2008 ARTICLES ABOUT INDIAN
POINT
Here
are 2008 Indian Point articles, editorials, op-eds and letters in chronological
order with the most recent first. You can also find news from 2007,
2006,
2005, 2004,
2003, 2002 and
2001. If you find an article that should be
included, please call us at 1-888-474-8848.
Pieces
specifically about the ongoing leak of tritium
and strontium 90 can be found here.
|
http://www.northcou
ntynews.com/
news/ncn_
news4.asp
May 1, 2008
Entergy safety panel holds first
public sessions
By Abby Luby
|
|
The special panel of
experts hired by Entergy to assess safety at its Indian Point nuclear
plants held two public sessions on Monday to get feedback on the reactors.
Eleven of the 12 panelists, all specialists in the nuclear industry field,
heard questions and comments from people both supporting and opposing the
operation of the plant.
There was sparse attendance at the first meeting, which was preceded by a
press conference held by New York State labor leaders.
“I’m here speaking on behalf of 2.5 million men and women of labor in
New York State and to tell the Independent Safety Evaluation panel that we
support the continued operation of this safe, secure and necessary power
plant,” said Jerry Connolly, a retired business manager and board member
of Boilermakers Local 5 New York. “We want to make sure that all of the
safety concerns are being addressed.”
About 100 people attended the second meeting, with many plant workers and
union members present. The meeting was boycotted by IPSEC (Indian Point
Safe Energy Coalition), a group opposing the plant’s operation. They
claimed that since Entergy was paying the panel, the study would be a
conflict of interest and not truly independent.
One IPSEC member that didn’t boycott the meeting was Gary Shaw. “It is
somewhat peculiar that the NRC and Entergy would oppose the independent
safety assessment [legislation] proposed in Congress and then hire their
own Independent Safety Evaluation Panel,” he said.
Others praised the panel for their experience in the industry. Craig
Upshaw, a member of Local 740, countered Shaw’s skepticism.
“Many on the panel are former naval officers and they have very high
integrity,” he said. “It doesn’t matter who is paying for the board,
but if anyone doesn’t like it why don’t they pony up and get a panel
of their own.”
Legislation was introduced two years ago requiring an independent safety
assessment as part of Entergy’s re-licensing process in both the House
and the Senate. To date, the bill is still in committee.
After an independent assessment was conducted at the Maine Yankee plant in
Wiscasset, Maine, the plant shut down in 1997. The safety assessment team
included nuclear experts of the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission),
officials of the Maine state government and non-governmental nuclear
experts.
Manna Jo Green, the environmental director of Clearwater, urged the panel
to resign en masse.
“Public policy would require a true independent safety analysis and I
don’t think this is,” she said. “So I request that all of you
consider resigning and to preserve your integrity, call on Congress to
amend the Atomic Energy Act and create a truly independent safety analysis
for Indian Point and all nuclear power plants.”
The Raging Grannies, a group of older women that frequently serenade the
public against Indian Point, sang two songs urging to close the plant.
Local volunteer firefighter Tom Johnson praised safety features at Indian
Point.
“I’ve worked with the folks at the plant and I am always inspired by
their hazmat (hazardous materials) and evacuation capabilities,” he
said.
Eliot Sumers, a medical radiologist of Montrose who lives within sight of
Indian Point, said he wanted panel members to itemize in their report
their connections to the nuclear industry.
“I think it’s appropriate to establish bona fide proof to enter into
the record all of your current financial ties to the nuclear industry,”
he said. “That should include pensions and stocks from nuclear-related
companies and other contracting work you have done.”
Sumers told the panel that although an accident or meltdown is highly
unlikely, if it did happen, their names will be on the report claiming the
plant was safe.
“You will possibly be remembered in the 21st century as the people who
told us this was a safe plant or that it isn’t,” he said. “I ask you
to do the job with all the diligence that you have.”
Plant workers said safety rules were stringent. Scott Tadesco, a Peekskill
resident and a welder that just worked during Indian Point’s re-fueling
said he was speaking for members in his union, local 740.
