2006 news about
Indian Point

Here are 2006
Indian Point articles, editorials, op-eds and letters in chronological order
with the most recent first. You can also find news from
2007, 2005, 2004,
2003, 2002 and
2001. If you find an article that should be
included, please send it to ipsecpc@bestweb.net.
Pieces specifically
about the ongoing leak of tritium and strontium
90 can be found here.
PCB
Watch at Indian Point
By Abby Luby
Irradiated water leaking into the ground and into the Hudson River from the
Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants has raised concerns that PCBS could also be
escaping into the river. The Buchanan based plant owned by Entergy, is situated
on the banks of the Hudson River, the country’s largest superfund site for PCB
cleanup.
According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the oversight agency for the
plants, PCBS (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) were found years ago at the oldest
Indian Point unit, Unit 1, which closed in 1974. The PCBS were reportedly treated
and removed years later. Neil Sheehan of the NRC said that they have been concerned
that PCBS could now show up in the groundwater. “If they [Entergy] were to pump
out the groundwater, check contamination levels and then do a controlled release
to the river, they could be releasing PCBS,” explained Sheehan. “That’s something
the [plant] site is going to have to work on. Unit 1 is an old plant and the
PCB issue has been raised before.”
Phil Musegaas, policy analyst with the environmental group Riverkeeper, studied
test results from monitoring wells at Indian Point since leaks were announced
a year and a half ago. “I have not seen anything that suggests there are PCBS
in the ground water, assuming they are testing the water properly,” said Musegaas.
“But that’s really surprising. I would be amazed if there weren’t any PCBS there.”
Discovering two large underground reservoirs amassed over years of leaking irradiated
water beneath Unit 1 and Unit 2 prompted Entergy to test for PCBS.
“We haven’t seen any PCBS in the water we are testing,” said Jim Steets, spokesperson
for Entergy. Steets referred to water sampled from the 54 monitoring wells at
the plant. “Also no PCBS have been found from the two underground plumes. Had
we seen PCBS in our samples, that would indicate a direct tie to the Unit 1
fuel pool, which is where we think the leaks are coming from.” The 40-foot-deep
pool stores used radioactive fuel assemblies.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), who is also
testing ground water at the plant, allows Entergy to dump prescribed amounts
of effluent into the Hudson River every year, but no amount of PCBS are allowed
to be released into the river. Should PCBS be discovered in the groundwater
and in the river, Entergy’s remediation strategy would change and be more costly.
Kimberly Chupa, spokesperson for the DEC, said “We would examine appropriate
options for remediation if PCBS were to be found.”
PCBS: Industrial marvel turned toxic
PCBS are synthetic organic chemicals
first manufactured commercially in 1929 by Monsanto and were used widely as
coolants and lubricants in electrical equipment, which was how they were used
at Indian Point Unit 1. After years of releasing PCBS into waterways and the
environment, their toxicity was attributed to serious health threats and classified
by the EPA as probable human carcinogens. Since toxic concentrations of PCBS
were in found in Hudson River fish, New York State banned fishing in the Upper
Hudson River and commercial fishing of striped bass in the Lower Hudson in 1976.
A year later the use of PCBS was banned nationally.
Who’s minding the store?
In 2000 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated 200 miles
of the Hudson River as a superfund site. From Hudson Falls down to the Battery
in New York City, it is the largest superfund site in the country. General Electric
plants at Hudson Falls and Fort Edward discharged between 209,000 and 1.3 million
pounds of PCBs into the river over 30 years.
Elias Rodrigues of the EPA said
even though the agency technically has oversight authority over New York’s utilities
on the Hudson River, they were unaware of what was going into the river from
nuclear power plants.
“We do not know about any pollutants
going into the river at Indian Point,” said Rodrigues. “But any data about that
is public information available at our website. You need to check in with the
DEC,” urged Rodrigues. “That issue is irrelevant to the goals of the EPA.”
The NRC also defers to the DEC for PCB oversight. “PCBS are not in our regulatory
purview,” said Sheehan. “That falls under the state.”
DEC’s Chupa, who would only comment to The North County News via email, wrote
that “PCBS are known to be present in the water in the footing drain for Unit-1.
They are at very low levels and are being removed from the water prior to release
to their discharge canal as required by a condition of their SPDES Permit, which
precludes discharge of any PCBS.” (SPDES is the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System). Chupa also wrote “Additionally, Entergy is testing for PCBS in the
groundwater/monitoring wells and these samples are not showing any detectable
PCBS.”
Chupa said that the DEC didn’t
know of any other PCB contamination in “environmental samples taken at this
time.” Chupa also wrote that “Fish in the Hudson River are not currently being
tested for PCB contamination for Indian Point."
Hudson River Fish Long Contaminated
John Davis, an environmental scientist
for the New York State Attorney General’s office explained “bio-accumulation”
of PCBS in Hudson River fish.
“Fish eat things that live in river
sediment,” said Davis. “When the sediment becomes contaminated, everything in
the sediment, like worms and insects, become contaminated too.” Davis said the
Hudson’s large mouth bass live as long as 10 years. “The longer the fish live,
the more the PCBS build up in their body. We say the PCBS bio-accumulate. PCBS
get stuck in the fat of the fish and don’t dissolve.” explained Davis.
Keeping watch
But Entergy claims they will keep a vigilant watch for PCBS that go into the
Hudson River. Steets said Entergy will check for PCBS as an ongoing project.
“The frequency and location of
the testing will change over time,” said Steets. “But I suspect we will be monitoring
and sampling water at the plant for the next 30 years.”
Musegaas said that if PCBS were
found close to the river, it could be assumed they were going into the river.
“They [Entergy] would be in violation of the Clean Water Act,” he said. “I’m
expecting that at some point we’ll get a well sample that will have PCBS in
it, but it’s an open ended question.”
###
Time
to get after Indian Point staffers who muzzle workers
NY Journal News Editorial: December
26, 2006
Usually when we hear from rank-and-file
Indian Point employees, it is to
remind us that the nuclear power plans are "safe, secure and vital,"
with
some emphasis on vital, as in, "our jobs are vital to us." It was
a bit
disheartening then to read where some workers at the Buchanan plants feel
stifled by supervisors when it comes to raising safety issues - so much so
that they have complained to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Safe,
secure and muzzled" doesn't sound like much of a slogan or policy, now
does
it?
Allegations of the employee angst
is referenced in the NRC's 54-page
inspection report to Indian Point setting forth what regulators gleaned
during inspections and interviews with workers. An article by staff writer
Greg Clary included this from NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan: "We rely on plant
workers coming forward to raise concerns, not only with (the operator), but
with us, too. If they feel like they're impeded from doing that because
there would be a backlash, we want to know what the company is doing to
address that."
The NRC gave Indian Point 30 days
to come up with a plan to make workers
feel more comfortable about speaking up, and the plants have already
announced steps aimed at reinforcing "the importance and necessity for
raising safety issues," said Indian Point spokesman Jim Steets. At the
same
time, the NRC said the conditions at the plants are safe for workers and
the public - perhaps evidence that the NRC employee interviews did not
reveal any extraordinary safety problems. In any case, the allegations have
to sting; employees can't sing the company's praises so well in public
while they are biting their tongues on safety in private.
Certainly more than their jobs are
at stake.
The NRC findings come as Indian
Point owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast is
ramping up for what portends to be a difficult and politics-charged
relicensing process. At the same time, a host of New York and Connecticut
lawmakers is pressing for an independent safety study of Indian Point. The
GOP-led Congress has resisted legislation authorizing the studies, spurred
in part by problems that have ranged from faulty emergency sirens to
leaking radioactive material.
"Everything changes with the
new Democratic Congress," Rep. Eliot Engel,
D-Bronx, a co-sponsor with Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-Middletown, Nita Lowey,
D-Harrison, outgoing Sue Kelly, R-Katonah, and Christopher Shays, R-Conn.,
of the Independent Safety Assessment. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.,
sponsored similar legislation in the Senate.
In the meantime, Entergy and the
NRC should dismiss whoever - supervisors?
their bosses? employee peers? - is responsible for the mum's-the-word
approach on safety. They undermine the efforts of everyone at Indian Point
who believes the plants are "safe, secure and vital," and heighten
skepticism among the legions who aren't so sure.
###
INDIAN
POINT: Entergy crisis
Nuke leaks taint Hudson
By Abby Luby
Contaminated water leaking from
the Indian Point Nuclear Reactors forced plant owner Entergy to explain why.
At an open house last week industry experts, hydrologists and spent-fuel experts
hired by the company attempted to explain the unknown origin of large amounts
of leaking, radiated water. Learning about the complex problem from Entergy's
perspective, members of the public stopped at each of the dozen exhibits set
up at Entergy's training center.
Underground lakes
Entergy's Don Mayer, director of
special projects for the Buchanan plant, explained how two lakes of radiated
water had amassed under the plant's transformer yard and under the Unit 1 reactor.
"Leaking was taking place under
the prior owner in the early 1980s," said Mayer.
