Here are 2007 Indian Point articles, editorials, op-eds and letters in chronological order with the most recent first. You can also find news from 2006, 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.

At 6 a.m. on a Sunday in late August, a security guard arrived at work for a 12-hour shift at the Indian Point Energy Center, a nuclear power plant in Buchanan, 24 miles north of New York City.

The long day ahead didn’t faze him; he had worked 12-hour shifts before, and at least two previous posts on a Sunday.

Shortly before 2 p.m., the guard rotated to a post near an inner ring containing nuclear reactors and the spent fuel pool. 

By 2:05 p.m., the guard had fallen asleep.

One of the four resident inspectors employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and stationed at Indian Point—which satisfies as much as 40 percent of New York City’s energy needs—came cross the sleeping guard and talked to him, getting louder and louder for two straight minutes before finally waking him up.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission declared the guard’s behavior “unacceptable,” but never explained what happened except to publicly disclose the incident, and to report that the man (already close to retirement age) had no traces of alcohol or drugs in his bloodstream.

For its part, Entergy, the company that owns Indian Point, reiterated to its security staff the importance of remaining attentive.

It turns out that, in a society where millions swallow Ambien to get a decent night’s sleep, an unusually large number of security guards at nuclear power plants appear to have no trouble at all. Since 2004, the NRC estimates that roughly two dozen guards have been caught with their eyes closed in disconcertingly close proximity to a core reactor full of radioactive material. 

In other words: While the rest of us sleep well at night thinking our nuclear power plants have guards watching over them, apparently some guards are sleeping equally as well. And while their somnolence doesn’t mean we’re in immediate danger, no one thinks it’s a particularly good idea for guards at power plants to be in deep REM cycle on the job.

In July of 2002, another guard at Indian Point was found “inattentive” (the term used by government investigators to describe dozing.) But the NRC did not issue a violation because there was no terrorist attack on the plant as a result, according to a Congressional audit. The same audit found that nationwide, the NRC tended not to issue formal citations and to minimize the significance of problems it found if the problems did not cause actual damage.

But there’s no denying the problem. A May 2003 newsletter from a division of the NRC states: “Media reports of security guards sleeping on the job at Indian Point nuclear power plant due to forced overtime and fatigue have received local coverage in New York.” In an Oct. 31, 2007 letter to Dale Klein, chairman of the NRC, a nonprofit watchdog group called the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) described the situation as a “nationwide phenomenon.” And the NRC itself has itself acknowledged the issue.

“For some reason, you’re right, there have been several that have occurred recently,” says Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC. “And there doesn’t seem to be any universal reason for that.”

Several recent incidents have added to a general sense the guards aren’t doing as much guarding as they should, given the extraordinary damage that would result from a security breach on the job.

In February 2007, the Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Penn., reported on exhaustion of security officers working too much overtime at Three Mile Island (the scene of the infamous March 1979 accident that resulted in a partial core meltdown but no deaths or injuries). According to documents obtained by the newspaper, some guards have been working 13-hour shifts up to six days a week for more than six straight weeks. Last year, the paper reported that veteran officers were showing incoming guards the best places to sleep undetected while on duty.

In September, a frustrated security guard’s videotapes aired on WCBS-TV from inside Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant, near Philadelphia. The tapes showed 10 guards at different times of day in a “ready room” steps away from the plant’s two nuclear reactors, with their feet on their desks, heads resting against walls or cradled in their hands—all fast asleep. The NRC concluded that the level of security at Peach Bottom was “not significantly degraded as a result of these SO [security officer] performance issues.”

In October, the NRC “substantiated that security officers were willfully inattentive to duty or served as lookouts such that other security officers could be inattentive while on duty,” at Florida Power & Light, which owns Turkey Point nuclear power plant, near Homestead, Fla. Their investigation revealed that guards were sleeping on the job, or covering for sleeping colleagues, on a number of occasions from 2004 to 2008.

How does an epidemic like this start? Think about it. You are staring at a fence line from a guard tower. It is the ninth hour of your 12-hour shift.. You are all alone, and job rules prohibit you from reading a magazine or doing a crossword puzzle. The fence gets blurry, you blink and your eyelids feel impossibly heavy…

“It’s an occupational hazard in some respects, you know?” says Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, the company that operates Indian Point, of falling asleep across the security industry in general. “It’s hard to keep the mind stimulated.” 
 
But Steets defends the strict work rules that may contribute to the problem. “One of the main elements of their responsibilities is to make observations, to know what’s going on around them,” he says. “The attentiveness to that would be diminished if they were to find themselves engrossed in a magazine or a book.”

Independent experts see a similar danger. “They were set up to almost die of boredom,” says David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that monitors environmental issues.

Steets argues that on-the-job boredom is not unique to the nuclear industry, but represents a necessary evil that comes with working security, whether in prisons or at Macy’s.

“I’d hate to be a security officer on the night shift at a big department store,” Steets says. “I’d be curled up under the counter the whole time, probably, with a nice soft pillow.”

To help guards stay awake, he says, Entergy moves them from post to post at regular intervals and teaches them techniques to proactively avoid falling asleep, such as getting up from their seats, stretching their legs and focusing in on their environment. However, the company doesn’t provide its workers with caffeine; guards must bring their own lattes and cans of Red Bull.  

No one knows why the number of sleeping guards appears to be higher in the nuclear security arena than it is in other, similar, professions. Since the Peach Bottom problem surfaced, Lochbaum has queried people who work in the unions that supply the guard forces about what goes on in other industries, and has discovered that in prisons, where people are also up in towers, random radio checks are used to verify that  guards are awake.

“Nobody’s claiming that a guard never fell asleep at a prison post, but apparently it occurs less frequently because of those kinds of things that have been learned over the years. For some reason those lessons from other industries aren’t trickling over into the nuclear industry,” says Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. It looks like they might have learned a lesson, albeit the hard way, at Peach Bottom, where the NRC spokesman says it has started doing more frequent radio checks.

But it’s important to note that the utilities have, and continue to be, accused by watchdog groups like the Project on Government Oversight of overworking their guards. If that’s the case, everyone who has ever tried and failed to pull an all-nighter knows that it takes more than average mental fortitude, combined with significant doses of caffeine, to stay awake for 12 hours straight when sleep deprived. Security guards at nuclear plants can work as much as 16 hours in any 24-hour period, 26 hours in any 48-hour period, and 72 hours in any 7-day period.

Because each additional officer cuts directly into the utilities’ bottom line, the utilities often hire as few security officers as possible and work them between 60 and 72 hours a week, POGO says.

“I have interviewed guys [who work] between 60 and 72 hours,” says Peter Stockton, a senior investigator at POGO, who has spent two years studying security at U.S. power plants. “I have got to tell you, they are a mess.”

The NRC is looking into reducing the hour limit that plant employees can work, to an average of 48 hours per week over a six-week period, but that change is not slated to take effect until March of 2008, says Sheehan. 

With the presence of a National Guard base and numerous other security checkpoints there’s almost no danger of a meltdown because of a sleeping security guard. But for those who see dark scenarios – such as a truckful of terrorists ramming their way onto the Indian Point property and driving explosives directly into the core reactor—how quickly and thoroughly would that expose New York to dangerous doses of nuclear radiation?  

If the wind is blowing our direction, expect 44,000 immediate fatalities from acute radiation positioning as far as 60 miles downwind of Indian Point, added to the 518,000 who would eventually die from cancer within 50 miles of Indian Point as a result of radiation exposures, according to a 2004 report commissioned by Riverkeeper, a Hudson River-based environmental group. And that’s not taking into account what would happen if terrorists blew up the spent fuel pools.

“Once the cesium—there’s a cladding around the spent fuel—catches on fire, you’re really in trouble,” says Peter Stockton of POGO. “At Indian Point, you’d take out about a third of Connecticut.” 

A well-coordinated attack (timed to coincide with a highly unlikely total breakdown in security) would take somewhere between three and eight minutes from break-in to meltdown.

“These attacks are very very fast, and very very violent, if there is one. Let me tell you, there are explosions all over the place,” says Stockton, who has observed around 75 mock terrorist attacks used to test nuclear plant security, although none at Indian Point. “You’re running out and all of a sudden your buddy gets his head blown off, and these guys are through the fence line in about three seconds. They blow the fence apart and it’s generally 45 seconds to the target they’re going to. Man, you gotta be ready to go. And if you’re sleeping, it’s gonna take awhile.” 

###

Spring Valley group challenges Indian Point license extension

By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: September 25, 2007)

A Spring Valley-based group opposed to Indian Point is the first to challenge the nuclear plants' license extension, filing papers citing 26 issues it wants federal regulators to examine as they decide the future of the facility.

The group, Friends United for Sustainable Energy, or FUSE, filed papers Friday with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, contending that Entergy Nuclear, the owners of both working reactors at Indian Point, cannot combine the two units into one application.

The group also said Entergy should have to consider environmental and other effects of the site's nonworking reactor, Indian Point 1.

"For 40 years the owners of Indian Point have routinely avoided complying with some of the most important federal regulations designed to protect the health of our children and families from the terrible risks of a nuclear accident or terrorist attack," the group wrote in a press release sent to some media outlets via e-mail early yesterday morning.

"Before a facility can be relicensed for another 20 years of operation, it must have adequate aging-management plans in place, must be capable of preventing offsite radiological incidents that could affect public health and the environment," the group wrote.

FUSE members were able to meet the Oct. 1 deadline for filing the request for a hearing, even after joining a chorus of parties, including the state Department of Environmental Conservation, that successfully lobbied the NRC for a 60-day extension in the 22- to 30-month process.

That was granted late Thursday by the NRC, which now will close the window for such requests on Nov. 30.

Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC, wouldn't address the particulars of FUSE's 173-page "intervenor petition," but said the agency would respond to all requests together, with a decision coming months after the new deadline.

"It won't likely happen until after the first of the year," he said.

Agency officials said that all the contentions presented by those requesting hearings would be considered by a three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

Each group must establish that it has standing and substantiate its contentions in writing with backup documentation.

Should a contention or group not be accepted, the first route of appeal is to the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself. After that, the next avenue would be the courts, NRC officials said.

Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said his company's application combining two reactors had plenty of precedent.

"Several plant owners have combined their applications for two sites, so it's not new for Indian Point," Steets said. "What's important is that you address the differences, as we did in our application."

Steets said any issues facing the closed Indian Point 1 reactor were part of NRC oversight and not designed to be evaluated in the license renewal of working reactors.

He asserted that Entergy had invested large sums of money in the site to ensure that it runs safely well into the 21st century.

"Our aging-management plan will address each and every maintenance issue," Steets said. "Entergy has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into both Indian Point 2 and 3 to (ensure) their safe operation."

###

New York Times, September 24, 2007
Indian Point Faces New Challenge From Opponents
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — An antinuclear group filed legal papers with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday evening opposing the relicensing of the Indian Point 2 nuclear reactor in Westchester County.

