Demonstrators in Union Square, NYC, April 2, 2011

2011 News and articles about Indian Point, Westchester County’s nuclear energy plant.

In our Reading Room, you can find links to articles from 2001 to 2010.

October 18, 2011 at 07:19:53

Pro Nukes & Anti Nukes heat up their messages: will it make a difference?

By Abby Luby

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pro-Nukes--Anti-Nukes-hea-by-Abby-Luby-111017-688.html



America is taking to the streets. The month-long "Occupy Wall Street" is seen as a highly charged beacon of free speech and activism, a force that has roused protesters from their comfy cyber soap boxes out to public parks and sidewalks.

The anti-nuclear movement is no exception.

Over the last few weeks, mass rallies across the United States have protested the dangers of nuclear power, a cry still echoing from the devastating destruction of the Fukushima plants in Japan last March. The urgent message from anti-nuclear forces here: "it can happen here."

Under the umbrella of "A National Day of Action for America's Nuclear Free Future," protesters took to the streets in New York City, St. Petersburg, Fort Lauderdale and Fort Meyers in Florida, San Clemente and San Diego, California, Atlanta, Michigan, Ohio, Asbury Park, New Jersey, Raleigh, North Carolina and Virginia.

These protests were fueled not only by the harrowing and cataclysmic events still unfolding at Fukushima, but by recent e arthquakes, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes here in the United States - events that the nuclear industry's oversight agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers "unlikely" to affect the safety of nuclear power plants in this country. www.nrc.gov.

The NRC is unwavering in their federal conscripts, wearing their own brand of blinders tailored to forge ahead, re-licensing aging plants and building new ones, regardless of overt warning signs of possible dangers.

A story on iwatchnews in September http://www.iwatchnews.org (Nuclear miscalculation: "Why regulators miss power plant threats from quakes and storms," by Susan Q. Stranahan), reported that the NRC considers a Fukushima type quake and tsunami a rare event in this country. The feds stolidly held to this adage while Americans lived through a quake in Virginia that shut down that state's North Anna Power Station in August and caused the radioactive spent fuel storage casks to move unexpectedly, a tornado that ripped up the South and brought down transmission towers at the Browns Ferry power plant in Atlanta. And when Hurricane Irene ravaged the East Coast, a Maryland reactor was forced to shut down after loosened metal siding blustered up and sliced into the transformer's high power lines.

That the NRC says they are processing all this information and initiating studies on the effects of these "unlikely" events adds incrementally to the frustrations of the anti-nuclear movement which is determined to rid the country of old and poorly designed nuclear power plants. Their voices are heard not only on the street, but in courtrooms and in the legal catacombs of administration procedural hearings. Here in New York State, the battle over whether the NRC will re-license the 40-year old Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants, 24 miles from New York City, has become the longest and highly contested application in the agency's history. Entergy, the plant's owner, filed for a new operating license in 2007 to keep their twin reactors on the banks of the Hudson River running until 2033 and 2035. Their licenses expire in 2013 and 2015. The re-licensing process usually takes four to five years, but a litany of contentions may take Entergy's application past their expiration dates.

Governor Andrew Cuomo reiterated his campaign promise to shutter Indian Point in a chat last month on his new virtual chat blog, http://www.citizenconnects.com/. He said the power from Indian Point could be replaced, according to The Daily News. http://personals.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/09/cuomo-replacement-indian-point-power-can-be-found. Prior to Cuomo's chat, in July, New York State won a major victory after a groundbreaking decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled in favor of a petition served by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The AG argued the NRC's environmental review violated the law by not requiring Entergy to complete severe accident mitigation analysis. This means the NRC must require Entergy to upgrade their accident impact plans unless the utility company can prove a compelling reason to refuse.

In 2010, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied Entergy a Water Quality Certification, which is required by law to operate the power plants. Because heated water is spewed out from Indian Point's once-through cooling system and into the Hudson River, killing billions of fish yearly, the DEC wants Entergy to upgrade their cooling system. Although Entergy is appealing the DEC decision, the NRC says the case has no impact on Indian Point's re-licensing application. When Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the National Marine Fisheries Service, asked the NRC if the uncertainty of the water quality issue would impact Entergy's re-licensing application, the NRC told her that "Notwithstanding the uncertain outcome of New York's Section 401 Water Quality adjudication, the NRC is required to move forward with its review of the LRA (license renewal application) as submitted by Entergy (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1125/ML11259A018.pdf).

Traversing from court to court is a case initiated by former New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who is challenging the NRC's common practice of "exemptions." Five years ago the NRC exempted Indian Point from fire safety requirements that allow a minimal amount of fire insulation that protects electric cables needed to shut down the reactor and prevent a meltdown. The current insulation lasts only 27 minutes while the legal requirement for insulation to protect the cables is one hour. Brodsky claims the NRC secretly granted an exemption to Entergy, a power not within their jurisdiction according to the Atomic Energy Act. http://www.scribd.com/doc/65796345/Brodsky-v-NRC-Submission-Summary. Currently the case is in the Second Circuit of Appeals in New York. It was previously argued before Justice Sotomayor before she became a Supreme Court Justice and then in the United States Southern District Court in New York where Judge Loretta Preska decided in favor of the NRC, issuing her decision six days before the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in Japan.

To counter the anti-nuke movement, a multi-billion dollar utility company like Entergy is able to enlist an army of high paid lawyers for the courtroom battles while waging expensive media campaigns. To ratchet up their corporate image, Entergy's new advertisements features Rudy Giuliani. Entergy clearly believes the persona of the former New York City Mayor and presidential hopeful is synonymous with "safety" and "security," which means we will see Guiliani's face plastered on TV ads and in newspapers. http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/10/06/giuliani-endorses-nuclear-plant-in-new-ads/

Although Entergy has always claimed that since the 9-11 attacks, Indian Point was impenetrable, they now (incongruously) need heavier weapons to protect the plant. In April Entergy requested permission from the NRC to acquire heavier weapons to be used by "the security personnel at the Indian Point site." The NRC wants to know if they turn down Entergy, what the impact would be on their current protection capabilities http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1127/ML112700219.pdf. . Entergy has not yet replied, but why the request now? Is Indian Point now more vulnerable than in 2001?

It's hard to know if the government, the nuclear power industry or the anti-nuclear groups are having any kind of impact on the future of nuclear power. In a New York Times article by Stephanie Cooke [ After Fukushima, Does Nuclear Power Have a Future?] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/business/energy-environment/after-fukushima-does-nuclear-power-have-a-future.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y, she claims that the Japanese government has reversed their pro-nuclear policy and is now moving to phase out their reactors. Cooke also writes that of the 30 new reactors planned to be built in the United States, the list has dwindled to four, even with President Obama's strong endorsement for large subsidies for newly built plants. Also, the World Nuclear Association predicts a decline in the number of operating reactors in the United States and France in the next 20 years.

What does it all mean?

Increasingly, we see the strengthening of liaisons between industry and government, corporate wealth and political campaigns, bonds that seem to weaken federal oversight to protect the public. Will the voice of dissenters and activists who reach a critical mass ultimately make a difference?

Abby Luby is a freelance journalist who has covered the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York for over ten years, and the author of the new ebook "A Nuclear Romance." This novel is about living near a nuclear power plant in New York. Her articles on Indian Point appear in The New York Daily News, The Westchester Guardian, The North County News. She also writes for The Poughkeepsie Journal, The Stamford Advocate/Greenwich Time. As a regular contributor to Valley Table Magazine and the Hearst publications HealthyLiving, Living [at] Home and Roll Magazine, she also writes about hard news, food, health articles and art. She teaches writing and literature at Marist College.

###

Time to Mothball Indian Point Nuclear Plant?

BY DAVID BIELLO

October 17, 2011
http://www.onearth.org/article/time-to-mothball-indian-point-nuclear-plant


New analysis suggests major source of New York's electricity could be replaced at small cost

On the eastern shore of the Hudson River, roughly 35 miles north of New York City, two squat concrete domes have churned out heat by splitting uranium atoms since 1976. Together, the two nuclear reactors at Indian Point produce nearly 17,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity a year -- enough to power more than 2 million homes and make the site one of the largest power plants in New York state.

Yet a new analysis commissioned by the environmental groups NRDC and Riverkeeper and released Monday suggests that Indian Point could be replaced within the next 10 years without much cost -- largely through energy efficiency measures and the development of renewable power sources. Simply put, the two groups argue that protecting the more than 17 million people who live within 50 miles of the nuclear power plant -- the radius the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggested should be evacuated in the wake of the meltdowns earlier this year at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan -- is worth the extra cost.

"No one wants to see a repeat (of the Japanese disaster) here in one of the most densely populated regions in the country," NRDC President Frances Beinecke said. "Fortunately, we have a wealth of safer energy sources ready to go that can fully replace the power from Indian Point."

Reasons to be concerned about Indian Point’s safety include earthquake zones discovered in the region after the plant was built in the 1960s. In 2005, a leaky pool allowed water laced with radioactive hydrogen to escape into local water supplies, and one of the reactors accidentally flooded in 1981 -- though neither accident resulted in significant damage or health impacts. In 2010, the nuclear plant had to vent steam, though its radioactivity was below the safe limits determined by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But if a natural disaster or other accident should ever prevent thousands of gallons of river water from cooling the reactors, the result could be a meltdown similar to the one in Fukushima after a massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

The NRDC and Riverkeeper analysis, prepared by the energy consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics, says that nuclear power from Indian Point could be replaced for almost nothing. "The price impact is under $5 per month" on local electricity bills, said Kit Kennedy, an attorney for NRDC's air and energy program. That cost "feels modest compared to the $60 billion estimates for the financial consequences of Fukushima, not even taking the human devastation into account."

Entergy, the company that owns and operates Indian Point, did not immediately respond to OnEarth’s request for comment on Monday. But industry representatives have said the shutdown of Indian Point would leave the region vulnerable to blackouts and other reliability problems, and Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi told Reuters: "It is clear that alternatives to Indian Point's power would result in serious environmental and economic consequences for New York City and Westchester residents.”

Federal, state, and local regulators are gearing up to decide whether Indian Point should receive a license to operate for another 20 years (the reactors’ licenses will run out in 2013 and 2015 respectively), a process that will likely lead to a decision next year, although delays are possible. The consultants’ report makes the case that alternatives could be found in energy efficiency, wind farms, and refurbishing old fossil fuel-fired power plants to produce more power instead. "The common sense solution is not to relicense this plant for another 20 years but to retire it and invest in more sustainable energy resources," Kennedy said.

In fact, the consultants say that three-fourths of the power provided by Indian Point could be met by energy efficiency efforts, such as retrofitting old buildings to require less electricity for heating and cooling. The recent retrofit of the Empire State Building cut energy use in the iconic skyscraper by 40 percent, and New York City has begun requiring buildings over 50,000 square feet to compare their energy use to industry standards -- a prelude to reductions. City government is looking to "strengthen the energy code to require more energy efficiency in the private building stock," said David Bragdon, director of long-term planning and sustainability for New York City.

Such energy efficiency, which would need to reduce energy use of the entire New York region by at least 1.5 percent per year to cope with the loss of Indian Point, is "likely to be the lowest cost option, and would result in no additional CO2 emissions," the consultants’ report says.

In addition, wind farms have begun to crop up in the state's windy west and central regions, and the state government has begun to explore the potential for harnessing sea breezes, as well, though plans to build an offshore wind farm in the Rockaways have been put on hold. Any remaining electricity needs could be met by installing more efficient combined cycle gas turbines at existing power plants, according to the report.

But such gas turbines are hardly pollution free. Indian Point produces no air pollution during its operation, and replacing the energy it produces with electricity from natural gas would immediately boost carbon dioxide emissions in the state by 15 percent, while smog-forming nitrogen oxides would increase by as much as 8 percent, according to a report prepared for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection earlier this year. "Developing a solution in which there is no net emissions increase would be extraordinarily expensive," the authors of that report wrote.

"The CO2 impacts are going to depend on the mix of alternatives that are brought to bear," Kennedy acknowledged. She also noted that New York state's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative -- a cap-and-trade program for power plant CO2 emissions in the northeastern region -- would ensure that emissions could not increase too much.

Fully one quarter of electricity generation in New York state already comes from burning natural gas. The infrastructure to use more doesn’t currently exist, though more than 4,200 megawatts-worth of new power plants have been proposed in New York state -- which would produce more than twice as much power as Indian Point can deliver. The pipelines to feed those new plants would also have to be built, and natural gas pipelines can explode, as seen in San Bruno, California, in September 2010.

Concerns about the sources of natural gas that would potentially help replace Indian Point are among the reasons why the Bloomberg administration "has been favorable toward Indian Point relicensing," in the words of Bragdon. The city’s Department of Environmental Protection report found that "every replacement option studied … including aggressive energy conservation, will result in a cost increase to energy consumers throughout the state.

For his part, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has argued to close Indian Point -- and state actions could conflict with the federal relicensing process. "There is no doubt that we need replacement power if we are to close Indian Point. There is also no doubt we can find it," Cuomo wrote in response to a citizen's question during a web chat on September 24. "My point has always been safety first and the reward doesn't justify the risk."

Already, the state has rejected attempts by Entergy to renew Indian Point’s water permits, arguing that cooling towers would need to be added to the site to minimize impacts on water quality and aquatic life. Indian Point kills millions of fish and other aquatic life annually by sucking in and spitting out hundreds of thousands of gallons of river water daily. Adding two cooling towers is estimated to cost $1.5 billion and might make continued operation of Indian Point economically unattractive.

It’s unclear whether the federal government could relicense Indian Point if the state did not grant it water quality certification. "I don't know for sure how that process would work," said Drew Stuyvenberg, environmental project manager for the Indian Point license renewal application at the NRC. At other nuclear power plants, such as FitzPatrick nuclear power plant near Oswego, New York, the NRC held off making a final decision until water quality certification was completed between Entergy and the state. That relicensing was approved in 2008. The application to renew the license of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo County is also on hold until that plant’s owners get the green light from California's water regulators.