"Also, sometime between 2000 and 2005 a leakage occurred that made its
way into the plume. That's all we know." Mayer, referring to the lakes
as "plumes," said one lake was predominantly laced with tritium, while
the other contained mainly Strontium-90. According to a recent report by the
National Academies of Science, Strontium-90 is a dangerous radioactive isotope
that increases the risk of cancer, and tritium is a known carcinogenic and mutagenic.
In August 2005, radioactive leaks were thought to have come from the 40-foot-deep
spent-fuel pools containing over 1,000 tons of extremely high radioactive fuel
on-site. Spent-fuel pools are 40-foot deep pools that store used radioactive
fuel.
New monitoring wells
The underground lake with tritium
is about 90 by 200 feet and about 50 feet deep, according to Mayer. "The
other one is 30 feet wide by 300 feet long and 50 to 60 feet deep," he
said. Entergy has dug 35 new water-monitoring wells, trying to detect where
the leaks are coming from. The total number of monitoring wells at plant is
up to 54.
"The wells are 50 feet to 120 feet," said hydrologist Matt Bavenik,
speaking at the open house about the monitoring wells.
Entergy is planning different types
of remediation, explained Mayer. "We will do a pilot remediation test where
we pull the tritium out of the ground," he said. "Our primary purpose
is to keep it here and not have it flow south to the river."
Not an easy fix
"Tritium remediation is very
difficult," said Dan Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear
watchdog group that studies the effects of radiation. In a phone interview,
Hirsch said it was almost impossible to remove tritium. "Most contaminates
are either dissolved or suspended in the water. If it's suspended you can filter
it out; if it's dissolved you can run it through things like charcoal ion resins."
Because tritium combines with oxygen to form a liquid it actually is the water,
said Mr. Hirsch. "It's nothing you can filter out, nothing you can readily
remove. You can get it out by breaking the water apart with electrolysis, which
is immensely expensive."
Other radionuclides from the spent-fuel
pools are heavier isotopes like Strontium-90 and Cesium 137, that don't travel
with water as well. "These are also very bad radionuclides," said
Mr. Hirsch. "But at least you can remove them from water."
Clean-up work on the leaks is expected to start at the end of the month, said
Mayer.
Dumping in the Hudson
Most of the radiated water is flowing
into the Hudson River, where the plant is located. "We want to remediate
that and try to contain the water and control where it flows," said Mayer.
The plant dumps over 10 million
gallons of radiated water into the Hudson River every year, according to the
2005 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report Entergy filed with the federal
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in April of 2006.
Nearby residents and environmental
advocacy groups such as Riverkeeper worry that radiated water will reach the
public drinking supply and will affect bathers at the Croton Point Park beaches.
Neil Sheehan, spokesperson for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said last spring that drinking water supplies
tested two miles away from the plant tested free of contaminants.
Phillip Musegaas, a policy analyst with Riverkeeper based in Tarrytown, said
he hopes that Entergy can find the source of the leaks. "Then they will
be able to get a plan going to clean it up," he said. "Right now,
it's difficult to know just how much contamination is going into the environment."
Musegaas said Entergy's effort was
due in part to their upcoming relicensing application. "We have to keep
in mind that they trying to put their best face forward," he said. "But
contaminating the river is a serious problem. Tens of thousands of gallons of
water are leaching out into the ground and most of it is going into the river."
###
Stop
playing games at Indian Point
Week in and week out, something always seems to be going wrong at the Indian
Point nuclear power plants, yet nothing is ever deemed to be a danger to the
public.
Amazing.
The mere existence of a ticking
time bomb in the middle of a heavily populated area where hundreds of thousands
of lives could be obliterated in minutes is enough of a daily danger, and enough
of a reason to pull the plug on the plants.
Many have taken that stance over
the years, but their outcries evaporate into the air, much like the harmful
emissions that float over the Hudson River.
Entergy is currently in the process of getting all its paperwork ready to seek
a renewal of its licenses from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The license for Indian Point 2 expires
in 2013. The license for Indian Point 3 expires in 2015. Based on the plant's
flawed performance over the last 30 years alone, the NRC shouldn't even open
the envelopes from Entergy. After all, Indian Point 2, just a few years ago,
received the lowest rating of any of the 103 nuclear plants in the nation. And
the problems continue today....
Leaks, malfunctions, false alarms
The plants keep springing leaks
of various kinds. The emergency siren system keeps malfunctioning. The so-called
evacuation plan keeps attracting more negative attention. Then, last Wednesday,
the New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) almost caused mass hysteria
by distributing an e-mail to the media and others that declared an emergency
at Indian Point.
Within a few minutes, SEMO, which
was conducting an internal training session, discovered it had made a major
blunder and hurriedly rectified the situation with a follow-up e-mail. This
is one of the agencies supposedly keeping a close eye on Indian Point for the
public. If it wasn't such a serious topic, it would make a terrific sitcom,
and there are plenty of fools that could be cast.
There's a bill pending in Congress
calling for an independent safety assessment of Indian Point. Great, so what's
the holdup? Are lawmakers waiting until after Entergy gets its licenses renewed
so such a study would essentially mean squat if anything negative is discovered?
Instead of wasting money on a study, money should be invested to transform the
site for either an alternative energy source or research center.
The plants were beneficial when
they were new, but they have steadily declined to the point where they are now
a serious safety hazard. Any license extension would be like playing Russian
roulette.
Game over.
###
The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has rejected an effort to change how it relicenses plants
like Indian Point.
By LIZ ANDERSON
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: December
5, 2006)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has rejected an attempt by Westchester
County Executive Andrew Spano to broaden the standards it uses to review
plants such as Indian Point when they apply for relicensing.
The decision comes just weeks after
Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the owners
of the Buchanan plants, announced it would seek to continue operating them
through 2035. The licenses for the existing plants expire in 2013 and 2015;
the company plans to formally apply for 20-year license extensions in the
spring.
"It is just outrageous,"
said Susan Tolchin, Spano's chief adviser, of the
ruling. "Unfortunately it's a typical decision that didn't take into
account all of the things we brought to their attention." She said the
decision "once again sides with the nuclear industry rather than with
concern about public safety, which is what County Executive Spano is most
concerned about."
Spano, who opposes the plants' relicensing,
had sent a petition to the NRC
in May 2005 in the hope of making the process more difficult for Entergy,
should it go that route. Among other things, he asked the NRC to treat a
plant seeking relicensing in the same way it would a new operator seeking
to build a plant in that location today, review such issues as local
demographics, the physical site, emergency evacuation plans and site
security.
The NRC, in its ruling, denied both
Spano's request and a similar petition
from the mayor of Brick Township, N.J., north of the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station. The agency said the two petitions "raise issues that
the commission already considered at length in developing the license
renewal rule."
"These issues are managed by
the ongoing regulatory process or under other
regulations, or are issues beyond the commission's regulatory authority,"
it added.
But Tolchin said the demographics
had changed.
"When these plants were sited
here ... this was something that was not
meant to be forever and ever. Things change, roads get clogged, cities get
built up, population increases, we had Sept. 11. The county executive
remains concerned that he cannot safely evacuate people if the plant has a
fast-breaking (disaster) scenario."
Lisa Rainwater, director of the
Indian Point Campaign for the Riverkeeper,
called the NRC's decision "ludicrous."
Tolchin said Spano's staff planned
to hold a "strategy session" today to
discuss what to do next.
###
Indian Point's
emergency phone system silenced
By GLENN BLAIN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: December
5, 2006)
An emergency telephone system used
by Indian Point officials to quickly notify local governments and the state
about problems at the nuclear plants was out of service for at least part of
the weekend.
Technicians making routine tests
yesterday discovered that the Radiological Emergency Communication System was
not working, said Jim Steets, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast.
The outage was traced to a computer problem and the system was restored by 9:15
a.m.
"It could have gone down over
the weekend, but no sooner than last Friday," Steets said. "The system
checked out fine Friday afternoon."
Steets insisted that the complex
has backup systems that would have let it communicate directly with the state
and county emergency service officials if necessary. If all else failed, he
added, they simply could have called government officials directly.
"It is a dedicated phone system
set up to communicate in a radiological emergency," Steets said. "It
is a phone line. So they would just go to a normal telephone system if we had
to make the call."
The outage was just the latest problem
for Entergy. On Thursday, Entergy had to shut down one of the reactors at the
complex because a pipe was found to be leaking water and steam into the containment
dome that houses the reactor. The leak was repaired and the reactor resumed
operation on Saturday.
Entergy recently announced plans
to seek new federal licenses for the plants, which would keep them operating
through 2035. The original 40-year licenses for Indian Point 2 and 3 are set
to expire in 2013 and 2015, respectively.
Opponents of the nuclear plants
say the telephone system's failure is further proof that Entergy's management
of the facility is lacking and that the company should not receive new licenses.
"Time and time again we see
Entergy management failing to maintain properly emergency equipment, such as
sirens and now this phone system," said Lisa Rainwater, director of the
environmental group Riverkeeper's Indian Point Campaign.
Susan Tolchin, chief adviser to
Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, said the communication system outage,
while not a serious problem, was "not a good thing."
Such communications difficulties,
Tolchin added, were among the reasons why Spano believes the plants should not
receive new licenses.
"They would have had to have
called everybody on a normal phone line," she said.
Reach Glenn Blain at gblain@lohud.com
or 914-694-5066.