As a result, a panel of judges must consider the validity of the assertions — setting the stage for a long and contentious new chapter in the dispute over the plant and its companion, Indian Point 3.

There is already strong opposition to the relicensing of other nuclear power plants, including Oyster Creek in southern New Jersey and Vermont Yankee, which is on the Connecticut River just north of the Massachusetts border. Panels of three administrative law judges are studying those applications as well.

A hearing is scheduled to begin Monday in Toms River, N.J., on the request for a 20-year licensing extension of Oyster Creek, the oldest commercial reactor in the country, and a hearing is also likely for Vermont Yankee. Another three-judge panel is considering hearings for the Pilgrim nuclear plant, in Plymouth, Mass.

The antinuclear group, Friends United for Sustainable Energy, or FUSE, of Spring Valley, N.Y., contends that for decades, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, improperly held the Indian Point reactors, which are in Buchanan, N.Y., to less stringent design requirements than those the government applied to newer plants.

The requirements, which lay out in broad terms what safety precautions must be built into a plant’s hardware, were often changed in the 1960s and early ’70s, when the Indian Point reactors were built. According to the petition by FUSE, the builders claimed at one point that they met the draft criteria, but actually met only the criteria the nuclear industry was lobbying for.

The commission itself focused on precisely what standards were used, and what should have been used, when it analyzed the plant again in the early 1990s. In 1992, the commission decided not to require Indian Point to meet the criteria for newer plants.

“You don’t start from scratch,” said a spokesman for the commission, Neil Sheehan, on Friday, describing the decision to consider relicensing the plant now without making it comply with rules approved after its completion.

But FUSE argues that the 1992 action was a violation of a federal law designed to ensure fairness in administrative procedures. And the failure of the builders to heed the requirements that applied to newer plants “substantially reduces safety margins,” the group contends.

Entergy, which owns the reactors, insists that the plant was safe as built and still is.

FUSE also charged that Entergy has failed to submit an adequate plan for maintaining safety at the plant as its components age. The operators are promising merely to reach agreement later, thereby limiting public input, the group said.

But James Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, said in a telephone interview that it was in the nature of such maintenance plans that they evolved as the plant aged, and that “you never finish.”

Entergy bought Indian Point 2 from Consolidated Edison and Indian Point 3 from the New York Power Authority. The reactors are now owned by separate subsidiaries of Entergy. Plant opponents have argued that this is a legal strategy to limit the corporation’s liability in the event of an accident.

They now contend that because the reactors are separately held, Entergy cannot submit one application for renewal of both licenses. The opponents also note that while the two plants are of similar design, construction was managed by different engineering companies.

The application, according to FUSE, “creates an avalanche of a mixing of safety, technical and environmental issues caused by comingling.”

But Entergy, the first operator at the site to run both reactors, has been trying to integrate their operations. Mr. Steets said that the differences in the plants were accounted for in the details of the application for the extension, and that Entergy was seeking, for financial reasons, to bring them under the ownership of a single subsidiary.

###

Rockland joins effort to expand Indian Point licensing review

By LAURA INCALCATERRA
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: August 25, 2007)

NEW CITY - Rockland County has joined an effort to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to change its relicensing criteria regarding Indian Point.

Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano took the case to federal court in February after the NRC denied the county's petition to change the criteria. He said the agency decided without holding hearings or making fact-finding efforts.

The NRC does not consider factors such as population density and the ability to conduct an effective emergency evacuation as part of the relicensing process.

Spano wants the NRC to consider both those issues, along with plant security, including its vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

Rockland County is now seeking the same.

"We want them to look at the plant as if it were a brand-new plant coming in," County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef said. "Would you put it here if you were starting over?"

The case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Manhattan and could be heard in mid-October.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, said yesterday that the agency's primary areas of focus was plant operations, including safety systems, structures and components, and potential environmental impacts that could result from a 20-year license extension.

He said the NRC had received requests over the years to expand its criteria, but it had not done so because the agency routinely reviewed many of the issues raised by Spano.

For example, the NRC does not wait 20 years to review evacuation plans but does so routinely, he said.

"We're not looking at it separately as part of the license renewal," Sheehan said. "We're looking at it on an ongoing basis."

Rockland Legislature Chairwoman Harriet Cornell said she expected that more action would be needed and that it was possible the county would officially intervene in the NRC's review process. Such action would provide the county with certain legal standing as the review proceeded.

Vanderhoef said it might be difficult to intervene if the county cannot determine specific scientific and environmental concerns. The county cannot raise issues such as population density and its compatibility with nuclear power, since the NRC does not consider those criteria in its review.

Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, announced plans the day before Thanksgiving to apply for license extensions for both plants. If granted, the renewals would allow the plants to operate until 2033 and 2035, respectively.

The original 40-year license for Indian Point 2 will expire in 2013. A similar license for Indian Point 3 will expire in 2015.

###

Entergy says new Indian Point sirens are working, asks for more review time

By MICHAEL RISINIT
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: August 24, 2007)

BUCHANAN - Federal emergency officials are reviewing the Indian Point nuclear power plant's new emergency siren notification system before deciding whether it can go into service.

Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the plant's owner, notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency late Wednesday that its long-awaited, updated siren system was in place and ready to go.

Though the company says it has completed tests proving the sirens are dependable and are sounding loudly enough so residents can hear them, FEMA review and approval of the data are needed before the system can be deemed operational.

FEMA told the company on Monday that review would take 45 days - which pushes Entergy well beyond today's deadline imposed by the NRC. In a letter yesterday to the NRC, Entergy asked the agency for extra time while FEMA conducts its review. The NRC had levied a $130,000 fine against the nuclear power company after it missed a second deadline in the spring to replace the alert system.

"As of this hour, it doesn't appear they (Entergy) will meet the deadline," NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said yesterday afternoon. "We will have to consider Entergy's request."

Rep. Nita Lowey said she is calling on FEMA to review the siren system expeditiously. Also, she said, the NRC should fine the company for not meeting the deadline.

"Entergy must be held responsible for dragging its feet on providing FEMA with the information it needs to assess whether the siren system is finally compliant with the law," said Lowey, D-Harrison.

The updated system is to improve on the decades-old air-raid-type sirens, which will remain in place until the new sirens are fully operational. The sirens in the 10-mile emergency planning zone around the Buchanan plant - about 340 square miles covering parts of Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange counties - are meant to alert residents to turn on radios and televisions for more information in an emergency.

Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman, declined to speculate on what measures the NRC may take while Entergy waits to see whether it has satisfied FEMA's concerns.

"We understand there is still a review process. But we did all we could," Steets said. "We have an operating siren system now. In fact, we have two."

Entergy agreed in late 2005 to replace its sirens. A series of siren failures that year led to elected officials calling for the NRC to require a better system. The new system was supposed to be in place by the end of January this year. The company received a 75-day extension from the NRC but missed its April 15 deadline, resulting in the fine. Sheehan said further enforcement action, if any, could include another fine or other measures.

FEMA is studying whether the new sirens sound loudly enough individually so residents can hear them over background noise. Such a worry comes from Riverkeeper, an environmental group that is working to close the plant.

"The area that concerns FEMA, and that would concern us as well, is that the sirens aren't loud enough," said Phillip Musegaas, a Riverkeeper staff attorney. "Until FEMA has confidence in the plan, we're not going to have confidence in it."

Steets said the new sirens are loud enough to be heard outdoors.

"If you're inside, you're probably listening to the radio, watching TV or can answer the phone," he said.

The new $15 million system includes battery backups for the 150 sirens, multiple activation methods by which Entergy can sound the sirens and a more reliable reporting system to alert local authorities if they have sounded.

Susan Tolchin, chief adviser to Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, said the county also awaited FEMA's approval of the new sirens. Residents should be able to hear them inside their homes, she said.

"We're definitely not rushing to praise Entergy," Tolchin said.

###

At Indian Point, Sirens Aren’t the Issue

New York Times, Westchester Section, August 19, 2007

To the Editor:

Re “Warning System or Cause for Alarm?,” by Kate Stone Lombardi (column, Aug. 12):

Indian Point’s new siren system is not the real issue. Entergy has not been forthcoming about problems at its nuclear plant, including leaks, cracks and workers’ safety concerns, so why would it be about the need for evacuation (or sheltering, because the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people can’t possibly work)?

Entergy initially rebuffed residents and officials calling for a new siren system. Entergy, in partnership with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has rebuffed almost everything the public has requested to preserve our health and safety.

The bigger question is: do we really want any of our electricity provided by a source that requires 155 sirens to alert us to cancer-causing emissions from the plant? Taxpayers have been subsidizing nuclear energy since its beginning. If our taxes went instead to subsidies of solar, wind and hydropower, we wouldn’t need sirens.

Judy Allen
Putnam Valley, N.Y.

###

New York Times, Westchester Section

August 12, 2007
Warning System or Cause for Alarm?
By KATE STONE LOMBARDI

MAYBE the third time will be a charm. Certainly the folks at Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the Indian Point nuclear power plants, hope so. On Aug. 24, the company faces a third deadline to get its new $15 million emergency siren system up and running. So far, the process has been pretty discouraging.

The system was supposed to be working by the end of January. Entergy received a 75-day extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But on April 12, three days before the second target date, 31 sirens failed to sound during a test. After Entergy missed the April deadline, the N.R.C. fined the company $130,000.

With the August deadline less than two weeks away, Entergy officials said they were optimistic.

“We’re confident we’ll make it,” said Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy. “Obviously, there’s been pressure. It’s been real hard for the folks putting the siren project into place because these are capable, dedicated people frustrated by working through the complexity of the system and dealing with the criticism of it not being in place.”

It’s not surprising that they’re taking some heat. The public’s confidence has been sorely tested. If Entergy can’t get a siren system to work, it’s understandable that opponents are asking if it might have more serious problems running the nuclear facility itself.

The sirens are meant to alert residents within 10 miles of the plant of an emergency. The company is replacing its existing system, built in the 1970s, with a higher-tech model. The 155 new sirens have four-way speakers and backup batteries and can be activated by cellphone, radio signal or through the Internet.

So far, testing of the new system has exposed one problem after another. Sirens that were supposed to be heard miles away were inaudible in several areas. Alarms that were meant to be tested silently blared unexpectedly, startling residents who had not been warned.

Meanwhile, residents are being protected by the old system, which also has a history of failure, going out of service for hours at a time.

Mr. Steets said that two problems had led to delays in activating the new system. First, because it covers municipalities in four counties (Westchester, Putnam, Orange and Rockland), the process of getting permits for the sirens was cumbersome. Second, there were unanticipated difficulties with activating the sirens by radio signal.

“This is the very latest technology,” Mr. Steets said. “It’s a tough challenge, and the topography here doesn’t lend itself to communicating through the airwaves.”