Diablo Canyon is also under investigation for seismic risk in the wake of Fukushima. And the NRC has put Indian Point "at the top of the list" for its re-examination of seismic risk, due to the discovery of new fault lines in the region, according to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan.

One wild card in Indian Point’s future is the onrushing problem of climate change. Already, unseasonable summers have boosted energy demand in the region -- the all-time peak for electricity use in New York City came last July 22 at 4 p.m., when temperatures hit 104 degrees Fahrenheit. That has left local utility Consolidated Edison concerned about meeting spikes in demand from window-mounted air conditioners, which tend to turn on all at once, according to Con Ed’s Colin Smart, , who spoke about the concern at an energy efficiency discussion on September 20. As it stands, Con Ed has a contract with Entergy to receive 350 megawatts from the Indian Point nuclear power plant in order to help meet peak demands.

Environmentalists acknowledge that adapting to climate change will require energy. "We need to pursue efforts that will deliver the greatest results, most quickly, at the lowest cost," said Kennedy, and that means increasing energy efficiency through stronger appliance standards and other means. "Those are much more cost-effective, sustainable solutions than keeping around a 40-year-old nuclear power plant that's sited in the most densely populated area of the U.S."

David Biello is Scientific American's associate editor for environment and energy. He joined Scientific American in November 2005 and has written on subjects ranging from astronomy to zoology for both the website and the magazine. He has been reporting on the environment and energy since 1999 -- long enough to be cynical but not long enough to be depressed.

###

Enviro groups to point out NY Indian Pt nuke risks

Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:54am EDT 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/utilities-entergy-indianpoint-idUSN1E79G0CR20111017

* NY Gov. wants Indian Point shut in 2013 and 2015

* Entergy wants to run reactors for another 20 years

* NRC to take years to decide on new reactor licenses

NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Two environmental groups said they will reveal new information about the safety of the giant 2,065-megawatt Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York and discuss some options to replace the plant if it is shut.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Riverkeeper said they will be "revealing new information about the risks associated with an emergency at Indian Point," which is located about 45 miles north of Midtown Manhattan.

One New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants the reactors to shut when their licenses expire in 2013 and 2015 due in part to his concerns for safety in having two reactors in the New York metropolitan area, which is home to about 19 million people.

Entergy , the second biggest nuclear power operator in the United States and Indian Point's owner, want to run the plant running for another 20 years after the original 40-year operating licenses expire.

Officials at Entergy were not immediately available for comment.

The staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has already determined the two reactors at the nuclear plant are safe to run for another 20 years.

But it will likely take years before the NRC commissioners decide whether to renew the reactors' licenses. Fist, the agency's judicial board, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), must hear numerous contentions opposed to the relicensing and expected appeals before the commissioners get to make the final decision.

New York depends on Indian Point for about 25 percent of the power used in New York City and Westchester County, where the plant is located. It can produce enough power to supply about two million homes.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), which operates the state's power grid, has already said the shutdown of Indian Point would leave the city vulnerable to blackouts and other reliability problems.

New York's power company, Consolidated Edison , has warned the shutdown of Indian Point would boost the already high cost of power in the Big Apple.

Power prices in New York are already among the highest in the nation. The average retail price of power in New York is about 15.5 cents per kilowatt hour versus 9.8 cents for the national average.

 ###

ndian Point vs. Hudson River: hearings begin on cooling system impacts

MONDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2011 13:37

BY ROGER WITHERSPOON

“…EPA’s insupportable assumption that screening technologies are available at nuclear facilities, threaten the viability of existing plants and their daily contribution to cost-effective electricity….”
Brief, Entergy Corp v US EPA
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
July 5, 2005

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/science-updates/indian-point-vs-hudson-river-hearings-begin-on-cooling-system-impacts

For much of the last decade Entergy Nuclear, the owners of the twin Indian Point reactors in New York, have battled environmental regulators from the state and federal government over the continued use of enormous volumes of Hudson River water to quench its power systems. Their federal court suit, joined by a coalition of environmental organizations and New Jersey, New York, and four other states, culminated in a 2009 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding their contention that wedge wire systems were not designed for nuclear power plants and could not meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

The High Court also agreed with Entergy’s position that federal regulators could use cost benefit analysis to determine the most effective and reasonable means of ordering compliance with environmental laws, even though that sort of calculus could short change non-commercial aquatic life.

Now it’s time for a full reversal.

On Monday, Entergy begins four months of hearings before New York State Administrative Law Judges in an effort to prove that wedge wire systems installed in front of its nuclear plans would nearly eliminate the annual destruction of some two million juvenile and adult fish and some 300 billion hatchlings and baby fish. If the judges agree, Entergy could avoid having to retrofit the plants with an expensive closed cycle cooling system, which functions like the recirculating radiator on an automobile, but on a massive industrial scale. Such systems range in cost from about $400 million for a mechanical draft which resembles a four story warehouse, to a massive, 150-foot-tall cooling tower costing a projected $1.5 billion.

At stake is the continued operation of the power plants which provide about 5 percent of the electricity used daily in New York City and adjacent Westchester County. For without the permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation to take water from and discharge it back into the Hudson River, the plants cannot operate regardless of whether their contested licenses are renewed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Phillip Musegaas, program director for the environmental group Riverkeeper – which was also involved in the 2005 suit against the EPA – said “we do not believe wedge wire is a viable solution. It’s a fact that wedge wire screens have never been used at a nuclear power plant of this size, and we do not believe Entergy has made its case that wedge wire will work at Indian Point.

“And wedge wire screens do not address the thermal discharge issue. They are not an effective substitute for closed cycle cooling.”

The thermal pollution from heat dumped into the waterways by power plants using once through cooling is tremendous, particularly at nuclear sites. The thermal discharge at PSEG’s, coal powered, Mercer Generating Station in Hamilton, NJ, for example, dumps about 1.5 billion BTUs of heat into the waterway, according to company records. The nuclear power plants at Indian Point and Salem however, dump about 30 billion BTUS of heat hourly into their local waterways. That is the equivalent of the heat which would be generated by exploding a nuclear bomb, the size of the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima, in the waters of the Hudson River and Barnegat Bay every two hours, all day, every day. It is one reason by the environmental regulators in both states are pushing for closed cycle cooling systems.

Indian Point is confronting the same issue which resulted in the agreement between the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Exelon Corp., owners of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, to shut down the facility on Dec. 31, 2019. The agreement, worked out by Gov. Chris Christie, was formally ratified by the NRC last week. Edward Miller, project manager in the NRC’s plant licensing branch, stated in a letter to Exelon President Michael Pacillio that “we will continue to verify the safe operation of the plant via the planned oversight” and factor into the review programs to end the operations.

Oyster Creek is the first of nine power plants in New Jersey which are being targeted by state environmental regulators which kill an estimated nine million fish in their cooling systems. New Jersey’s efforts to force compliance involve four plant sites operated by PSEG – ranging from the twin reactors at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, which use 3 billion gallons of water daily, to the Sewaren natural gas plant using 540 million gallons daily; as well as plants operated by Exelon, RC Cape May Holdings, and Calpine.

In New York, environmental regulators are going after 40 power plants, including Indian Point, which kill some $20 billion juvenile and mature fish annually in waterways around the state. But the biggest impacts are created by the gauntlet of power plants along the Long Island Sound and the lower Hudson River which kill fish by the billions as they migrate up to 200 miles from the Atlantic Ocean to spawning sites along the Hudson River.

The scale of the destruction can be seen in the NRC’s environmental assessment of the twin Indian Point nuclear plants in Buchanan, 30 miles north of Manhattan in the heart of the Hudson River tidal estuary. In determining that the overall impact on essential fish habitat is “small to moderate” the agency noted approvingly that new screens installed in front of the 40-foot-wide intake pipes in 1984 had reduced the destruction of baby fish between 1984 and 1991 by 187 Billion per year to its present rate of just 300 Billion newly hatched fish.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, responding to the NRC’s environmental analysis of Indian Point, found that the “once through cooling systems” are vacuuming up trillions of newly hatched fish – those under a half inches in length – and destroying them in their heat exchangers. The NMFS directly challenged the finding by the NRC that the damage to the aquatic environment is “moderate”, and asserted there is “strong evidence” that the decline in fish stocks along the entire northeast Atlantic seaboard is due more to the destruction of baby fish than to over fishing of adults.

“The NMFS does not reach all of the same conclusions as the NRC with respect to adverse effects that relicensing IP2 and IP3 would have on the fishery resources and their habitats,” Peter Colosi, the agency’s assistant northeast regional administrator, wrote in an acerbic analysis of the impacts of the Hudson River nuclear plants.

“Given the immense natural productive potential of the Hudson River Estuary,” Colosi continued, “and taking consideration the staggering numbers of organisms that are lost directly, indirectly, and cumulatively through continued operation of electric generating stations that continue to use once-through cooling techno logy in the Mid-Hudson, the NMFS suggests that the current Indian Point relicensing process is an appropriate and opportune time to apply the Clean Water Act.”

The hearings challenging New York’s attempt to force Entergy to build a closed cycle cooling system as a prerequisite to getting a discharge permit are scheduled to run through February in the agency’s Albany offices. The daily hearings will cover several controversial subject areas, including the wedge wire from Monday through Nov. 8; radioactive materials in the environment from Nov. 14 through Dec. 9; and, and protection of endangered species from Dec. 12 through Dec. 16. Hearings are tentatively scheduled to run through Feb. 24, covering these and other items as needed.

Roger Witherspoon writes Energy Matters at www.RogerWitherspoon.com.

###

Indian Point Nuclear Plant Owner Seeks Deal with N.Y. State

Updated: Tuesday, 02 Aug 2011, 9:37 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 02 Aug 2011, 9:37 PM EDT

.

By THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WSJ.COM | NEWSCORE - Entergy Corp. aims to negotiate agreements with New York state officials over its plans to continue operating the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan rather than spend years in litigation, the company's top executive said Tuesday.

The company has been struggling to win a New York water quality permit it needs to obtain a federal license to continue operating the plant for several more years. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said the plant is too close to New York City and should be closed.

In a conference call with analysts Tuesday, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard indicated that pursuing lawsuits -- as the company has in Vermont, which passed legislation to block its plant's continued operation past March 2012 -- is not the only option.

"We do continue to develop scenarios that would be in [everyone's] best interest, versus protracted litigation, and we're open to ideas," he said. "Hopefully it wouldn't have to go to all nine innings."

Entergy faces opposition among some New York officials to the company's plans to continue operating Indian Point beyond the plant's current operating licenses, which expire in 2013 and 2015. Entergy has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for new licenses to operate Indian Point another 20 years. But the company also needs a water quality permit from New York state.

In April, New York regulators ruled the plant's use of Hudson River water to cool its turbines kills nearly a billion aquatic organisms a year and violated state and federal clean water rules. The state Department of Environmental Conservation ruled the company would have to install a costly closed-loop cooling system to continue operating the plant.

Entergy has continued to press for approval of an alternative, less costly cooling system in a proceeding that is still pending.

Leonard declined to discuss details of the company's talks with Vermont and New York officials, although he did suggest the litigation against Vermont could drag on, possibly for years.

SOURCE: WSJ.COM

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/indian-point-nuclear-plant-owner-seeks-deal-with-ny-state-20110802-ncx

###

Evacuation plans could scuttle Indian Point license renewal

Bill Cummings, Investigative reporter

Published 10:39 a.m., Tuesday, July 19, 2011

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Evacuation-plans-could-scuttle-Indian-Point-1471910.php

After a massive tsunami knocked out the Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan and radiation began spewing from crippled reactors, U.S. officials advised Americans to stay at least 50 miles from the facility.

Yet if a similar accident occurred at a U.S. nuclear plant, like the Indian Point Energy Center in New York or Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Connecticut, federal law requires that only residents within 10 miles must be evacuated.

Indian Point was built near the Ramapo line, an intersection of two major fault lines. Of the nation's 104 nuclear power plants, it has the most risk of damage from earthquake, according to an assessment by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Given the Japanese disaster, opponents of extending Indian Point's license for another 20 years are demanding a 50-mile evacuation zone.

That would present an all but insurmountable problem. It would mean all of New York City; parts of New Jersey; much of Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange and Dutchess counties in New York; and all of Fairfield County -- more than 17 million people -- would have to be evacuated if there was a disaster, whether from an earthquake, a terrorist attack or a major plant malfunction. At a 10-mile radius, more than 300,000 people would need to be evacuated.

It's extremely doubtful that the 50-mile zone could be evacuated. Opponents of Indian Point have seized on that contradiction as a key reason why Indian Point should be closed.

"Fifty miles would be impossible to do, so you can't relicense that plant," said Margo Schepart, a co-founder of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not retreating from its 10-mile evacuation requirement, although the agency has agreed to study the issue. In a recent statement, the NRC reiterated that U.S. nuclear plants are safe from earthquakes or natural disasters.

"Current operating nuclear plants in the U.S. remain safe, with no need for immediate action. Existing nuclear plants were designed with considerable margin to be able to withstand the ground motions for the largest earthquakes expected in the areas around the plant," the NRC said in a statement.

U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat whose district includes Indian Point, said the NRC should reevaluate Indian Point in light of the evacuation-zone debate. "Evacuating 20 million people within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point would be a near-impossibility. It would be reckless and irresponsible for relicensing to go forward with an evacuation plan that we know to be inadequate," Lowey said.

Indian Point's owner, the Entergy Corporation, has dismissed calls for a larger evacuation zone.

"Indian Point is designed to withstand an earthquake greater in size than the area has ever experienced," Entergy said in a written statement. "The reason the risk is low for Indian Point is partly because of the geology and tectonics of the East Coast region. Indian Point is neither susceptible to the type of earthquake that occurred in Japan, nor the tsunami that followed that ultimately removed the cooling capability of the Japanese plants."

Population trends show that across the country, the number of people living near reactors is growing.

