Indian Point Updates by Abby Luby

NYC Rally to Heed Fukushima and Close Indian Point

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:06:00 +0000

Thurs Aug 11, 6pm,Dag Hammarskjold Plaza 47th St. betwn 1st & 2nd Ave

Many organizations are coming out for this, one of the first of it’s size in New York City, calling for the closure of Indian Point, just 24 miles from midtown. Behind this rally are an impressive group of organizations: 350.org, Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Citizens Awareness Network, Citizens’ Environmental Coalition, Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action, Greenpeace USA, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, NYC Environmental Justice Alliance, NYC Friends of Clearwater, NYPIRG, Radiation and Public Health Project, Riverkeeper, Rock the Reactors, Shut Down Indian Point Now!, Sierra Club – NYC Group, Time’s Up, UPROSE, Westchester Citizens Awareness Network, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and other groups. For more information: http://members.greenpeace.org/event/view/4184/ or http://www.nypirg.org

The End of the NRC Rubber Stamp?

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:24:00 +0000

by Abby Luby

Last Friday, July 15, 2011, 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. 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?

Why Americans Are Less Prepared and More at Risk than the People of Fukushima

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:41:00 +0000

If you're one of the 120 million Americans living within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power plant, you'd better have your "Go-Bag" handy. But then again, if an evacuation is triggered, you may not be able to carry it very far.
Today, an investigative report by the Associated Press, part of their four-part headliner series on nuclear power, slammed the evacuation plans in place around the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States for neglecting to consider growing populations and aging infrastructure, and for relying on counterfactual assumptions.
The AP report cites the example of the densely populated area around the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester County, now a thriving New York City suburb. When the first of its three reactors was built in 1964, Northern Westchester was semi-rural and much more thinly populated. Today, it's a populous commuter zone of winding roads and bottlenecked bridge crossings that jam up at rush hour. About 270,000 residents live in a ten-mile radius around the plant the report found -- more than around other nuclear plant in the US, and many times the number that lived near Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant.
The meltdown there in March 2011 forced some 70,000-80,000 people living within 12 miles to evacuate. They got out successfully, but that's no indication evacuation would succeed here. Surrounding populations in the US are often denser: Fukushima evacuated only about one quarter of the people that would have to be evacuated in a comparable emergency around Indian Point.
And the US falls far, far short of Japan's high standard of emergency preparedness. Because of its harrowing history of destructive earthquakes and tsunamis, Japan is considered one of the world's best prepared countries, mandating yearly evacuation drills for schoolchildren and more frequent drills throughout the country for the last 50 years. Not so here. We don't bother with actual evacuation drills, just theoretical, table-top ones, possibly because we don't want to prove how impractical our evacuation plans are.
For years, officials of counties surrounding the plant warned about the lack of realism of the Indian Point evacuation plan. There was some outcry about its vulnerability after the 9-11 attacks, but even that did little to change our culture of lax nuclear oversight and lack of emergency preparedness. Even as the 911 commission revealed that Al Qaeda had actively reconnoitered and considered attacking Indian Point, then Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge famously said plant security was the "prerogative" of the private plant owner.
The State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) requires all the Executives of all counties in the emergency zone around Indian Point to sign off on its evacuation plan, then it rubber-stamps the plan and sends it to FEMA. But in 2003 and 2004, under pressure from constituents after 9-11, county officials and SEMO refused to sign. That prompted New York Governor Pataki to commission a $1 million evaluation of the plan from the consulting firm of former FEMA director James Lee Witt. The Witt report said what every resident already knew: evacuating people ten miles around Indian Point in a nuclear emergency was impossible. Pataki subsequently buried the report and ignored recommendations for catastrophic preparation.
After that, the Indian Point evacuation zone was quietly reduced from ten miles to TWO miles, plus an eight-mile wedge shape in the direction of the wind blowing the radioactive plume around (never mind what happens to the wedge if the wind shifts), on the self-serving theory that any radioactivity released in an American reactor accident would be small.
That's a flawed theory. Many nuclear plants around the US contain several times the radioactivity of Fukushima, a recent study finds, in addition to much denser surrounding populations. The fuel pools at Indian Point contain roughly three times the radioactivity of all the fuel pools in the entire six-reactor Fukushima complex combined.
In theory, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission stipulates that an unworkable and outdated evacuation plan is grounds for closing a nuclear power plant. But in practice, the NRC ignores that rule and annually approves the Indian Point plan over local objections.
Westchester County has become more aggressive about advising residents on DIY emergency preparations. They suggest having a waterproof Go-Bag at the ready, filled with about 28 items you can buy yourself, including potassium iodine tablets, medicines, baby supplies, clothing, hygiene items, money, identification papers, sleeping bags, radio, bottled water, and an emergency planning booklet. Headstrong survivor types can always purchase radiation suits, protective gear, Geiger counters or other consumer-type radiation detectors.
But that's no substitute for the NRC taking emergency planning and its mandate to protect public health and safety seriously. While private plant owners get billions in federal subsidies, indemnities and loan guarantees, taxpayers remain without viable evacuation plans and are left on our own to prepare for a nuclear emergency we're told won't happen, because "the US is not Japan." Indeed, we're not in the same position as Japan--ours is worse. Our population density, radioactivity concentrations and cavalier attitude towards nuclear preparedness would make a similar accident here far more serious. And unlike Fukushima, American downwinders would not be able to get away from it.

