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.

###

###

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.

###

###

###

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

###