According to 2010 census data, the number of people living within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant increased by nearly 17 percent over the last 10 years. One in three people living in the United States would fall within a 50-mile radius of a nuclear plant.

###

The nuclear-safety debate hits home

Bill Cummings, Investigative Reporter

Updated 11:03 a.m., Tuesday, July 19, 2011 
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/The-nuclear-safety-debate-hits-home-1471908.php

Nancy Burton of Redding with mother Cindy-Lu and baby Zig-zag, born this spring on her goat farm in Redding. Burton says that milk from her goats has tested positive for radioactivity, which she surmises is from the Indian Point nuclear plant in nearby New York state.

New York's Indian Point Energy Center -- and its Fairfield County neighbors -- are at the center of a growing national debate over the question: Do nuclear power plants pose serious health risks to those living near them?

Indian Point, with more than 17 million people living within a 50-mile radius, has long been the focus of health studies, many of them conducted by antinuclear groups.

Recent, yet-to-be-released testing by such a group in Fairfield County and nearby New York areas has found low levels of two types of radioactive strontium in the milk of goats, cows and humans. The results, expected to be released within weeks, were termed "striking" by one expert who reviewed the data provided to Hearst Connecticut Media Group.

Studies by another activist group have found strontium in the baby teeth of Fairfield County children.

Fueling the argument is the fact that many cancer rates in Fairfield County, downwind of Indian Point, are higher than national averages.

Perhaps most strikingly, the county's rate of thyroid cancer is well above the national average. Exposure to radiation is a risk factor for thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer rates in New York counties near Indian Point are also much higher than the national average.

Overall cancer rates in Fairfield County also exceed national averages.

One example cited by activists is that according to state statistics, 62 cases of cancer were diagnosed from 2001 to 2005 in patients 19 and younger in Stamford and Greenwich -- representing an incidence 40 percent higher than the national rate for such cases. The state does not dispute those numbers, but adds that in a later set of years, 2004 to 2008, the occurrence of such cancers in Stamford and Greenwich is more in line with national rates.

Nuclear-industry advocates and a spokesman for Entergy, the company that operates Indian Point, deny there is any risk. But some local residents strongly disagree.

Gail Merrill of New Canaan blames Indian Point for her own breast cancer.

"I've lost track of how many women in Fairfield County are dead from breast cancer," Merrill says. "The people who live in these wealthier towns think they are safe. But I can tell you ... it's a big problem. Indian Point has to be shut down."

Many experts would discount Merrill's claims regarding the cause of her cancer. For most cancers, there is no way to conclusively prove -- or disprove -- radiation as a cause. But the Fairfield County cancer statistics continue to attract attention.

Nuclear-industry advocates dismiss the activists' studies here and elsewhere as "junk science," but across the country challenges are increasing from scientists armed with new data showing that cancer rates in children and adults increase regionally when nuclear plants begin producing electricity.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has insisted for the past two decades that there is no connection between the nation's 104 nuclear power plants and cancer. That position is based on a 1991 study by the National Cancer Institute that found no link. But earlier this year, the NRC asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a new study, to be carried out over the next three years.

THE TOOTH FAIRY

In 2008, the Radiation and Public Health Project, a non-profit antinuclear group fronted by celebrities including Christie Brinkley and Alec Baldwin, published a study that linked higher-than-average cancer rates in Fairfield County to the Indian Point plant. It was a surprising allegation considering both the NRC's position that nuclear plants do not cause cancer and the quality medical care available in the comparatively affluent area of lower Fairfield County.

The study continued earlier work by the RPHP which found startling levels of strontium 90 (SR-90) in baby teeth donated by parents living near nuclear plants, a study dubbed the Tooth Fairy Project. Strontium 90 exists only as a byproduct of nuclear fission.

According to the EPA, "strontium 90 is found in waste from nuclear reactors. It can also contaminate reactor parts and fluids. Large amounts of strontium 90 were produced during atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s and dispersed worldwide."

The body absorbs strontium in a similar way to calcium, and the isotope has been linked to bone marrow cancer and leukemia.

An RPHP study found that SR-90 levels in baby teeth had increased steadily since the 1980s in areas around seven U.S. nuclear plants, including Indian Point.

In 2008, the RPHP focused its attention on Fairfield County and found that:

- The southwestern portion of Fairfield County, which is downwind from Indian Point, has the county's highest incidence of cancer.

- The recent cancer incidence in Fairfield County was 8 percent and 7 percent above the U.S. rate for males and females, respectively.

- The Fairfield County cancer death rate for those under 25 was 4 percent above the U.S. rate.

- Levels of SR-90 in found Fairfield County baby teeth were the highest in the New York metropolitan area, with the exception of the New York counties closest to Indian Point.

The RPHP also reported that between 1998 and 2002, the cancer incidence in Fairfield County was 8.2 percent above the national average for males and 6.7 percent above the national average for females.

According to the national tumor registry, the thyroid cancer rate in Connecticut between 2003 and 2007 was 14.5 cases per 100,000 people while the national rate is 10.2 cases per 100,000 people.

The RPHP, using 2001-2005 data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that thyroid cancer rates in counties closest to Indian Point were the highest in New York State and among the highest in the United States.

The thyroid cancer rate for the four New York counties flanking Indian Point -- Orange, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester -- over that period was 66 percent above the U.S. average, RPHP reported in a 2009 paper. Before Indian Point was built in the 1970s, the rate was in line with national averages, RPHP said.

"The Indian Point area is constantly being bombarded with routine and accidental releases of radiation," said Susan Shapiro, a board member of the environmental advocacy group Hudson River Sloop Clearwater.

"The only major known cause of [thyroid cancer] is exposure to radioactive iodine, which is emitted into the air by nuclear plants," said Joseph Mangano, Executive Director of the RPHP, which published its conclusions in the International Journal of Health Services.

The Connecticut Department of Health was more equivocal, saying that "risk factors for thyroid cancer include exposure to therapeutic radiation, radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons and power plants, family history, being female and being over 45 years old."

State records show that the thyroid cancer rate among Connecticut women is highest in Fairfield and New London counties. The Millstone nuclear plant is located in New London County.

Between 2003 and 2007, Connecticut's overall rate of thyroid cancer was 14.5 cases per 100,000 people, compared to the national rate of 10.2 cases per 100,000 people.

"Having one or more risk factors does not mean that a person will get thyroid cancer. Most people who have risk factors never develop cancer, and the exact cause of most thyroid cancers is not yet known," the health department said in response to questions.

The health department acknowledged that thyroid cancer rates in Connecticut are higher than the U.S. average, although officials said the death rate remains low. The department attributed that in part to improved detection methods.

Sara Richer, an otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeon at St. Vincent's Medical Center in Bridgeport, said she has seen a steady rise in thyroid cancer in Fairfield County and Connecticut.

"Radiation is a cause of thyroid cancer. I can't point to the plant but if it's giving off radiation that's a risk factor. This is more than just getting more CT scans. I am absolutely concerned. Nuclear radiation is a cause of thyroid cancer," Richer said.

MOTHERS' MILK

Nancy Burton, an attorney who has lobbied for more than 20 years to close the Millstone nuclear plant in Waterford, has been quietly collecting milk samples in the area around Indian Point, from human mothers, as well as cows and goats.

Burton first became interested in the milk issue in 2002 after discovering that the state Department of Environmental Protection had detected strontium 90 levels in milk from a goat named Katie, which had grazed on land about eight miles from the Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford. One test found 55 picocuries per liter of SR-90 in Katie's milk and Burton went public with the information, claiming the results were proof that Millstone was emitting dangerous radiation.

The DEP commissioned a study to explain the "Katie" results and concluded that the SR-90 came from either above-ground testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and early 1960s or the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown in the late 1980s. The study pointed out that other radioactive isotopes would also have to be present in Katie's milk if the source was Millstone. The DEP added the levels were far below those deemed unsafe by government agencies.

"Millstone is not the source of radionuclides in these samples," the DEP said.

Burton found a counter to that argument: She began testing for SR-89 as well as SR-90.

While both SR-90 and SR-89 are radioactive isotopes, they have different half-lives, which is the amount of time it takes for the radiation to decay or disappear. SR-90 has a half-life of 30 years, which means half of the material decays within 30 years and half of the remainder in another 30 years.

But SR-89 has a half-life of 50 days.

That means Chernobyl and atmospheric testing cannot credibly be considered sources of SR-89.

The so-called Mothers' Milk Project has detected low levels of both SR-90 and SR-89 in scores of samples of milk from humans and animals. Burton believes the results are a smoking gun pointing directly at radioactive releases from Indian Point.

"Where else could it come from?" Burton said, noting strontium is only produced during nuclear fission.

Burton's testing found a range of levels. For example, a 2011 test on milk from a goat at her Redding farm showed 2.1 picocuries per liter of SR-89. Annother test the same year found .4 picocuries of SR-89. A 2009 test of milk from a human mother in Orange County, N.Y., showed 3.3 picocuries of SR-89 and a 2008 test of a Dutchess County, N.Y., goat's milk found 5 picocuries per liter.

A picocurie is a measurement of radiation. One curie is the number of disintegrations associated with the decay of one gram of radium, and a picocurie is one trillionth of a curie.

While the test results show SR-89, many of the amounts are below "detectable levels," meaning some would interpret them to be "background noise" created as part of the testing process. Some, however, were above detectable levels.

"SR-89 is very significant because of the half-life," said Ira Helfand, a past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and an expert in the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. "It's hard to blame those results on testing or Chernobyl. If the tests are accurate, there has been some release of SR-89. That's kind of striking."

Helfand agreed that SR-90 remains in the air from above-ground testing and the Chernobyl disaster, both of which poured dangerous amounts into the air that are still being detected today. Above-ground testing was ended in the 1960s after large spikes of SR-90 in milk were found.

Helfand said strontium levels in milk tested by Burton would probably cause no harm to older adults because their bones have stopped growing. But infants and children drinking the milk, especially from lactating mothers, could be at risk, he said.

David Lochbaum, a member of the Union for Concerned Scientists, said it's hard to argue that the SR-89 being detected is the result of decades old weapons testing or Chernobyl. "SR-89 is time stamped. It can't come from something in the 1960s," he said.

That doesn't mean it definitely comes from Indian Point, although it could, Lochbaum said, adding that other aging reactors in the Northeast could be the culprits.

"During the fallout pattern after Chernobyl, some areas 30 miles away received less contamination than areas 100 miles away. It depends on which way the wind blows," Lochbaum said.

Patricia Milligan, a health physicist at the NRC, says that while it's likely that some, if not most, of the Mother's Milk numbers are "background noise," she's "interested" in the results, and added that it was the first report she'd received of SR-89 being found near a nuclear plant.

Milligan said that even in the samples in which it is reasonable to assume that strontium has been found, the amounts are too low to be harmful.

"It would take thousands of gallons consumed at these levels to get to the same level of exposure that you get flying from Los Angeles to New York City," Milligan said.

Still, she said, "I appreciate her looking at this. I would like to see more results and we are interested in following up on these things."

Burton's testing was done by a certified laboratory in another state. Burton released test results to Hearst Connecticut Media Group on the condition that the lab would not be identified until Burton's group makes an official announcement of the study's results, which is expected shortly.

concerns over children

The RPHP's Mangano also voiced concern over the number of cancer cases among children in Stamford and Greenwich.

"This fact should surprise many, as Greenwich and Stamford children should be healthier than those in other areas," Mangano said. "The existence of this cluster in Greenwich and Stamford suggests that radioactive emissions from Indian Point may be playing a role," Mangano said.

RPHP says it found similar cancer spikes in counties nearest the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire and Vermont Yankee. Cancer rates in Rockingham County, N.H., where the Seabrook nuclear power plant is located, were found to be the highest of all 10 New Hampshire counties and the county rate for thyroid cancer was 23 percent above the U.S. rate.

In Vermont, the RPHP said state health department statistics showed that the cancer death rate in Windham County, where the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is located, was five percent below the national average when the plant was built three decades ago and is now 10 percent higher.

Asked to comment on the RPHP findings regarding Connecticut, the Connecticut Department of Public Health, in a written response, said the incidence of the most common cancers -- breast, lung, colorectal and bladder cancer -- in Fairfield County is "not statistically significantly different" than the state rate. However, the department said, the incidence of prostate cancer among males in Fairfield County is "statistically significantly higher" than the state rate.

The department acknowledged that "the incidence ... of all invasive cancers in the U.S. is statistically significantly lower than the rates of both Fairfield County and the State of Connecticut."

Overall, the Connecticut health department noted that cancer rates in the nine Northeastern states, including New York, are higher than the U.S. rate for the most common cancers.

The department did not dispute the accuracy of the state numbers provided by Mangano for childhood cancers in Greenwich and Stamford in 2001 through 2005. But the department did say it believed the rates were not significantly different from the nation's now. It picked a more recent time period, 2004 to 2008, and pointed out that there were only 42 cancers among people 19 years old and younger in Stamford and Greenwich, "one more than calculations based on current rates would predict."

The department added that the "causes of childhood cancer are largely unknown."

Pauline Cantwell, a Greenwich resident who does a talk show for WGCH radio, said she's concerned about radiation coming from nuclear plants like Indian Point.

She said there is no such thing as a safe dose, despite the goverment's contention that the small amount of radiation legally emitted from nuclear plants is harmless.

"We know Indian Point has been leaking tritium. A lot of (the plants) should have been shut down a long time ago," said Cantwell.

Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, owner of Indian Point, said the notion that strontium 90 is released from the plant is simply false because nuclear plants do not release the isotope. "It doesn't make any sense that there is strontium in milk when it can't be from Indian Point," he said.

"When I see stories about a linkage to cancer it bothers me because it can't be true. They see things and the problem with some of these studies is they go in looking for a connection to Indian Point. You won't see a release of strontium from the plant. The design of the fuel is such that that would not happen," Steets said.

But multiple experts rejected Steets' assertions, saying that nuclear plants, including Indian Point, do indeed release strontium, and while fuel is designed to minimize that occurrence, it does happen.