All of these difficulties come in the midst of Entergy’s application to renew the nuclear power plants’ licenses for another 20 years. Indian Point 2’s license expires in 2013, Indian Point 3’s in 2015. The application process takes nearly three years.

The siren problem has no bearing on the relicensing. Neil Sheehan, an N.R.C. spokesman, said that the application review focused on two areas: programs to manage the effects of aging on the plants, and preparing an environmental impact statement.

The question of emergency preparedness — which of course includes the sirens — is part of N.R.C.’s daily oversight, Mr. Sheehan said. Should Entergy miss the third siren deadline, Mr. Sheehan said the N.R.C. would consider additional fines and other enforcement options.

Even if the emergency siren system isn’t formally part of the relicensing process, the plants’ opponents are making the connection. Lisa Rainwater, policy director for the environmental group Riverkeeper,, said, “For the communities around Indian Point, this siren debacle has become symbolic of Entergy’s inability to run this plant.”

She added that the plants’ problems were hardly limited to the sirens, citing the plants’ high shutdown rate, leaks of strontium 90 and tritium, and what she called a chilling work environment that discourages workers from identifying safety issues.

But no one, even the plant’s fiercest critics, should be rooting for the sirens to fail again this month. If you live within 10 miles of the power plants, as my family does, the stakes are too high for anything less than success.

Journal News, August 6, 2007

Indian Point review is needed
In response to Jerry Kremer's July 30 letter, "Extra Indian Point review unnecessary," it is worth noting that Indian Point is among the most scrutinized plants in the country because it has had more problems than others, including multiple and continuing unplanned releases of radioactivity, being the only plant in the U.S. that is known to be leaking strontium 90, cesium and other radioactive elements into the environment. The plant has had more unplanned outages than others, which resulted in a lowered safety rating. This plant also has an evacuation plan that was thoroughly studied by a former director of FEMA and declared to be inadequate and largely unfixable. And their efforts to install a workable siren system are like a long running soap opera. Indian Point is also built on top of a seismic fault.

And Mr. Kremer's assessment of the relicensing review is a horrible joke since it includes only non-moving parts of the plant, such as the extensive and leaking pipe system, which is largely inaccessible to inspection because it is buried or imbedded in concrete. The only way the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can check the integrity of the pipes is by digging wells and saying "not leaking yet." It is also worth noting that the existing leaks were found by accident during construction work and not because of the NRC's presence at the plant.

Mr. Kremer should state that his organization has been founded and highly funded by Entergy. Paid spokesmen should be more forthright.

Gary Shaw

Croton-on-Hudson

Please note NYAREA is funded by Entergy
Thank you for your continuing coverage of the Indian Point. It is important to present various views. However, it is also important not to allow Entergy to mislead the public into believing that a group established by Entergy to promote Indian Point, the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (NYAREA), is some sort of independent grassroots organization. The July 30 letter by NYAREA chairman Jerry Kremer, "Extra Indian Point review unnecessary," describes NYAREA as "a nonprofit organization advocating for reliable, affordable and clean energy solutions."

I would hope that The Journal News is, by now, aware that NYAREA is a prime example of an industry front group. The Center for Media and Democracy did an expose of nuclear industry front groups which focused specifically on Entergy and NYAREA. Note, in particular, that in Massachusetts there is a pro-nuke group called MassAREA which - by amazing coincidence - also has Entergy as a member and funder!

Given the millions of dollars Entergy has expended in its ongoing PR campaign, I think it is critically important that articles mentioning NYAREA give recognition to - at the very least - the fact that Entergy has been a funding source. Entergy has admitted to having funded NYAREA, but has been very cutesy about the degree of such funding; nevertheless, The Journal News can simply note the financial connection.

Michel Lee

White Plains

The writer is a member of the Steering Committee on Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition and chairman for the Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy.

###

August 2, 2007

Minnesota Bridge Collapse Could Have Been Nuclear Reactor

By Royce Penstinger

Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Minnesota Bridge Collapse Could Have Been Nuclear Reactor

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sherwood_070801_minnesota_bridge_col.htm

First, our heartfelt concerns and prayers go out to the people of Minneapolis, Minnesota tonight as they deal with this horrible human tragedy. Watching the staggering devastation as it unfolds on CNN, it is a miracle that the loss of human life has not been far greater. The helpfulness of average citizens has been remarkable, and the response of Minneapolis's emergency crews has been sterling. Sadly, it seems the same cannot be said of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and FEMA, who hours later apparently do not yet have boots on the ground at this devastating tragedy. How hard would it be for DHS, FEMA, the FBI and other agencies of the Federal Government to have boots on the ground, offering help in Minneapolis's hour of need? It is noted here that the National Guard is on the scene, and they and other local emergency service agencies deserve our debt of gratitude. Pity President Bush has not even bothered to issue a statement at this late hour, but then not surprising.

FOX News did an interview with someone from the MDOT in which he discussed some of the potential causes of this catastrophic collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge near University Avenue. His first assumptions lead one to believe the cause and effect has to do with cracks and fissures, rust and other degradation and aging issues, coupled with poorly executed inspections by government charged with the task of PUBLIC SAFETY. So, a concrete and steel structure is taken down in the blink of an eye due to structural aging issues, steel fatigue, and perhaps embrittlement of the concrete. These significant aging issues, coupled with a deplorable inspection and/or enforcement program have left people dead, maimed and injured. Families have been devastated all because the government failed to do its job properly, failed to carry out and/or implement and adequate inspection program.

This early report on possible causes of the bridge collapse is a frightening eye-opener for those of us living within a scant few miles of America's 104 aging, embrittled and fatigued nuclear reactors. The NRC, in pushing a Nuclear Renaissance agenda, has pushed human health and safety to the sidelines, putting corporate profits ahead of adequate inspections, honest and truthful enforcement. This reality, the NRC's rubber-stamping of license renewal applications of ancient nuclear structures amounts to our Federal Government, DOE, NRC and the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) playing Russian Roulette with public health and safety, and as this tragedy shows, government ineptness or corruption eventually sees members of the general public paying the ultimate price of their stupidly and greed.

Minnesota's collapsed bridge is not much older than Entergy's failing Indian Point nuclear reactors that sit beside the Hudson River, just a scant 24 miles up-river from New York City. The comparisons between the Interstate 35W bridge near University Avenue, and America's aging fleet of nuclear reactors is startling, but the repercussions of a reactor failure would be far more catastrophic than a bridge collapse. Entergy's Indian Point is known to have a rusting steel liner and fissure cracks abundant on the twin domes of these ancient nuclear relics. The patchwork quilt of failing weld joints speaks to the fatigue of failing steel in both liner and reactor core.

The DOE and NRC reports admit to a lack of knowledge when it comes to aging effects on both the concrete and steel of these reactors as they are bombarded with radioactive particles day and night for over 30 years. Despite this lack of knowledge, the NRC has no problem pushing safety inspections back for periods of five or more years and has no problem granting license renewals without a Independent Safety Assessment of the entire nuclear reactor facility before even considering the granting of a license renewal application.

Many reactors in America, such as Vermont Yankee and Indian Point owned by Entergy, are known to have serious structural issues. Indian Point has leaking spent fuel pools which are leaking both strontium-90 and tritium into the Hudson River. Stainless steel piping buried underground is known to be leaking radioactive contaminants into our environment. Yet, the NRC is content to turn a blind eye to these very real safety concerns that point to a failing of the structural integrity of these ancient relics.

The month of July should be a wake-up call for the nuclear industry and a wake-up call to the NRC that their sacrifice of public health and safety cannot continue. Just two weeks ago we had an earthquake shut down the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, which was improperly and illogically built atop a fault line, much like Entergy's Indian Point. Now, we have a bridge in Minnesota that has collapsed, apparently due to either poorly done inspections, or age related degradation issues, or a combination of both. The NRC and NEI's callous disregard of safety issues is begging for a nuclear disaster here in America that will be far worse than tonight's bridge collapse, far worse than even Chernobyl. The time has come for an ISA (Independent Safety Assessment) of every aged, decaying, degraded nuclear reactor in America. There should be a moratorium on all relicensing activities nationwide until these inspections have been completed, and a report has been given to both Congress, and the American people.

Author's Bio: I am an anti-nuclear activist and publisher of two blogs on the subject of nuclear energy. Living less than three miles from Entergy's Indian Point, which is leaking tritium and strontium 90 into the Hudson, I write in the hopes of awakening the public to the horrors that are nuclear energy. NEI's lies about nuclear energy being carbon-free have to be exposed, their incestuous relationship with the NRC and DOE has to be brought into the light of day, and the wrongful rubber-stamping of license renewals ended before an American Chernobyl occurs.

Author's Website: http://greennuclearbutterfly.blogspot.com

###

Hinchey, Lowey, Engel, Hall Introduce Legislation To Create No-Fly Zone Over Indian Point

August 1, 2007

Bill Would Protect Millions of Local Residents

Washington, DC -- House Members Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY) and John Hall (D-NY) today introduced legislation that would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue a no-fly zone over Indian Point Nuclear Facility.

Although the proposed FAA airspace redesign does not include routes over Indian Point, it also does not explicitly prohibit such flights, and fails to adequately recognize the security threat the plant poses in such a highly-populated area. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has failed to address the situation, prompting today’s legislative action.

“There is absolutely no need for the FAA to keep the door open and potentially allow planes to fly directly above Indian Point," Hinchey said. "Even if we just considered the possibility of a plane having an accident it makes no sense to allow flights over a nuclear power plant, but when we factor in the risk of a potential terrorist attack by air against Indian Point it becomes abundantly clear that we need to act now and seal off this area. Allowing the Department of Homeland Security to step in and permanently bar flights from entering the Indian Point area is the right thing to do for the millions of people who live in the area.”

“Millions of Americans live and work in the shadows of Indian Point, and we know terrorists have considered nuclear facilities as targets,” said Lowey, who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee. “It’s unconscionable to allow airplanes anywhere near this facility. The air traffic around Indian Point is absolutely a security risk. Too much is at stake for the Department of Homeland Security to not act immediately.”

Congressman Eliot Engel said, “Indian Point remains the gravest potential threat to the metropolitan area and the 20 million people living there. That is why Rep. Lowey and I asked the FAA to create a no-fly zone around Indian Point last year. One of the terrorist flights that struck us so grievously on 9/11 flew directly over Indian Point on its way to the World Trade Center. Indian Point is too tempting a target for terrorists for us to minimize any potential risk.”

Congressman John Hall, a member of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation, said that efforts to improve safety around Indian Point must include air traffic. “Public safety must be our foremost concern when it comes to Indian Point,” said Hall. “Indian Point operates in the nation’s most densely populated corridor with very heavy air travel. Giving the Department of Homeland Security the authority to issue a no-fly zone is a common sense solution to prevent a potential disaster, especially since no other Federal agency has taken up this responsibility.”