###
The 3-Legged Indian Point Table Top Drill
I have been an observer of the past three Indian Point radiation emergency
“drills”. The November 14, 2006 exercise was a very professionally done protocol
review, but it no more resembled a genuine drill than an architectural schematic
resembles a building.
Thus to represent the exercise as proof that the Indian Point radiation emergency
plan could save one life - much less hundreds of thousands - amounts to a fraud
upon the public.
It is also worthy of note, that none of the pre-scripted scenarios I have seen
involve a major emergency. A prime illustration of how significantly the events
are underplayed, is that in the 2004 exercise, which involved a terrorist flown
airplane hitting Indian Point property (but very conveniently missing the plant’s
critical structures) the script indicated there was “no traffic in Westchester.”
In this year’s script, hours after the public had been notified of a radiation
release from Indian Point and the official declaration of a General Emergency
(the highest nuclear incident category) had been officially declared, there
was only “heavy traffic” flowing smoothly.
Were that only the case on a regular day, commuters would be overjoyed.
Michel Lee
###
Indian Point
safety drill conducted; opponents say it wasn't realistic enough
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Buchanan - The Department of Homeland
Security, FEMA, SEMO and the NRC Tuesday conducted a bi-annual drill at the
Indian Point nuclear power plants to review how responders did in the face of
simulated emergencies.
While the results of the drill will
be scrutinized and reviewed, a
consortium of environmental groups opposed to the continued operation of the
plants, gave the drill a failing grade.
The Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition
believes that since the drill was
inadequate and the emergency plan is "very, very weak," said coalition
steering committee member Michel Lee. "There is absolutely no way you can
have a workable emergency plan for a major accident or terrorist attack at Indian
Point, but you could certainly have the best of many bad plans and we're not
even there yet."
James Steets, spokesman for Indian
Point owner Entergy, said emergency services can be well prepared based on what
they learn from these simulated exercises. "Many, many parts of these exercises
are real, even though they are playing a role, they're dealing with events that
they have to address, that they have to make decisions about, that consider
all kinds of real obstacles for making decisions about what can be done or should
be done about protecting the plants."
Copyright C 2006 Mid-Hudson News
Network, a division of Statewide News Network, Inc.
###
Plant's
hot leak
October 9, 2006
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/460032p-386898c.html
Fix due at lndian
Pt. nuke
BY ABBY LUBY
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Radioactive water leaking under
the Indian Point Nuclear Power plant site
and into the ground has grown to roughly the size of the Central Park
Reservoir, plant officials told the Daily News.
Cleanup of the leaks at the aging
Westchester County plant, 24 miles
upstream from New York City on the Hudson River, is set to start by the end
of the month, said Don Mayer, director of special projects for Entergy,
which runs the plant.
But even as the long-planned fix
begins, the size of the problem continues
to grow.
"The underground area has contaminated
water that is 50 to 60 feet deep,"
said Mayer. "There is also another area, or underground plume, that is
about
30 feet wide by 350 feet long."
Nearby residents and environmental
advocacy groups, including Robert F.
Kennedy's Riverkeeper, fear the radiation will seep into underground
aquifers and reach public drinking supplies.
"Tens of thousands of gallons
of water are leaching out into the ground, but
most of it is going into the river. It's a serious problem," said Phillip
Musegaas, a policy analyst with the Riverkeeper.
Entergy, which has dug 54 wells
to monitor and detect contamination in the
ground water, maintains the drinking water is safe. Drinking supplies tested
2 miles from the plant last spring were found free of radioactive
contaminants, according to Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The leaks are believed to be coming
from spent-fuel pools and other areas
around the reactors. "One area is predominantly leaking tritium and the
other Strontium-90," Mayer said.
Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope
that increases the risk of cancer, and
tritium is carcinogenic and mutagenic, according to experts from the
National Academies of Science.
"We want to remediate that
and try to contain the water and control where it
flows," Mayer said.
###
INDIAN POINT: Entergy
crisis
Nuke leaks taint Hudson
By Abby Luby
Contaminated water leaking from
the Indian Point Nuclear Reactors forced plant owner Entergy to explain why.
At an open house last week industry experts, hydrologists and spent-fuel experts
hired by the company attempted to explain the unknown origin of large amounts
of leaking, radiated water. Learning about the complex problem from Entergy's
perspective, members of the public stopped at each of the dozen exhibits set
up at Entergy's training center.
Underground lakes
Entergy's Don Mayer, director of special projects for the Buchanan plant, explained
how two lakes of radiated water had amassed under the plant's transformer yard
and under the Unit 1 reactor.
"Leaking was taking place under
the prior owner in the early 1980s," said Mayer.
"Also, sometime between 2000 and 2005 a leakage occurred that made its
way into the plume. That's all we know." Mayer, referring to the lakes
as "plumes," said one lake was predominantly laced with tritium, while
the other contained mainly Strontium-90. According to a recent report by the
National Academies of Science, Strontium-90 is a dangerous radioactive isotope
that increases the risk of cancer, and tritium is a known carcinogenic and mutagenic.
In August 2005, radioactive leaks were thought to have come from the 40-foot-deep
spent-fuel pools containing over 1,000 tons of extremely high radioactive fuel
on-site. Spent-fuel pools are 40-foot deep pools that store used radioactive
fuel.
New monitoring wells
The underground lake with tritium is about 90 by 200 feet and about 50 feet
deep, according to Mayer. "The other one is 30 feet wide by 300 feet long
and 50 to 60 feet deep," he said. Entergy has dug 35 new water-monitoring
wells, trying to detect where the leaks are coming from. The total number of
monitoring wells at plant is up to 54.
"The wells are 50 feet to 120 feet," said hydrologist Matt Bavenik,
speaking at the open house about the monitoring wells.
Entergy is planning different types
of remediation, explained Mayer. "We will do a pilot remediation test where
we pull the tritium out of the ground," he said. "Our primary purpose
is to keep it here and not have it flow south to the river."
Not an easy fix
"Tritium remediation is very difficult," said Dan Hirsch of the Committee
to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear watchdog group that studies the effects of radiation.
In a phone interview, Hirsch said it was almost impossible to remove tritium.
"Most contaminates are either dissolved or suspended in the water. If it's
suspended you can filter it out; if it's dissolved you can run it through things
like charcoal ion resins." Because tritium combines with oxygen to form
a liquid it actually is the water, said Mr. Hirsch. "It's nothing you can
filter out, nothing you can readily remove. You can get it out by breaking the
water apart with electrolysis, which is immensely expensive."
Other radionuclides from the spent-fuel
pools are heavier isotopes like Strontium-90 and Cesium 137, that don't travel
with water as well. "These are also very bad radionuclides," said
Mr. Hirsch. "But at least you can remove them from water."
Clean-up work on the leaks is expected to start at the end of the month, said
Mayer.
Dumping in the Hudson
Most of the radiated water is flowing into the Hudson River, where the plant
is located. "We want to remediate that and try to contain the water and
control where it flows," said Mayer.
The plant dumps over 10 million gallons of radiated water into the Hudson River
every year, according to the 2005 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report
Entergy filed with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in April of 2006.
Nearby residents and environmental
advocacy groups such as Riverkeeper worry that radiated water will reach the
public drinking supply and will affect bathers at the Croton Point Park beaches.
Neil Sheehan, spokesperson for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said last spring that drinking water supplies
tested two miles away from the plant tested free of contaminants.
Phillip Musegaas, a policy analyst with Riverkeeper based in Tarrytown, said
he hopes that Entergy can find the source of the leaks. "Then they will
be able to get a plan going to clean it up," he said. "Right now,
it's difficult to know just how much contamination is going into the environment."
Musegaas said Entergy's effort was
due in part to their upcoming relicensing application. "We have to keep
in mind that they trying to put their best face forward," he said. "But
contaminating the river is a serious problem. Tens of thousands of gallons of
water are leaching out into the ground and most of it is going into the river."
###
October, 2006
Westchester Parent Magazine
STANDING
AT THE CROSSROADS
By Renee Cho, Editor
I just received the information
packet from Briarcliff High School for my son’s fall semester. In it is a detailed
Indian Point Radiological Emergency Evacuation Plan. Planning for worst case
scenarios has become a fact of life in the five years since 9/11, but these
next few months will be crucial in determining our quality of life for the future.
In January 2007, Entergy, owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plants, will
likely petition the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew its operating
license for Indian Point for another twenty years. Can we and our children live
with two more decades of environmental damage caused by Indian Point and the
fear of a potential catastrophe there?
Given the high cost of oil and the ominous consequences of global warming, some
people may now be questioning the wisdom of trying to shut down Indian Point.
After all, isn’t nuclear energy supposed to be cheap and clean? It certainly
appears that way when nuclear-produced electricity is touted to be 2 cents per
KWh. But this price doesn’t reflect the actual costs of building a nuclear power
plant, disposing of its radioactive waste, or dismantling a plant when its life
is over. And part of what makes nuclear energy appear cheap is that the U.S.
government (i.e. we the taxpayers) has spent ten times more on subsidies to
the nuclear industry than it has on renewable energy sources. So given all this
and the radioactivity lasting hundreds of thousands of years that nuclear power
plants leave behind, are we and our children really getting a good deal?