Lochbaum, who is a former nuclear plant operator, said nuclear plants like Indian Point can and do release strontium, both during normal operations and as a result of accidents or incidents.

"The way it often happens is fuel rods develop a crack or hole," Lochbaum said. "Strontium is released into the water (that cools the reactor) and is carried away. There can be defects over the years or rust gets in there and vibrates just enough to create space for it to leak out. There are systems to remove the particles and those filters have to be changed and in the process the water is collected and reused and then discharged into ... water (in Indian Point's case, the Hudson River). Venting of containment areas can release cesium and strontium. It's not uncommon for it to occur."

Asked if it's possible for strontium to leak from a nuclear power plant, NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci said, "Yes, it is possible. It's one of the isotopes that are there so it could leak out. We have had some leaks. Strontium is usually something that ends up in water."

There are federal limits on how much strontium can be released and plants must tally how much is released each year. Lochbaum said boiling water reactors like Vermont Yankee, which represent an older design, typically release more strontium on a regular basis than pressurized water reactors like Indian Point.

In a May report on radiation releases, Entergy said, "The levels of radionuclides in the environment surrounding Indian Point were within the historical ranges, i.e., previous levels resulting from natural and anthropogenic sources for the detected radionuclides. Further, Indian Point operations in 2010 did not result in exposure to the public greater than environmental background levels."

`JUNK SCIENCE'?

The NRC is not impressed with the RPHP's work and has dismissed its conclusions, taking the unusual step of publishing a lengthy rebuttal of the organization's papers, many of which have been published in national scientific periodicals.

"A number of studies by the Radiation Public Health Project assert that levels of radioactive strontium-90 (SR-90) are rising in the environment and that these increased levels are responsible for increases in cancers, particularly cancers in children, and infant mortality," the NRC said in its rebuttal.

"The group claims that radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants are directly responsible for the increases in SR-90. In one study, researchers reported that SR-90 concentrations in baby teeth are higher in areas around nuclear power plants than in other areas. This has sometimes been referred to as `The Tooth Fairy Project.' However, numerous peer-reviewed, scientific studies do not substantiate such claims," the NRC said.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, which is closely allied to the nuclear industry, called the RPHP's work "junk science."

"For several decades, a small group of activists has tried to instill fear in the public that a substance called strontium 90 is evidence that low levels of radiation released from nuclear power plants causes cancer and other health problems in nearby residents," the NEI said.

"Since the claims first surfaced some 30 years ago, they have been dismissed continuously by mainstream scientists as scare tactics and `junk science,' contributing nothing to finding the real causes of cancer. They are instead manipulations of the public without any basis in science," the NEI said.

Strontium has also been found in the bones of fish caught in the Hudson River near Indian Point and the Connecticut River near the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. In both cases, officials attributed the SR-90 to Chernobyl and years of above-ground weapons testing.

"It's frustrating," said Margo Schepart, co-founder of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition.

"I think these plants are emitting more than they admit."

###

NY power plant water rule threatens Indian Point reactors


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-utilities-entergy-indianpoint-idUSTRE76J6NB20110720


NEW YORK | Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:00pm EDT

(Reuters) - New York environmental regulators finalized rules to reduce cooling water intake by power plants and other industrial facilities to reduce fish kills by 90 percent.



But this rule is about more than just fish and water. It could lead to the shutdown of the giant Indian Point and threaten the reliability of New York City's power supply.



The state does not want to give Entergy Corp a water permit for the 2,045-megawatt Indian Point nuclear power plant unless the New Orleans-based company spends up to $2 billion to install a new water cooling system to protect fish in the Hudson River just 45 miles north of Manhattan.



Without the state water permit, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cannot relicense Indian Point's two reactors for another 20 years.



The current reactor licenses expire in 2013 and 2015.

The shutdown of Indian Point would cause power reliability problems and boost electric prices in New York City, according to the state's power grid operator, the New York ISO, and the city's power company, Consolidated Edison.



Power plants use water to cool plant systems and condense the steam used to turn the turbine that generates electricity back into water.



"Billions of fish are killed each year when they are caught up in the intake of cooling water for industrial processes," New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Joe Martens said in a release.



"The policy we are implementing today will reduce fish kills by 90 percent while allowing flexibility for the industry to reach our goal of protecting aquatic wildlife," he added.



The DEC said it would flexible because it recognizes that all existing facilities may not be able install a closed cycle cooling system like the one the state wants at Indian Point.



The DEC listed several existing power plants on its website that the state has allowed to modify open cycle cooling systems without installing closed cycle systems, including: NRG Energy's Dunkirk, Huntley and Arthur Kill, Entergy's FitzPatrick, GenOn Energy's Bowline, TransCanada's Ravenswood and Dynegy's Danskammer.



"Closed-cycle cooling is not always an available technology for existing facilities as issues of space availability and compatibility of new technology with the facility's original design frequently make it infeasible to implement," the DEC said.



NO PASS FOR INDIAN POINT



But the state has not yet been flexible with Indian Point.



Entergy has been arguing for years that cooling towers, which are a type of closed cycle cooling, are not possible at Indian Point.



The towers, which would never get the permits needed to get built, would cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion and could not be installed before 2029, Entergy said.



Instead, Entergy has proposed a Wedgewire screen system that would screen out most of the fish but only cost $100 million and could be installed in about three years.



But New York's top elected officials, Governor Andrew Cuomo and state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both want Indian Point shut because it is located in the heavily populated New York metropolitan area, home to more than 18 million people.



Entergy said DEC administrative law judges would hear arguments on water permit issues for the rest of 2011 and possibly into 2012.

The NRC has said its judicial arm will hold hearings on license renewals for the next year or two at least. So long as the renewal hearings and likely appeals are ongoing, the reactors can continue to operate.



Reporting by Scott DiSavino

The End of the NRC Rubber Stamp?

July 15, 2011

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-End-of-the-NRC-Rubber-by-Abby-Luby-110715-812.html

On Friday, a major victory by New York State upset the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rubber stamp process to relicense the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. The historical decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled in favor of a petition served by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that argued the NRC's environmental review violated the law.

This was the first successful motion of its kind and it heralds the growing trend to battle "business as usual' when it comes to relicensing aging nuclear power plants who want to stay in business past their 40-year life expectancy. The AG alleged that the NRC and Indian Point owner Entergy violated federal regulations which allowed the utility company to omit key safety items that address accident analyses as part of their relicensing application.

The victory signals that the culture presumptive relicensing is finally beginning to change

The usual nod from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been the status quo for an approval that, so far at least, has been just about guaranteed. The NRC, the federal oversight agency for nuclear power plants, has never rejected a single application tendered by any utility company seeking to keep their reactors on line.  

Recently, the NRC rubber-stamped two new licenses for the Salem Generating Plants in   New Jersey. Owned by PSEG (Public Service Enterprise Group), the reactors are in Salem County, about 40 miles south of Philadelphia. The Salem reactors now top the list of the 66 nuclear power plants the NRC has re-licensed for another 20 years; the agency is reviewing applications for another 16 reactors.

But the days of uncontested, rubber-stamp relicensing may be drawing to an end. A new generation of legal warriors, armed with scheduled appeals and hotly debated contentions, have slowed some relicensing procedures to a glacial pace.   Today, relicensing applicants may encounter committed opposition in high places they didn't bargain for.

Entergy, the utility company that owns the Indian Point Nuclear Power plants in Westchester, New York, applied for a new license in 2007 to keep their twin reactors running until 2033 and 2035. Their licenses expire in 2013 and 2015. Entergy's application incensed then Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo, who claimed that a plethora of issues had been blatantly ignored. Two weeks ago, now Governor Cuomo, met with Entergy officials reiterating his   fight to shutter the Indian Point.  

Cuomo now has at his back a new law that streamlines the siting of new power plants that could potentially replace electricity from Indian Point. The State has   put another roadblock in the way of relicensing the plant   by denying Entergy's application for a Water Quality Certification, which is required for a new operating license. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation said Entergy was appealing the decision.  

 Entergy is also battling the state of Vermont who ruled last year to close their Vermont Yankee plant by 2012. Entergy, seeking to block the state decision, has filed a complaint against Vermont in US District Court, although the NRC approved the relicensing for the plant in March, 2011 for an additional 20 years.   Vermont Yankee is not the only nuclear plant whose relicensing application has dragged on for years.   The relicensing process for Entergy's Pilgrim Station reactor in Plymouth, Massachusetts, whose current license expires in June of 2012, has also gotten bogged down under a swelling list of contentions.

 For utility companies, applying for a new license is an arduous process requiring thousands of documents for the NRC and specially formed review boards. The boards conduct public hearings -- a practice supposed to demonstrate transparency but which rarely amounts to more than a masked dog and pony show. The real, laborious reviews take place inside the NRC's administrative law process within its licensing body, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB ).   But these are tightly controlled and severely restricted in scope to one item: the safe management of the reactor's aging components.    The reviews typically and glaringly omit such considerations as terrorism, health effects -- think cancer clusters near nuke plants -- safety procedures, evacuations.

When Entergy applied to renew Indian Point's license, several organizations filed contentions raising these sorts of considerations shortly after in 2008, only to be systematically turned down as irrelevant by the ASLB. It rejected former Westchester County Executive Andy Spano who argued that the NRC should hold Indian Point to the same standards as they do for newly built reactors, especially in population density.

Other hot-button contentions argued by both New York State and Riverkeeper were likewise rejected: failure of the applicant to address the risk of a terrorist attack on Indian Point's now full-to-capacity spent fuel pools and underestimating the population density around the plant and its consequences for evacuation in case of an accident or attack.

Just a few weeks ago the NRC gave Riverkeeper a "thumbs down" on two additional contentions: argued first was that Indian Point emergency preparedness was inadequate; and second, that 1500 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel sitting in dry cask storage on a tarmac next to the plant, was unsafe. (Considerably more spent fuel fills the Indian Point spent fuel pools which contain roughly three times the radioactivity of   Fukushima according to the recent Bob Alvarez study from IPS).   

 The NRC claims that contentions concerning spent fuel are not applicable to the relicensing process because the agency already addresses radioactive waste on a regular basis.

Also dismissed was the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater's complaint that the regulatory process ignored higher-than average cancer rates in communities around Indian Point.   That concern was echoed by the citizen's group Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point (CRORIP), which claimed the renewal application didn't look at negative health effects from cumulative radiation exposure from routine and accidental accidents. Meanwhile, independent studies and investigative reporting continues to find escalating rates of thyroid cancer in and around Indian Point.

In total, over 154 contentions were filed by 15 government entities and groups against the relicensing of Indian Point - the most of any license renewal in the history of the NRC. Now, well past four years of reviews, appeals, hearings and court appearances, the ASLB has rejected   contentions from the Rockland County Conservation Association, Public Health and Sustainable Energy, the Sierra Club-Atlantic Chapter,   WestCAN, then Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, and many others. The original 154 contentions has been whittled down to 15.

At present, notwithstanding dismissed contentions, the NRC has found Entergy's relicensing application for Indian Point, "acceptable." A Safety Evaluation Report will be issued by August 19, 2011, which is when   "intervenors" with standing in the process can file new or amended contentions, which could be addressed in a hearing as early as January, 2012.   All told the filings are likely to turn the Indian Point application into the most extensive in NRC history.

"Its fair to say that Indian Point's application will be the longest we've seen," says Diane Screnci, spokesperson for the NRC. "By the time the hearing is held in early 2012, it will be nearly five years since we've received Entergy's application."

Scheiderman's win will undoubtedly stretch out Indian Point's application to the unforeseeable future. Indian Point still can operate legally past their license 2013 and 2015 expiration dates until the NRC comes to a final decision.   But if that happens, it would be unprecedented, since no relicensing procedure   has yet continued past expiration dates.    The way Indian Point, Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim   applications have departed from business as usual may mean that the rubber-stamp, foregone-conclusion culture of relicensing has begun to change.   But for plants like Indian Point, the question remains: after years of legal skirmishes topped by Scheiderman's winning petition, will the massive parade of protest and contentions ultimately influence the NRC's final decision?

###

It's time to close Indian Point

Published 04:55 p.m., Friday, July 15, 2011

The experts, whose views are apt to bend to the side that hires them, will argue about the safety of nuclear power until the cows come home -- possibly filled with irradiated milk if the animals live near a plant.

But Hearst Newspapers' investigative reporter Bill Cummings in today's paper presents a hard-to-dismiss examination of the plant closest to us.

More than 17 million people live within a 50-mile radius of New York's Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, N.Y., just south of Peekskill.

And incidents of cancer near the center, including in Fairfield County, are higher than the national average, and grow higher still as you get closer.

All forms of energy have their pros and cons. And all currently capable of producing large amounts of electricity carry risk. Nuclear power, cleaner in terms of greenhouse gases than others, presents a threat that is catastrophic. Within that threat, Indian Point is a particular concern.

Located on the banks of the Hudson River about 40 miles north of Manhattan, it is the plant closest to the heart of the nation. It exists in one of the most densely populated areas in the country, and it has a terrible safety record.

And, by the way, it sits atop two fault lines.

First, to the cancer risk. Even the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- an agency that services the industry it is supposed to regulate, if there ever was one -- has bowed to growing evidence and backed away from its decades of insisting that nuclear power plants do not cause cancer. It has asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a new study.

But cancer statistics can be too easily countered. Hard evidence in this case also points to a problem.

The Radiation and Public Health Project, a nonprofit anti-nuclear group, has found increasing levels of Strontium 90, a carcinogen that exists only as a byproduct of nuclear fission, in teeth from babies living close to nuclear plants, including Indian Point. Teeth from Fairfield County babies had the highest levels of SR-90 in the New York metropolitan area, except for the New York counties closest to Indian Point itself.

The government and industry claimed the SR-90 was from decades-old weapons tests and Chernobyl. That is possible, since SR-90 has a half-life of 30 years. But weapons and the Russian meltdown can't explain away the presence of a different strand of strontium -- SR-89 -- that's been found in nursing mothers and animals near Indian Point.