“I’ve worked at a dozen nuclear power plants and Indian Point is one
of the most difficult to be admitted to for work,” said Tadesco. “I
had to take two tests to even get inside to solder pipes. They have very
serious criteria I see that is imposed on workers at Indian Point.”
Other comments offered more technical information about the plant that
could affect safety.
Karl Jacobs, a Cortlandt Manor resident and a senior nuclear operator
engineer who worked at Indian Point when it was owned by Con Ed, said
there were serious problems with cracks in the pressure vessel at the
plant (reactor pressure vessels contain the nuclear fuel and are made of
thick steel plates that are welded together).
“There’s cracking going on in the pressure vessel head that Entergy
has neglected to take care of,” said Jacobs. “Right now Entergy has
elected not to replace this head, which they make clear in their current
license renewal application. Their approach or lack of approach is very
unusual because it’s a current licensing issue. The cracks are as much
as a half inch, which is a big size for this area.”
Margo Schepart of Westchester Citizens Awareness Network, an organization
seeking to shutter the plant, asked the panel how it would measure the
viability and condition of inaccessible pipes and welds “that have been
carrying corrosive Hudson River water for decades.” Schepart
went on to say, “The current metric is simply drilling test wells which
can do nothing other than let the company and the NRC know when a breach
has already occurred. What metric will the panel suggest for preempting
future breaches?”
At the meeting’s end, the panel’s co chair, Dr. James Rhodes, said the
panel will review comments. “Now we will begin our work,” he said.
“Once the evaluation is complete, we will issue our report to the NRC,
Entergy, public officials and the general public.”
Rhodes added that there was information he wasn’t familiar with.
“We’ve heard new material about the integrity of the reactor
vessels,” he said. “We will certainly look at that.”
|
###
Appearance is everything
North County News Editorial, May 1, 2008
Remember when you were a little kid and your mom would fawn over you before
you left the house; making sure your hair was combed, you had on a clean
shirt and there were no holes in your socks?
You may have hated it, but Mom knew what she was doing. She knew that how
you appeared to the world was important. She may have known deep down that
her little kid was a slob at heart, but she wasn’t about to let anyone find
out. Keeping up appearances was important to her.
Appearance is everything. Just ask those that run Major League Baseball. In
1919, it endured a major scandal when the Chicago White Sox were caught
throwing the World Series after being paid off by gamblers. MLB banned
eight White Sox players from the game for life and established a rule that
anyone even associating with known gamblers would face the same
castigation. And they were serious. Just ask Pete Rose.
The problem MLB officials were facing was appearances. They knew that if
the integrity of their game was to remain intact, they needed to maintain a
zero tolerance policy when it came to gambling. There could not even be an
appearance of impropriety (games being thrown) because even the slightest
amount of suspicion from the fans would ruin the sport forever.
This is a concept that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and, by extension,
Entergy, does not seem to understand.
As part of a safety review, the NRC asked Entergy, owners of the Indian
Point Nuclear Facility, to form an “independent” panel of industry experts
to perform the review of the plant. While it’s not exactly like having the
fox guard the henhouse, it’s not far off.
It’s a matter of credibility. Entergy hand selected each panelist and will
compensate them for their work. If this isn’t a conflict of interest, then
that concept doesn’t even exist. Most logical people would wonder, and
rightly so, if these panelists would be willing to bite the hand that is
feeding them.
Again, it all comes down to appearances. The panel that Entergy has
assembled is certainly an august body, a veritable who’s who in the nuclear
energy industry. We have no evidence that any member is or has engaged in
unethical behavior regarding this issue. But because of how this panel was
put together, there will always be the perception that something untoward
is afoot. Once there is an appearance of impropriety, then anything the
panel says or does will automatically be tainted with suspicion.
In fact, before the panel could even take its first, tentative steps this
week, people were already calling for its dissolution.
Manna Jo Green, the environmental director of Clearwater, told the panel
this: “Public policy would require a true independent safety analysis and I
don’t think this is, so I request that all of you consider resigning to
preserve your integrity.”
In other words, just by serving on the panel, says Green, these individuals
are risking their integrity.
The critics may be wrong. The panel may conduct itself with the utmost
integrity and do a thorough, unbiased safety assessment. But because so
much doubt lingers, we will truly never know. We need to be able to embrace
the veracity of their findings, or the panel is moot before it even begins.