Times have changed since the two
reactors at Indian Point went online in Buchanan in 1973 and 1976. In 1973,
the population of Westchester County was 886,600; today it is 940,000. 20 million
people now live within the 50-mile “peak injury zone” of Indian Point.
When most U.S. reactors were first built, it was assumed that radioactive waste
would be stored onsite only temporarily before being transferred to a reprocessing
facility. But reprocessing was banned in 1979 because of concerns about the
dangers of stockpiling weapons-grade plutonium. Spent fuel rods were never intended
to be indefinitely stored onsite at most nuclear power plants as they are today.
In August 2005, it was learned that Indian Point 2’s spent fuel pool was leaking
tritium and strontium-90 into the groundwater and the Hudson River; no one knows
how long this leak of radioactive hazardous substances has been going on. Meanwhile,
the Yucca Mountain repository for nuclear waste located in an earth-quake prone
area of Nevada is set to open in 2017, but still faces many legal challenges.
Of course, the biggest change in the 30 plus years since Indian Point was constructed
is the threat of terrorism. When we hear the nightly news about terrorist plots
and the Mideast at war, we can’t help but remember that terrorists flew past
Indian Point on their way to the World Trade Towers on 9/11 and that nuclear
power plant plans were found in their possession.
Given all we know now, would a
new plant be approved at the Indian Point site today?
The NRC licenses new commercial power reactors for 40 years and renews licenses
for an additional 20 years. Before new power plants receive approval for their
initial operating license, many factors are taken into consideration including
population density around the plants and the viability of their evacuation plans
in case of a radiological emergency. But contrary to what one would expect or
hope, the license renewal process is extremely limited and examines only environmental
effects and physical plant safety.
The environmental assessment reviews the effects an extended license would have
on endangered species, the effects of cooling water systems on fish and ground
water quality. The safety review makes sure there is a plan in place to maintain
all physical structures and systems whose aging could affect safety.
Public hearings are held to inform the public and get its input (public meeting
notices are posted on the NRC’s website at www.nrc.gov), and the public can
petition the NRC to consider issues other than those within its narrow scope.
When the review is completed, the NRC publishes its assessment and recommendation;
the whole process takes about 30 months.
In May 2005, Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano petitioned the NRC to
amend the rules for license renewal of all nuclear power plants. The petition
would mandate the NRC to only relicense plants that meet all the requirements
they would have to meet if applying for their initial operating license, and
to evaluate conditions that have changed since the building of the plants, as
well as worst case scenarios. Spano’s petition is currently being reviewed by
NRC staff and a decision probably won’t be issued before January 2007.
In June 2005, Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) introduced
legislation into the House to reform the NRC’s relicensing process so that any
renewal must meet the same criteria as an initial application to operate. Unfortunately,
Lowey’s legislation has been stalled in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
since last July.
To further pressure the NRC, legislation was sent to both the House of Representatives
and the Senate this past spring requiring the NRC to conduct an Independent
Safety Assessment (ISA) of Indian Point. This would compel the NRC to conduct
an in-depth investigation into the design, construction, maintenance and safety
performance of Indian Point’s reactors; evaluate its evacuation plan; and address
the criticisms of the emergency plan raised in the January 2003 review of the
plant done by former FEMA head James Lee Witt. In March, the House bill was
referred to the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
but hopefully it will be brought to the floor for consideration before Congress
adjourns this month.
Over 400 elected officials have called for Indian Point’s closure. To date,
59 municipalities, including five counties have passed resolutions opposing
Indian Point’s relicensing. If Indian Point’s reactors are not relicensed, they
will be shut down.
Indian Point is at a crossroads, so the time to act is now! If you want to prevent
Indian Point from operating for another twenty years, visit Riverkeeper at www.riverkeeper.org
and sign the petition against relicensing. Visit the Indian Point Safe Energy
Coalition at www.ipsecinfo.org to sign a petition calling for the closure of
Indian Point. Call and write your representatives in Congress to let them know
that you support the legislation calling for an ISA. To contact your representatives,
visit http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/index.html
###
Security exercises
planned at Indian Point
Copyright © 2006 Mid-Hudson
News Network, a division of Statewide News Network, Inc.
Buchanan – Entergy Nuclear
Northeast will be participating in an NRC-evaluated security exercise this week
at its Indian Point Energy Center, in Buchanan, N.Y.
“The exercise, which the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will evaluate, provides us the opportunity
to demonstrate for the regulator our security and defense capabilities and look
for areas to improve,” said IPEC site vice president Fred Dacimo.
Force-on-force exercises
involve attempts to gain access to plants in a simulated terrorist attack, and
the response of defending security forces.
During the drills and exercise,
persons near the site may hear the sound of simulated gunfire or other loud
noises as participants carry out scenarios that are intended to be as realistic
as possible.
“We are informing the public
now about these events so there is no undue alarm caused by what they may hear
around the site,” Dacimo said. Local officials and law enforcement agencies
have been informed of the events. The exercises are expected to take place in
the evening as well as during daylight hours.
In 2003, after volunteering,
Entergy was among the first nuclear-power sites in the country to participate
in a “force-on-force” exercise that the NRC was conducting as a pilot project.
The NRC was developing at that time an ongoing security program to evaluate
security enhancements that were added after 9/11 to protect against an expanded
terrorist threat.
Following the 2003 exercise,
former commission chairman Nils Diaz said that Indian Point has a "strong
defensive strategy and capability," and that the security force had "successfully
protected the plant from repeated mock-adversary attacks."
Entergy has engaged the
services of Giuliani Partners, formed by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani,
as consultants on security and emergency planning. The Giuliani team is assisting
Entergy in preparing for the exercise.
###
U.N. watchdog agency
might review Indian Point
By Greg Bruno, Times Herald Record
October 12, 2006
Buchanan - Among those being considered
for a top-to-bottom review of safety at the Indian Point nuclear power plant
is the International Atomic Energy Agency, a U.N. nuclear watchdog better known
for inspections in North Korea than upstate New York.
A spokesman for Rep. Sue Kelly,
R-Katonah, said the congresswoman was told yesterday by Nuclear Regulatory Commission
chair Dale Klein that the agency might conduct the safety review. “Klein mentioned
IAEA as a possibility,” said the spokesman, Kevin Callahan.
In a statement yesterday, the NRC
said it plans to conduct a review of reactor oversight at the Indian Point plant,
“and perhaps others.” Plans for the review will be finalized within 30 days,
the NRC said. The agency did not mention who would conduct the assessment.
Kelly said Klein’s commitment was
a “step in the right direction” to “ensure that surrounding communities are
protected from any gaps or weaknesses” in plant operation.
But Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley,
was less upbeat. “What the NRC has announced is that it will review its oversight
process, not conduct new oversight. We need a comprehensive review of Indian
Point overall, not a bureaucratic assessment of how things are reviewed.”
###
NUCLEAR WASTE:
Indian Point opponents react to NRC report
Greenwire, Monday, October 9, 2006
A Nuclear Regulatory Commission
report last week that said radioactive
water leaks have not affected public health drew fire from
environmentalists who maintained it was too early to tell whether leaks
from Indian Point and other nuclear reactors posed health hazards.
Riverkeeper policy analyst Phillip
Musegaas called the NRC's findings
premature because, he said, important facts remain unknown, including
how long the water leaks had been occurring at the New York plant.
The report found that "the
potential exists for unplanned and
unmonitored releases of radioactive fluids to migrate offsite into the
public domain" under existing regulations, but that the tritium leaks
that have been previously discovered at nuclear plants post no threat to
public health (Greenwire, Oct. 5).
Tritium leaks measured on-site
at the Braidwood plant in Illinois this
spring, and last year at the Indian Point plant, both significantly
exceeded EPA's standards of 20,000 picocuries per liter (Greenwire, Aug.
30).
Buchanan, N.Y., Mayor Dan O'Neill
said that Entergy properly addressed
the Indian Point leaks and called the site the "safest power plant in
the Hudson Valley."
Musegaas objected to industry self-regulation.
"Our other concern about
the report is that once again, the NRC is relying on the voluntary
actions by the industry to solve these problems," Musegaas said. "The
NRC is not looking at passing new regulations that would address the
problems at these plants that lead to leaks" (Sean Gorman, White Plains
[N.Y.] Journal News, Oct. 8).
###
Leaked contaminated
water pools grow
NEW YORK, Oct. 9 (UPI) -- New York's
Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant is leaking radioactive water into the ground,
it was reported Monday.
Contaminated water under the plant,
24 miles upstream from New York City on the Hudson River, has grown to approximately
the size of the Central Park Reservoir, the New York Daily News said Monday.
Don Mayer, special projects director
for Entergy, which runs the plant, said the underground area has contaminated
water between 50 feet and 60 feet deep, the Daily News said. Another area is
about 30 feet wide by 350 feet long.
Mayer said the area is leaking primarily
strontium-90 and tritium, both carcinogenic, the Daily News said, but Entergy
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission both said drinking supplies tested two
miles from the plant were found contaminant free.
Mayer said cleanup of the leaks
is scheduled to begin at the end of the month, the Daily News said.