###

Indian Point gives reason to worry

Since the recent earthquake in Japan, every day brings new reports about the damage to the Kashiwasaki-Kariwa nuclear plant, including spillage and leaks of hundreds of gallons of radioactively contaminated water.

Predictably, the plant's owner says, "Don't worry, the plant is safe."

I can't help but think of Entergy's similarly comforting statements. Entergy says don't worry that the Indian Point plant site is built on a seismic fault line. Don't worry that we have not been able to get the new evacuation sirens to work. Don't worry that Indian Point has been leaking irradiated water for years, and we still are not sure of where it is all coming from and flowing to, or how much water and irradiation is escaping. Don't worry that Indian Point was given consideration as a 9/11 target.

With Indian Point's application to renew its operating license for 20 more years, now is the time for all of us living in the plant's environs to raise our voices and come down on the side of our health and our safety.

Glenn Rickles

Croton-on-Hudson

###

NRC accepts Indian Point's application to operate 20 extra years
By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/NEWS01/707
260376

(Original publication: July 26, 2007)

Federal nuclear regulators yesterday accepted Indian Point's relicensing
application to keep the nuclear plants operating until 2035, kicking off
what will likely be a combative review that could last three years.

The acceptance by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also starts a 60-day
period for the public to request and participate in formal hearings on
issues they want the federal government to address during the relicensing
process.

"We've just completed our review and we're at the point where we're
comfortable enough to go forward," said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "The window for requesting a hearing is going
to be opened."

The battle will decide whether nuclear reactors will continue to produce
electricity in the Lower Hudson Valley, part of the nation's most densely
populated area.

The combatants could end up including everyone from Gov. Eliot Spitzer and
the local congressional delegation and elected officials to environmental
groups and nuclear industry activists.

Entergy Nuclear announced its plan to go for 20-year extensions for Indian
Point 2 and Indian Point 3 in November. The company filed the application
documents three months ago.

Indian Point 2's license is set to expire Sept. 28, 2013, and Indian Point
3's on Dec. 12, 2015.

Sheehan acknowledged yesterday that the agency has yet to decline any of the
48 relicensing applications it has accepted as the industry moves well into
middle age, though some were kicked back to the operators for additional
work or knocked out before they were accepted.

"We ask many questions along the way, so that questions do get resolved
during the process," Sheehan said of the 27- to 35-month review.

Indian Point's application ran into a delay last month when the NRC found it
lacking on the issue of what type of fuel would be used for backup
generators at Indian Point 2. The company responded by committing to install
a diesel fuel system to replace a natural gas-powered system within a year.

"Their acceptance of the application officially kicks off the process,"
Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said yesterday after learning of the NRC's
decision. "To that extent, we look forward to making the case for these
plants to continue to operate."

Yesterday, Spitzer said during an interview with The Journal News Editorial
Board that he continues to seek ways to increase alternative and renewable
methods of producing electricity so that Indian Point can be closed without
losing the 2,000 megawatts of electricity that it produces. That amount is
equivalent to the power needed by about 2 million homes.

He said the state was still looking at its options related to the federal
relicensing review, including intervening and requesting a hearing. He said
he had not made a decision on how he will proceed.

"I'll be very clear - I'm not a fan of having a nuclear facility where
(Indian Point) is," Spitzer said. "It just doesn't make sense. I would like
to see us in a position to close it. I also made it very clear that we can't
rationally talk about that until we have (alternatives)."

Officials from Riverkeeper, an environmental group that opposes the plants'
operation, said they expect to fight the plants' renewals as long as
necessary.

"Although it's nothing new, the NRC acceptance of Entergy's applications
fails to address vital environmental concerns Riverkeeper raised ... in a
17-page letter to the NRC," said Lisa Rainwater.

She said Riverkeeper has already pointed to three key concerns: how the
plants' cooling system affects aquatic life and warms the Hudson River, as
well as continuing leaks of radioactive isotopes tritium and strontium 90.

"We will be intervening in this process," Rainwater said.

Reach Greg Clary at 914-696-8566 or gclary@lohud.com.

###

Nuclear regulators want updated inventory of uranium 235 at Indian Point

By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: July 24, 2007)

BUCHANAN - Federal nuclear regulators are requiring Indian Point officials to open a nearly 20-year-old storage container for radioactive parts to verify that a tiny quantity of uranium 235 is accounted for properly.

The unstable form of uranium can and has been used to make atomic bombs, though Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Indian Point officials said the amounts in question at the nuclear plant are many thousands of times too small to make a bomb.

Still, the NRC wants to make sure it knows the exact locations and quantities of all the radioactive material under its control.

"We're especially concerned about any material that's in a spent fuel pool," NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said. "This material needs to be tightly controlled."

The NRC has not cited Indian Point on this issue and Sheehan said the agency would wait until the container is opened next month before deciding on possible enforcement.

"These containers are supposed to be opened on an annual basis, unless they have a tamper-resistant seal," Sheehan said. "We wouldn't be looking at this if this weren't part of the regulation. They should have done a better job of maintaining records of what they had in the pool."

Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns Indian Point, said there are eight used detectors, in 2- to 3-foot sections, located in a bolted container in the spent fuel pool of Indian Point 3.

The rods are part of old mechanisms used by the previous owners to check the power levels of the nuclear reactor.

Steets said the 32 parts contain 8/10,000s of a gram of uranium 235 each. Combined, they make .025 percent of a gram.

According to the Web site "The Nuclear Weapon Archive," (nuclearweaponarchive.org), the atomic bomb dropped at Hiroshima on Aug. 8, 1945, and known as "Little Boy," used 700 grams of uranium 235 in nuclear fission, to create an explosion equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT dynamite.

Since the storage container predated the company and was bolted shut, company officials believed it didn't need to be opened as part of their annual inspection of the pool, Steets said. NRC records indicate that the container was filled in 1988-89.

Steets said company officials only recently learned that the NRC expected containers such as this one to be inspected because though the container is bolted, it is not completely tamper-resistant.

Because of the small amount of uranium 235 and the complex process of opening the container, the company opted to check the contents during its annual inspection next month.

NRC officials approved that schedule, Sheehan said, because of the danger of working in the spent fuel pool and the need for proper equipment and expertise, which agency officials said sometimes takes time to bring in to the plant.

With the heightened level of public interest in Indian Point since workers there discovered radioactive tritium and strontium 90 leaks, NRC officials have been notifying local and federal elected representatives of all developments at the nuclear plant.

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, has been trying to get the plant closed down for years and is fighting its relicensing application. She said the latest development is a result of poor management of the plant.

"At a time when intelligence indicates security risks are at critical high, we can't afford to have loosey-goosey security measures at nuclear power plants located in the most densely populated areas of the country," Lowey said. "The incompetence at Indian Point imperils an entire region and absolutely requires that the plant be shut down."

7/13/2007

Cuomo files brief; power plant's future up in the air

by John O'Brien, Legal News Online

NEW YORK - New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wants the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reconsider its procedures for relicensing nuclear power plants and filed a brief Thursday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Specifically, Cuomo wants regulations that may help to deny the relicensing of Indian Point Power Plant because, among other things, it may be a terrorist target.

"This brief raises serious questions about the NRC relicensing process -- a process that ignores important factors about nuclear power plant safety and is stacked in favor of plant operators," Cuomo said.

Cuomo criticizes the NCR for focusing only on the age-related structural degradation of the non-moving components of a plant, like the reactor core, containment system, pipes and electrical cables. He would like to see the NCR review factors like:

-Location of the plant and local population density;

-Security and susceptibility to a terrorist attack;

-Acceptable emergency warning and evacuation plans;

-Geographic and seismic issues; and

-Demonstrated compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal joined in the brief with Cuomo, who says new criteria could have an effect on the future of Indian Point Power Plant. Some want the plant, located on the Hudson River, shut down, while others claim such an act would put a strain on New York City's energy supply.

"Our brief reinforces a position I have long held -- New York needs to work toward an energy future without Indian Point," Cuomo said.

Under the current relicensing regulations, Cuomo says the NRC has granted approximately 48 license renewals without turning any down. The first-term Democrat says now is a good time to start.

"From its proximity to the most densely populated area in the United States, to its vulnerability to terrorist attacks, to the lack of an acceptable evacuation, Indian Point presents a vital threat to the safety of millions of New Yorkers and the residents of neighboring states," Cuomo said.

Cuomo is worried because the 9/11 Commission reported al-Qaeda terrorists contemplated attack nuclear plans with aircraft, and two of the hijacked planes flew over Indian Point.

The case is Andrew Spano, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

###

Westchester suit against federal nuclear regulators gains state support

By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS01/707130353

(Original publication: July 13, 2007)

WHITE PLAINS -State attorneys general from New York and Connecticut weighed in on Indian Point's relicensing yesterday, supporting a Westchester lawsuit to force federal regulators to evaluate working nuclear plants the same way they do new sites.

"This brief raises serious questions about the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) relicensing process - a process that ignores important factors about nuclear power plant safety and is stacked in favor of plant operators," Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said in a prepared statement.

"Our brief reinforces a position I have long held," Cuomo said. "New York needs to work toward an energy future without Indian Point."

Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano yesterday followed through on a February promise to take the case to federal court after the NRC denied the county's petition to change relicensing criteria.

Spano sought to have the agency look at population density, the viability of emergency evacuation plans, potential for terrorism and a plant's environmental record.

He said the federal regulations were adopted in 1991 and amended in 1995, too far removed from today's world.

"We live in a different age since 2001," Spano said. "To be responsible, the NRC cannot continue doing things the way they were done previously."

Connecticut State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal also supports the legal action.

NRC spokesman Diane Screnci declined comment on the matter yesterday, saying the agency can't publicly discuss any court case.

Screnci did say that Indian Point's relicensing application, which was filed April 30 and normally takes six to eight weeks to be accepted, had not yet been approved for processing.

NRC officials said in rejecting Spano's original petition that the proposed changes were unwarranted. The agency looks almost exclusively at the operation of whatever plant is seeking a 20-year license renewal.

Factors such as demographics, siting and the ability to conduct an effective emergency evacuation are not part of the relicensing application. The agency says it considers those in ongoing reviews.

Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 in Buchanan, announced plans the day before Thanksgiving to apply for license extensions for both plants. If granted, the renewals would allow the plants to operate until 2033 and 2035, respectively.

The original 40-year licenses for Indian Point 2 will expire in 2013. A similar license for Indian Point 3 will expire in 2015.

"The NRC's refusal to require consideration of emergency planning and security concerns as part of Indian Point's relicensing review is unjustifiable, given the significant changes in population density, increase in traffic congestion and increased concerns over terrorism in the New York metropolitan area," said Alex Matthiessen, president of the environmental group Riverkeeper.

Matthiessen said the attorney general's support was welcome.

Jerry Kremer, chairman of the industry group New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, said the plant was a safe facility that was important to the state's economy and air quality.