Fukushima: The Nail in the Coffin of Nuclear Power?

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:10:00 +0000

By Abby Luby

The horrendous nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plants in March was one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents since the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station in the Ukraine.

Horrific images from Japan monopolized the news from huge explosions, raging fires and nightmarish evacuees swathed in face masks. Three of the four Dai-Ichi plants had core meltdowns and days later experts reported that airborne radioactive dust had reached the United States.

Fukushima makes real the dangers of nuclear power and a stunned world reacted. Many governments took action to either close their aging nuclear power plants or stop the construction of new ones. In Germany the coalition government decided that all 17 of the their nuclear power plants would be closed by 2022 and one of Germany’s oldest and largest nuclear facilities, RWE, permanently shut down just last week, caving to political pressure. Joining RWE in shutting down a plant was the utility company Vattenfall Europe. In Italy, a national referendum saw voters overwhelmingly repeal legislation that would allow the construction of new reactors. Switzerland is planning to phase out their reactors; the newer plants expect to be in operation until 2034 and all proposals for new plants will be turned down. Mexico is also considering taking similar action.

Producing electricity from nuclear power is fast becoming unpopular, says a recent Ipsos/Reuters poll. The feedback from almost 19,000 people from 24 countries is that the preferred sources of energy are solar, wind, hydroelectric power, natural gas and coal. Since Fukushima, 62 percent of people around the globe oppose nuclear energy.

Despite Fukushima, other countries are moving ahead with nuclear power, including China, England, India and the United States. China is testing some 28 plants now under construction and wants to have 100 plants up and running by 2020. England just announced last week that it plans to build eight new nuclear power plants and India has a new plant whose construction is slated to start in two years.

Here in the United States the nuclear power renaissance that was in full swing before Fukushima, has slowed. The Obama Administration was pushing for an additional $36 million in loan guarantees to sweeten the deal and encourage utility companies to build more nuclear power plants. Some plants that were slated to receive those loans have now been mothballed. There are, however, new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina poised for construction, pending regulatory approval and financial backing. In Georgia, utility giant Southern Company, who already has two reactors at their Vogtle plant, has been awarded $8.3 billion of guaranteed federal loans to build two more reactors, scheduled to go on line in 2016. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to approve Southern’s application, construction has already started on the site. In South Carolina, SCANA Corporation plans to build two reactors at their Summer nuclear station near Jenkinsville, targeting 2016 as the year to first produce electricity.

But do we need all the electricity produced by nuclear power? A United Nations panel on climate change said that almost 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewable energy sources by mid-century. Another study by the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions report that nine out of 10 businesses and 70 percent of consumers have set goals to lower their electricity costs. The report also said that nearly a third of companies polled have goals to self-generate electricity, whether through solar panels, reuse of wasted heat or other methods.

The Energy Information Administration recently reported that the demand for electricity is down from 2.4 percent a year in the last ten years. The decreased demand was attributed to low-power processors, smarter manufacturing plants, rooftop solar panels and other, alternative technologies that keep usage down.

Indian Point Nuclear Reactors in Westchester, NY

Here in Westchester, studies find that electricity demand is down, decreasing the usage from the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. Although the plant’s owner, Entergy, has applied to extend their operating license for another 20 years, until 2035, the utility company has dropped the output of Indian Point from 875 megawatts in 2010 to 360 megawatts in 2011. The twin reactors at Indian Point produce 2,100 megawatts but Entergy has been selling most of the electricity on power grids serving New England, New York, Mid-Atlantic, Quebec and Ontario. Only about four percent of power from Indian Point feeds Westchester and in New York City.
Since Fukushima, the groundswell of the anti-nuclear movement has grown against the continued operation of Indian Point and other, similar aging power plants around the country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in reviewing applications for re-licensing, has said they are adding another level of oversight since Fukushima, which includes an in-depth safety review of all 104 commercial reactors in the United States. The report is due out in early summer.
The NRC has never denied an application for a license extension, but many organizations have contested Entergy’s application with a long list of strong contentions. Most notably, wanting to shutter the plant is Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York State’s Attorney General’s office. It remains to be seen if the NRC will take the lessons learned from Fukushima and apply them going forward.