###
Entergy tells NRC
the new Indian Point notification system is built on lessons learned
Mid-Hudson News, Oct. 7, 2006
Peekskill – Two-thirds of the new warning sirens are in place, and are being
tested, in the ten-mile radius around the Indian Point Energy Center. All 150
sirens are to be installed by sometime early next year.
Entergy officials told the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, at a public meeting in Peekskill on Friday, that the
new system relies strongly on redundancy to ensure reliability, as well as multi-level
power backup to keep the system, and each of the individual sirens, working
in the event of a power failure.
The current system, using out-of-date
custom software from multiple vendors, is causing more frequent problems, although
Entergy’s Director of Emergency Planning Mike Solbodien defines that as working
“98 percent of the time”, instead of 100 percent.
How Entergy is coping with the current
system was the subject of extended NRC probing during the first part of the
almost three-hour meeting.
Solbodien, said they have learned
some hard lessons from their efforts to make the old system work.
“We’re using more than one technology.
It’s all commercial, off-the-shelf technology. It’s all tested technology. And,
it’s redundant, so, we have many things doing the same thing, physically separately
and operationally separately, so we have the highest insurance the system will
work at all times.”
Solbodien and other Entergy officials
said the new system is fully integrated with New York State’s current high-tech
emergency notification system.
Energy’s Indian Point Site Vice
President Fred Dacimo said the four-faceted system will, in his words be a 21ste
century “public information system that will be a model for the rest of the
nation”.
The afternoon session was sparsely
attended. About half the roughly 100 people in the room were either with the
NRC or Entergy. That drew fire from one of the four citizens who spoke.
Mark Jacobs, of the Indian Point
Safe Energy Coalition, took the NRC to task for holding the meeting in the afternoon,
instead of the usual evening time. Deputy Regional Administrator Mark Dapas
took responsibility for the scheduling, noting that typically, this sort of
meeting would normally take place at their regional office near Philadelphia.
Other questions raised during public
comment dealt with the scope and reliability of the planned backup system, and
with security of the software against outside hacking.
###
House passes Kelly
legislation to increase security at nuke plants including Indian Point
Mid-Hudson News, Sept. 29, 2006
(Washington, DC) – The House of Representatives has passed legislation sponsored
by Congresswoman Sue Kelly that would help strengthen security at waterside
nuclear power plants.
As part of an effort to increase
the Coast Guard presence along the Hudson River in the vicinity of Indian Point,
Kelly introduced the bill on June 14. When she questioned Coast Guard officials
about security patrols at Indian Point during a Congressional hearing in May,
they agreed with her assessment that enhanced patrols are necessary to fully
protect the plants from any potential security breach along the Hudson River.
Kelly partnered with U.S. Rep. John
Barrow (D-GA), who similarly has a waterside nuclear power plant in his Congressional
district, and worked to get her legislation passed as part of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act that was approved by the House.
The bill will allow the Coast Guard
to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to better safeguard nuclear facilities
like the Indian Point facility along the Hudson River and provide vessels and
weaponry capable of thwarting waterborne attacks, Kelly said.
The Coast Guard currently patrols
Indian Point only periodically with a 65-foot tug boat that lacks the speed
or weaponry to fully protect the plants from a terrorist threat. Barrow has
concerns like Kelly about potential vulnerabilities at the Vogtle Nuclear facility
in Waynesboro, Ga., which is located on the Savannah River.
By making the Coast Guard the primary
federal agency for the maritime safety of U.S. nuclear power facilities, Kelly
and Barrow's legislation enables the Coast Guard to provide the increased resources
necessary to procure a faster and better-equipped Coast Guard vessel to protect
Indian Point.
###
Indian Point sirens
sound
By GREG CLARY
gclary@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: September
14, 2006)
BUCHANAN — All but a half-dozen
of Indian Point's 156 emergency sirens tested properly last night, with the
few failures spread across the 10-mile evacuation radius around the nuclear
plant.
Only Putnam County came away with
a perfect score for its 10 sirens.
"We were 100 percent successful,"
said Adam Stiebeling, Putnam's deputy commissioner of emergency services. "That
makes my reporting job easy."
The 7:30 p.m. test — held at that
time to reach more residents at home — was one of the last for this group of
156 sirens.
They'll be replaced by the end of
January with a new system, which may include automatic telephoning of residents
in affected areas as a backup warning.
Westchester, Rockland and Orange,
the other counties in the emergency zone, had two malfunctions each, though
only Rockland had a confirmed failure of a siren to sound, officials said.
"I believe the problems here
were rotation sensors, which has been a problem that has plagued the system
since they were first installed," said Anthony Sutton, Westchester's top
emergency official. "There'll be no moving parts, hopefully, in the new
system."
The current siren system is designed
to alert residents of Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange counties who
live within 10 miles of the nuclear plant to turn on their TVs or radios in
the event of an emergency.
Indian Point officials said a WHUD
emergency radio broadcast interrupted local cable television stations last night
without incident, alerting viewers of the test.
"We're pleased because the
test demonstrated that the problems we've had in the past have been solved,"
Indian Point spokesman Jim Steet said. "Not just with this test but with
several in a row."
The new $10 million replacement
system, in addition to broadcasting simultaneously in four directions from each
siren, will cover more of the emergency zone's parklands and will have the capacity
to give voice commands in some locations.
Last night's test was part of an
annual evaluation required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to confirm that
at least 94 percent of the sirens work.
The tests check sound, rotation
and communication with Indian Point and the four counties' emergency centers.
In areas where the sirens fail during
a real emergency, local police would be required to alert residents street by
street.
Last year, the sirens failed on
such a wholesale basis that elected officials called for the NRC to require
a better system.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.,
attached an amendment to the Energy Act of 2005 that required renovating the
sirens' backup power source, and the company announced plans to replace the
entire system.
At one point during the summer of
2005, the sirens failed three times in a one-month period.
Two quarterly tests this year were
relatively routine, with all 156 working properly in the March exercise.
County emergency officials have
suggested that residents use the quarterly tests as a reminder to review emergency
planning in their own homes.
They added that having the test
at night improved the likelihood of more people hearing the sirens.
The company is on schedule to meet
the Jan. 30 deadline for completing the replacement, Indian Point officials
say.
About two-thirds of the new sirens
have been installed.
###
Nuclear Threat
Power plants vulnerable or secure?
By Peter Urban, Connecticut
Post, September 10, 2006
Despite efforts to improve security,
the nation's nuclear power plants remain vulnerable to terrorist attack five
years after Sept. 11, concerned citizens and members of Congress say.
Connecticut is one of 31 states
with nuclear power plants. The Millstone complex, which has two operating reactors
and one closed reactor, is in Waterford, about 65 miles east of Bridgeport.
It is operated by Dominion Generation. About 50 miles west of Bridgeport, Entergy
Nuclear Northeast operates the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, N.Y.
Both plants have been the target
of fierce criticism from some neighbors who fear for their safety, especially
if terrorists should strike. Dominion and Entergy say the plants are safe and
secure and the nuclear power industry argues that a Chernobyl-style meltdown
in this country is improbable.
Phillip Musegaas, policy analyst
at Riverkeeper Inc., a New York-based environmental group, said that his organization
believes security at Indian Point is inadequate and vulnerable to terrorism.
"There is still no evidence
the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has upgraded their security regulations
enough to guarantee that plants are protected from the type of attacks that
occurred on Sept. 11," he said.
Riverkeeper officials have said
that the Bridgeport region faces a greater potential threat from Indian Point
because prevailing winds would likely drive any plume of radiation right into
the area.
Most nuclear plants in the nation
hire private security guards to protect the facilities. NRC boosted requirements
for these guards in 2003 but not to the point where they would be able to repel
a dozen or more heavily armed, well-trained attackers, Musegaas said. The exact
level of force, however, is classified. So it is impossible to say with certainty
what requirements have been imposed.
In April, the General Accountability
Office released a report that gave mixed reviews to nuclear power security.
The report, requested by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, found that since 2003
a number of concrete steps had been taken to buttress the plants against potential
terrorist attacks.
It found that buffer zones had been
augmented where possible, barriers thickened and detection equipment installed
or upgraded.
Security forces were enlarged and
armed with new weapons.
However, GAO said it was too early
to claim victory since less than half of the 65 sites overseen by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission had undergone "force-on-force" exercises intended
to test security.
Moreover, GAO found gaps in security
at some of the sites inspected.
"The bottom line is, our nuclear
security facilities are safer thanks to some security upgrades, but they are
still not safe," said Shays, chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee
on national security. "I will continue to shine the spotlight on this issue
until we feel certain nuclear facilities are capable of protecting their reactors
from attack." The subcommittee has held five hearings on nuclear security
since 2004.
Shays' Democratic opponent, Diane
Farrell, has called for better emergency and evacuation planning for nuclear
power plants. As Westport First Selectwoman, Farrell got the town to purchase
potassium iodide tablets that are recommended as a prophylactic against exposure
to cancer-causing radiation. Entergy points to a Department of Homeland Security
comprehensive review that recognized nuclear plants as "the best-protected
assets of our critical infrastructure," but acknowledged the value of enhancing
the protection at these facilities.
