August 10, 2010
New York Times
Wrong Answer
at Indian Point
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/opinion/11wed3.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Ever since
New York State ruled in the spring that the obsolete cooling system at the
Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y.,
pollutes the Hudson River and kills too many fish, the plantÕs owner, the
Entergy Corporation, has been seeking public support for what it calls a
Òsmarter solutionÓ to the problem.
Finding some
solution is important for Entergy, which wants to keep operating Indian PointÕs
two nuclear reactors, whose federal licenses expire in 2013 and 2015. To renew
the licenses for another 20 years, Entergy needs a water-quality certificate
from the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
The agency
denied the certificate in April. Indian PointÕs cooling system sucks up about
2.5 billion gallons of river water a day — by far the largest single
industrial use of water in New York State, according to the agency. The water
passes through the plant and is dumped back in the river, hotter than before.
About a billion fish, larvae and eggs are killed each year, trapped against the
cooling systemÕs intake screens or drawn through its pipes, or fatally stressed
by the heated water, which holds less oxygen.
As it has
since the 1970s, the government has pointed Indian Point toward a simple, sure
way to solve the problem: cooling towers that recycle water in a closed loop
and thus require very little from the river. Environmental law requires power
plants to use the Òbest technology availableÓ to minimize the damage they do,
and closed-cycle cooling is widely recognized to be as good as it gets.
Entergy
officials say otherwise. They have appealed the denial, arguing, among other
things, that the cooling towers would take too long to build and would be
monstrosities the size of Yankee Stadium. The company also says the new towers
would belch dangerous Òparticulate matterÓ into the air. Entergy is, therefore,
offering another technology: Òwedge-wireÓ screens submerged in the river that
they say would protect fish at lower cost.
In rebuttal,
the state argues that closed-cycle towers could easily be smaller and that the
Òparticulate matterÓ is harmless water vapor and salt. It also says EntergyÕs
claim that fish and larvae will swim away from or be swept safely around the
screens is unproven and that, in any case, the screens will do nothing to solve
the problem of returning heated water to the river.
The state
also points out that if Indian PointÕs owner had been serious about protecting
the environment and obeying the law, it would have started on the cooling
towers 30 years ago. Instead the company gambled on denial and delay. Entergy
is an important energy source for the region. But Albany must make sure that
the company addresses, not ducks, the problem.
###
Samuel
S. Epstein
Nuke Accident Would Dwarf Oil Spill
Bob Herbert's July 19 New York Times column rightly states that
the harm from a meltdown at a nuclear power plant "would make the
Deepwater Horizon disaster look like a walk in the park." Herbert also
warns that systems needed to prevent a meltdown are not well developed.
"Right now, we're not ready," he says.
The damage from the April oil well rupture which spewed into the Gulf of Mexico is still being
calculated. It killed 11 workers and thousands of aquatic creatures. Recovery
workers have become ill attempting to cap the damaged well. The ecosystem of a
large body of water and coastline has been damaged. The economic losses are
staggering.
But the Deepwater disaster still can't hold a
candle to a nuclear accident.
Understanding why a meltdown would be so
devastating is possible only after recognizing that nuclear reactors produce
the same radioactive chemicals in atomic bomb explosions. Splitting uranium
atoms produces a cocktail of 100-plus chemicals that are radioactive waste
products, including Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90.
If water cooling a
reactor's core or waste pools was removed, from mechanical failure or act of
sabotage, huge amounts of toxic gases and particles would be released and
breathed by humans. Many thousands would be stricken immediately with radiation
poisoning, and subsequently with cancer. Infants and children would suffer
most.
From 1945 to 1963, atom bombs were tested in the
atmosphere in remote areas of the south Pacific and Nevada. But still, the
fallout drifted long distances and contaminated the diet of all Americans. In
1999, the National Institute of Medicine concluded that up to 212,000 Americans
developed thyroid cancer from the Nevada tests.
But reactors are not in remote locations. Most are
near highly populated areas. One example is Indian Point, which is just 23
miles from the New York City border. The plant has three reactors; one has shut
down, but the other two have been operating since the mid-1970s. Its aging
parts are corroding, and several "near miss" meltdown situations have
occurred in the past decade, according to a 2006 Greenpeace report.
If Indian Point experienced a meltdown, and an
evacuation was attempted, New York area traffic would be far worse than its
usual crawl. Radioactivity, carried by winds, would reach 21 million people
living within 50 miles of the plant. Even among those evacuated, many would not
be able to return to their homes, since their environment would remain
contaminated.
Indian Point may be the worst
case scenario for a meltdown, as New York is the most populated city in
the U.S. But nuclear plants are situated on the outskirts of virtually every
major metropolitan area in the nation.
Bob Herbert's warning that systems to prevent
meltdowns at nuclear plants are insufficient was also a conclusion of the 9/11
Commission. One of the hijacked planes headed for Manhattan flew directly over
Indian Point. Had the plane crashed into Indian Point's core or waste pools,
the consequences would have been far worse than the loss of nearly 3,000 lives
at the World Trade Center.