Angry Crowd Drowns Out NRC

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:34:00 +0000

By Abby Luby
Westchester Guardian, June 9, 2011, page 11-12

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.”

NRC Deputy Regional Administrator David Lew

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.”

Paul Gallay of Riverkeeper addressing the press before the formal NRC Meeting

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. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/indian-point.html

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.”
The audience at Thursday's Indian Point annual safety assessment 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.”

Indian Point Still Scurtinized in Fukushima's Aftermath

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:49:00 +0000

Indian Point Still Scrutinized in Fukushima’s Aftermath
By ABBY LUBY

The Westchester Guardian
THURSDAY, May 19, 2011 Page 15

BUCHANAN, NY -- The aging Indian Point nuclear power plant fell under scrutiny after two
members of congress toured the Buchanan facility last week.
Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland) and
Congressman Eliot Engel (D-Bronx/ Rockland/Westchester) visited the
twin reactors accompanied by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC ) Chairman
Gregory Jaczko on Tuesday, May 10,2011. Congresswoman Nan Hayworth
(R-Mount Kisco) who lives near Indian Point did not tour the plant. Hayworth has
gone on record for keeping the plant open. Lowey balked at the NRC ’s re-licensing
process that will keep the plant open for an additional 20 years.

“We want aging nuclear power plants to be held to the same standard as are new plants that are applying for licensing,” she told a large press core gathered at the plant with the containment domes clearly in the background. Both she and Engel have introduced legislation that would require older plants like Indian Point to be
re-licensed only if they met the same criteria as new plants.

In the aftermath of the tragic destruction at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
complex in Japan from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, fears have surfaced about
two seismic fault lines under Indian Point. Lowey and Engel want the NRC to evaluate
how an earthquake would impact leaks in the spent fuel pools and the loss of power.
Engel said he wanted to know if Indian Point’s back up systems would keep
the irradiated fuel stored in the spent fuel pools cooled. Indian Point spent fuel pools
currently hold about 1,500 tons of irradiated fuel. In Fukushima, three of the seven
damaged cooling pools lost back up power and released large amounts of radiation after
the tsunami. A problem in 1999 caused the Indian Point reactors to be disconnected
from the grid and battery back up only lasted seven hours.
Lowey said the reactors would not be built where it is today because of the population
density and proximity to New York City and that if there was a disaster at
Indian Point, evacuating 20 million people within a 50-Mile Radius of the plant would
be impossible.

“It would be reckless and irresponsible for relicensing to go forward with an evacuation
plan that we know to be inadequate,” she emphasized. With Jaczko standing next to her,
Lowey questioned the NRC for having a double standard when they advised
Americans near Fukushima to evacuate within a 50-mile radius of the reactors.
“But why do the regulations require only people living within a 10-mile radius
to evacuate if there is an accident at Indian Point?”
Engel said he’s been calling for the closure of Indian Point since the 911
terrorist attacks, when the terrorist jets flew directly over the reactors on their way to the
World Trade Center.

“The world we live in has changed,” he said. “Indian Point should be closed and
my constituents believe it should be closed.”

Both representatives are calling for updated guidelines from emergency agencies who
would respond to a nuclear disaster. Jaczko said that the tour with Engel and
Lowey allowed him to hear their concerns first hand.

“We want to keep an open and transparent dialogue,” he told the press. The NRC
chairman also said the agency’s primary job was to evaluate the aging components of the
plant itself in the re-licensing process. “But we will also look at lessons learned from
what happened in Japan.”

Entergy has applied to the NRC to extend their operating license until 2035.
To date, the NRC has never denied a relicensing application and have approved 66.

Prior to the press conference, antinuclear protesters waiting to talk to
Congresswoman Lowey and Engel were forced off the grounds by state police.
Security for plant owner Entergy asked some 20 protestors to leave claiming Engel
and Lowey were scheduled to speak only to the press. When the protestors refused
to leave, state troopers were called in to escort them just outside the plant gates.
Neither Engel or Lowey stopped to talk to the protestors after addressing the press.
Jackzko however did listen to the protesters while shaking their hands.

The NRC will hold their annual assessment of safety performance of Indian Point
for 2010. The meeting is public and will be on June 2nd at Colonial Terrace,119 Oregon
Road, Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567.