"In light of our growing demand for and the rising cost of energy, Mr. Cuomo's announcement is shortsighted and ignores the energy needs of the downstate area," Kremer said. "New York's state officials should be looking for ways to create new electric power and not look for ways to choke off what we have."

The case is expected to be heard in mid-October.

Reach Greg Clary at 914-696-8566 or gclary@lohud.com.

###

Westchester appeals NRC’s Indian Point relicensing criteria decision

White Plains – The County of Westchester Thursday filed an appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s denial of the county’s petition to change its relicensing criteria for the Indian Point nuclear power plants.

County Executive Andrew Spano said the NRC should have granted the county’s petition or told the officials they needed more information. “They should have held a public hearing,” he said. “Operating a nuclear power plant in 2007 is far different than in 1995 when relicensing criteria was last looked at.”

Spano said Entergy and Indian Point should be judged on how they have been operating. “Indian Point has siren problems. Indian Point has environmental problems,” he said. “Just because it is here now, is not a reason for it to be here for the next 20 years. The NRC must put aside any bias toward the nuclear industry and consider all these issues.”

Westchester was joined in its appeal with the New Jersey Environmental Federation and the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club. New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal both filed friend of the court briefs.

Meanwhile, anti-Indian Point environmental groups Clearwater, Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson commended Cuomo for joining in the Indian Point appeal.

But, the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance said Indian Point “is a safe facility whose continued operation is critical to New York’s economy, improving the state’s air quality, and ensuring that New York reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly in the coming years.

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/IP_crit_WC-13Jul07.html

###

New York Times, July 13, 2007

Albany: Nuclear Standards Challenged

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo filed legal papers yesterday challenging the standards used by federal authorities to determine whether to extend the license of a nuclear reactor. Mr. Cuomo filed the papers in support of a legal challenge to the relicensing of the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester County by Andrew J. Spano, the county executive. The plant’s owner, Entergy Nuclear, wants to extend the licenses of the plant’s two active reactors for 20 years beyond their expiration dates of 2013 and 2015. Mr. Cuomo said federal regulators needed to evaluate more than the condition of the reactors before making a decision, and to consider factors like evacuation plans, the operator’s performance and the risk of terrorism. An Entergy spokesman said those issues were already included in continuing regulatory oversight.

###

Westchester Citizens Awareness Network
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 12, 2007
Contact: Marilyn Elie: 914-954-6739 Margo Schepart: 914-325-4620

WestCan Supports Attorney General Cuomo and County Executive Spano Expanding the Criteria for Relicensing of Indian Point

The decisions of the NRC as it now functions, do not reflect the reality of life in Westchester when it comes to population, traffic, or radioactive isotopes leaking into the Hudson River. We are extremely grateful that Attorney General Cuomo is taking this assertive initiative to protect the health and safety of the people of New York. There's more to re-licensing a nuclear plant than managing aging equipment and environmental degradation. What about the humans who live here? Indian Point was originally sited in Buchanan because 35 years ago this was a rural area of the country. That's no longer the case and the enormous increase in population cannot be ignored.

Margo Schepart from WestCAN said, "Under existing regulations, a new nuclear plant could never be sited in this region. It defies logic that this reality has no bearing on the re-licensing process for Indian Point. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission can no longer be allowed to pretend that factors like increased population and massive traffic congestion do not matter." She went on to add, "Having public meetings does not guarantee that public input will be taken into account. For years the public has been raising grave concerns about these very issues. They’ve been told repeatedly that current regulations address their concerns and that the status quo is just fine.”

Marilyn Elie of WestCAN said, "The NRC is an agency that writes its own rules. It follows the ones it likes and changes the ones it doesn't. For years they required the county executives to sign off on the evacuation plan. When County Executive Spano refused to do so, they approved the plan anyway. This is not an agency we can trust. For years they did not even know tritium was leaking into the Hudson River and when they found out they said it did not matter."

At a July 9, 2007 NRC meeting in Cortlandt Manor, NY, Tony Sutton, Westchester's top emergency preparedness official, made the point that for years they had complained about the unreliability of the old emergency siren system but had no way to compel changes. He said that the county did not have a "stick" and neither did FEMA. The only entity with power in this regard was the NRC through their permitting process. Sam Collins, Regional Director of the NRC, acknowledged that the old siren system met regulatory requirements even though stakeholders felt it was not adequate or safe. It was only when Congress passed a law requiring a new system that Entergy complied. Lack of adequate regulation of the industry and a lack of transparency for the public is part of an agency wide problem.

On July 11, Knox News reported that federal regulators are reviewing a policy that has kept details on an East Tennessee nuclear facility — including a potentially deadly spill of highly enriched uranium last year –hidden from the public. "NRC inspection reports suggest that it was merely a matter of luck that a criticality accident did not occur," reads a letter, signed by U.S. Reps. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat. The details of this accident are at: http://knoxnews.com/news/2007/jul/11/erwin-uranium-spill-cloaked-in-secrecy/

###

News from Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Albany Press Office / 518-473-5525
New York City Press Office / 212-416-8060

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO CALLS FOR EXPANDED CRITERIA IN THE RELICENSING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

~ Cuomo Challenges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Review of
Indian Point ~

NEW YORK, NY (July 12, 2007) - Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today
announced the filing of a brief calling for the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to broaden the criteria considered in the
relicensing of nuclear power plants -- an action that could have
implications for the Indian Point power plant. The brief was filed with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“This brief raises serious questions about the NRC relicensing
process - a process that ignores important factors about nuclear power
plant safety and is stacked in favor of plant operators,” said
Attorney General Cuomo. “Our brief reinforces a position I have long
held - New York needs to work toward an energy future without Indian
Point.”

Under its current relicensing regulations, the NRC focuses only on the
age-related structural degradation of fixed, non-moving components, like
the reactor core, containment system, pipes, and electrical cables.

NRC relicensing regulations do not call for review of factors such as:

* Location of the plant and local population density
* Security and susceptibility to a terrorist attack
* Acceptable emergency warning and evacuation plans
* Geographic and seismic issues
* Demonstrated compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements

The current relicensing regulations were developed in 1991 and 1995,
when the NRC concluded that limiting the scope of its inquiry would make
the relicensing process “more stable and predictable” for the
licensees. To date, the NRC has granted approximately 48 license
renewals, and it has yet to deny one.

“From its proximity to the most densely populated area in the United
States, to its vulnerability to terrorist attacks, to the lack of an
acceptable evacuation plan, Indian Point presents a vital threat to the
safety of millions of New Yorkers and the residents of neighboring
states,” said Attorney General Cuomo.

Approximately 20 million people - about six percent of the nation’s
population - live within fifty miles of Indian Point. The 9/11
Commission reported that al-Qaeda terrorists had specifically
contemplated attacking nuclear power plants with aircraft, and two of
the planes hijacked on September 11, 2001 flew near or over Indian
Point. 2006 marked the fourth straight year that Westchester, Rockland,
and Orange Counties refused to certify county-based evacuation plans
prepared by Entergy, the plant’s owner.

Indian Point’s original forty-year operating licenses for Reactor
Unit 2 and Reactor Unit 3 end in 2013 and 2015, respectively. In May
2007, Entergy submitted license renewal applications to the NRC for
these reactors. Entergy seeks to extend their operating licenses for
another twenty years, or until 2033 and 2035.

Attorney General Cuomo was joined by Connecticut Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal in filing the amicus brief. The case in which
Attorneys General Cuomo and Blumenthal filed the brief is Andrew Spano
et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2d Cir. 07-0324-ag). It
is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

The brief was filed by the Attorney General as amicus curiae, or
“friend of the court,” in support of a challenge to the NRC
originally brought by Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano and two
New Jersey environmental groups. The Westchester and New Jersey
petitioners seek to compel the NRC to evaluate all aspects that affect a
nuclear power plant’s safety before renewing a license. In December
2006, the NRC refused the petitioners’ earlier request that the NRC
consider additional criteria in the relicensing procedure.

Westchester Country Executive Andrew Spano said, “I am very grateful
to Attorney General Cuomo who has put the tremendous efforts of his
office to help us to protect the public. Both of us feel that the
process must be changed so that there is a level playing field between
the public and the nuclear industry. So far, the NRC has never denied a
renewal. They must reset their priorities when public safety is at
stake.”

The brief was prepared by Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, Special
Deputy Attorney General Katherine Kennedy, Deputy Solicitor General
Benjamin Gutman, and Assistant Attorneys General Morgan Costello and
John Sipos, all of the New York State Attorney General’s Office.

###

Power play: Cuomo will back bid to shut Indian Point plant

By ABBY LUBY
SPECIAL TO THE NEWS

Thursday, July 12th 2007, 4:00 AM

State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo will join the fight to shut the
Indian Point nuclear power plant, just 25 miles north of New York City
in Westchester.

Cuomo will announce today his support of Westchester County Executive
Andrew Spano in his legal battle with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the federal agency that oversees Indian Point, the Daily
News has learned.

Cuomo's office will provide the support through research, advice and
lawyers for court appearances.

Spano was criticized recently for spending nearly $100,000 of
taxpayers' money for legal services in his NRC fight.

The commission is considering extending the operating license of
Indian Point, the oldest nuclear power plant in the country, to 2035.

But Spano says the NRC is ignoring the plant's vulnerability to
terrorist attacks and the impact of a possible plant accident on the
21 million people who live in the metropolitan area.

Indian Point was in the flight path of the jets that crashed into the
World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

The plant was built on the banks of the Hudson River 35 years ago in a
then-rural area of Westchester. Today, more than 300,000 people live
within 10 miles of the plant. New nuclear plants are no longer allowed
to be built in such densely populated areas.

The NRC turned down Spano's petition in February to change the
relicensing process to include population density and evacuation
procedures.

If the plant is unable to meet the NRC's criteria, it would have to
stop operating.

###

Indian Point officials renew vow to have sirens working by Aug. 24

By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: July 10, 2007)

CORTLANDT - Indian Point officials renewed their vow last night to deliver a new emergency siren system by Aug. 24, but federal and local officials said there is still much to be done to accomplish that goal.

"Aug. 24th sounds pretty soon to me," said Rebecca Thomson, a top official with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which must sign off on the new system.

FEMA's in-depth review of the new 150-siren notification system and operational training for emergency staff from Westchester, Orange, Rockland and Putnam counties are two critical elements of the project that Indian Point officials don't control.

Michael Slobedien, Indian Point's top emergency preparedness official, said he thought the system would be ready enough to train county workers by the end of this month, though Anthony Sutton, Westchester County's top emergency preparedness official, noted that schedules this time of the year can be difficult to coordinate with people taking summer vacations.

Sutton said the counties would do everything possible to provide Indian Point with what it needed.

"We want to get this system up and running," Sutton said. "It's been a long time coming."

Slobedien said the company would have to work as closely as possible to make sure FEMA had all the information it needed to complete its work.