"Despite new security provisions
— including expanded disaster coordination, more extensive background checks
on personnel and stronger criminal penalties for those involved in wrongdoing
— I remain concerned that the state of nuclear power plant security is not at
the level it should be five years after September 11," said Sen. Chris
Dodd, D-Conn. "I will continue to support efforts to ensure that security
personnel are adequately trained, and that Americans living in close proximity
to plants are fully protected."
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., also
believes stronger security is needed at nuclear power plants and in safeguarding
nuclear material.
He has advocated that the NRC tighten
its security regulations and has actively pursued efforts to get the Department
of Homeland Security to develop effective
screening systems for nuclear materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb,
according to a spokeswoman.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, blamed the
Bush administration for failing "to fully secure our nation's nuclear facilities."
She pointed to GAO complaints, included in its latest report, that the energy
industry had successfully pressured NRC to impose less stringent security standards
on nuclear power plants than NRC staff had recommended.
Marvin Fertel, a senior vice president
at Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association, told Shays' subcommittee that
the industry maintains "extremely high levels of security" at its
facilities.
Fertel pointed out that nuclear
power plants are massive structures with thick steel reinforced exterior walls
and internal barriers of reinforced concrete built to withstand earthquakes,
hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and floods. In addition, there are redundant safety
systems, surveillance equipment and trained security forces present, he said.
"The industry has invested more than $1.2 billion in security improvements
at nuclear plant sites and has increased the number of specially trained, well-armed
security forces by more than 60 percent," he said.
The NRC has also elevated nuclear
facility security requirements on a number of occasions since Sept. 11, 2001,
and is in the process of codifying additional requirements.
Nancy Burton, director of the Connecticut
Coalition Against Millstone and the Green Party candidate for Connecticut attorney
general, said that Millstone remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks and worries
that security systems are not functioning as advertised.
Burton said that a company whistleblower
came forward to say that Dominion routinely disabled its perimeter system because
it was overly sensitive to wind. Sham Mehta of East Lyme, has filed a complaint
with the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, claiming that he
was fired after informing supervisors that company managers allowed operators
to disable the electronic trespass system used to near Millstone's three reactors
and spent-fuel pools.
Burton also complained that Millstone
was vulnerable to a water-based attack. Dominion, she said, rejected an offer
from the Department of Homeland Security to have a floating barrier installed
around its massive water intakes similar to those that protect the nuclear submarines
in Groton.
"If you drove a motorboat full
of explosives into one of the operating intakes you could disable the pumps
and there would inevitably be a nuclear meltdown," Burton said. "If
you go to Millstone you'll see there is no barrier."
Lieberman had staff meet with DHS
more than a year ago to discuss the barrier issue. DHS said it had offered the
barrier as a technology demonstration project, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
did not
believe it was necessary. Dominion
backed out and no similar barrier has been installed at any other nuclear power
plant, according to a Lieberman spokeswoman.
Security concerns have also been
raised about Indian Point.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke
at the National Press Club in May about energy policy and raised concerns about
the potential for more nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels.
"We do have to take a serious
look, but there remain very serious questions about nuclear power and our ability
to manage it in a world with suicidal terrorists," she said. "I have
real concerns, specifically about a plant in my state near where I live, Indian
Point, which has had a number of problems."
Clinton and other members of the
New York delegation have pressed the NRC to conduct a thorough, independent
safety review of Indian Point.
###
Critics want
nuclear fuel better protected
By GREG CLARY
gclary@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: September
8, 2006)
A group of Congressional representatives
and environmentalists is calling for stronger regulation of spent nuclear fuel,
saying the nation's 103 working nuclear plants remain vulnerable to attack.
"Nearly five years after Sept.
11, we know that terrorists are still plotting to attack this country,"
said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Middletown.
"Just as we must take steps
abroad to ensure that terrorists don't acquire nuclear weapons from rogue states,"
he said, "we must pay equal, if not more attention, to ensuring that our
own nuclear material is not vulnerable to attack."
The group, including Rep. Eliot
Engel, D-Bronx, and officials from Riverkeeper, called on President Bush and
the Republican majority in Congress to heed warnings from the National Academy
of Sciences that spent fuel at the nation's 103 working nuclear reactors is
vulnerable.
The group wants the government to
mandate that fuel be moved from water to dry storage casks that have been "hardened
against terrorist attack."
"The federal government must
better secure the spent fuel pools at Indian Point and all other nuclear power
plants," said Rep. Sue Kelly, R-Katonah, who wasn't part of the group.
She added that a greater Coast Guard presence is needed to protect facilities
along navigable waterways.
Indian Point spokesman Jim Steets
called the press conference at the U.S. Capitol a "publicity stunt,"
saying protection of the 2,500 spent fuel assemblies at the Buchanan site was
upgraded after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"This is just a rehash of issues
dealt with years ago, raised by people whose only interest is closing the plant,
not securing it," Steets said. "The spent fuel pools are well-protected.
They're largely underground, covered by 6-foot-thick concrete walls. We've increased
the size of our security force and given them special training in weapons, as
well as installed concrete vehicle barriers and greater monitoring."
He added that the company has begun
plans to move spent fuel from storage pools to dry casks, which will be designed
to withstand terrorist attacks.
Riverkeeper's president Alex Matthiessen
said not enough has been done.
"The spent fuel at Indian Point
is scarcely more secure than it was before 9/11 despite the fact that the New
York metro area, with 20 million inhabitants, continues to be at the top of
the terrorist target list," he said. "It is astonishing that five
years after the worst terrorist attack in history, the federal government has
not even taken the most obvious steps to secure our country's nuclear power
plant infrastructure."
Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for NRC,
said it was "highly inaccurate" to portray any spent fuel pools as
unprotected.
"We have carefully assessed
the security of spent fuel pools and dry cask storage facilities and found them
to be safe," he said.
###
Indian Point
2 shuts for water tank problem
By GREG CLARY
gclary@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: August 24,
2006)
BUCHANAN — Workers shut down Indian
Point 2 yesterday morning after problems developed with discharge valves in
a 10,000-gallon tank of nonradioactive water.
Plant employees and the public were
never at risk, and the 500-degree liquid never leaked, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
officials said.
"We're trying to better understand
the circumstances leading up to the (shutdown)," said Neil Sheehan, an
NRC spokesman. "But workers followed the whole sequence properly. This
is why they spend countless hours in the simulator. We're going to be taking
a close look at this with our resident engineers."
Officials from Entergy Nuclear Northeast,
which owns and operates the nuclear plants at the site, said that the 1,000-megawatt
plant was stopped about 10:30 a.m. for the first time since its monthlong refueling
ended in mid-May.
The outage did not affect Indian
Point 3, which also generates about 1,000 megawatts.
Regulatory and company officials
gave this account
About 10:15 a.m., workers noticed
a problem with Indian Point 2's heater drain tank, which collects overflow reactor-heated
water as it creates the steam that turns the huge turbines and generates electricity.
Sheehan said the discharge valves
that control the levels of water in the tank were stuck on 55 percent capacity,
apparently because of an electrical problem.
Workers initially reduced power
output to 70 percent when a fluctuation in the reactor required a further reduction
to 50 percent.
Workers were then forced to shut
the plant down within 15 minutes.
Entergy officials said the plant
will return to service after repairs are made in the next few days.
Larry Gottlieb, a spokesman for
Indian Point, said the water monitoring system is the only way to determine
how much liquid is in the closed tanks, and repairs could not take place while
the plant was operating.
In the worst case, the tanks would
have emptied and burned out their pumps, he said.
"This is not a big repair job,"
Gottlieb said. "Operators took conservative action to shut down the reactor."
Indian Point 3, which is newer than
Indian Point 2, was shut down twice in July for electrical problems.
Indian Point 2's last unplanned
shutdown was in late December, when a valve on one of the plant's four steam
generators needed to be resealed.
NRC spokesman Sheehan said the problems
do not appear to be be related.
###
Monitoring System Failure
Shuts Down Indian Point
August 23, 2006
(CBS/AP) WHITE PLAINS An Indian
Point nuclear power plant was shut down Wednesday after safety officials detected
a problem with a drain monitoring system.
There was no release of radioactivity,
plant spokesman Larry Gottlieb said.
The plant was to be down for a few
days to fix the problem with the system, which captures drain water from heaters,
that warm non-radioactive water, he said. No homes would be affected, he said.
Another plant at Indian Point was
unaffected by the shutdown. The two nuclear plants are on the Hudson River about
35 miles north of midtown Manhattan.
Since the terrorist attacks of 2001,
many residents of the lower Hudson Valley have called for the plants to be closed,
but federal authorities have found them to be safe and the emergency precautions
to be sufficient.
In early August, the 156 sirens
designed to alert nearby residents of an emergency at the plants were out of
service for more than six hours because of a computer malfunction.
###
Buchanan: Indian
Point Sirens Fail
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 3, 2006
The 156 sirens meant to alert nearby
residents of an emergency at the Indian Point nuclear power plants were out
of service for more than six hours yesterday morning because of a computer malfunction,
plant officials said. The sirens, which have a history of problems and are due
to be replaced by next year, were out from 12:06 a.m. to 6:35 a.m., said Jim
Steets, a spokesman for Indian Point's owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast. He
said the malfunction was unrelated to the current heat and power problems. A
computer program that continuously monitors the sirens failed, he said.