Jaczko talking to protesters after press
conference

NUKE STEAM SCARE

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:12:00 +0000

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/12/11/2009-12-11_nuke_steam_scare_officials_insignificant_amounts_released.html

Indian Point nuclear plant officials say amount of radioactive steam released was 'Insignificant'

BY Abby Luby

SPECIAL TO THE NEWS
Friday, December 11th 2009, 4:00 AM

Traces of radioactivity were released via steam leak at Indian Point nuclear power plant, but officials said there was no cause for concern. Related News·Massive blackout in Brazil plunges millions into darkness ·Three Mile Island leak exposes workers to radiation ·Obama to pledge major U.S. greenhouse gas cuts at Copenhagen climate conference ·EPA on global warming: Greenhouse gasses endangering people's health, according to report ·Blowing us away! GE inks largest wind turbine deal ever · That cloud spewing out of the Indian Point nuclear plant last month wasn't a smoke signal - it was radioactive steam.For two days starting Nov. 2, an estimated 600,000 gallons of boiling, radioactive water escaped through a valve that was stuck open in the Unit 2 reactor of the nuclear power plant in Westchester. The superheated water instantly turned to steam and spread out over the lower Hudson Valley in a cloud containing tritium, a cancer-causing radioactive isotope. A spokesman for plant operator Entergy said the company wasn't concerned about the amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere. "The steam was from a non-radioactive secondary system," said spokesman Jerry Nappi, "that contains slight amounts of tritium and is insignificant." The accidental release, however, prompted an inspection from the regional office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, the commission ordered a report from Entergy that is due within 60 days. The report will detail exactly what happened during the steam release. "We will be documenting our own findings in an inspection report covering plant activities for the fourth quarter of 2009. It will be due out in late January," said Sheehan. According to Kevin Mangan, a senior NRC inspector on site at Indian Point, the water was highly pressurized at 750 pounds per square inch before it jettisoned for about 42 hours. It took two days for plant owner Entergy to realize the valve was leaking before the plant automatically shut down. Although Entergy officials dismissed the seriousness of the incident, operations at the plant were abruptly halted for four days. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, a test of several emergency sirens that warn of an accident at Indian Point performed poorly, according to the NRC. There are 172 sirens within 10 miles of the Buchanan based plant, and 37 of them failed to respond to a radio signal. The new $30 million emergency siren system was installed last year to alert some 300,000 residents living within a 10 mile radius if the plant has an accident. According to the NRC, in Wednesday's test, one out of every 16 sirens in Putnam County failed, rating the utility company's performance at 78%. The NRC requires a 90% average for emergency siren tests. The last test for the Indian Point sirens was in October, when all the sirens scored perfectly. Entergy has applied to the NRC for a new operating license that would keep its two reactors running for an additional 20 years. Indian Point earns about $1 million a day for Entergy.

Indian Point's contamination woes: Entergy wants 20-year extension to run nuclear plant

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:08:00 +0000

BY Abby Luby DAILY NEWS WRITER

Updated Friday, August 28th 2009, 8:23 PM
Chernin/AP

The Indian Point nuclear power station in Buchanan, N.Y., 35 miles north of midtown New York City.

The Indian Point nuclear power plant is sitting on enough contaminated soil, by federal estimates, to fill Yankee Stadium with radioactive sludge a foot deep.
Years of radioactive leaks have saturated some 1.63 million cubic feet of soil at the Westchester County plant, according to a letter from a Nuclear Regulatory Commission official to plant owner Entergy.
The leaks are from the reactor's 40-foot deep spent fuel pools that store used radioactive fuel, said John Boska, Indian Point's project manager with the NRC.
"Some of the contaminated soil may also have PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls] that leaked from large electrical transformers, which are cooled by oil which often contained PCBs," said Boska.
Entergy has applied for a new operating license to keep the plant running an additional 20 years after their license expires in 2015. After 2035, when the new license expires and the plant is due to close, Entergy has 60 years to get rid of the contaminated soil and radioactive waste and clean up the entire site.
Officials said there is no immediate danger or public health threat, since the soil is below ground.
The NRC says Entergy won't have enough funds to remove the toxic soil when it finally closes the plant and clean up the site.
Entergy will need $400 million for each of the three units to be closed down. The NRC claims Entergy is short $100 million from the market meltdown.
In light of the shortfall, Entergy has committed an extra $110 million in 2026 to its decommissioning fund, a mandated fund required by the NRC of all 103 nuclear power plants in the country.
The utility company pulls in more than $2 million a day and more than $700 million a year in profits from plants countrywide.
"We believe there are appropriate levels set aside in the decommissioning trust fund and that we are in compliance with NRC rules," said spokesman Jerry Nappi of Entergy.
Removing contaminated soil at Indian Point involves digging out utility tunnels and underground systems and demolishing many plant buildings where electricity is generated and where radioactive fuel is stored.
Boska said the contaminated soil and other radioactive waste is usually shipped by truck or rail to a waste disposal site in Utah or Texas.
"The waste is put in a container which can be made of flexible plastic, which prevents the soil from falling on the roadway or scattering in the wind," Boska said.
In June, Entergy asked the NRC if it could use their decommissioning funds to pay for storing spent fuel at the plant in special dry casks.
Boska didn't specify when the NRC would respond to Entergy, adding: "We have not yet reached a conclusion if the funds are adequate."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/08/27/2009-08-27_contamination_woe_runs_deep_at_indian_point.html#ixzz0QvONfkPb