"I think we have more discussions we need to have with FEMA," he said. "But it's our intent to have the system operational by Aug. 24th."

The company acknowledged to FEMA and officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at a sparsely attended public meeting last night that there is no single source of some of the problems technicians have found as they race to meet their third deadline after missing one in January and a second in April.

If Indian Point is successful, the new $15 million alert system would finally take over as the primary way to notify residents in an emergency at the nuclear plant.

It would replace a decades-old system that until the past six months had produced headaches with each successive failure, including once when all the sirens failed to sound.

Luckily for residents, as the new system has been under construction, periodic tests of the old system show it to be performing reliably.

Residents and public officials who stayed through the two-hour meeting raised concerns about everything from reliability and whether sirens were loud enough to be heard to whether continual testing was leading residents to too easily ignore warning sirens.

Slobedien said the company would continue to conduct a public outreach campaign to keep residents informed of testing, so they can differentiate between a test and an actual emergency.

NRC officials have said they will review the situation if another deadline is missed, but have not ruled out further financial and other sanctions.

The agency's top regional official said the NRC would continue to commit resources necessary to ensure that Indian Point's road to a completed installation wasn't impeded by the federal government, a sentiment echoed by FEMA representatives.

"We're looking forward to this coming to a successful end Aug. 24th," said Samuel Collins, the NRC's regional administrator.

###

North County News, July 5, 2007

Emotions stirred as relicensing hearings begin

http://www.northcountynews.com/news/ncn_news3.asp

By Abby Luby

Union members and Entergy employees showed up in force last week to support the relicensing application of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, responding with boos and jeers to those opposing the plant’s continued operation.

The divisive crowd of over 400 people came to the first public meeting held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last week in what promises to be a contentious battle to extend the plant’s operating license.

Crowded into the banquet hall at Colonial Terrace in Cortlandt Manor, both sides aired their views for more than two hours on the pros and cons of allowing the plant to operate 20 more years.

The meeting kicked off the lengthy process overseen by the NRC, the federal oversight agency who is reviewing the renewal application submitted by Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the plant owner. The application to extend the operating license is for reactor units 1 and 2, for which the current license expires in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Entergy submitted the application in April.

Jobs at Indian Point

The Coalition of Labor for Energy and Jobs held a press conference in an adjacent hall just before the meeting. Spokespersons urged some 200 union members to speak out in support of Indian Point.

Jerry Connolly, Business Manager of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, said he had worked at the plant in 1964.

“This plant supplies reliable energy to the city and our members depend on Indian Point for jobs,” Connolly said.

The coalition is made up by the Boilermakers Local 5, Millwrights and Machine Erectors Local 740 and Utility Workers 1-2. They were joined by the carpenters union and Teamsters International. Many were wearing T-shirts and caps and carrying signs reading “Right4NY.”

Bob Seeger, business agent for Millwrights & Machinery ,told the men, “We’re not sending members into a place that’s not safe. We can’t afford to lose 2,000 megawatts of electricity (a day). If we did, on a day like today, our beer would get warm, our ice cream would melt and the air conditioners wouldn’t run.”

The forum was slated as an information meeting to familiarize the public with the re-licensing process. The NRC project manager for Indian Point's relicensing application, Bo Pham, opened the public meeting saying the process could take up to two years.

“We do not duplicate the regulatory process in the renewal process,” explained Pham, making clear that re-licensing only looks at how Entergy has managed the aging plant’s safety systems and the design and operation of structural components. Pham also stressed that the application was in its preliminary review and has not been formally accepted by the NRC.

Local Reps

Buchanan Mayor Daniel O’Neill lauded the plant’s safety and advantages over a fossil fuel plant.

“I can see the plant from my backyard and the people of Buchanan are the ones who live with the plant every day,” he said. “If this was a fossil fuel plant it would add to health problems. Nuclear power is so much better in terms of safety and environment.”

To counter, Congressmen Eliot Engel and John Hall sent representatives who expressed concern about the ongoing radioactive leaks of Tritium and Strontium-90. Hall’s spokesperson, Susan Spear, cited plant safety as the critical issue.

“The plant is located near eight percent of the population of the United States and each week brings another mishap,” Spear said on behalf of Hall.

Hall has introduced “The Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act” to oversee the relicensing process by Congress. Hall’s prepared statement said “Indian Point should not operate in a vacuum and neither should the relicensing process.” Engel spokesperson Joe O’Brien added that “Indian Point is a disaster waiting to happen.”

Former Assemblyman Jerry Kremer, who writes opinion pieces for Newsday supporting nuclear power, said “Indian Point is more important than ever because we need the power and we can’t build a new plant until 2012.”

The former assemblyman from Long Beach and member of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance said nuclear power plants don’t release any greenhouse gases. He added that Indian Point provides over 1,000 jobs, eliciting thunderous applause from union members.

Clean Energy?

But others at the meeting from grassroots coalitions contended that nuclear power causes greenhouse gases and carbon emissions.

“I’ve met union people who are looking at alternative energy because they know the jobs it produces,” said Marilyn Elie, member of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition. “That’s the future.”

Elie asked Rani Franovich, Branch Chief in the NRC’s Division of License Renewal, if the NRC has acknowledged that green house gases produced by the nuclear fuel cycle. Franovich said that it is mentioned in the NRC’s generic environmental study.

“But I don’t have it in front of me so we will actually have to come back to that question.”
Elie persisted by responding, “Does the NRC’s generic environmental study validate that the nuclear fuel cycle releases green house gases?”

“Yes, it does,” answered Franovich.

Later on, Elie said that greenhouse gases are released in both the production of fuel rods and the refining of uranium in coal fired plants.

Concerned Indian Point opponents asked why the emergency evacuation plan, considered unworkable because of the plant’s proximity to dense population areas, was not part of the relicensing application.

Katonah resident Peter Harckham, who lives just outside the evacuation emergency planning zone, said he was one of the 40,000 people that had to evacuate the Harrisburg area during the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979.

“We’ve had evacuation experiences since then with 9/11 and Katrina,” said Harckham. “This is serious stuff. You should be putting everything on the table, not looking at only a few major components [of the plant’s operation] as business as usual.”

Union members were joined by Entergy workers wearing red T-shirts and caps emblazoned with “Entergy.” Although both Entergy employees and union members responded to statements with boos and cheers, few got up to speak. One that did was James Slevin of the Business Agent Utility Workers Union of America.

“You can’t cut off this power because it can’t be replaced,” said Slevin. “Nuclear power is here and it is environmentally clean and inexpensive.”

Phil Musegaas, of the environmental group Riverkeeper, referred to a letter to the NRC several weeks ago requesting the agency reject Entergy’s application because it was incomplete.

“We have yet to hear back from the NRC, so we are repeating our request here in public,” he said.

Musegaas asked the NRC about the consideration of spent fuel storage on site at the Buchanan plant as part of the renewal process. “Is there enough space on site to accommodate all the spent fuel as well as 1,000 tons of spent fuel being produced during the relicensing period?”

NRC’s Pham said he didn’t have the answer. “I don’t know if anyone has looked if space is available for spent fuel storage. I do know that Entergy’s position is that spent fuel can be safely stored on site. I’ll have to get back to you on that.”

There is currently over 1,500 tons of irradiated fuel stored in high-density pools at the Indian Point plants. The concern has been since 9/11 that the buildings housing the spent fuel are not designed to repel a terrorist attack. Entergy said in 2003 that its intention was to build on-site storage facilities by late 2007, but to date, is behind schedule.

Musegaas slammed Entergy for polluting the Hudson River with super heated water from a discharge canal which, he said, was decimating the river’s fish population.
“The Hudson River is the main recipient of Indian Point’s pollution,” said Musegaas. “This river does not belong to Entergy as their private dumping ground for radioactive and super heated water that will contaminate our environment for generations. The Hudson River belongs to all of us, it’s part of the public trust and it belongs to all Americans, including the union members that are here.”

New meeting updating siren system
Entergy pledged last year to rebuild an emergency siren system by January 2007. The company was unable to get some system components to work and failed to meet a second deadline extension to complete the four county siren system.

The NRC imposed a one-time fine of $30,000, a sum plants are fined on a daily basis. The NRC has requested a meeting with Entergy to discuss technical issues of the siren system, such as dates for testing and completion for the new Emergency Notification System (ENS) with backup power.

###

Entergy omits info on re-license application

Missing the ‘Point’

By Abby Luby - North County News June 21, 2007

Information was omitted by Entergy in their application to re-license the Indian Point Nuclear Power plants.

The application to extend their operation for an additional 20 years is for reactor units 1 and 2 whose current licenses expires in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Entergy, the owner of the Buchanan based plant, submitted the application in April to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal oversight agency.

According to the environmental report section of the 2,500-page application submitted by Entergy on April 30, the company claims that the spent fuel pool in Unit 2 has not leaked since the 1990s and that recent findings of groundwater contaminated with tritium is from the older leaks.

Omitted was the fact that wells near Unit 2 were tested in 2000 when Entergy purchased the plant from Con Edison and at that time no leaks or groundwater contamination was detected. The wells were tested again in October of 2005 after cracks were found in the spent fuel pool, which resulted in a high concentration of tritium in the ground water, indicating that a new leak occurred sometime during 2000 and 2005.

This evidence was never mentioned in Entergy’s re-licensing application in keeping with their claim that there were no new leaks, a conflicting assertion to the NRC who in their March 16, 2006 Special Inspection Report on groundwater contamination at Indian Point, said the leak was new.

Entergy’s application is posted in its entirety on the NRC’s website at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.htm.l

“It’s a question for Entergy—why they included some things and not others,” said NRC spokesperson Diane Screnci. “We’ve received it [the application] and we are looking at it initially. If there is more information we need to conduct the technical review then we will ask for more information.”

Studying the report is policy analyst and attorney Phillip Musegaas of the environmental group Riverkeeper. Musegaas said that Entergy intentionally picked specific information to go into the environmental report of the re-licensing application. “What they’re doing throughout this report is choosing data to support their position and ignoring the current data,” he said. “Ignoring pieces of information goes against the NRC regulations that requires applications to be compete and accurate.”

A June 4 letter to the NRC from Musegaas and Riverkeeper co-counsel Victor Tafur counters Entergy’s assertion that the leak is old because groundwater monitoring clearly indicated a tritium leak occurred at Unit 2 between 2000 and 2005. That would render the leak new. “The facts simply do not support Entergy’s assertion that the IP2 pool is no longer leaking or has not leaked since the 1990s,” they stated in the letter.

No mention of spent fuel pool search
Entergy’s claim that the leaks are old is based on their inability to find the source of the leaks in the liner of the Unit 2 spent fuel pool, the 40-foot-deep pool that stores used radioactive fuel assemblies.

Also omitted from the re-licensing application was the fact that Entergy could only check 60 percent of the Unit 2 spent fuel pool liner. Last year Entergy hired divers to search the liner but could not reach the smaller spaces between the numerous storage racks near the bottom of the pool resulting in an incomplete search.