Safety systems exist at nuclear plants, but
anything less than 100 percent effectiveness is dangerous. One flaw came to
light in 2002 at the Davis Besse plant near Toledo Ohio. Boric acid had eaten
through nearly all of an 8-inch a steel beam in the plant's ceiling, reducing
it to less than half an inch at its thinnest part. Disturbingly, the problem
was discovered accidentally, not from any routine safety procedure.
The meltdown scenario is disturbing, but there is
more to the nuclear threat. Most radioactive waste is stored, but some is
routinely or accidentally released into air and water from all 104 U.S. nuclear
reactors. These enter our bodies through breathing, and also the food chain.
No government program has ever measured how much
radioactivity from reactors enters our bodies, as officials call these amounts
"negligible." But a landmark study, whose results have been published
in five leading medical journals, has provided evidence to the contrary. Levels
of Strontium-90 in nearly 5,000 baby teeth are 30 to 50% greater in children
living closest to nuclear plants, and are rising over time. In the 1950s and
1960s, Strontium-90 was often cited as one of the most toxic chemicals in bomb
fallout.
Tooth study results raise the question of whether
reactor emissions have raised cancer rates near nuclear plants. Again,
government officials dismiss this possibility. But near nuclear plants in New
York and New Jersey, increases in Sr-90 in teeth were matched by similar
increases in local childhood cancer rates a few years later.
Children suffer the greatest damage from radiation
exposure, but adults are not exempt. Thyroid cancer is one of the most
radiation-sensitive cancers, because radioactive iodine in bomb fallout and
reactor emissions seek out the thyroid gland and destroy its cells. A 2009
scientific article reported the highest U.S. thyroid cancer rate in a small
90-mile radius. This encompassed eastern Pennsylvania, central New Jersey, and
southern New York, where 16 reactors are located.
Other scientific reports have documented evidence
that nuclear plant shut downs are followed immediately by dramatic reductions
in local infant deaths and child cancers. This is similar to what happened
nationally following the 1963 ban on above-ground
atomic tests.
Proposals to build new reactors to replace
carbon-producing coal plants are accompanied by claims that nuclear power is
"clean." This could not be further from the truth. We should never
forget that nuclear reactors are essentially controlled atom bombs.
As lessons of the Deepwater
fiasco are learned, we must understand the hard truth that certain energy
sources pose very high risks to our security and health. We must do all we can
to prevent another massive oil spill, or a nuclear meltdown. But we should go
further, by developing energy sources that are safe. Solar panels need no
security precautions. Windmills don't cause environmental catastrophes. We must
be proactive and safe.
Samuel Epstein MD
Professor emeritus of Environment and Occupational
Medicine
University of Illinois-Chicago School of Public
Health and
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Author of the 2005 Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer
War and the 2009 Toxic Beauty
books.
Joseph Mangano MPH MBA
Executive Director, Radiation and Public Health
Project, New York
Author of the 2008 Radioactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link
Gun goes off at Indian Point power plant
http://news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=241880&position=0&news_type=news
(01/19/10) BUCHANAN - A security guard at the Indian Point nuclear power
facility has been suspended after his gun went off while inside the plant.
Officials say there was no damage to the plant in
the Saturday mishap, and no one was injured. It appears the guard pulled the
gun from its holster when it went off.
Entergy, the company that owns the facility, is
calling the matter an accident, but it has launched a full investigation into
how this happen. The nuclear regulatory commission has joined in the
investigation.
Indian Point union workers are currently
negotiating a new contract and have threatened to strike. The talks are on hold
until Wednesday at the request of a federal mediator.
recall the 2008
incident of gun possession by a contractor
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/indian.point.nuclear.2.734352.html
###
Nuclear steam leak intentional: Response to Indian Point
plant shutdown
BY ABBY
LUBY
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Friday, January 8th 2010, 4:00 AM
The recent shutdown at the Indian Point Nuclear power plant and
release of contaminated steam into the atmosphere was intentional, the federal
agency that oversees the nation's nuclear power plants insisted Thursday.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil
Sheehan said the release valves "were intentionally opened (as
per plant procedures) as part of the shutdown."
The steam went undetected for two days in November from Unit 2 at the Westchester-based
nuke plant.
NRC inspectors at Indian Point later learned that an estimated 600,000
gallons of boiling, radioactive water turned to steam and was released over the
lower Hudson Valley.
Sheehan explained that boiling, radioactive water did not flash into
steam as it exited the valves and hit the air, but rather that the valves first
reduced pressure in the form of steam created in the steam generators.
"The boiling has already occurred in the steam generators before
the steam ever reaches the atmospheric steam dump valves," he said.
A Daily News investigation confirmed that the steam dump valves were
intentionally opened because of a problem in the generator at Indian Point that
caused the plant to shut down.
But it also found the valve didn't close when it was supposed to and
kept releasing steam into the environment.
NRC inspectors are still trying to figure out what really happened. A report
on the incident is expected at the end of the month.
Because a radioactive steam cloud is difficult to see, the massive amount of steam was verified by a NRC inspector at the
plant.
Sheehan stressed that the level of a radioactive isotope tritium in the
steam was below the allowable federal levels for drinking water. The News,
however, has reported that the release of tritium was not in drinking water but
airborne in escaped steam which is inhaled through the
lungs.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not
have safe levels set for inhaling tritium. The NRC uses the drinking water
levels whenever radiated water is dumped into the Hudson
River or when it threatens to contaminate ground water.
Entergy, the owner of the
Indian Point, files annual reports about radioactivity regularly released into
the air and water.
But The News found the reports are published too long after the fact and
mired in technological jargon, unlike timely news stories that inform the
general public.
Sheehan responded that "The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission takes seriously its mission of protecting people and the
environment. Part of that mission is assessing the significance of events and
responding accordingly."
###
Courthouse News Service
January 05, 2010
Lawmaker Sues Feds Over Nuke Plant Safety
By TIM HULL
(CN) - A New York assemblyman claims the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is endangering the public by allowing the Indian Point
nuclear plant to use substandard insulation around electric cables that would
control the shutdown of the reactor in the event of a core
meltdown. Richard L. Brodsky, assemblyman for the 92nd District, says the
NRC had no authority to grant the Indian Point Energy Center, in Westchester
County, an exemption to use insulation that protects shutdown cables against
fire for 24 minutes, instead of the legally required one hour.
Brodsky, a Democrat, says the plant
has been operating under the exemption since 2007.
Brodsky sued the NRC in Manhattan
Federal Court, with co-plaintiffs the Westchester Citizens Awareness Network,
Public Health and Sustainable Energy, and the Sierra Club. They claim the NRC
violated federal environmental laws and regulations by granting the exemption
without legal authority to do so, and without holding public hearings.
"The 'exemption' now allows the
nuclear reactor to operate with greatly reduced fire protection thereby putting
the public at heightened risk of consequences of a loss of reactor control
resulting from a fire, catastrophic event, terrorist attack, or a combination
of those events," Brodsky says in the complaint.
NRC regulations require all nuclear
power plants built before 1979 to wrap their emergency shutdown cables in
fire-retardant insulation capable of withstanding a fire for one hour.
Indian Point's exemption requires its
insulation to hold off the flames for just 24 minutes, Brodsky says.
The 2nd Circuit dismissed a similar
complaint from Brodsky last year on jurisdictional grounds.
The plaintiffs want the court to
declare that the NRC exemption violates federal law, and force the plant into
compliance.
They are represented
by Brodsky and Susan Shapiro of Spring Valley, N.Y.
From the Web site Law360
Nuclear
Agency Under Fire Over NY Power Plant
Law360, New York (January 04, 2010) -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission is under assault from a New York state assemblyman and the Sierra
Club, which allege the federal agency has failed to
uphold necessary fire protections at Entergy
Corp.Õs Indian Point nuclear power plant.
Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky filed suit Wednesday in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing the NRC of
illegally granting Entergy an exemption from insulation standards put in place
to safeguard against a catastrophic fire at the facility.
The NRC has allowed Entergy to permanently avoid insulation
requirements for the electric cables that control reactor shutdown in an
emergency and are critical to protect against a meltdown, according to the
complaint.
While the agency has historically required commercial operators to
provide insulation that would protect the cables from fire for at least one
hour, the Indian Point facility is permitted to operate with insulation that
would withstand fire for only 24 minutes, the complaint argues.
In September 2007, the NRC granted Entergy an exemption from the
insulation standards in violation of the Atomic Energy Act, the Administrative
Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the suit alleges.
ÒThe ÔexemptionÕ was illegally granted in complete secrecy with no
public notice, no opportunity for public comment, no opportunity to offer or
question evidence, no public hearing,Ó the plaintiffs said.
ÒAs a result of these actions Indian Point is not in compliance with
the terms and conditions of its license and the laws and relations governing
commercial nuclear reactors and is not operating with a greatly enhanced danger
to the public,Ó the complaint added.
Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC, said the agency had not yet
received a copy of the complaint, but emphasized the adequacy of the safety
precautions at the Indian Point plant.
ÒWe have a high degree of confidence that the Indian Point plant can
safely cope with a fire situation,Ó Sheehan said. ÒTheyÕve developed plans,
weÕve inspected them on a regular and ongoing basis and believe they properly
protect the plant and public health.Ó
Brodsky and fellow plaintiffs CitizensÕ Awareness Network and the
Sierra Club originally filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, but that court ruled in August 2009 that it lacked jurisdiction over
claims for violations of the Hobbs Act, according to the suit.
In dismissing the suit, however, the appeals court encouraged the
plaintiffs to pursue their claims in the district court under the APA, the
complaint states.
The plaintiffs are represented by Brodsky.
Counsel information for the NRC was not immediately available.
The case is Brodsky et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
case number 7:09-cv-10594, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.