Related News
· Shocker: New Yorkers pay highest power bills in U.S.
· New Jersey shines in effort to increase amount of solar power generation
· Deadly blast at Russian hydroelectric plant kills 12 people, 64 missing workers also feared dead
· 25% of freshwater fish have unsafe mercury levels
· Google going 'green' with new mirror technology

INTERIM RULING ON FISH KILL @ IP

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:26:00 +0000

NUKE PLANT KNOCKED

The following is a story published last week in the Daily News about the recent ruling expected to eventually impact the use of closed cycle cooling at Indian Point. Two links to the article are included below.
Additional information at the end of the post in BOLD was provided by Phil Musegaas of Riverkeeper, and helps to understand this particular judicial process

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/03/2009-07-03_judge_rules_indian_point_fishkilling_cooling_process_must_stop.html
or
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/03/2009-07-03_judge_rules_indian_point_fishkilling_cooling_process_must_stop.html

Officials at the Indian Point nuclear power plant — which has been called responsible for killing more than a billion fish each year — will have to figure out another way to cool its giant heated steam turbines, a state court has ruled. The plant sucks in and returns more than 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water daily—2 million gallons per minute—in a system
that pulls in and kills fish, eggs, larvae and plant life. The hot water flushed back into the river is fatal to some 1.2 billion fish every year, according to the state Department of Environmental Conservation. The cooling system doesn’t use radioactive water from the reactor core.
Last week, acting state Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly turned down plant owner Entergy’s bid to overturn a year-old DEC decision that faulted Indian Point’s water intake system for killing the fish. The judge said Entergy’s appeal was premature, stating: “Petitioner’s claims are not ripe for review by the Court at this time.” The ruling now gives the DEC the green light to push for a new cooling system that would reduce fish-killing water usage by 95% at the Westchester County plant. Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi said the court’s decision determines how the utility company will “ultimately obtain a water use permit that makes the most sense environmentally and economically for the area around Indian Point.”

Entergy has balked at the $1.4 billion price tag for the new cooling system. Nappi said the plant already has spent more than $100 million to protect fish by installing special screens to reduce the number of fish pulled inside. The DEC estimates a new cooling system would cost $740 million, and $145 million a year to run — or 5% to 6% of Entergy’s annual gross revenue.
Entergy makes more than $2 million a day — and more than $700 million a year — from electricity produced at Indian Point.
The court ruling was a victory for the DEC and the environmental group Riverkeeper, which have been waging court
battles with Entergy for years over the fish kill. Riverkeeper’s chief prosecutor is Robert Kennedy Jr. Indian Point, 24 miles outside the city, is applying to renew its operating license and keep running until 2035. If the license is renewed, Riverkeeper
and the DEC say, the power plant would be forced to build a cooling system if it wants to stay open. Hearings on the
new draft water-use permit for the plant, which would mandate closed-cycle cooling, are tentatively scheduled for next year. Nappi said Entergy is weighing an appeal of the court ruling.

According to Phil Musegaas of Riverkeeper the ruling impeded Entergy from slowing and complicating the process moving towards next year’s DEC hearing, when the state is expected to issue a final permit, which will require closed cycle cooling if Indian Point is re-licensed.

Musegaas said that he expects Entergy to appeal the ‘adverse impact’ ruling, along with any other rulings or conditions they don’t like after the final permit is issued, probably late 2010.

Decommissioning funds in question

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:34:00 +0000

If Entergy’s license renewal application for Indian Point Unit 2 is turned down by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the company wouldn’t have enough decommissioning funds to close down in 2013 when its license expires. The multi-billion dollar utility company also wouldn’t have enough money to decommission and close down Unit 1, the oldest of the three plants at Indian Point in Buchanan.

Entergy is asking the NRC if it could use their decommissioning funds for storing spent fuel at the plant in the dry cask storage operation. The NRC would have to approve an extension to the decommissioning regulations to allow Entergy to re-direct some of the funds.
When the Indian Point plants actually do close down, the funds are slated to pay for the removal and disposal of subsurface contaminated soil, including the demolition of several buildings.