In their re-licensing application Entergy didn’t include any plans to complete their search for leaks in the pool liner but Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said they are still pursuing ways to find the source of the leak.
“There are some areas of the spent fuel pool we have not visually inspected but we now have a vender who is designing a camera that can do inspections in those very small areas that we haven’t yet seen.”
Steets said data indicates the leaks are old.

“We’re increasingly of the belief and growing in confidence that there is not an active leak in the pool,” he said. “We have a lot of data based on sampling from the many wells we’ve installed around the pools that tell us this leakage near IP2 was a one-time event.”

Structural status of aging plant
Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said the re-licensing process only looks at structural problems of aging nuclear power plants and unless the irradiated water leaks are caused by actual cracks in the spent fuel pool, the NRC won’t consider the leaks relevant.

“We haven’t made a determination if we will look at that [sent fuel pool cracks],” said Sheehan. “If it’s an aging management issue and if there is cracking on the exterior wall of the spent fuel pool, that could be raised as a contention.” Sheehan said the re-licensing process, which can continue as long as two years, looks only at how Entergy has managed an aging plant. “We look at the way Entergy will handle key safety systems and structural components,” he said.

Aquatic information also omitted
Entergy also choose to ignore data from a 2003 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on aquatic ecology in the Hudson River.

The 2003 study said that the plant’s use of Hudson River water to cool their generators was having a negative impact on the river’s ecosystem by killing billions of fish and plants each year. Also harming aquatic life is the tremendous amount of hot water poured into the tidal estuary, said the report. In the re-licensing application, Entergy does reference the EIS about the decline in bay anchovy but omits the DEC’s findings on declining fish populations of American shad, white perch, Atlantic tomcod and rainbow smelt.

“Entergy ignores the 2003 DEC conclusions and they relied on a 1999 draft EIS report done by Con Edison which was inconclusive about the impact on fish,” said Musegaas. “Those older conclusions drawn by the industry say that they are not having an impact on the fish.”
Entergy references the 1999 study at least 11 times in their re-licensing application, Musegaas said.

Sheehan said that the upcoming scoping meeting on the environmental section of the re-licensing application will examine those issues. “We will look at what the impact will be on aquatic life and plant life in the area,” he said. “A large part of the information in the environmental review will include the decision-making process.”

The NRC can also impose conditions such as requiring a program that takes fish samples every month to determine whether there is an impact on aquatic species.

Current problems not considered part of re-licensing
The public has scrutinized the NRC for not considering safety issues, especially since the plant is in a densely populated area and the 30-year-old evacuation plan is seen as unworkable. Also of concern is the failure of Entergy to locate the source of leaking irradiated water with isotopes Tritium and Strontium-90, a missed deadline for getting a new siren system up and running and more recently a malfunctioning water valve in one of the steam generators.

Sheehan said those issues will not be examined as part of the re-licensing process because Entergy and the NRC deals with those issues on a day-to-day basis. “It’s understandable why people would want to raise those issues,” he said. “But these issues already have gotten a significant amount of attention and will continue to get attention.”

In a statement emailed to the North County News Congressman John Hall (D/Dover Plains) said new legislation has been introduced that would require older power plants applying for license renewal to meet the same safety standards as new plants. Hall cosponsored the legislation, known as The Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act of 2007 with Congressman Maurice Hinchey and Congresswoman Nita Lowey.

“The Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act will help to make sure that no corners are cut in the re-licensing process,” said Hall in his email. “This legislation has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee where it is awaiting action.”

The NRC has never turned down a nuclear plant’s relicensing application, Hall said.

###

Indian Point's bid for license renewal generates much heat in court of public opinion

By Greg Bruno

June 06, 2007 - Times Herald-Record

Buchanan — As emergency officials were tracking the source of radioactive water found in sewage here last month, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore was in Manhattan, ticking off reasons why Indian Point should operate for another 20 years.

Not the best timing, perhaps.

But Moore's controversial message was not completely clouded by the ill-fated coincidence. He did manage to get a few glowing editorials, and was proclaimed "one of the sanest people on the issue of climate change" by The New York Sun.

Such is the battle for public opinion at Indian Point.

In the five weeks since Entergy Nuclear Northeast submitted an application for the 20-year renewal of its licenses, which expire in 2013 and 2015, press releases and pronouncements have flown from plant supporters and critics alike.

Paul Newman, of Hollywood and salad dressing fame, became the latest celebrity to throw his name behind the plant. Some scoffed at Newman's credentials, and The Record's own editorial board labeled the Hollywood icon a propagandist.

But Jim Steets, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy, defended Newman's observations. "Paul Newman is much more engaged in environmental and specifically nuclear issues than The Record gives him credit for," Streets wrote in an e-mail.

On the other side of the aisle, most Hudson Valley lawmakers have sought to legislate their way to a closed power station. Rep. John Hall, D-Dover Plains, has said Entergy's decision to seek relicensing "defies reason" because of a rash of recent problems at the plant.

And independent advocacy groups have stepped up their campaign to close the twin reactors, which sit on the Hudson River 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan. On Monday, Riverkeeper, a Tarrytown-based environmental group, called on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject Entergy's renewal application outright.

Public opinion has always been a player in the Indian Point debate. Fancy Web sites and corporate sponsorship — Entergy's support of Yankees baseball, for example — have saturated the regional media market before. But since Sept. 11, 2001, the PR battles have become more heated, and more costly, observers say.

According to The Center for Public Integrity, Entergy spent over $13.5 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2004. It is unclear how much money the multibillion dollar corporation has thrown at Indian Point advertising, but it's clear the company is not shy about spending to promote. In 2003, an Entergy-funded coalition of pro-Vermont Yankee supporters spent about $200,000 in advertisements, according to newspaper reports. Closer to home, Entergy spent an undisclosed amount the same year to help form the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance. That coalition of business and labor interests was founded to counter Indian Point critics.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the current PR war is aimed squarely at the NRC license renewal process. "What's going on at Indian Point is likely to determine how many questions the NRC asks, how many additional things the company has to do or promise," he said.

Lochbaum isn't confident the anti-plant public relations blitz will be effective. The NRC has never rejected a plant renewal application. But NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the high-profile of Indian Point is raising public awareness. And it's the public, ultimately, that could hold the key to Indian Point's future.

###

Indian Point 2 shut down because of problems with steam generator

By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: May 29, 2007)

BUCHANAN - Indian Point officials hope to have Indian Point 2 back on line by this weekend after the 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant had to be shut down on Memorial Day due to problems with a regulating valve.

The valve is on the system that feeds water to one of the four generators that produce steam. The steam turns a turbine, which creates electricity.

The problem, which happened on the non-nuclear side of the Indian Point 2 plant, showed up about 5:30 a.m. yesterday and workers started reducing the plant's production of electricity to 20 percent. At that level, the valve could be removed without shutting down the plant because of backup valves that operate only at the lower levels.

Workers determined that the valve couldn't be fixed while Indian Point 2 was operating, so they safely shut it down at 3:45 p.m., according to officials from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point. The second working reactor at the Buchanan site, Indian Point 3, was unaffected and continues to run at 100 percent.

There was no release of radioactivity to the environment, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and local public officials were notified of the shut-down, Entergy officials said.

###

Indian Point report: Radioactive leaks too small for harm

By BRUCE GOLDING
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: May 19, 2007)

BUCHANAN - Radioactive contamination leaking from the Indian Point nuclear power plants into the Hudson River has not significantly increased radiation exposure to the public, according to a new report from the plants' owner.

The federally mandated annual report found small amounts of dangerous radioactive materials in the groundwater path leading to the river.

Radioactive contamination was discovered leaking underground from Indian Point in 2005 and last month was found in the plants' sewage. Federal officials have said the leaks were being addressed and posed no threat to the public.

The April 25 report from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the company that owns and operates the plants, estimates that the maximum potential radiation dose from the leaks is a tiny fraction of the federal 3-millirem limit for annual total-body exposure to an adult through liquids.

Federal authorities estimate that a typical American is exposed to 360 millirem of radiation yearly.

The report estimates the leaks of radioactive strontium-90, nickel-63 and cesium-137 could result in an annual maximum dose of about 0.00178 millirem of total-body radiation exposure. The estimated amount of leaked tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, could produce a maximum 0.0000021 millirem of total-body radiation exposure, according to the report.

Donald Mayer, director of special projects at Indian Point, said the estimated radiation exposures were "very conservative" and assumed the theoretical maximum a person outside the plants could face.

"There is no measurable impact from direct radiation around the plant," said Mayer, who is in charge of fixing the underground leaks. "It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the limit."

Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the radioactive leaks at Indian Point - along with Entergy's recent failure to install a new emergency siren system on time - meant that upcoming inspections to verify the report's findings would be more extensive than usual.

Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., said data in the report showed potential radiation exposure from the plant's spent-fuel storage pool far exceeded that from the groundwater contamination.

"Even if the groundwater was 100 times more than it is presently thought to be, it would still be about 40 times lower than the radwaste storage dose," he wrote in an e-mail. "Or, there would be more to gain by putting up a wall to reduce the radwaste storage dose than to completely eliminate the groundwater leakage dose."

The report said the estimated radiation from the spent-fuel pool - less than 7 millirem - was indistinguishable from naturally occurring background radiation at the site.

###

Indian Point finds tritium in its sewers
By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: May 10, 2007)

BUCHANAN - Indian Point officials have found traces of tritium in the nuclear plants' sewer pipes that connect to the Buchanan sewage system, the first indication that the radioactive isotope may be reaching the village.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials confirmed the report yesterday, saying they would be independently verifying the test results sent in a company e-mail to Buchanan and other elected officials and the agency.

The memo, obtained by The Journal News, stated that during an April 30 test of sewage at the plant, tritium was found at a radiation concentration of 8,000 pico curies per liter - a fraction of the 10 million pico curies per liter allowed in sewage.

Company and regulatory officials stressed that there was no threat to public or worker safety.

Westchester County officials said the amount of radiation wasn't as much of a concern as how the radiation ended up in sewer pipes.

"We were notified immediately, and from what we understand, there's no threat because it's a very, very low level," said Susan Tolchin, chief adviser to Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano. "The issue is how it got there ... and we need a full investigation to determine that."

Indian Point officials have already begun their probe, they say, though the answers may take awhile.

"At this point, it's too soon to even have a hypothesis," said Donald Mayer, the Entergy official in charge of investigating groundwater contamination at Indian Point. "We obtained some additional samples (Tuesday), and those will tell us where we have to go next."

Mayer said the company would be testing for strontium 90 in the sewage system as well as tritium, though the strontium tests would not have results as fast because the laboratory work takes longer. Strontium 90 is a more dangerous radioactive isotope produced during a nuclear reaction.

Mayer said because the tritium was found in a sewage line, the company is focusing on sewage sump pumps and the rest of the system.

"There's something that's getting into one of these lines," Mayer said. "It could be a crack in a pipe."

He said the company has been monitoring the sewer lines since the fall and got a couple of readings early this year showing barely detectible levels of tritium. The most recent reading was the largest by a factor of two, Mayer said.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency wanted more information about how tritium could have "gotten into the presumably closed sewage disposal system."

"We have an inspector up there this week who specializes in the whole groundwater contamination issue, so we'll be following up on that," he said.

The plants have been leaking tritium since at least August 2005, when workers discovered a crack at the base of a building that houses a 400,000-gallon spent-fuel storage tank at Indian Point 2.

As nuclear plant officials dug wells to determine the extent of the tritium leak, they found the radioactive isotope strontium 90 leaking from Indian Point 1 - which was shut down in 1974. The two leaks do not appear to be connected, company officials have said.

Hydrologists and other experts had said that whatever leaking radiation was leaving the site was likely going into the Hudson River, where it would be diluted many times over by the large volume of water.

Buchanan Mayor Daniel O'Neill said he was not concerned about the findings because the levels found are so low, but was interested in seeing the results of more testing.

"The sewage system is a closed one. The drainage lines go directly to the treatment plant," O'Neill said. "The fact that there have been some leaks, of course, is not good, but you have to put it into context that this is an electric power plant and there are always going to be problems when it comes to making electricity."

O'Neill said he would rather live next to a nuclear plant than coal-burning plant, given the amount of pollution around other power plants in the country.

He said the village drinking water would not be compromised by radioactive isotopes leaking at the plant because the water is piped in from reservoirs farther north.

George Smith, a foreman at the Buchanan sewage treatment plant, said the operation handles about 350,000 gallons of sewage daily. The 23-year veteran said Indian Point's portion of that is "very little," though he didn't know an exact percentage.

The sewage treatment plant is about a mile from the nuclear plant, Smith said, and the effluent from the plant takes a few days to make it from Indian Point through the treatment plant before it is released into the Hudson River at permitted levels.

State Department of Environmental Conservation officials said they were aware of the tritium in the sewer lines and will track this latest development as they have the earlier sampling.

"DEC is still evaluating the most recent data," agency spokeswoman Kimberly Chupa wrote in an e-mail to The Journal News. "To date, the data shows that the concentrations of strontium and tritium are below regulatory limits. The Department will conduct additional testing if it is determined to be necessary."

Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 4, 2007

Lowey, Hall, Hinchey Introduce Legislation to Raise Standards for Indian Point

Bill Would Require Old Power Plants to Meet Same Standards as New Plants

Washington, DC - U.S. Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY18), John Hall (D-NY19) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY22) yesterday introduced legislation that would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to make sure nuclear power plant re-licensing takes into account the current environment in which the plant operates. The Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act of 2007 would ensure that older power plants applying for license renewals, such as Indian Point, must meet the same stringent standards as new plants applying for the first time.

"If Indian Point were proposed today, the community would be up in arms that a nuclear plant would be built in such a heavily populated area," said Lowey. "Yet these plants are allowed to continue to operate without any consideration of how an area has changed over the past several decades. We need to reform the re-licensing process to take these changes into account."

"Indian Point's location in one of the nation's most densely populated areas creates a significant threat to public safety, and it's impossible to believe that a nuclear plant could be built in its location today," said Congressman Hall. "If Indian Point hopes to be allowed to operate for another 20 years, it is absolutely necessary that it can meet and exceed the same stringent safety standards required of new plants. For a plant with an operational record as poor as Indian Point's, it would be unacceptable for the NRC to hold it to any less rigorous standard. This legislation will help to make sure that no corners are cut in the re-licensing process, and I am proud to be a cosponsor."

"A lot of things have changed at Indian Point since the last time a license was issued for the plant and all of that must came into play as part of the license renewal process," Hinchey said. "Given that Indian Point is plagued with unplanned shutdowns, has experienced a recent fire, does not have properly installed emergency sirens, and is leaking radioactive material into the Hudson River, there is clearly a lot that needs to be addressed. It is 2007, not 1987 and Entergy must be held to much more rigorous standards in the re-licensing process. If FERC were to grant a license renewal now, Entergy would have little or no incentive to take the very important steps needed to improve safety at Indian Point."

The Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act would:

· Make clear that any licensing, including initial licensing, must include a determination that the facility does not pose an unreasonable threat to persons or the environment because of safety or security vulnerabilities, including vulnerability to terrorist attacks;

· Require that there exist adequate evacuation plans for emergency events and that those plans have been approved by the relevant Federal agencies and States within 50 miles of the facility;

· Require that any renewed license must meet the same criteria and requirements that would be applicable for an original application for initial construction; and

· Require the NRC to determine that any changes in the size or distribution of the surrounding population have not resulted in the facility being located at a site at which a new facility would not be allowed to be built.

###

May 4, 2007

NRC to Indian Point: “You’re safe” but doesn’t support ISA

New leak, siren failure a concern

By Abby Luby

Entergy’s application to renew their operating licensing for the two Indian Point nuclear reactors was filed on the heels of a lukewarm performance assessment by the Nuclear Regulaory Commission at its annual assessment meeting April 26 in Cortlandt.

As the federal oversight agency, the NRC assessed the plant’s current operation as being safe, giving Entergy a green rating. NRC assessments only rate operating components and personnel within the plants.

However the NRC especially noted, and said it will continue to monitor, Entergy’s frequent unplanned shutdowns at the plant and the company’s policy dealing with plant workers who want to address safety issues without fear of reprimand.

NRC: ISA unnecessary
During last week’s public comment period, Lori Hall Armstrong, a representative of Governor Eliot Spitzer, read a letter written earlier that day from the chief executive to NRC chairman Dale Klein urging the agency to support an independent safety assessment (ISA) before it considers extending Entergy’s operating license for another 20 years.

NRC Regional Director Sam Collins, who was leading the assessment meeting for the NRC, disagreed that an independent study would add any new information about the plant.
“We’ve already put in 13,000 hours of inspections in 2006 and will be doing the same next year,” he said. “A (independent assessment) review like this is too resource intensive to be productive and our assessments are more responsive.”

Spitzer said in his letter that he applauded the efforts of Senators Clinton and Schumer for co-sponsoring a house bill calling for the ISA.
Mark Jacobs, of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, blamed the NRC for not fining Entergy enough for failing to have a new siren system fully operative by the NRC deadline. Congress passed a law in 2005 requiring the NRC to force Entergy to install a backup system to the already troubled emergency siren system. Instead Entergy spent about $50 million on an entire new system to be in place by January 30, 2007.

Entergy not only missed the January deadline, but they missed the extended deadline of April 15, 2007 as well. At the assessment meeting Michael Slobodien, Entergy’s director of emergency planning, said the problem was in one tower in Westchester where the radio transmitter was malfunctioning. The federal regulation requires a fine of $130,000 per violation per day. The NRC proposed only a one-time fine of $130,000.
“You need to fine Entergy $130,000 a day until the sirens work,” said Jacobs. “When you do that, they’ll find the problem.”

Jacobs faulted the NRC by saying “the public feels the NRC is not really doing your job. I think NRC really means not requiring corrections.”
“We align ourselves to what’s happening at the plant,” Collins responded to Jacobs. “We want to be responsive but we have limits.”

A new Tritium leak
Days before the NRC assessment meeting, steam containing tritium was found escaping from the ground near Indian Point unit 3. Tritium is a radioactive isotope that becomes part of water and has a half-life of 12.3 years. Although it increases the risk of developing cancer, it is considered one of the least dangerous radionuclides.
According to Don Mayer, director of special projects at Entergy, the steam was coming from an eight-inch pipe some five feet below the ground.

“We have fully contained the wisps of steam that have surfaced on the asphalt,” said Mayer, indicating that the pipe, part of a closed heating system, is under about 50 pounds of pressure. The pipe is believed to be used to transfer steam from one unit to the next. Mayer didn’t know if the pipe had been underutilized before the leak.
“We will be excavating the pipe soon and see how big the leak actually is, but we’re speculating that it can’t be more than a pin-size hole,” Mayer added.

NRC inspector Mark Cox, who works on site at the plants, said there was no indication that the leak was the result of seismic activity since there had been no recent seismic reports. Cox also said there were no devices at Indian Point to monitor seismic activity.
Just how long the steam has been leaking is unknown.
Collins said the leak was so minimal that it was beyond the purview of the NRC.
“This type of event is not usually reported to the NRC,” said Collins. “But I understand that as the steam goes into the air, it is not a health threat.”

an Hirsch, president of the nuclear watchdog group, Committee to Bridge the Gap, said tritium doesn’t dissipate or disappear. Hirsch oversees health studies regarding the effects of radiation that come from nuclear power plants.
“Tritium, when released into the environment, will remain there for about 250 years before one can say it has decayed away,” explained Hirsch. “Releasing tritiated water into the environment ends up as tritiated liquid water in streams, rivers, and groundwater.”

Just how much tritium has been released is also unknown. Hirsch said the basic rule is to avoid uncontrolled releases of radioactivity into the environment. “A second rule is you don't want surprises. Previously undiscovered and unpermitted leaks of radioactivity are a no-no in radiation protection.”

###

Federal regulators say they will monitor Indian Point operations closely
By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: April 27, 2007)

CORTLANDT - If Indian Point were a student, the nuclear plants would still be getting a passing grade, but the teacher would be a little concerned about recent trends and study habits.

Federal regulators noted last night that last year's report card for Indian Point was green for both nuclear reactors - Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 - but said they would be keeping closer-than-normal tabs on operations at the site this year.

Citing the unplanned shutdowns that have lowered Indian Point's rating from green to white earlier this month and necessitated more on-site inspection by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as other concerns, regulators said the plants must address the adequacy of safety procedures and workers' fears about retribution for pointing out safety issues.

"There's a lot going on (at) this site," Samuel Collins, the top regional regulator for the NRC, said at the annual public assessment meeting in Cortlandt between Indian Point and the federal agency. "I would just be mindful of the trend. It will be an active year."

Collins' counterpart, Fred Dacimo, site vice president for Indian Point owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast, responded quickly.

"We haven't had an inactive year," he said, drawing laughs from the audience of about 200 people. "We're up to the challenge."

There was plenty for observers to take in last night, not the least of which was a letter read by a representative of Gov. Eliot Spitzer calling for an independent safety assessment of the plant before any possible relicensing of the plants could go forward.

Spitzer joins Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, who are pushing legislation to mandate that review.

Collins explained why the NRC disagrees with such a study, saying it would not yield more information than the agency is getting. The NRC conducted 13,000 hours of inspections in 2006 and expects a similar amount this year.

Opponents had earlier said during a news conference that 2006 and the first four months of this year have raised residents' concerns about the plants' safety - inc