###
Indian Point sirens
around were down for 6 hours
8/2/06 10:40 A.M.
CT NEWSTIMES
http://www.newstimeslive.com/news/story.php?id=1008604
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) - The emergency sirens that are designed to alert
nearby residents of an emergency at the Indian Point nuclear power plants
were out of service for more than six hours Wednesday morning because of a
computer malfunction, officials said.
The sirens, which have a history
of operating problems and are due to be
replaced by next year, were out from 12:06 a.m. to 6:35 a.m., said Jim
Steets, spokesman for Indian Point owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast.
He said the malfunction was unrelated
to heat and power problems currently
plaguing the area. He said a computer program that continuously monitors
the sirens malfunctioned, making it impossible to activate them.
Had an emergency occurred at Indian
Point during the outage, a backup plan
involving trucks with loudspeakers would have been implemented.
Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said NRC
inspectors would monitor Entergy's investigation of what caused Wednesday's
problem.
###
| Problems
persist with emergency sirens at Indian Point |
News
12 Westchester |
(06/28/06)
CORTLANDT - Repeated problems with the emergency siren system at
Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant continued Wednesday leaving county officials
with little confidence in the system.
At least four times per
year the 156 emergency sirens must be tested to ensure they work. The
sirens are intended to warn the four counties surrounding the plant,
Rockland, Putnam, Orange, and Westchester, if there was an actual emergency.
Officials at Entergy, the
company that owns Indian Point, say preliminary testing indicated five
sirens were not working and six others had broken sensors. Although
Entergy officials say some of those sirens were known to be broken,
the replacement of all 156 will continue. The work is expected to be
completed by the end of January 2007.
|
###
| Kelly
pushes for House passage of Indian Point ISA legislation
Wednesday,
June 28, 2006
Copyright
© 2006 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide News Network,
Inc.Copyright © 2006 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide
News Network, Inc. |
| Congresswoman
Sue Kelly Tuesday called for the prompt consideration and approval of
legislation that she has co-introduced in Congress to require the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to authorize an Independent Safety Assessment at
Indian Point.
At
the same time, members of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition were
delivering petitions with 5,000 signatures to her Yorktown office, seeking
her support for the bill. Group spokesman Mark Jacobs said it is important
that Kelly and the other lawmakers in the region keep the heat on the
issue so that an ISA is performed.
Kelly
told her House colleagues that Indian Point “is an aging plant with a
history of problems. An ISA is the best way to identify areas of weakness
before they become serious issues."
After
the NRC responded to Kelly's written request for an ISA by saying it could
not commit to an ISA at Indian Point at this time, Kelly co-introduced
legislation in March with Congressmen Hinchey, Engel, Lowey, and Shays
that calls on the NRC to authorize an ISA at Indian Point.
Jacobs,
meanwhile, said Kelly must drive her message home to her colleagues. “We
need her to make public statements like that; statements in front of Congress
like that, and we need her to make the political arrangements so that
she can use her influence as a member of the majority party, as somebody
who has a good relationship with our President, to make sure that independent
inspections are completed.”
Kelly
told the other House members that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “needs
to put the safety of the residents of New York's Hudson Valley first." |
###
Scientists
says Indian Point power replaceable
By
GREG CLARY
gclary@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original
publication: June
7, 2006)
WHITE
PLAINS — Indian Point's 2,000 megawatts of electricity
can be replaced by other forms of energy in the next decade, but alternatives
would be difficult to put in place because of "political, regulatory, financial
and institutional" obstacles, according to a new study.
The
two nuclear plants in Buchanan combine to provide a little more than 10 percent
of the state's power needs — about 17 million megawatt hours last year out of
a total of 164 million megawatt hours.
The
National Academy of Sciences 280-page report, funded with a $1 million federal
grant secured three years ago by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, says that no "insurmountable
technological barriers" exist to replace the nuclear plants.
"(We)
are less confident that government and financial mechanisms are in place to
facilitate the timely implementation of alternatives," said Lawrence T.
Papay, a consultant in La Jolla, Calif., and a member of the National
Academy of Engineering who chaired the committee that wrote the report.
The
report, conducted by the NAS's National Research Council for the Department
of Energy, provided grist yesterday for both sides of the debate over whether
Indian Point should be closed.
Indian
Point 2 must be relicensed by 2013, and Indian Point 2 by 2015, or be shut down.
Opponents for years have demanded that the licenses not be renewed. But their
requests have become more strident since the terrorist attacks of Sept.
11, 2001.
Lowey,
who wants to close Indian Point, said the report shows the nuclear plants in
Buchanan aren't necessary for meeting future power needs, despite estimations
of a growing need for electricity.
"A
combination of strategies can replace the power produced by the plants and meet
the state's growing energy needs," Lowey said at an outdoor news conference
at Pace University.
Jim
Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Indian Point's owner, said
the report highlights how important the plants are to the region's power grid
and to the future of clean air because fossil fuels aren't burned to create
electricity.
"I
don't think you can make a better case for Indian Point than the case that was
made today," Steets said.
Steets
cited Lowey's acknowledgement that electric rates could rise for the short run,
the fact that Entergy pays $25 million in local taxes, and its ability to supply
reliable energy now, rather than through a combination of still-to-be-sited
alternative plants.
The
New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, an industry group, said the
report shows "that in the real world of politics, our economy and our environment,
it would be extremely difficult to replace this critical element of our energy
infrastructure."
Indian
Point supplies about 25 percent of the electricity delivered to the New
York City and the Lower Hudson Valley. The study noted the need to develop reliable
options as replacements.
Alex
Matthiessen, president of the environmental group Riverkeeper, said the
report has provided the answer to whether alternatives to nuclear power on the
Hudson River are possible.
"The
NAS study is the final and definitive answer to the debate," Matthiessen
said. "Let's move on in order to assure that they appropriate processes
are set in motion to bring about a prompt and orderly decommissioning of both
reactors."
The
report does not comment on the nuclear facility's vulnerability to attack or
whether it should be closed.
The
report and elected officials noted the need for strong leadership in Albany
and Washington to accomplish what is needed in the seven years until Indian
Point 2's license expires.
"Here
is a chance for us to take constructive action," said Rep. Eliot Engel,
D-Bronx. "What we need now is the political leadership to ensure a smooth
transition."
Lowey
said if the governor or his successor decides that Indian Point can be replaced,
it can happen by 2013.
Gov.
George Pataki's office did not respond to a request for comment late yesterday.
Republican
gubernatorial candidate John Faso said he wants to review the report, but supported
the need for alternatives to be found.
"I
think it's clear that the siting of the facility is problematic," Faso
said. "At the same time, I think it's very, very important not to grandstand
on an issue like this, but to look at all the factors and weigh all of those
issues. It would be irresponsible to just consider closing it without all those
alternatives."
A
spokesman for New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic
candidate for governor, said Spitzer has been supportive of closing Indian Point,
provided that replacement power can be brought online.
"Today's
report indicates that's a possibility," Mark Violette said.
###
Report
on closing Indian Point released
By Greg Bruno
Times Herald-Record
gbruno@th-record.com
White
Plains - Safe. Secure. Irrelevant? The Indian Point nuclear power plant may
not be so vital after all.
The
2,000 megawatts of juice from Indian Point could be generated by non-radioactive
fuels, though significant political and financial hurdles would impede shutdown
of the Westchester County nuclear plant, a study released today concludes.
The
findings, detailed in a report by the National Academy of Sciences, suggest
that Entergy Nuclear Northeast's claim of a safe, secure and vital energy source
at Indian Point may be overblown. The study was called for by Rep. Nita Lowey,
D-Harrison.
There
are "no insurmountable technical barriers to the replacement of Indian
Point's capacity, energy and ancillary services," the report said. While
"significant financial, institutional, regulatory and political barriers"
would have to be overcome, "the committee anticipates that a technically
feasible replacement strategy for Indian Point could be achievable."
The
closure of Indian Point, which sits on the banks of the Hudson River about 35-miles
north of Midtown Manhattan, has been a serious political issue for the lower
Hudson Valley since Sept. 11, 2001.
Opponents
of the plant say it is vulnerable to terrorist attacks, a claim that plant officials
vigorously refute. One of the hijacked planes flew by the plant on its way to
New York City.
###
| Report:
No Tech Barrier in Replacing Indian Point |
| WASHINGTON
-- Closing the Indian Point nuclear power plants would be costly and difficult,
but it could be done if the state and power companies moved quickly and
built big new facilities, a group of scientists said Tuesday.
A report by a National Academy of Sciences committee said there is no
technological barrier to replacing the twin nuclear power plants on the
banks of the Hudson River, but a host of financial and regulatory hurdles
are in the way.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, many residents around the plants in Buchanan, N.Y.,
north of New York City, have worried they are at risk to radiation exposure
if terrorists attacked Indian Point.
Federal regulators and the private company that runs Indian Point have
repeatedly insisted the site is secure, but that has not stopped the criticism.
Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Westchester, who wants to close Indian Point, had sought
a scientific review to determine how New York could do that and still
have a reliable power supply. The committee's findings suggested the growing
energy demands in the metropolitan area would make shutting down the reactors
difficult.
"The committee has identified no insurmountable technological barriers
to the replacement of Indian Point's capacity, energy and ancillary services,
but significant financial, institutional, regulatory and political barriers
also would have to be overcome to avoid threatening reliability,'' the
group said in a 280-page report.
At a news conference in White Plains, N.Y., Lowey said the report's bottom
line was, "We can meet the region's increasing energy demands without
Indian Point.'' Speaking next to a poster showing energy-efficient air
conditioners and fluorescent light bulbs, she said the goal could be accomplished
with conservation, transmission improvements and ``modest new generation.''
The problem, the report argues, is that Indian Point now cranks out nearly
one-quarter of the power consumed by the region encompassing New York
City and its suburbs, and demand for power is growing fast.
"Even with the Indian Point units operational, New York state will
require system reinforcements, above those already under construction,
as soon as 2008 in order to meet its projected demand for electricity
and maintain system reliability,'' the committee found.
The report, by design, took no position on whether Indian Point should
be closed. Several members of the committee attended Lowey's news conference,
but the chairman, Lawrence Papay of the National Academy of Engineering,
said they were there to answer questions, not to support Lowey's position.
The committee warned that generating capacity in the New York City area
may be outstripped by peak demand in as little as three years.
Indian Point is a 2,000 megawatt facility, and the state's power needs
are expected to grow between 1,200 and 1,600 megawatts by 2010.
The experts also suggested public resistance, bureaucratic delay and market
forces may slow the expansion of needed power plants until the demand
reaches a crisis point.
"New generating capacity may not be available until reserves are
dangerously low. Forestalling a crisis may require extraordinary efforts
on the part of policy makers and regulators,'' the report said.
A spokesman for the plants' owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, praised
the report, saying, "It's actually a good illustration of the value
of the plant.''
"They not only point out the hurdles that would have to be overcome
to close the plant, they point out the toxic gases, the contribution to
global warming, seeing electricity costs rise,'' said spokesman Jim Steets.
The New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, an industry group,
said the report shows "that in the real world of politics, our economy
and our environment it would be extremely difficult to replace this critical
element of our energy infrastructure.''
The scientists envision two scenarios, one which would close Indian Point
at the end of the decade, and one that would shut the two plants in 2013
and 2015.
The earlier closure "would be much more difficult to accomplish''
at a time when "New York will have very little if any excess capacity,''
they wrote.
The plants could be retired in 2013 and 2015 if New York ramped up its
energy production by bringing 500 more megawatts to the system every year
for a decade.
But replacing Indian Point wouldn't be cheap. Depending on who would pay
for closing Indian Point, those extra costs could end up in residents'
power bills.
A separate study commissioned last year by Westchester County concluded
that Entergy should be offered up to $1.4 billion to voluntarily shut
down Indian Point. Steets said Tuesday, "There certainly hasn't been
any movement in that direction.''
Lowey said that amount would be "subject to negotiation.'' |
###
| Downstate
power needs can be met without Indian Point, study says
June 7 06 Mid Hudson
News |
| A
newly released study shows that a long term process of shutting Indian Point
would be feasible despite possible high initial costs. The
National Academy of Sciences report released Tuesday showed that energy
needs for Westchester County and the rest of the New York City region
can be met without Indian Point, given the slack is picked up by New York
City, and a dramatic reduction in consumer energy usage.
Congresswoman
Nita Lowey said that a combination of newer energy alternatives, such
as wind and coal power, and a decreased demand for electricity, will keep
the cost of closing Indian Point and the regeneration of new energy means,
reasonably lower.
“We
can meet the region’s energy demand without Indian Point,” said the congresswoman.
“Indian Point’s owner and supporters have long opposed calls for closure,
claiming the plant is indispensable to our energy infrastructure,” she
said. “The NAS report proves that it is simply not valid.”
Indian
Point’s James Steets said the report was very comprehensive and well done.
“Even the report acknowledges that Entergy has run the plant ‘extremely
well,’ to use their words, so we understand how important this asset is
and take very seriously our responsibility to operate the plant safely
for the benefit of the area,” he said.
Lowey
noted that New York has not done its duty to promote alternative fuel
generation, that the closing of IP would be a great catalyst for a new
energy campaign.
The
study did not conclude any specific financial ramifications of the shutdown
of Indian Point, but it did conclude that an accelerated process would
be more harmful to the environment and more expensive to the taxpayers
than a long term project.
The
committee chairman, Lawrence Papay, recommended that the best timeframe
to shut down the plant would be after their operating licenses expire
in 2013 and 2015.
The
1 ½ year study cost roughly $1 million, monies secured by Lowey secured
three years ago. |
###
Wednesday,
June 7, 2006
Report
lists nuke plant alternatives
Data
fuel debate on replacement of Indian Point

By
Dan Shapley
Poughkeepsie
Journal
BUCHANAN,
Westchester County — New power plants, more efficient transmission and energy
conservation could replace Indian Point's power. But not without increasing
air pollution and consumer costs — and not without unprecedented leadership
from state officials, the nation's top scientific advisers determined.
The
National Academies' National Research Council's report, "Alternatives to
the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs,"
was made public Tuesday.
The
report was requested by Congress to address public concern about safety at the
plant following the Sept. 11,2001, terrorist attacks, when one of the planes
that hit the World Trade Center flew over the nuclear complex.
Changes
in place by 2013
The
power could be replaced by 2013 and 2015, when the federal licenses to operate
the Westchester County plant's two active nuclear reactors expire. But it would
require a long-term, integrated strategy that may include changes to state law
and policies, including the Article X, power plant siting law.
The
committee questioned whether there are enough financial incentives for companies
to build new plants, given the price of energy and the complex plant siting
and environmental protection laws in New York.
"There
are no insurmountable technical barriers to replacing the energy lost by shutting
down Indian Point, but we are less confident that government and financial mechanisms
are in place to facilitate the timely implementation of alternatives,"
said Lawrence T. Papay, chairman of the committee that wrote the report.
Even
if the plants were decommissioned, the perceived safety risk would remain. Spent
nuclear fuel would likely remain at the Buchanan site for years.
Indian
Point's 2,158 megawatts supply about a quarter of the New York City metro-area
energy demand. By 2008, demand in that region is expected to increase by 500
megawatts — about the capacity of Dynegy's Danskammer power plant in Newburgh.
Higher
energy demand
By
2010, the region's energy demand could increase by 1,200 megawatts or more.
However, aggressive investments in existing and new programs to reduce energy
demand — through conservation and other strategies —could reduce the load by
almost that amount by 2010.
Jim
Steets, spokesman for Indian Point, said the company agreed with the report's
conclusions.
"It's
kind of what we've been saying all along. Of course you can replace Indian Point.
Conceivably, you can row a boat across the Atlantic Ocean, too," Steets
said. "To me, it illustrates why it's so important why we continue to operate
the plants responsibly."
U.S.
Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Westchester County, who is among the advocates calling for
the plant's closure, downplayed the challenge of replacing the plant.
"I'm
pleased to announce today that this authoritative study is complete," she
said. "And the bottom line is this: we can meet the region's increasing
energy demands without Indian Point."
Dan Shapley can be reached at dshapley@poughkeepsiejournal.com
###
May 31, 2006
The
only thing 'green' about nuclear power is the cost
By Ed Haffmans
Touting nuclear power (New Green?"
May 19) as an alternative to global warming and oil is shortsighted, greed-driven
and wrong. When the fossil fuel consumption of the nuclear fuel cycle, including
mining, refining, transport, plant construction, shielding, waste disposal,
terrorism protection, and capacity factor over the life of the plant are considered,
nuclear is a marginal net energy source and substantial greenhouse contributor.
The only "green," apart from the glow when things go terribly wrong,
is the money lining the pockets of former Greenpeace sell-out Patrick Moore
and his ilk.
Pseudoenvironmentalist Moore, through
his "Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.," is a paid corporate shill for a
host of big-business anti-environment causes.
In the long run, a rethinking of
our wasteful lifestyles and various forms of solar energy, which the United
States receives more of in just one hour than our entire annual energy consumption,
are our only options. Fossil fuels are merely stored solar energy. Uranium is
also limited.
Any system that lives on savings
while discarding income is doomed to extinction.
Solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal,
tidal power, and radically improved efficiency remain trivial because our rulers
prefer oil wars, nukes and corrupt cronies. Nuclear power has been subsidized
to the tune of $150 billion since its inception, 30 times that of all renewables
combined. It gets a free ride on insurance that would not be available on the
free market. Yet the last nuclear plant built in the United States took 23 years
to build and cost $8 billion. For that sum, 1KW grid tied to photovoltaic solar
electric systems could be installed on nearly a million American homes, or 8,000
one-megawatt wind turbines could be built way more quickly. Money wasted on
nuclear power is money not spent on safe, clean and truly carbon-free alternatives.
Imagine if the $300 billion wasted so far on the Iraq oil war could have been
spent on conservation and renewables.
Some European countries are getting
20 percent of their electricity from wind (Denmark)