According to recent NRC documents sent to Entergy, the decommissioning fund for Unit 2 as of December 31, 2008 was $321.39 million and $218.39 million for Unit 1. The NRC estimates that over $400 million is needed to decommission each unit. Regulations provides for a 60 year shut down process.

Entergy has said that although the economic meltdown has decreased the funds, they will have enough money in the future.
“Entergy meets all current NRC decommissioning funding account guidelines and regulations, and will meet those that change in the future,” said Jerry Nappi, Entergy spokesperson.

Westchester County Legislator Mike Kaplowitz (D-Somers) said Entergy shouldn’t be allowed to tap in to the decommissioning funds for non-decommissioning uses.
“Entergy makes $2 million a day and over $700 million a year in profit. They shouldn’t have to tap into this fund for any other purpose.”
Kaplowitz said he expects the NRC to approve these extensions. “They’ve never turned down one. Now that there’s a move in the country towards more nuclear power, the sea of change is in their favor.”

John Boska, the NRC Indian Point Project Manager said Entergy can come up with the needed decommissioning funds though financial maneuvers.
“For short-time swings in the financial markets, licensees could establish supplemental trust funds to cover the deficiency if the NRC approves it, and remove those if the financial market recovers.” Boska said NRC approval would be needed to remove the funds. Other financial fixes include adding a periodic amount to the fund every year for a number of years or add a lump sum amount now to the fund.

According to NRC spokesperson Neil Sheehan, a private call is being scheduled with Entergy within the next few weeks to discuss decommissioning funds for Indian Point.

Clearwater Contention against Entergy Denied

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:35:00 +0000

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) announced last week that they have rejected a new contention submitted by Clearwater against the re-licensing of Indian Point. In March Clearwater argued against the license renewal by Indian Point’s owner, Entergy, until a water safety study is done. Clearwater was acting on the pending application by United Water New York to build a desalination plant that will, if built, extract water from the Hudson River and provide municipal drinking water to Rockland County. The desalination plant would be located across the Hudson River, 3.5 miles downstream from the power plant. Clearwater’s concern is that the treatment plant is not equipped to effectively filter out radioactive isotopes that Indian Point regularly discharges into the Hudson River along with contaminants in Indian Point’s groundwater which are suspected of finding their way to the river as well.

The ASLB, three-judge panel said Clearwater’s arguments didn’t present new information and that “the issue involving the desalination plant will be encompassed by another contention from Clearwater that was admitted to the proceeding.”

The ASLB, who works in tandem with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has been reviewing arguments, or contentions, against issuing a new operating license to Entergy who applied in 2007 to extend their license to keep Units 2 and 3 running 20 more years to 2033 and 2035.

Manna Jo Greene, environmental director at Clearwater said she wasn’t disappointed with the ASLB decision since it indicated that concerns about the water treatment plant would be looked at under a previous contention submitted by both the environmental group Riverkeeper and Clearwater.
“It’s really a case of bad news and good news,” said Greene. “They are saying the proper place to look at how contaminated, radioactive water leaking under the plant and into the Hudson River would impact a water desalination plant is being addressed in an earlier contention. They left the door open.”

Earlier in the review process the board denied a request from Entergy to reconsider turning down a contention regarding impacts groundwater contamination from leaks at Indian Point and the possible effects on drinking water, especially if the source is the Hudson River.

Entergy spokesperson Jerry Nappi said the recent ASLB ruling speaks for itself.
“This issue was already referenced in an earlier filing, and further, this contention will be encompassed by another contention that has already been admitted. Entergy looks forward to a thorough review by the ASLB and is working to provide them with any information they need in advance of future hearings.”

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the judges saw nothing "new and significant" in Clearwater’s contention. “As part of their consideration of that contention, the judges believe the issue of impacts on the river will also be addressed.”

Entergy’s license renewal application has elicited 154 contentions opposing the continued operation of the plant. According to the NRC it’s the largest number of contentions for a license renewal proceeding to date. Out of 154 contentions the ASLB has accepted 15 including contentions submitted by New York State Department of Conservation, the Attorney General’s office, Riverkeeper and Clearwater.

Fire Safety Regulations at Indian Point Challenged

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:26:00 +0000

Last year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted a request from Entergy that allowed the utility company to change the type of fire safety protection used at their Indian Point Nuclear power plants to a material that resists fire for a shorter amount of time. The request was granted as an “exemption” from Entergy’s operating license.

On Monday, May 11, a case arguing that the NRC lacked the authority to grant the exemption was heard at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City. Arguing against the NRC was Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) and New York State Assistant Attorney General John Sipos.