SR-90, by the way, has been discovered just outside the plant. It was found in groundwater there in 2005, along with Nickel 63. At the same time, tritium was found in five monitoring wells, released through a leak in a pool storing spent fuel.

That incident was but one in an alarming record of safety violations and accidents at Indian Point going back 40 years. It includes lost equipment, gas leaks, safety violations and explosions, including one last year. But those are not the worst of it.

In 1981, 100,000 gallons of radioactive water spilled in a containment building and was not reported for three days. In 1993, the plant leaked 900 gallons of radiated water into the Hudson, and the NRC discovered it had steadily leaked more than 200,000 gallons over four years.

Seven years later, hundreds of gallons of radiated water flowed into the river after a full-scale alert caused a reactor shutdown. And just last year, 600,000 gallons of "mildly" radioactive steam were released after another shutdown. That modifier is of little comfort.

Among the long list of violations are a few that provide a tragically comic reminder of why the government and the plant itself can't be trusted to protect us. Those are the ones for not properly minding the plant's "emergency notification systems."

Consider how jammed local roads in Fairfield and Westchester counties are on a typical Saturday. Imagine what they'd be like if everyone was told to get out at once. No one would be going anywhere.

That, plus the safety record, plus evidence that the facility already is slowly, steadily poisoning the region, makes clear that it's time to close Indian Point.

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/It-s-time-to-close-Indian-Point-1468154.php#ixzz1SJrW4X7V

###

NY debate: What if aging nuclear plant closes?


Updated at: 07/14/2011 2:36 PM


By JIM FITZGERALD



(AP) BUCHANAN, N.Y. - Imagining New York’s energy supply without the Indian Point nuclear power plants, some see dirtier air, higher utility bills and an increased risk of blackouts.



Others see a lower risk of catastrophe from a terror attack or natural disaster.



And some see a long-term opportunity for alternative sources like solar panels on Manhattan rooftops and wind farms in the waters off New York Harbor.



The two reactors in Buchanan, 35 miles up the Hudson River from midtown Manhattan, provide about a quarter of the power used in New York City and Westchester. The plant began operating in the 1970s and licenses for the two reactors are set to expire in 2013 and 2015.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has declared his resolve to block relicensing; his aides recently met with the plant’s owner, Entergy Nuclear. "We know he wants to shut it down," said company spokesman Jim Steets.



Critics have focused for years on preventing any relicensing for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3. (Indian Point 1, from the 1960s, was mothballed in 1973.) Opposition spiked after the 2001 terror attacks, when one of the hijacked airliners flew right over the plant. Leaks of radioactive water, problems with emergency sirens, and the earthquake and tsunami crises at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have intensified the battle.



Of particular concern are evacuation plans in an emergency. An evacuation of 50 miles around Indian Point _ the recent U.S. recommendation for American citizens around the Japanese plant _ would mean moving out more than 17 million people, including almost all of New York City.



The governor, who lives 12 miles from Indian Point, has said he considers the plant "an unnecessary risk."

"I’m not against nuclear power but I am against nuclear power in this plant in this location with this density in Westchester County, with its proximity to New York City," he said.



Nuclear plants are regulated by the federal government, not the states. But Cuomo does have a weapon _ a state water permit, so far withheld, that’s required for the new licenses.



Vermont is also battling to close a nuclear power plant, one also owned by Entergy. The governor and Legislature there are pushing to shut the Vermont Yankee plant when its license expires in March. Sarah Hofmann, deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, said replacement power is not an issue there, although Entergy predicts higher consumer costs if it’s shut down.

Much of the concern about the effects of a sudden Indian Point shutdown comes from New York City.



A new study commissioned by the city’s Department of Environmental Conservation concluded in a preliminary draft that New Yorkers would pay more, the grid would become less reliable and air pollution would increase because most replacement power would come from fossil fuels.



That draft, leaked last week, estimated energy costs would rise up to 10 percent, not including any subsidies to new energy providers, upgrades to the grid or the costs of 1,100 jobs lost at Indian Point.



Leaders from several state agencies responded with a statement saying the figures in the study could also support the conclusion that closing Indian Point "is commercially feasible, does not compromise reliability, and has little impact on cost." They said consumers would pay 5 percent more at most.



The officials also said Indian Point’s reliability was assured until 2020. The city study and a forecast from Con Edison, the city’s primary distributor, both predicted that without Indian Point, reliability problems would start in summer 2016 _ after the second reactor’s license expires.



The dates are important because of the time needed to build new power plants. Experts estimate it would take three to five years for construction of a natural gas-fired power plant, even with new regulations pushed through by Cuomo that have streamlined the approval process.



It’s still difficult to find a place to put a plant, especially in a densely populated area.



"The city administration has not encouraged any new plants to be built because of the political headaches that it causes," said Jerry Kremer, chairman of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, an industry group. "There is nothing of any substance in the pipeline which is going to provide additional power for the downstate region."



Philip Musegaas, a program director at the environmental group Riverkeeper, a longtime Indian Point critic, strongly disagreed, saying the region is well prepared to do without the nuclear plant.

He said that new transmission cables will bring in power from New Jersey and Quebec, and that energy efficiency projects are already dampening demand. The new regulations pushed by Cuomo will encourage smaller plants and boost wind and solar energy development, he said.



"This idea of an immediate energy shortage is just not reflected in the facts," Musegaas said. "If these measures that I’ve mentioned continue to progress over the next four years, we will have a stable energy supply and we can transition out of Indian Point."



Eventually, he said, wind and solar projects close to the city can be major contributors. He cited an ongoing City University project that found solar energy from the city’s rooftops could meet half its demand. He said there was "tremendous potential" for wind-powered generation offshore.



Musegaas noted that whenever Indian Point closes, it’s likely to leave behind another problem _ its radioactive waste, currently stored on site in pools and casks. President Obama has refused to approve Yucca Mountain near Las Vegas as a disposal site and there is no other long-term plan for the nation’s nuclear plants.



Cricket Valley Energy, an affiliate of Advanced Power Services, plans a 1,000-megawatt gas-fired plant in Wingdale, N.Y., about 65 miles north of the city, projected to open in 2015. Company officials said Indian Point’s future was not a factor in the investment.



Another gas-powered plant with a 650 megawatt output is planned by Competitive Power Ventures Inc. in Wawayanda, about 50 miles from Manhattan. Spokesman Steve Sullivan said it could be open by 2014.

There is a good chance that Indian Point will be running beyond its expiration dates even if it doesn’t have a new license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that if its hearings _ likely to start next year _ go beyond the deadline, the plant would be allowed to stay online. The same would apply if the state denies the water permit and Entergy challenges that ruling in court.



In the hearings, New York and environmental groups are alleging, among other things, that Entergy has not detailed how 20 more years of operation would affect buried pipes and cables and the domed "containment" buildings that house the reactors.



The water permit relates to Indian Point’s use of Hudson River water _ it takes in as much as 2.5 billion gallons a day _ to make steam and cool the reactors. The permit has been withheld because the current cooling system kills nearly a billion organisms a year, including the endangered shortnose sturgeon.



The agency said Indian Point can operate legally if it converts to a water-recycling system known as closed-cycle. But Entergy said that would cost more than $1 billion. It claims its proposal _ a new screening system that would keep most fish out _ makes more sense.



No compromise seems close.

Steets, the Entergy spokesman, said his company is not interested in a deal like that at the Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey, where the state backed off a demand for cooling towers when the owner, Exelon, agreed to close the plant 10 years before its 2029 license expiration.



(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

###

Power New York 


Act a win-win


http://www.lohud.com/article/20110624/OPINION/106240311/Power-New-York-Act-win-win


A Journal News editorial


7:32 PM, Jun. 23, 2011|



State lawmakers have signed off on an energy and jobs bill that one writer called "the most important bill most New Yorkers never heard of." When finally put into place, 
the new law could become the rejoinder to the perennial question: Where do we get the power if Indian Point is shuttered?



The Power New York Act establishes a new Article X power plant siting law and creates a panel to oversee development of new power-generating facilities throughout the state. The measure is "fuel neutral," meaning any energy technology — including renewable sources like wind and solar — would be eligible for approval.



The guidelines include provisions ensuring local communities have a say in siting decisions, along with the resources to make informed judgments.



Streamlining the siting process is vitally important. For one, the state's power-plant siting law has been "dark" since 2003, ensuring molasses -slow movement on new power plant projects — in the face of aging plants and ever-expanding demand. Fixing the approval process was a priority of former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, but he flamed out before that effort could get on track.



The action also comes amid growing calls to shutter the Indian Point nuclear power plants in Buchanan — protests amplified by the disaster at the crippled nuclear plants in Japan.



Both Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who helped broker the compromises propelling the Power New York Act through the Legislature, and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have called for closing Indian Point. It provides about 30 percent of the energy consumed by New York City and Westchester.



"If we can build appropriately scaled power plants below the congestion point that are safe and can serve the metropolitan area then we've reduced the necessity to continue having Indian Point online," Assembly Energy Committee chairman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, Ulster County, told the Albany Bureau.



Business and environmental groups applaud the measure, the former for its potential to help reduce energy costs and spur business and manufacturing, particularly upstate; green-energy proponents like the bill's potential for spurring development of alternative energy supplies. Consumers will benefit as well; the bill includes provisions to help make energy retrofits of homes and businesses more affordable — saving money and creating green-energy jobs.



Those are energy dividends that will benefit New York, and the Lower Hudson Valley especially, for years to come.



A Journal News editorial

June 21, 2011, 5:00 pm

N.Y. Missed Deadline on Indian Point Decision, Operator Says


http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/n-y-missed-deadline-on-indian-point-decision-operator-says

By MATTHEW L. WALD

New York State missed a deadline for ruling on an application for a water quality certificate for the Indian Point nuclear plant, the plant’s owner, Entergy, said on Tuesday in a notification to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The filing raised the possibility that state officials may have lost a tool for blocking a license renewal for the plant’s nuclear reactors.

The commission must decide whether to grant a 20-year extension to the two reactors’ initial 40-year licenses, and under its rules, the reactors must have a valid water quality certificate. The federal Clean Water Act, the law under which such certificates are issued, gives the states one year to decide on such applications, and that period expired in April 2010, Entergy said. The company is asking the N.R.C. to rule on whether it must keep waiting for a permit from Albany.

A spokesman for the Department of Environmental Conservation, Michael Bopp, said his agency’s lawyers had not had a chance to review Energy’s contentions. But he countered that his department had indeed reached a decision within a year; it rejected the application. What has been going on since then is an appeal of the rejection, he said.

New York State opposes a license extension for the reactors, a position taken by Gov. Andrew Cuomo well before he was elected last year. The state could still prevail by persuading the regulatory commission that the plant, on the Hudson River in Buchanan, N.Y., has unaddressed safety problems. But so far the commission has approved every single application for a reactor license renewal, in some cases for reactors that had more obvious age-related safety issues than the Indian Point reactors do.

The commission has, however, required reactors to take various maintenance steps to win renewals.

Entergy still needs a second approval from the state, a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit, which covers many of the same water quality issues that the certificate does. But the discharge permit is not required for license renewal and has no deadline attached.

New York State is seeking to have Entergy build towers at the plant for cooling water to reduce damage to fish and other aquatic life. Entergy is resisting.

A spokesman for the regulatory commission, Neil Sheehan, said it had received the notification and that its lawyers were reviewing it.

In a statement, Fred Dacimo, Entergy’s vice president for operations, said the company was addressing the underlying issues in the argument over the water quality certificate. “Our steadfast commitment to environmental stewardship and our continued adherence to New York water quality standards remain firm,” he said.

###

Indian Point opponents disrupt NRC safety forum

12:53 AM, Jun. 3, 2011  |  

Joe O'Brien, representing Rep. Eliot Engel, D-Bronx, reads a statement during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's public briefing Thursday on the Indian Point safety assessment at the Colonial Terrace catering facility in Cortlandt. / Joe Larese/The Journal News

.

Written by

Greg Clary

.

. CORTLANDT — More than 400 people turned out to hear about Indian Point's most recent safety record, but the opponent-dominated crowd not only wouldn't listen to Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials, they forced the regulators to turn the format into a raucous question-and-answer session.

The NRC's traveling road show, designed to go over Indian Point's operation in 2010, almost shut down a few minutes into the agency's presentation, when boisterous members of the overflow crowd at the Colonial Terrace catering hall shouted down the safety report details.

NRC officials told the crowd that Indian Point had operated in 2010 "in a manner that preserved public health and safety and met all cornerstone objectives."

"Liars," more than one audience member shouted. "Lap dogs."

Karl Farrar, the agency's moderator for the two-hour meeting, tried to control the shouting.

"This won't work," Farrar said. "If you don't allow them to speak, you won't be allowed to speak."

A few minutes later, NRC officials said they would have to close the meeting and called for a five-minute break, coming back to say they would suspend their presentation and open up the floor to questions — or statements, based on what a string of speakers, projected to reach nearly 100 people, had to say to the regulators.

With the specter of the Japanese nuclear crisis on many people's minds, the evening became a louder-than-usual battle between plant opponents and supporters.

Steve Greenfield, a school board member from Orange County, talked about security around the plant in an age where average people can buy military aircraft on the Internet.

Greenfield cited a March incident in which a podiatrist from Clermont, N.Y., crashed a military jet he was flying in the Hudson Valley and died in the accident.

"From a security perspective," Greenfield said, "if a podiatrist from upstate New York can buy a supersonic fighter jet and … crash it into the Hudson River at any time that he so pleases, why do you feel comfortable that the plant itself is actually safe from external threat?"

NRC officials said the plant was safe and was built to withstand attacks, with security operations tested regularly.

The largest applause in the early part of the evening was for Rockland Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, D-Suffern, who quoted Gov. Andrew Cuomo's call to close the plant and reminded the audience that the Assembly had just adopted a nonbinding resolution to make license renewal of the plant be done as if the plant were new.

Indian Point officials have applied to extend its 40-year operating license by 20 years, and the NRC is looking at how the company can manage an aging plant in its review.

