not believe Riverbank can know this even with “cost estimating, economic feasibility, and financial planning investigations” as they indicate the will do as part of their feasibility studies. Riverbank is betting or gambling on the arbitrage of differences between daytime and nighttime electricity prices continuing well into the future as the basis of their business plan. Isn’t this strategy just that, a very high stakes “gamble”?
If this project fails during or after construction, what contingencies are being made to ensure a proper and thorough clean-up of what could be a significant environmental disaster? We feel that Riverbank and the land owner must provide detailed plans for this and to post bonds in the amount of the estimated cost of dismantle, clean-up and remediation.
How will Riverbank construct this facility using what they are calling their “Aquabank technology”? They refer to it as a “proven approach”, but seem careful and purposeful to avoid referring to this as “proven technology”. Riverbank should be required to show evidence of its proven success with their “Aquabank” prior to receiving any permits to construct and operate such a facility at this site, or any other location in the United States.
Has Riverbank demonstrated that there is a need for this project? Has Riverbank or the governing energy bodies conducted any studies to prove its current and future need? Riverbank’s premise is to supply additional power to serve peak energy demand. The State of New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan, released on October 22, 2008, has made Reducing Peak Electricity Demand its #2 goal (specifically, reducing peak demand by 5,700MW by 2020), after its #1 goal to Maximize Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency. We believe no permits for this project should be granted without studying whether this proposed facility is needed now or will be needed in the future.
We believe that insufficient information has been presented by Riverbank. As U.S. citizens and impacted property owners, we believe the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should deny any permit or license request made by Riverbank for this project until the above critical questions are answered to the satisfaction of FERC and the public.
Stop Riverbank
|
|