Granting an exemption does not require public input but a public hearing is required when amending a power plant’s operating license. Brodsky and Sipos argued that the regulatory agency mischaracterized the request as an “exemption” rather than an amendment to the license and the NRC “failed to consider relevant evidence in making its decision.”
At the crux of the case was the impact of reducing the fire safety protection at Indian Point. If a fire broke out at the plant the new fire resistant materials lasting 24 minutes as a barrier to a blaze, would not be enough time to catch a fire especially with current inspections scheduled every hour, Sipos and Brodsky argued during the proceeding that lasted over an hour. They also argued the dangerous consequences of fires in electrical junction boxes carrying 480 volts of power to cables that control safe, emergency shut downs, if needed.

NRC attorney Robert Rader held that the NRC staff determined there was “reasonable assurance that the fire-protection measures approved by the exemptions would control any credible blaze in affected areas at Indian Point.” Rader held that the agency's rules for granting an exemption are spelled out in the Atomic Energy Act as part of the “comprehensive regulatory framework” and the “ongoing review of nuclear power plants located in the United States.”
The NRC claimed that using lower quality fire barriers have been allowed at many other plants in the country and have granted ‘exemptions’ to certain fire safety standards over the last 8 years.

Yesterday’s hearing marks the first time the NRC’s right to grant these exemptions without alerting the public has been challenged. Of the three judges hearing the argument was the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor who is widely rumored to be on Obama’s list of choices for the Supreme Court. It is unclear when the judges will rule on the case.

Underground at Indian Point: pipe leaks and cables

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:48:00 +0000

Last week Matt Wald of the New York Times reported about a leak discovered at Indian Point in February. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?_r=1&hp

Wald’s lead, however, seemed to indicate the leak was new and the actual date of the leak followed some three sentences later.
The news hook for Wald was that Congressmen Ed Markey (D-Mass) and John Hall (D-NY) had just sent a high pitched letter dated April 30, 2009, to the NRC about the February leak saying “We are shocked that a 1.5 inch diameter hole, leaking at a rate of 18 gallons per minute, could develop without detection.” Undoubtedly this was a serious leak and when Entergy located and plugged up the hole in the corroded, buried pipe, it was estimated that 100,000 gallons of water laced with low levels of tritium had escaped.

The local papers reported on the leak in February but the New York Times did not. Instead, the paper ran a metro brief about Congress calling for an independent safety assessment of Indian Point.

My story about the February leak appeared in The North County News, http://www.abbylu.com/pdfs/SPOT/ippipeleaknothreat.pdf

It’s important to note that the New York Times needed a national hook to report the two-month old leak, the "after the fact" has become a growing trend for the “paper of record” and veers away from local coverage, even if it does affect some 30 million people.

Washington usually deals with the issue of nuclear power in the greater context of energy, so the news media gives us less information about potential problems at aging nuclear power plants, such as Indian Point, and how they are being regulated.

The story about the leak is the tip of the iceberg when dealing with inaccessible sprawling networks of underground pipes and cables necessary to run a nuclear power plant. Failures in these systems can come from a variety of things, including age, water damage, earthquake shifting, rats or other burrowing vermin.

Questions to be asked: How does the NRC monitor these underground systems when they can’t see them? Is there a list of inaccessible underground cable systems and pipes showing when they were installed and the rates of failure?

In a letter from the NRC to Entergy dated October 30, 2008, the regulatory group thanks Entergy for supplying some information about how they assess their underground cables.

The NRC also requested the information from other plants including Oyster Creek in New Jersey because of a failed buried cable needed for emergency operation of a diesel generator and from the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan for aging affect that were unmonitored.

The three page letter basically says the NRC has all the information it needs, but at
the time, Lochbaum said the NRC asked plant owners only one basic question: it they had buried cables for key systems that might age faster than expected – a good question but too narrow, too focused.

The question that would garner a more detailed response would have been: Are there underground cables or pipes in environments harsher than was assumed that is speeding up the aging process?

Arguments against Entergy’s license renewal application for continued operation of the two reactors has included one made by the NYS Attorney General about old pipes. The AG argues that Entergy does not provide an adequate Aging Management Plan for buried pipes, tanks and transfer canals that contain radioactive fluid. Those contentions are being considered in the re-licensing process.

Will de-sal plant filter out radioactivity?

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:06:00 +0000

Questions to ask:

Will a desalination water plant make Hudson River water drinkable?

If a water treatment plant is built on the banks of the Hudson River right across from the Indian Point Nuclear Power plants, will water holding radioactive isotopes regularly discharged from the power plant into the river, be made drinkable?