Relicensing criteria do not include emergency planning or earthquake potential, which the agency says is monitored continually.

"There is a crisis of confidence with your agency," Jaffee told the regulators. "Relinquish your resistance to the findings of highly qualified and credentialed experts. … It's your job to protect the public, not the industry."

Members of the business community spoke in favor of the plant's operation, which has received top marks from the NRC for seven consecutive years despite dealing with radiation leaks, emergency siren mishaps and continuing opposition well before Japan's Fukushima-Daiichi crisis galvanized new legions of opponents.

Jerry Connelly, a retired business manager from Boilermakers Local 5 who started working at Indian Point in 1968, turned the microphone around and addressed the audience.

"I support the relicensing," Connelly said. "It is unfortunate that we live in a state that the elected officials are unwilling to tackle any kind of problem that we have. … We have some of the oldest (electricity) generating equipment in the United States, some the oldest transmission lines. Unless the state is willing to invest billions of dollars, we are going to have to use Indian Point."

###

No Fukushima-on-the-Hudson

Chris Williams reports on a huge turnout of protesters at a hearing on the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York--and the anti-nukes movement in the making.

http://socialistworker.org/2011/06/06/no-fukushima-on-the-hudson

June 6, 2011

IT WAS standing-room-only as some 600 people turned out June 2 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) annual report on operations at the Indian Point nuclear power plant located on the Hudson River, just 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan.

Reactor Units 2 and 3 have been operating for 36 years, and the plant operator, Entergy, wants to have the plant relicensed to run for another 20 years.

The government body meant to regulate the nuclear industry, the NRC--which then-presidential candidate Barack Obama called [1] a "moribund" agency that was "captive of the industries it regulates" in a 2007 interview--has rubber-stamped every application for relicensing to date.

The NRC has gotten national criticism for its too-cozy relationship with the giant nuclear utilities it is supposed to regulate--after a record of allowing plants to get away with serious safety violations in order to keep them running.

For example, a 2007 leak at the Byron nuclear plant in Illinois was caused by corroded steel pipes. As the New York Times reported [2]:

The plant's owner, the Exelon Corporation, had long known that corrosion was thinning most of these pipes. But rather than fix them, it repeatedly lowered the minimum thickness it deemed safe. By the time the pipe broke, Exelon had declared that pipe walls just three-hundredths of an inch thick--less than one-tenth the original minimum thickness--would be good enough...

Exelon's risky decisions occurred under the noses of on-site inspectors from the federal NRC. No documented inspection of the pipes was made by anyone from the NRC for at least eight years preceding the leak, and the agency also failed to notice that Exelon kept lowering the acceptable standard, according to a subsequent investigation by the commission's inspector general."

While there was no leak of radiation in this instance, if enough pipes had ruptured, a nuclear disaster less than 100 miles from Chicago could have occurred; for its actions, Exelon received only a mild reprimand from the NRC.

Indian Point has a history of accidents with leaks of radioactive steam and water, faulty siren alarms and two fires since 2007. The New York Daily News revealed recently [3] that Indian Point lacks basic firefighting apparatus such as sprinklers and automatic deluge water sprays for 72 percent of the plant.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman told the Daily News, "Indian Point's ongoing failure to comply with federal fire safety requirements is both reckless and unacceptable."

The plant sits on two fault lines, and 18 million people live within 50 miles of the plant. Fifty miles was the radius that the NRC told Americans near Fukushima to evacuate to--and yet evacuation plans at Indian Point only extend 10 miles.

A detailed 256-page report [4] commissioned by then-New York Gov. George Pataki and released in 2003 concluded:

It is our conclusion that current radiological response system and capabilities are not adequate to overcome their combined weight and protect the people from an unacceptable dose of radiation in the event of a release from Indian Point.

And Daniel Aldrich, a professor of political science at Purdue University, was quoted in the New York Times [5] saying, "Many scholars have already argued that any evacuation plans shouldn't be called plans, but rather 'fantasy documents,'" adding that they are often bureaucratic documents meant to meet policy requirements, not to work in the real world.

The cooling system for the plant has been obsolete for decades [6]--it requires sucking up 2.5 billion gallons of water every day from the Hudson River and dumping the warm water back in. This process kills over 1 billion fish, fry and other river life annually.

Due to this, the environmental NGO Riverkeeper filed a legal action against water quality treatment at the plant, and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation revoked the plant's water quality certification [7]--something that is required for relicensing the plant, unless the NRC grants Entergy a waiver. Indian Point already has hundreds of safety waivers over its lifetime.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE HEARING, held near the plant in the town of Cortland Manor in Westchester County, was the last opportunity for the public to offer input before the NRC decides to relicense the 36-year-old plant for another 20 years.

But it was clear that something was different this time, both at the meeting and from talking with some of the veteran local anti-nuclear campaigners who have been fighting to close Indian Point for years--and it's not just because of the immense turnout in this small, sleepy little town in Westchester County.

In light of the ongoing nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, and both the German and Swiss governments' decisions to not only cancel planned new nuclear stations but shut down their nuclear programs completely--a direct result of mass protest--people were both angry and confident.

Two busloads came up from New York City to supplement local activists who have been fighting the plant for decades.

First, the NRC officials, who as a rule don't keep a formal record of local residents' input, tried to give their report from the table on stage. The selection of NRC officials, plant managers and scientists were repeatedly heckled by the overwhelmingly anti-nuke crowd, many who were holding handmade signs and red 'F' report cards. This led to consternation and disorganization at the front.

The moderator and NRC reps repeatedly tried to control things and come back to their agenda. They even threatened to shut the meeting down.

A short way in, as their slick presentation started coming apart at the seams because the crowd refused to let them rubberstamp yet another year of operation, they were forced to stop and tell everyone that if people wanted more information, they could go to their website. They announced that they would be moving straight to questions a

nd answers.

This, of course, was exactly what the crowd wanted, and there was a huge cheer.

The q-and-a was more like a public haranguing. It was so much fun to see these people in suits--used to having their own way and making potentially life-destroying decisions with impunity--pathetically lost for words as they tried to defend the indefensible against extremely knowledgeable members of the local community, local politicians, community groups and environmental NGOs.

Though several groups are formally for only a moratorium or for making some additional safety changes to Indian Point, almost everybody spoke in favor of immediate shutdown. This is the position of the newly formed New York City-based coalition Shut Down Indian Point Now! [8] whose forthright and unequivocal arguments helped to give confidence to others and sway them to a position of immediate closure.

There was music, singing, theater and dozens of angry political speeches examining all aspects of reactor safety, performance and how New York could obtain its power radiation-free by closing down all the reactors in the state, starting with Indian Point, and switching to clean, safe and reliable renewable alternatives.

A video clip gives a flavor of the boisterous, confident and raucous crowd [9], and how the agenda of the meeting became dictated from the floor rather than the front.

However, in an effort to be "fair and balanced," the mainstream news media that put up video of the hearing included three pro-Indian Point speakers and three against. This does a serious disservice to the evening because the three pro-nuke speakers were the only three of the whole evening, whereas dozens of people spoke against.

The NRC people and the plant managers were practically cowering in their seats and couldn't do anything about it, as they couldn't answer anyone's questions satisfactorily. At the beginning, they ignored a call from the floor to have a moment of silence for the courageous workers of Fukushima.

When the issue was re-raised later in the meeting, they were forced into doing a minute's silence that had the whole room in a dramatic and powerful complete silence. This act highlighted that members of the audience weren't simply an undisciplined and unruly mob who are against free speech, as some pro-nuclear people tried to paint them--but an angry and frustrated group of people wanting to have their safety concerns and point of view heard.

Of course, raising a nuclear disaster at that point in the meeting was the exact opposite of what the NRC were trying to do, which was dissociate the terrible things going on in Japan from what could happen here in a beautiful part of the Hudson River Valley, home to almost 20 million people.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-

THE MEETING went on for more than two-and-a-half hours, with person after person coming up to the microphone and making statements or asking questions. People actually got to experience what real democracy and community participation would look like in decisions that affect them.

NRC operatives were roundly booed when they said they couldn't meet with local elected officials, but could only "look into it" and take it "under advisement." They couldn't even produce a list of their own safety exemptions (in the hundreds at this point). And the officials stirred up further outrage when they didn't even know how much radioactivity was stored in their spent fuel pools (far in excess of the number stored in all the reactors at Fukushima).

At that point, one of the plant managers told the crowd that it was difficult to know because the plant had been in operation for so many years. Attendees responded with cries of "Exactly!" and "That's why it needs to be shut down!"

There was a large media presence, including many U.S. TV stations and press, the BBC and a German and Japanese film crew, in addition to NPR. This reinforces how important it is for activists to organize anti-nuclear protests and activities right now.

With many countries either canceling or putting their nuclear plans on hold [10] due to mass protests following what may turn out to be the world's worst nuclear disaster at Fukushima, there is a real possibility of building a movement in the U.S. that will force the end of the reputed "nuclear renaissance" before it begins.

The only decent position that Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has taken is his opposition to Inian Point relicensing--he has said he wants the plant closed down [11], particularly after a Union of Concerned Scientists report concluded that it was vulnerable to earthquakes.

People who have been fighting the Indian Point plant for years and have become understandably demoralized were electrified by the atmosphere, the anger and the attendance. As one activist reported, "If you missed this meeting, you missed something that we will look back on as a historic turning point. Welcome, New York City folks, all 70 of you. Your numbers brought a lot of energy and strength to this meeting. The people who spoke were passionate, brilliant and well informed."

It was an incredible atmosphere. People were angry and confident. Angry because they knew and expected the NRC to approve the plant and that this was endangering their lives because they've now witnessed Fukushima. And confident because they had the facts on their side and because they'd seen that mass protest had forced the German and Swiss governments into a humiliating U-turn on nuclear power.

ONE OF the biggest cheers of the night was when the next speaker after the minute of silence said that the best way to honor the workers and people of Fukushima was by building a movement that would close down Indian Point so that there would never be a Fukushima-on-the-Hudson.

People actually now think they might be able to stop the re-licensing. If that were to happen, it would have huge ramifications nationwide due to all the other old, leaking and unsafe plants around the country. So it would be both a huge fight, but also a huge victory--and it would make living in New York City a lot safer.

The next step for our coalition is to organize something in New York City, like another demonstration, to link up with Greenpeace and other organizations, and to try to inject more youth into the movement. We also need to see how we can reach out to student groups and see if we can organize campus teach-ins on nuclear power and why it needs to end.

There are discussions of holding an "Indian Summer" outside the plant, where we set up camp and picket the place--as well as a picket of the Entergy regional offices.

There is already another demonstration planned for June 11 in solidarity with protests being organized in Japan, where demonstrations against nuclear power are escalating as a result of the devastation to people's lives and the ongoing danger from the meltdowns that are still not contained.

. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw

. [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/business/energy-environment/08nrc.html

. [3] http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-22/news/29588580_1_nuke-plant-fire-safety-indian-point

. [4] http://www.wittassociates.com/resources/reports/jlwa-independent-review---indian-point/

. [5] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/nyregion/21towns.html

. [6] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/opinion/06tue3.html

. [7] http://www.riverkeeper.org/news-events/news/stop-polluters/power-plant-cases/ip-water-permit-denied/

. [8] http://www.shutdownindianpointnow.org/

. [9] http://ossining.patch.com/articles/indian-point-relicensing-meeting#video-6397722

. [10] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/nuclear-power-loses-appeal-japan

. [11] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/cuomo-wants-indian-point-_n_836982.html

[12] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0

###

Angry Crowd Drowns Out NRC

By Abby Luby

http://www.westchesterguardian.com/6_9_11/WG_6_9_fin.pdf#page=11

Cortlandt, NY - - Twenty minutes after the Nuclear Regulatory began their 2010 annual safety assessment of the Indian Point Nuclear power plants, a riled up

crowd of over 600 people started to vent their anger, demanding the NRC shut down the twin reactors in Buchanan. Held last Thursday night, the standing room only

crowd filled Colonial Terrace’s Banquet Hall with anti nuclear placards and signs, many waving red letter “F’s” signifying an alternative grade on plant safety.

Prior to the meeting, NRC spokesperson Diane Screnci said that, in light of the Fukushima disasters at the Daiichi nuclear power plants in March, the agency

intentionally planned a shortened version of the safety assessment in order to hear public concerns. Unlike previous years, Entergy, the owner of Indian Point, was not sitting opposite the six person NRC panel. Entergy’s Jerry Nappi, said the utility company wasn’t asked to contribute to the safety assessment meeting “But we are here if anyone has any questions.”

Two press conferences were held prior to the meeting, one by the NRC and the other by anti-nuclear groups. NRC Deputy Regional Administrator David Lew told the

media about basic inspection processes since Fukushima. When asked specifically about lessons learned from the Japanese disaster, Lew said the NRC was just

gathering information that would be later integrated in their review processes. Interestingly, Lew had Audience and NRC members at the Indian Point annual safety

assessment meeting little or no response when asked about the NRC’s inspection report completed last month entitled “Follow Up to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station Fuel Damage Event.” The report said that hydrogen recombiners in Units 2 had not been tested for a number of years which is a violation of federal regulations. But recombinders in Unit 3 had been tested, and worked. Hydrogen recombinders eliminate explosive hydrogen - the gas that exploded and blew up the outer containments of three reactors at the Fukushima. The NRC neglected to penalize Entergy for not testing Unit 2 recombiners. Lew was unable to explain the discrepancy.

“There are still lessons to be learned,” he intoned. “When equipment is not inspected we go back to the fundamental mission to assess the significant issues.”

Lew also fended off questions on evacuation plans, especially since the NRC advised Americans near the highly radioactive Fukushima plant to evacuate at least 50 miles

away, advice inconsistent with the ten mile safety distance the NRC tells U.S. citizens.

Lew said although the NRC is looking at emergency preparedness, FEMA, (Federal Emergency Management Agency) has final say on evacuation plans. “At this time, the

issue is not significant enough to look at,” he said. “The NRC doesn’t deal with policy. Our only mission is to make sure that nuclear power plants are safe.”