Consequently, the NRC and Entergy need to go back to square one and take
the necessary steps to put together a truly independent panel that the
public can believe in.
It’s all about appearances. Just ask Mom.
###
Press Release
Indian Point Independent Safety Evaluation
Panel to Hold Public Meeting Monday, April 28, 2008
Wednesday April 16, 11:00 am ET
BUCHANAN, N.Y., April 16 /PRNewswire/ -- The panel conducting the Independent
Safety Evaluation (ISE) of the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) announced
today that it will hold a public meeting later this month. The panel has been
asked to look into the nuclear safety, security and emergency preparedness at
IPEC and is interested in learning which questions the public would like
answered about operations at the facility.
Members of the public interested in the ISE and who would like to speak at
the event are encouraged to pre-register by emailing the panel at safety@nyindianpoint.org.
Those who may be unable to attend the meeting are also encouraged to submit
comments, questions and suggested evaluation criteria to the panel via email.
Who: The panel conducting the Independent Safety Evaluation at the
Indian Point Energy Center.
What: Meeting with members of the public to solicit questions, as well as
suggestions on the scope and specifics of the evaluation.
When: Monday, April 28, 2008 in two sessions (2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.
to 9 p.m.).
Where: Cortlandt Colonial Reception Hall, 714 Albany Post Road, Cortlandt
Manor, NY 10567.
###
Indian Point on the Potomac: Entergy's New
Safety Panel and PR Firm
Submitted by Diane Farsetta on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 09:50.
Entergy's Indian
Point nuclear power plant
There's no question that New York's Indian
Point nuclear power plant could use some public relations help. But Entergy,
Indian Point's owner, might have chosen their new PR firm a little more
carefully.
Last year, the state of New York asked the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to deny the plant's license extension
application, citing "a long and troubling history of problems." It
was "the first time that a state had stepped forward to flatly oppose
license renewals," according to the New
York Times.
Then, in January, the NRC proposed a $650,000 fine against Indian Point,
for having repeatedly missed deadlines to install a new emergency siren
system. The fine is "10 times the normal size" of such sanctions,
reported the Times.
To address such criticisms, Entergy has retained the Burson-Marsteller
firm, funded the pro-nuclear "New
York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance" and brought
Greenpeace activist-turned-PR consultant Patrick
Moore to New
York. Last month, Entergy made another effort to, in their own
words, "provide public assurances about the operation and
protection of New York's largest nuclear power facility." They
announced the formation of an "Independent Safety Evaluation"
panel to investigate Indian Point.
Given the crisis of confidence facing Indian Point, it's remarkable that
Entergy hired Potomac
Communications Group to promote its new panel. Four years ago, Potomac
was outed as the PR firm behind what the Austin
Chronicle called "Big Nuke's vast op-ed conspiracy: a
decades-long, centrally orchestrated plan to defraud the nation's newspaper
readers by misrepresenting the propaganda of one hired atomic gun as the
learned musings of disparate academics and other nuclear-industry
'experts.'"
Entergy materials don't name the Potomac firm. But the press
release announcing the Indian Point panel lists Matthew Simmons, a Potomac
program manager (PDF), as the panel's contact person. The email address
given for the Indian Point panel also maps back to Potomac's website, pcgpr.com.
Simmons confirmed to the Center for Media and Democracy that he's with the
Potomac Communications Group.
As the saying goes, Simmons has his work cut out for him.
The Indian Point safety panel quickly came under fire from plant
opponents. New York state representative John Hall told the Times
Herald-Record, "I am skeptical of the true independence of any
panel set up, selected by, and paid for by [Entergy]." Environmentalist
Lisa Rainwater said that her organization, Riverkeeper, "wants a
state-mandated review of plant operations," similar to earlier
committees that "included a citizens advisory panel." Even the NRC
is "rather ho-hum" about the Indian Point panel, according to the New
York Times.
In response, Simmons pointed out that Entergy only selected the co-chairs
of the Indian Point panel, Drs. James Rhoades and Neil Todreas. The
co-chairs then recruited the
other ten panel members, based on their experience and professional and
personal integrity, said Simmons. "No one [on the panel] has had
significant interaction with Entergy in the past -- either Entergy as a
company or Indian Point in particular," he added. The Indian Point
panel will also hold a public meeting and is accepting input via email, at safety@nyindianpoint.org.
It's unlikely that anything short of a publicly-funded review overseen by
government agencies (which the NRC sees as redundant to its plant
inspections) would mollify Indian Point critics. But what the safety panel
is able to do and how it is perceived have repercussions beyond New York.
Entergy's Vermont
Yankee plant is also up for its license renewal. Vermont's state
legislature and Public Service Board are conducting their own reviews of the
plant, but Entergy might convene a safety panel there, too. "There is
value in having something like this if just to assure the public about
safety," Entergy's Jim Steets told Vermont's Brattleboro
Reformer.
Diane Farsetta is the Center for Media and Democracy's senior researcher.
###
Indian
Point security guards test positive for coke
By
Abby Luby
http://www.northcountynews.com/news/ncn_news3.asp
March
27, 2008
Last
week two security guards tested positive for cocaine at the Indian Point nuclear
power plants in Buchanan. The incident comes just a month after an on-site
construction company supervisor tested positive for alcohol.
Despite
the emphasis on security since 9/11, the industry hasn’t been able to lessen
drug and alcohol use at nuclear facilities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal oversight agency for the nuclear
industry nationwide, tracks trends in employee drug use, said NRC spokesperson
Neil Sheehan.
“If we saw a spike in the number of positive test results, we would want to
know,” he said. “It’s interesting that the numbers tend to hold steady
over the years. Industry wide, marijuana is always number one and the number of
positive hits for that is pretty consistent.”
Robyn Bentley, spokesperson for Entergy Nuclear, the owner of the plant, said
the two guards didn’t work together and were tested at different times during
the week. The guards are now on paid leave for two weeks. If employees test
positive for drugs or alcohol twice they are fired.
“These are not new employees. They’ve worked here for several years,” said
Bentley.
One guard who tested positive for cocaine had just returned from military duty.
Company policy says that any employee away from the plant for 30 days or more
has to be tested for drugs and alcohol as part of Entergy’s “Fitness for
Duty” program.
The other security guard was a woman who didn’t respond to a regular radio
check. Bentley said her post was vacant when guards sought her out.
“She
was found in the bathroom with flu-like symptoms,” she said. “We tested her
urine and it showed positive for cocaine.”
The names of the guards couldn’t be released, said Bentley, adding that there
were no criminal charges. Bentley said that the guards will take part in the
Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a county program which counsels and treats
people with drug addictions.
Pamela Jones-Brice is the Director of the EAP for Westchester County. The agency
not only counsels addicts but also gives advice to government employers on how
to deal with substance abusers.
Jones-Brice said sometimes there are clear signals that a person is using drugs.
“I often caution managers about workers who are missing in action,” she
said. “A person comes into work, someone saw them but nobody knows exactly
where they are.”
Other issues could be declining job performance or difficulties making decisions
or using poor judgment, she said.
In both of the employees’ cases, Entergy’s “Fitness for Duty Program” is
meeting its objectives, said Sheehan.
“The
company acted very quickly and is addressing it,” he said. “Although the two
guards represent a very small portion of the 1300 workers at Indian Point, it
doesn’t make it any less unacceptable.”
According to NRC reports, a total of 414 random drug tests were performed on
Indian Point employees from July 2007 to December 2007. Of those, two outside
contractors tested positive for cocaine, and both were denied access to the site
for three years.
Routine tests are run on new employees and on employees whose behavior is
considered suspicious.
Bentley said since these last two employees tested positive for cocaine, Entergy
might step up their random drug tests at the plant.
“There
is a possibility that we might do it, but if we do, we’re not announcing
it,” she said.
Michael Kaplowitz, Westchester County Legislator for Somers, Yorktown and New
Castle who has long opposed the continued operation at Indian Point, said that
security guards using cocaine was unacceptable.
“You have to make sure that each and every employee at every moment at a
nuclear facility is of sound mind and body,” she said. “Clearly that
wasn’t the case. Those of us that are critical [of the plant] cannot be amazed
– it’s just been a series of the same thing.”
Bentley
said that Entergy’s Fitness for Duty program is robust, adding that three
Entergy employees at the plant are in charge of testing and processing the
paperwork.
“They probably spend about one day a week total on the work,” she said.
“People are pulled off a job to be tested depending on whether their shifts
can be covered. Some employees, like operators, can’t leave their posts as
easily as security or maintenance crews.”
Kaplowitz holds that Entergy, a utility company that makes $700 million a year,
is not getting what they are paying for in terms of quality service.
“They are not getting the best and therefore we’re not getting the best,”
he said. “As a public official that’s disappointing to hear. Entergy
doesn’t want to have a dangerous operation. They’re the ones that are at
ground zero and if something went wrong everybody is at risk.”
###
March 25, 2008
Unplanned shutdown at Indian Point 2 starts refueling outage
two days early
Greg Clary
The Journal News
BUCHANAN -Indian Point 2 stumbled into its planned refueling
outage two days early when a malfunctioning pump that brings in Hudson River
water forced workers to shut the reactor down.
The unplanned shutdown at Indian Point 2 won't affect its
safety rating, federal regulators said, because the reactor must have three such
shutdowns in a rolling 12-month period and remains below that threshold. The
problem occurred in the nonnuclear part of the operation.
"At the time, the plant was in a 'coastdown' to an
upcoming refueling and maintenance outage and therefore had already reduced
power to 94 percent," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which was alerted when the plant shut down about 10:15
Sunday night. "The shutdown itself went smoothly."
Sheehan said immediately following the reactor trip, the NRC's
on-site staff responded to the control room and determined the plant was in a
stable condition.
The inspectors continue to inspect Indian Point's activities
to ensure the company is properly reviewing the event and taking appropriate
corrective action. The NRC has not identified any safety issues.
Company officials said the pump that now will be repaired
during the refueling outage provides water to the plant's four steam generators,
which change the water to steam that spins the main generator and makes
electricity.
Indian Point 2 had operated for 298 days without incident;
Indian Point 3 was unaffected and continued at full power, as it will while
Indian Point 2 is offline for up to about 30 days. The company will restock the
fuel during that time, as it does every other spring. Indian Point 3 has
operated continuously for 327 days.
"It just happened. They're still investigating why,"
said Robyn Bentley, a spokeswoman for Entergy Nuclear, the company that owns and
operates Indian Point. "It was one of the main boiler feed pumps."
In May, Indian Point 2's broken water valve took the nuclear
plant off the state's electrical grid, but it did not require a full shutdown
that would have lowered its safety rating from green - the best - to white, the
second of four levels.
The reactor had its share of problems for the 18 months before
that with five unplanned shutdowns.
Before shutting down, Indian Point 2 reached two new
milestones:
- The 24 months of operation since the last refueling was the
most productive run for the plant, producing 16,786,307 megawatt hours
- Combined with Indian Point 3, the reactor set a new station
record for the longest dual-unit run under Entergy's ownership.
During the maintenance and refueling outage, Bentley said,
work crews will perform preventive maintenance on one of three low-pressure
turbines, inspect the main turbine control system, replace steam piping around
two condensers and modify the containment sump, as well as replacing one-third
of the fuel in the reactor.
###
http://www.lohud.
com/apps/
pbcs.dll/
article?AID=
/20080321/
NEWS02/803210434
Documents: Indian Point guards suspended
after testing positive for cocaine
By Greg Clary
The Journal News • March 21, 2008
BUCHANAN -Indian Point has suspended two
security guards who tested positive for cocaine use this week in separate
incidents that company officials say are unconnected, according to documents
obtained by The Journal News and individuals familiar with the incidents.
"It's an unfortunate coincidence,"
Indian Point spokesman Jim Steets yesterday. "But it highlights the benefit
of our fitness-for-
duty program that sifts out substance abuse and ensures protection of the
public."
He said there was no indication of
widespread use of cocaine at the nuclear plant.
###
March 11, 2008
Foes of Indian Point Begin Legal Battle
WHITE PLAINS — Opponents of the Indian Point nuclear power plants,
including New
York State, got their day in court on Monday — sort of — to explain
why they thought the two reactors should not be allowed to operate 20 more
years. It signified the first time that a state had stepped forward to flatly
oppose license renewals.
But like much about the tangled history of the plants in Westchester
County, the hearing before a three-judge panel appointed by the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission was not that simple.
The proceedings got off to a prickly start when a member of the audience
seated in a courtroom at the Westchester County Courthouse here complained to
the panel chairman, Lawrence G. McDade, that he could not hear what was being
said. “The acoustics here are what the acoustics here are,” said Mr.
McDade, a former military judge, who was himself using a microphone.
The difficulty was that about 20 lawyers seated at five tables and flanked
by cartons of documents, as well as another 20 or so who spilled over into the
jury box, did not have microphones.
When Michael B. Kaplowitz, vice chairman of the Westchester County Board of
Legislators, rose and said he could not hear the lawyers representing him —
and that he was not a member of the audience but a participant — Mr. McDade
told Mr. Kaplowitz that he could read the transcript later.
After a lunch break, Mr. McDade relented and had more microphones brought
in.
Acoustics were not the only setback for those opposed to relicensing the
two plants in Buchanan, on the east bank of the Hudson River 35 miles north of
Midtown Manhattan.
It was immediately clear that for the opponents — the state, Westchester
County and several environmental groups — to win the day, they would have to
persuade the panel and the regulatory agency itself to reconsider what
arguments are admissible.
The commission has ruled that for an argument to be considered in license
extension hearings, it must deal with problems that may arise because the
license is extended. The state contends, however, that the region’s
extraordinary population density, when considered together with the threat of
terrorism or earthquake, makes the plants unsafe.
“The presence of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in our midst is
untenable,” the state argued in a legal brief.
Joan Leary Matthews, a lawyer for the State Department of Environmental
Conservation, said in an opening statement that “whatever the chances of a
failure at Indian Point, the consequences could be catastrophic in ways that
are almost too horrific to contemplate.”
Sherwin Turk, a lawyer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that
questioning whether the site was a good idea in the first place was not within
the scope of the proceeding.
Participants in the hearing said the discussion would involve factors like
whether Entergy, the operator of the two reactors, had a satisfactory program
in place for monitoring whether electrical cables or metal parts deteriorate
too much as they age.
Lawyers for the state say that the dispute over what arguments can be
considered is likely to end up in federal court.
There have been a number of episodes since the reactors opened in the
1970s, when Indian Point’s Unit 2 was operated by Consolidated Edison and
Unit 3 by the New
York Power Authority, which had one of the worst reliability records in
the country.
In October 1980, the operators at Indian Point 2 let the building fill with
water from the Hudson River so that the outside of the reactor vessel was
immersed in cold, brackish water while the inside was operating at more than
500 degrees.
In 1982, Unit 2 sprang a leak in a steam generator tube, which can result
in jagged ends crashing into neighboring tubes and sending radioactive water
out of the primary containment.
Then, in August 1999, Unit 2 shut down unexpectedly and batteries kicked in
to run control room instruments, but the operators were unaware of the
situation until about a day later, when the batteries died.
In the six and a half years since Entergy bought the reactors, they have
generally run far more smoothly, and for many more hours of the year. In
addition, Entergy has raised the power output of the plants to just over 2,000
megawatts, about 18 percent higher than their initial design.
Entergy has had some problems as well. There was a transformer fire at Unit
3 in April 2007, and the company missed a deadline for replacing emergency
sirens. There were also difficulties tracing the source of a leak of
radioactive contaminants into the groundwater.
The hearings that began Monday will run most of this week, and after
lengthy deliberations the panel will make a recommendation to the full
regulatory commission on whether the operating licenses should be extended.
The license for Unit 2 expires in September 2013, and for Unit 3 in December
2015. According to participants, this process is likely to take two years.
Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey have all entered license renewal
proceedings, but according to officials with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, those states were demanding guarantees or changes in procedures,
but not the closing of plants.
In the coming weeks the licensing board will wade through contentions by
the opponents to determine their relevance and significance, Mr. McDade said
As he observed Monday morning, “There are more motions in this case than
I’ve seen in any other.”
###