The environmental group, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater doesn’t think a de-sal plant can filter out Indian Point’s radioactive discharges. The desalination plant is expected to be built by United Water New York in Haverstraw, Rockland County, and the application is being reviewed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Clearwater is arguing that Indian Point’s owner, Entergy, shouldn’t have their license renewed until a water safety study is done. Entergy has applied to extend the operating license for reactor units 2 and 3 for 20 more years. The application is in the final stages of being reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).

“They need to look at the transport of radioactive isotopes in the Hudson River and they haven’t done that,” said Manna Jo Greene, environmental director at Clearwater about Entergy’s license renewal application. “Can the isotopes move across the river? Can they be removed using reverse osmosis?”

Reverse osmosis is an expensive filtering process which extracts out radioactive Strontium-90, which is a particulate. Extracting tritium is more difficult because it is a radioactive form of hydrogen.

The desalination plant will draw up to 10 million gallons of river water daily and could take in up to 20 million gallons per day for 12 hours during the low tide.

The majority of contentions against Entergy’s re-licensing application were filed last year with the ASLB who have accepted contentions filed by the DEC, Riverkeeper, Clearwater and Attorney General’s office.

This latest contention filed by Clearwater would come under “new and significant” information. Neil Sheehan of the NRC said the plans for the desalination plant have been known for quite some time. “It was discussed in our Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the application. In any case, the ASLB judges would need to consider the motion to submit a new contention and rule on it.”

Question to ask: When will the ASLB judges rule on Clearwater’s contention?

Sheehan’s answer: “The judges rule when they're ready; there is no exact time frame.”

Juggling radioactive fuel at Indian Point

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:55:00 +0000

Juggling radioactive fuel at Indian Point

Entergy is asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if they can increase the handling of high level radioactive spent fuel at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants in Buchanan, NY.

Instead of taking spent fuel from the Indian Point Unit 3 spent fuel pool and directly placing it in concrete canisters for storage at the plant, Entergy wants to first transfer the fuel to Unit 2.

Currently the process includes extracting used fuel assemblies out of the spent fuel pools, placing them in concrete casks, driving them to a dedicated storage concrete pad onsite.

Because Entergy only owns one 125-ton crane (located at Unit 2, pictured here) needed to lift the canisters holding the fuel assemblies, Entergy claims it would be more cost effective to transfer the Unit 3 spent fuel to the Unit 2 spent fuel pool, then use the Unit 2 crane to place the fuel into storage casks. Entergy will purchase a newly designed transfer cask to transport the fuel across the site from Unit 3 to Unit 2.

Entergy spokesperson Jerry Nappi said the cost of a new crane is $30 million. “There are no plans to purchase a new crane for the Unit 3 fuel storage building.” Nappi added that it cost significantly more to install a new crane in Unit 3 because the current layout of the building wouldn’t support a new crane.

Spent fuel pools at both Indian Point reactors are nearing capacity, with bundled assemblies of spent fuel rods now being stacked dangerously close to one another. The rods contain plutonium and other radioactive isotopes needed in the reactor to create electricity.

John Boska, NRC Senior Project Manager for Indian Point, said he expects an official request from Entergy for the license amendment some time in July, which will start a 30 -60 review process. The NRC will then issue a notice to the Federal Register.
“The public will have hearing opportunities when we issue a Federal Register notice.” A public hearing request can be filed at that point with the NRC.

The Federal Register site is http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Information on requesting a public hearing is at the NRC site: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing.html

Boska also added that the request would not affect Entergy’s license renewal application.

IP 2 UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN

noreply@blogger.com (Abby Luby - Journalist) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:57:00 +0000

Pump Problems Indian Point

The Indian Point 2 reactor had to be shut down on Friday morning, April 3, because of a problem with the main boiler feed pump. The pump feeds water through the reactor and into the steam generator, the converted steam goes to the turbines that generate electricity.
Jerry Nappi of Entergy, the company that owns Indian Point, said the pump stopped working because there was a drop in oil pressure in a line carrying oil to the main boiler feed pump. Plant workers fixed the pump and Unit 2 was up and running next day. Neil Sheehan of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the shut down went smoothly and plant workers followed procedures.
A year ago in March, pumps pulling in water from the Hudson River malfunctioned causing another quick shut down. Two months later a broken water valve at Unit 2 forced Entergy to temporarily withdraw the plant from feeding into the state’s electrical grid.

Indian Point Reactors are Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). PWRs keep water under pressure so that it heats, but does not boil. Water from the reactor and the water in the steam generator that is turned into steam never mix. In this way, most of the radioactivity stays in the reactor area. In the image of the reactor, the pump is located between the condenser and the reactor.