A large coalition of anti-nuclear groups from the Hudson Valley and from New York City held their press conference outside on the expansive lawn at Colonial Terrace and included two bus loads of coalition members from New York City. The organizations, seeking to close Indian Point included Citizens Awareness Network, Greenpeace, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC), New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), Riverkeeper and Shut Down Indian Point Now, a new group recently formed in New York City.

Standing in front of the large group brandishing anti Indian Point signs and T-shirts, Gary Shaw from the Croton Close Indian Point group said “When a nuclear plant goes bust, it’s a global issue, not a local issue. The NRC is not doing their job of protecting the public, they are simply enablers of the [nuclear] industry.”

At the formal assessment meeting, the NRC panel of inspectors were frequently interrupted by jeers and outbursts accusing the agency of neglecting to protect the public

from potential dangers at Indian Point. The panel was forced to break for ten minutes after which Lew decided to cut the NRC presentation short so the public could speak.

The one standing ovation of the evening was for Westchester Legislator Michael Kaplowitz, (D, I -Somers), Chairman of the Westchester County Board of Legislators

Committee on Environment & Energy. “When regulators insulate and disengage themselves from the people, bad things happen. You, the NRC, are the only New York body we have to protect us.”

Kaplowitz has repeatedly invited the NRC to join his regular meetings, “Plan, Don’t Panic,” to address nuclear plant operation and emergency preparedness since the

Fukushima crises. The NRC has refused to attend the meetings, but after hearing Kaplowitz’s invite again on Thursday night, they told him they would “Take his requests

under advisement.” The crowd, clamoring to their feet chanted “Tell him ‘Yes’!”

Indian Point owner Entergy has applied to extend their operating license for 20 more years until 2033 and 2035 for each unit. The application is currently before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board who are considering contentions to re-licensing by Riverkeeper, New York State and Clearwater. Environmental Director Manna Jo Greene of Clearwater asked the NRC to suspend the re-licensing process until more is learned about Fukushima. “We need a period of introspection. We need a moratorium,” she said.

About 30 people from New York City SHARE, Safe, Healthy, Affordable and Reliable Energy, sat quietly in the back holding small signs in favor of nuclear power. The

organization fears alternative energy sources will drive up the price of electricity. Over 90 people signed up to speak. Canem Ozyildirim, 24, the representative for the New York Chapter of Greenpeace, said she was disappointed that few young people were at the meeting. “My personal goal is to bring people my age to meetings like this.”

Speaking in favor or re-licensing Indian Point was Jerry Connelly, spokesperson for the Coalition of Labor for Energy & Jobs. Connelly turned around to face the crowd.

“If the air conditioning goes off here tonight, it’s what you have to get used to if Indian Point is shut down,” he told the hostile audience. “You will have to change your life style. That’s the way it is.”

New York City resident Chris Williams, who is an author and physics professor at Pace University argued against the plant’s actual electrical output. “We don’t need Indian

Point, we only use five percent of the power. Nuclear power is dangerous and unsafe.”

Former state Assemblyman Jerry Kremer, head of New York AREA, a pro-Indian Point group, addressed the NRC panel. “Every one of you are being abused but somebody has to do the tough job with integrity and honesty – which you do. I respect what you are trying to do.”

Other speakers included famed musician and composer David Amram, Rockland Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, D-Suffern, spokespersons for Congresswoman Nita

Lowey, Congressman Eliot Engel and US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

When asked about the status of Entergy’s relicensing application NRC project manager Drew Stuyvenberg said it was currently under review by the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board for review. “There will be a legal proceeding and the board controls that. Our staff can’t give a definitive answer about when that proceeding will be - it might be in December (2011) or January (2012). But the board has changed the time line before.”

###

Two from WNYC:

The Brian Lehrer Show

The Point at Indian Point

Friday, June 03, 2011

Last night a hearing was held to discuss the future of Indian Point. WNYC reporter Bob Hennelly, discusses what's in store for the power plant, located 40 miles from New York City.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2011/jun/03/point-indian-point/

0

Regulator and regulated: nuclear bedfellows?

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/jun/03/future-indian-point/

Opposition is mounting to federal relicensing of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. With more and more New York politicians coming out of the woodwork, and debate far from dead in the public square, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a hearing last night about the plant's 2010 safety review.

WNYC's Bob Hennelly said there was a range of opinions expressed, but the overall mood was of a very particular stripe—not least because concerns are fresh after the disaster at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, and how it happened despite regulation.

The meeting was dominated by people who really feel Indian Point should never have opened. And what happened in Fukushima—this is where the New York Times has done a great job really calling into question over there the relationship between industry and regulator. There's a lot of questions by people like Congressman [Edward] Markey saying really, we're not so dissimilar; there's a sense that the NRC and the atomic industry are very much linked. How else to explain the perfect batting record when it comes to these relicensing extensions?

Passing the energy buck

Earlier in the day, Hennelly had been at a press conference regarding "Coptergate," a mini-scandal surrounding New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and his using a helicopter to get to his son's little league baseball game. He told Jami Floyd that when he got to the Indian Point hearing, he estimated that the media presence was a paltry 10 percent of what it had been at the Christie conference. The U.S. media may have been distracted, but the Japanese ended up covering an event that went largely unreported by domestic outlets.

Whether or not you're for or against Indian Point, we're at a major crossroads in this country about energy, and I think it says something about the media that Japanese national television was there, and we had such a lack of showing from the mainstream media.

The problems are there, we're just not talking about them or thinking about them as much as we should be, Hennelly said. As our energy demands grow and change, time may be running out before we're forced to deal with our problems in painful ways.

We've let the licensing law lapse and we have this architecture for a 21st century circumstance where we're dependent more and more upon electricity, what with cell phones and computers. We have not invested in that. We've not had a collective buy-in about what we're going to do about energy. We're dealing with a legacy of conflict-avoiding.

Seismic review

One of the problems with gauging the effectiveness of regulation is that technology is so complicated and shrouded. Hennelly said that because nuclear operations are, for the most part, kept out of the public focus, many of the reforms and improvements touted by regulatory agencies can only be taken at face value. Are we actually safer? Hard to tell.

The NRC basically says, we've upgraded, and you have to take their word for it that they've put in place overlaying security that would prevent something from happening.

The Fukushima disaster reignited interest in New York's plate tectonics; earthquakes in the region are highly unlikely, but what if? Hennelly said that while most experts have dismissed the likelihood of a significant seismic disaster, there's no reason to rely on old science. Things change.

When you have a technology with such high stakes, if something goes wrong, you have to continue to have it informed by new science. I'm not a seismologist, I don't even play one on the radio, but clearly qualified people got the ear of Governor Cuomo and he set into motion an expedited seismic review.

###

Indian Point nuke plant lacking firefighting equipment, officials say public doesn't understand

BY Douglas Feiden 
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, May 22nd 2011, 4:00 AM

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-22/news/29588580_1_nuke-plant-fire-safety-indian-point

Huge areas of the accident-prone Indian Point nuke plant lack essential firefighting equipment like sprinklers and fire extinguishers, the Daily News has learned.

The aging plant 24 miles from the city is missing basic smoke-eating tools, even as it sits on an earthquake fault and has suffered two fires since 2007.

Such safety shortcuts, approved for years by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, face new scrutiny in the wake of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that crippled the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuke plant.

Indian Point's two active reactors are divided into 275 fire zones, of which 198 lack automatic fire suppression systems, according to records that plant owner Entergy gave the NRC in 2009.

That means 72% of the facility lacks things like sprinklers and automatic deluge water sprays.

One vulnerable hot spot is the spent-fuel pool at Indian Point 3, where radioactive and superheated fuel rods are kept cool. A spent-fuel pool triggered Japan's nuke accident.

Records also show:

There are no manual fire suppression systems such as hydrants or fire extinguishers in 111 fire zones - 40% of the plant.

Fire detection systems common to most major office buildings such as smoke, heat or flame detectors are unavailable in 173 zones - 63% of the plant.

 The data is contained in a little-noticed March 28 petition from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to the NRC alleging that most of the plant's 275 fire zones violate minimum federal fire safety regulations.

"Indian Point's ongoing failure to comply with federal fire safety requirements is both reckless and unacceptable," he told The News.

The NRC approved the current status of fire safety in the 1980s, but in 2006 it told Entergy to justify in writing why it should keep the exemptions.

That plan, submitted in 2009, is still pending as the plant seeks a 20-year renewal of two operating licenses that expire in 2013 and 2015. Gov. Cuomo opposes relicensing and has called for the plant to be closed.

Schneiderman says Entergy's application indicates Indian Point wants to water down its precautionary measures.

His staff claims Entergy wants to renew 275 exemptions from the NRC, one for each fire zone.

The exemptions would let workers shut the plant manually in case of a fire, instead of automatically via fire detection and suppression systems.

Schneiderman say the exemptions let the plant breach federal fire safety regs.

Entergy insists it's only seeking 51 exemptions through manual workarounds, none of which compromises public safety.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency has not "identified any issues that rise to the level of an immediate safety concern."

Schneiderman said the feds are too cozy with the industry.

"For years, the NRC has looked the other way as Indian Point ignores the most basic safety standards. With nearly 20 million people living and working within 50 miles ... that's a risk we simply cannot afford," he said.

In a tour of the plant, Entergy executives said the fire safety performance is "second to none," noting the firm invests millions to minimize fire hazards and keep a 50-person fire brigade on site.

"Public safety is our No. 1 priority," said Fred Dacimo, vice president of operations. "Nothing is more important."

Still, he acknowledged the absence of fire detection and automatic suppression equipment in dozens of the reactor's fire zones, saying, "It's hard to explain that to John Q. Public."

Dacimo said several fire zones include large expanses of concrete and steel that can't burn. Some have open space; others hold few combustible materials.

Plant operators argue that such zones don't require sprinklers or fire detectors, or even hoses and extinguishers in some cases, because they're next to zones with firefighting equipment.

Environmental advocate Riverkeeper says failing to deploy critical firefighting tools in sensitiveEntergy areas of a nuke plant makes no sense in a post-9/11 world.

"As we saw on Sept. 11, steel and concrete are susceptible to intense fires and structural failures," said Phillip Musegaas, the group's Hudson River program director. "The potential radiation release is much greater than it was in Japan."

Entergy executives say they have safety measures in place in case of a terror attack.

###

Entergy 'Hangover' is no meltdown


By: Darius Dixon and Dan Berman


April 29, 2011 08:35 PM EDT

The CEO of one of the nation’s largest nuclear plant operators downplayed his company’s woes to political fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant — with the 2009 alcohol-and- sex comedy “The Hangover” as his guide.

In a 111-page presentation to investors and analysts, Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard transitioned from pictures and off-color quotes from the film to illustrations of the meltdown inside reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant and assurances of why that can’t happen at New York’s Indian Point power plant.

The second page of Entergy’s slide show quotes one of the movie characters saying, “By the way, we’re all gonna die,” which may not have been the best message to precede the several well-constructed illustrations of the ill-fated Japanese reactors and the frayed nerves over the nuclear plant 35 miles from New York City. Other slides feature a discussion of how to pronounce “retard” and the question, “Would you please put some pants on? I feel weird having to ask you twice.”

For the uninitiated, the alcohol-themed 2009 comedy features a simple Las Vegas bachelor party for four friends unfolds into a series of unmitigated disasters that are beyond their control.

Leonard’s presentation at the Roosevelt New Orleans hotel to an Energy analysts conference doubled as the company’s first quarter earnings call. He spoke about the downside of running the New Orleans-based company that posted first quarter earnings of $248.7 million, a 16 percent increase from last year.

“When you’re walking around the office, it seems like a really good day, everything seems to be going well,” he said. “Then you look at the stock price and all of a sudden, it’s a really bad day.

“You feel like you woke up in a hangover when the stock market closes that day,” Leonard added. “It’s not the hangover that’s the problem; it’s the ‘overhang.’”

Entergy spokesman Chanel Lagarde said Leonard “is a movie buff and often uses movies in his presentations to help deliver the message” during shareholder and earnings meetings.

The company is attempting to convince the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to relicense its Indian Point nuclear plant, and the state of Vermont is seeking to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant next year.

Opponents of nuclear power redoubled their resistance to Indian Point after the NRC advised Americans in Japan to evacuate beyond a 50-mile radius of the stricken plants. Roughly 17 million people live within 50 miles of Indian Point.

As for Vermont Yankee, it shares a similar reactor and containment design as the ones that were crippled at the Fukushima Daiichi facility. Entergy earlier this month sued the state of Vermont, saying the state legislature violated a deal with the company by voting to block the operation of the Yankee plant once its initial 40-year license expires in March 2012.

Leonard said the company had exhaustively surveyed legal advice on its suit and was ready for court: “We’ve consulted everybody but the Wizard of Oz on this issue.”

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 6:20 p.m. on April 29, 2011.

© 2011 Capitol News Company, LLC

BRENNAN SAYS PUBLIC IS OPERATING IN THE DARK ABOUT THE COSTS OF CLOSING THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR PLANTS

April 19, 2011

           State Assemblymember Jim Brennan (D-Brooklyn), Chair of the New York State Assembly’s Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, supports Governor Cuomo’s call for closure of the two nuclear power plants at Indian Point because of safety concerns.  In the course of researching Entergy’s claim that the closure would be devastating to the economy of the State, his office has determined that Entergy is being allowed to operate its plants without providing an annual financial and operating report to the Public Service Commission, despite a state law that requires all electric corporations that sell power to file an annual report. The Commission confirmed that it is not requiring the reports.

          In a letter to Chairperson Garry Brown of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Brennan said the Commission should immediately order the electric power producer industry, including Entergy, to file all required reports. “The Public Service Commission abandoned its fundamental statutory duty to oversee and assure just and reasonable rates, and it needs to immediately enforce the law,” Mr. Brennan said. “Mr. Brown was not the Chairman of the Commission when this decision was made, and he should take this opportunity to reverse this gutting of basic consumer protection,” he continued.

    The Public Service Commission, in a 1990’s Pataki-era decision at the beginning of deregulation, gave exemptions to several cogeneration companies on the grounds they were competitive. As deregulation continued and independent power companies bought the utility industry’s power plants and built new ones, the Commission never ordered them to file. The State’s independent power producers, which own anywhere from one to 75 power plants, include many of the nation’s largest corporations. Brennan also indicated he would submit legislation ordering the Public Service Commission to obtain the reports.

          “Investigation of Entergy’s finances, operations and costs is the first step in a plan to address the possible closure of the nuclear facilities,” Mr. Brennan said.  Brennan has called on Entergy to provide immediate and full disclosure in a letter to the company president.   Mr. Brennan said, “We need to know to whom Entergy is selling power, at what price, how much it is making, what its costs are, and how the power can be replaced and at what price.”

          Mr. Brennan has also sent a letter to the City of New York and several other governmental entities that are large recipients of Entergy’s power, through contracts with the State Power Authority, calling on them to prepare for the possible closure of the plant and produce new power with cogeneration, solar and other renewable energies.  Demand in the public sector in the metropolitan area is roughly equal to the output of the two nuclear plants.

###

Indian Point plant should be closed

Updated 11:36 a.m., Monday, April 18, 2011

Albany Times-Union

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Indian-Point-plant-should-be-closed-1341246.php

As I see it, states can close nuclear reactors within their borders under the 1983 Supreme Court ruling, Pacific Gas and Electric vs. Energy Resources Commission.

The court declared: "To the present day, Congress has preserved the dual regulation of nuclear-powered electricity generation: The Federal Government maintains complete control of the safety and 'nuclear' aspects of energy generation; the states exercise their traditional authority over the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, rate-making, and the like."

New York could close nuclear plants, particularly Indian Point, and justify it by asserting that, in the event of a large or immense radiation release, the state could not afford the cost of evacuating huge numbers of people and/or "spent" fuel pools, nor could it afford to care for those people. The state could not absorb the huge loss of economic activity and tax revenues that would result from an enormous radiation release.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation could revoke pollution discharge permits it has granted to nuclear stations operators and/or terminate variances granted to regulations.

Indian Point should be closed for many reasons. Like Dai-ichi in Japan, it has multiple reactors: a natural or other disaster impacting one reactor would likely impact the other.

Indian Point is only one-fifth the distance from New York City that Dai-ichi is from Tokyo, and is located near the intersection of active earthquakes faults.

If the millions of people who live in the New York City region had to flee, where would they go? What would happen to their jobs if they could never return?

TOM ELLIS

Albany

###

Liz Kruger: Close Indian Point

http://bayridgejournal.blogspot.com/2011/04/liz-kruger-close-indian-point.html 



State Senator Liz Kruger, a Manhattan Democrat who has called for the closure of the Indian Point nuclear facility in Westchester since 2003, has raised the alarm, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, about the risks the aging nuclear facility poses to the 20 million people -- most of them New Yorkers -- who live and work within a 50 mile radius of the facility.



The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is evaluating renewal applications for Indian Point's two reactors, whose licenses expire in 2013 and 2015.



Governor Cuomo and Lieutenant Governor Duffy have addressed concerns over Indian Point with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), but that's not enough, said Kruger.



The State has no plan to develop capacity and reduce consumption in order to take Indian Point offline.



Indian Point’s location would mean that, in the event of an earthquake, 20 million people would be trapped in the contamination zone, because there is no quick way to evacuate that many people.



Indian Point officials argue that the plant can withstand the “strongest earthquake anticipated in the area,” but as the Indian Coast Tsunami, the Gulf Coast Hurricane, and the Haiti and Japan earthquakes have proven, we can no longer accurately predict the scale of natural disasters.



And so, in an increasingly unstable global climate -- both natural and geopolitical -- we are effectively playing Russian Roulette with the lives of the 20 million people who live near Indian Point.



Kruger's full statement in PDF.



The legacy of Indian Point:  used fuel rods with no place to go [CBS Local.]

###

New York City’s Deadly Game of Nuclear Roulette

Apr. 16 2011 - 4:56 pm  By WILLIAM PENTLAND

http://blogs.forbes.com/williampentland/2011/04/16/new-york-citys-deadly-game-of-nuclear-roulette/

“Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list,” concluded Leuren Moret, a radiation specialist trained at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., in an op-ed piece that appeared in The Japan Times in 2004.

One of the other places that may rank near the top of that list: New York City.

A growing number of scientists and emergency planners are calling on federal and state regulators to shut down the Indian Point nuclear reactor about 40 miles north of New York City, on the Hudson River in Buchanan, New York. While many of Indian Point’s critics have expressed concerns about safety at the nuclear plant for years, the nuclear crisis in Japan has caused their ranks to swell over the past several weeks.

In 2003, James Lee Witt, former director of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, assessed the U.S. government’s emergency-response plan for a nuclear power-plant disaster at Indian Point. The conclusion: there was no government plan adequate to respond to a disaster at Indian Point, which is surrounded by more than 20 million people on any given day.

A month before the 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan triggered the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power reactors, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for approving a regulation that would allow radioactive waste to be stored at Indian Point for at least 60 years after closure. Shockingly, the NRC’s new policy would allow the long-term storage of nuclear waste without requiring any review of the potential safety and environmental risks posed by such storage. The lawsuit asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to invalidate the NRC rule for failure to comply with environmental laws.

“Whether you’re for or against re-licensing Indian Point, we can all agree on one thing: Before dumping radioactive waste at the site for at least 60 years after it’s closed, our communities deserve a thorough review of the environmental, public health, and safety risks such a move would present,” said Schneiderman in a press release announcing the lawsuit.

To put this in perspective, the U.S. government has invested $9 billion developing a storage site for reprocessed nuclear spent fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which is perhaps the most studied geological structure in the world. Despite this enormous investment in building an underground, secure storage site, Nevada’s less than 3 million residents have refused to endorse the project as a result of safety and environmental concerns. If storing spent nuclear fuel in deep inside a mountain surrounded on all sides by about 100 miles of empty desert is unsafe, it seems odd that the NRC would endorse a plan to store the same nuclear fuel within a stone’s throw of roughly 15% of the nation’s entire population.

In March, Schneiderman filed a petition with the NRC. The petition asked the federal agency to do its job and pursue an enforcement action against Indian Point, which is owned and operated by New Orleans, La.-based Entergy Corporation, for a laundry list of safety regulation violations that could compromise the plant’s safety during an emergency. Schneiderman said Indian Point had failed to comply with several fire safety regulations. Specific violations alleged in the petition included:

. The plant has not strengthened electrical cables to withstand fire damage for one to three hours, a regulation established to provide necessary plant security in the event of an emergency.

. Rather than installing automatic response systems, the plant would rely on employees to perform a series of complex manual actions, which the NRC has not authorized as a means of adequately protecting nuclear facilities in the event of a fire.

. The plant has not installed required fire detectors or fire suppression systems in various locations.

“In the wake of Japan’s crisis, our country’s nuclear facilities should be bolstering their safety measures, yet Indian Point is looking to weaken its precautionary measures,” Schneiderman said.

Fires at nuclear facilities are often the trigger for nuclear catastrophes. The possibility that terrorists or hostile foreign states could take advantage of Indian Point’s vulnerabilities is keeping many of Indian Point’s most vehement critics awake at night. The vulnerability results from Indian Point’s current method of storing irradiated or “spent” nuclear fuel. Rather than speculate on specific scenarios, it is enough to say that starting a fire at Indian Point – whether by accident, sabotage or terrorist attack – could lead to a Fukushima-grade crisis.

Given the demographic context in which such a crisis would occur, the consequences would almost certainly be catastrophic.

###

Rockland County Executive: It's Time To Shut Indian Point

http://nyack.patch.com/articles/rockcland-county-executive-its-time-to-shut-indian-point#c

C. Scott Vanderhoef says the risks of the nuclear plant are not worth the rewards.

By Melissa Siegel | Email the author | April 13, 2011

Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef said Tuesday that while he is confident in the government’s Indian Point evacuation plan, he still believes the nuclear plant should ultimately be closed.

“My own personal belief is that no matter how good your plan is … there’s always a hiccup, there’s always a problem, there’s always something behind something else that creates problems, and that we live in too densely a populated area to assure the safety and health of every single resident,” Vanderhoef said while participating in Rockland County Government Day at Rockland Community College. “And if I can’t do that, then the question becomes is nuclear power at that site, in this densely populated area, worth the cheap electricity it produces. And my response is no, that it should be closed. Not because I’m opposed to nuclear power, but because it’s in the wrong spot.”

The discussion began when Vanderhoef was talking to RCC faculty and students, along with other government officials, about what the County Executive’s office does. The talk was part of Rockland County Government Day, where various booths were set up to teach locals about what each department in the county government does. Vanderhoef’s speech was one of several “break-out” sessions during the event, where local officials talked to a small group about their specific role in the government.

Vanderhoef began by talking about the different jobs that a county executive has, one of which is serving as the chief emergency officer for Rockland. However, he noted that the one exception to this was in the case of a disaster at Indian Point, when the executives for Westchester, Orange, Putnam and Rockland would have to come together to decide the next course of action.

After making this clarification Vanderhoef moved on to discuss other topics, specifically how and why he chose to keep Rockland schools open the day after the September 11^th terrorist attacks. But when Vanderhoef opened the floor up for a question-and-answer session, the focus quickly switched back to Indian Point.

One woman asked if the four county executives ever get together to discuss a possible evacuation plan. Vanderhoef said that they in fact practice such plans at least twice a year, each with different hypothetical scenarios. He noted, however, that a question has now come up about whether the evacuation radius should be 10 miles — as it is now — or 50 miles. This has mainly become an issue because officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended that Americans staying within 50 miles of the Japanese nuclear power plant impacted by the country’s recent earthquake should evacuate the area. Vanderhoef assured the crowd that the 10 mile radius would remain and that it was sufficient for evacuation.

“What NRC was they made a decision, in the Japanese plants, to tell Americans to evacuate within 50 miles of those plants,” Vanderhoef explained. “The reason they did that was because they could not get enough information from the Japanese authorities and the Tokyo Power authority, and they were fearing the worst, so they made a very conservative judgment to do 50 miles. […] So the question that is now is everybody’s mind is, ‘Is it 10 miles or is it 50 miles?’ The answer is going to be it’s 10 miles, but the NRC is going to have to explain themselves […] and then explain it to the public as to why the 10 mile limit is scientifically appropriate for purposes of getting out. “

Vanderhoef later pointed out that the 10 mile radius is in effect throughout the country, not just for the area surrounding Indian Point.

But, Vanderhoef said, no matter how often they practice these plans, something could still go wrong, especially in an area with so many people. Thus he stated that we must discuss whether alternative means of creating electricity might be better for this community, even if they are more expensive. He also suggested perhaps moving the plant to an area that is less densely populated.

“I just think there’s too much of a risk,” he said of Indian Point. “Why not biomass? Wind power? Different natural gas power? I understand it may be more expensive. Build a nuclear plant somewhere else, just not there.”

A final questioner asked Vanderhoef what they could do about this issue. Vanderhoef responded that people could write to different government officials, and the main topic they should discuss is the criteria by which the NRC decides whether or not to recertify existing nuclear plants.

“When you recertify a plant, you should recertify the plant based on whether you would build that plant today in that same location,” he concluded. “[…] Base it on those criteria, and I would suggest to you Indian Point would not be recertified. But the NRC doesn’t do that. The rules and the law say that they recertify based only on reviewing whether there’s an enormous environmental damage that might take place if it were recertified and to assure that it’s fundamental operations are continuing and they’re not too old. […] So if you write [to the government tell them to], ask the NRC, or pass a law at the federal level that requires the NRC recertifying any plant to review as if it were a new plant.”

###

Riverkeeper warns lawmakers of risks at Indian Point

http://www.lohud.com/article/20110412/NEWS02/104120333/Riverkeeper-warns-lawmakers-risks-Indian-Point?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CNews%7Cs

Written by

Jorge Fitz-Gibbon

WHITE PLAINS — It wouldn't take a tsunami to dangerously damage the Indian Point nuclear reactors, an environmentalist group told Westchester County legislators on Monday.

Speaking one month after an earthquake and tsunami set off a crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, Hudson Riverkeeper Paul Gallay also told a county board committee that radioactive spent fuel pools at the Buchanan reactors are Indian Point's "Achilles' heel."

"All of these issues do not require a tsunami, which is one of the things that Indian Point says, and says that we should be easy in our minds because we won't have a tsunami," Gallay said. "Well, if this plant is not equipped to handle an earthquake without a tsunami, we could be in the situation we find ourselves in in Japan."

"There are issues associated with the age of the plant that have to do with corrosion of piping, that have to do with metal fatigue in the containment dome, that have to do with embrittlement of the containment dome," he said.

The public meeting, held at the Michaelian Westchester County Office Building in White Plains, is the last in a series held by Legislator Michael Kaplowitz, D-Somers, and Legislator Martin Rogowsky, D-Harrison.

Kaplowitz chairs the board's Committee on Environment and Energy ; Rogowsky chairs the Public Safety and Security Committee.

"Whether Indian Point is open or closed, we're going to need an evacuation plan because of the spent fuel that is at Indian Point," Kaplowitz said Monday.

"So we're going to deal with this issue for as much as 10,000 years, the scientists tell us," he said. "And certainly dry cask as much as 100 years in the current format, and the spent fuel as it currently exists for some period of time."

Kaplowitz said the continuing nuclear crisis at Japan's Fukushima plant warrants close scrutiny of Indian Point, which sits near an earthquake fault.

Federal and state officials have also made nuclear safety a priority, prompting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to assure that Indian Point will top the list when the agency conducts more thorough seismic assesments of the nation's nuclear plants.

###

http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/lewisboroledger/opinion/letters/90300-indian-points-danger-threat-is-real.html

Indian Point’s danger threat is real

Thursday, 07 April 2011 00:00

To the Editors: