This is a selection of news coverage about Indian Point in 2010, especially about matters that are – or should be – of concern to local residents. The most recent articles are first. – Ed.

See also news in 2011, and archives from 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Visit our Reading Room for links to every year.

New York relying much less on Indian Point for energy

Tuesday, 07 December 2010 09:49

BY ROGER WITHERSPOON

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

Entergy Nuclear has dropped its share of electricity supporting New York City and Westchester County to about 4 percent of the area's power needs while selling increasing portions of its juice in an open market stretching from Maine to Delaware.

The company is spending millions of dollars on an extensive campaign to convince the public that the region would suffer if the nuclear plants at Indian Point were shut and its 2,100 megawatts were withdrawn. Simultaneously, however, Entergy is withdrawing all but 560 megawatts and is selling the rest elsewhere through the interconnecting New England, New York, Mid-Atlantic, Quebec and Ontario power grids.

In its search for the highest profit margins, industry analysts and power operators say Entergy may well opt to sell nearly all of its electricity from Indian Point 2 and 3 in Buchanan to customers outside the New York City/Westchester County service area. And because of the success of the wholesale power markets and transmission networks run by the non-profit Independent System Operators, the absence of Indian Point's megawatts has no effect on the region's electricity needs or power system reliability.

"Whether or not Entergy is going to phase out of New York City and Westchester entirely is an open question," said Justin McCann, senior industry analyst for Standard & Poor's Equity Markets. "If you look at Gov. Cuomo, there is a hostile political environment, so there is going to be a tension here and how that is going to play out, I have no idea.

"But they will go wherever they see the best market."

Entergy bought the Indian Point 3 and James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plants from the New York Power Authority in 2000, and Indian Point 1 and 2 from Consolidated Edison in 2001. At that time, Con Ed was getting out of the power generating business and concentrating on being solely an electric transmission company. In that capacity, it delivers all of the electricity used in the New York City/Westchester section of the state's power grid. Con Ed's transmission lines carry some 9,000 to 13,000 megawatts of electricity during peak periods, with the highest usage occurring during the hottest days of summer. The 2000 megawatts provided by the twin reactors at Indian Point accounted for 22% of that energy mix in winter and 15 percent in the summer.

Under terms of the separate sale agreements, Entergy contracted to sell all of the power from Indian Point 2 to Con Ed, and all of the power from Indian Point 3 to NYPA. But these contracts were not open ended. The power markets were deregulated in 1999, just a year before the sales occurred, and how well the networked wholesale markets would work was still more theory than fact. Locking up Indian Point's electricity at a set price point for at least five years was deemed a prudent measure for Con Ed and NYPA to take as the free market system evolved.

Entergy's contract with Con Ed required Indian Point 2 to provide 1,000 megawatts through 2009. The output fell to 875 megawatts through 2010, and drops further to 360 Megawatts for 2011 and 2012, according to Con Ed spokesman Chris Olert and the company's 2010 Annual Report.

NYPA's contract with Entergy for 2009 through 2013 secures just 100 megawatts from Indian Point 3 and 100 from Indian Point 2. The current contracts with NYPA and Con Ed, therefore, drop Indian Point's contribution to the region's electricity needs to just 6.2 percent in winter and 4.3 percent in the summer.

For NYPA, replacing that drop of 800 megawatts was not an obstacle, said spokesperson Connie M. Cullen.

"It was not difficult," Cullen said. "NYPA follows an established procurement process where we issue a request for proposals from electricity suppliers, receive bids, evaluate them, and then enter contracts. It is a well established process."

It needs to be.

Both NYPA and Con Ed purchase power wholesale and then sell it to residential, business and municipal customers. NYPA, which has its own hydro electric plants upstate, provides some 2015 megawatts of power to the region daily. According to NYPA, that breaks down to 115 megawatts for Westchester County municipal customers, government buildings, and Westchester airport; and 1,900 megawatts for New York City's government buildings and operations, the city Housing Authority, Metropolitan Transit Authority, state buildings, LaGuardia Airport, and the Jacob Javits Convention Center. JFK Airport has its own power generation.

Con Ed, on the other hand, has its own residential and non-government business customers, delivering 9,000 to 11,000 megawatts to some 345,000 Westchester and 2.8 million New York City residents.

Entergy's individual contracts are not a matter of public record and the company may be selling electricity to large clients in this region. But their contention that it is the electricity from Indian Point which keeps the subways running, La Guardia Airport operating, and the lights on at City Hall are no longer valid.

The disclosure that Entergy has quietly shifted its electricity elsewhere prompted an angry response from Gary Shaw of the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, which is comprised of several non-profit organizations seeking to block relicensing of the plants.

"We have known for a long time that Entergy has no credibility," said Shaw. "But this new revelation is a factual contradiction of their contention that Indian Point's output is vital to our region.

"Indian Point represents a nuclear risk to the residents of this area while supplying only a small fraction of its electricity needs. We would be foolhardy to give it another 20 years to operate in our backyard when we are getting so little benefit."

Kenneth Klapp, spokesman for the New York ISO, said large power generators like Entergy have two options for their product. "They can sell electricity in the wholesale markets we operate," Klapp explained, "or bilaterally by themselves to a load serving entity — which is a transmission company like Con Edison or a large individual customer.

"In New York State, 50% of the energy sold is bilaterally through contracts and the other half goes to either of the two markets we operate: the day-ahead market, which gets the majority of the traffic; and the real time, spot market which is dispatched every five minutes. We have 300 market participants in New York. But providers like Entergy can bid into other markets as well."

By participating in the New York ISO, Indian Point is in an expanded marketplace provided by the ISO New England, Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland ISO, the Ontario ISO and the Quebec Provincial Utility.

In the current, volatile energy marketplace there are good reasons for Entergy to shop around. Standard & Poor's McCann said "the spot market at this time is weak. If you look at the market now for next July, the prices are between $47 and $48 dollars a megawatt/hour. And the prices will be lower in 2011.

"But Entergy has contracts for 90% of their output through the end of this year and throughout 2011 at $57 per megawatt hour. For 2012 they have already contracted 76% of their output at $50; for 2013 they have sold 31% at $49; for 2014 and 2015 they have sold 25% at $51. It is prudent for them to lock in prices at this time."

It is equally prudent for Con Edison and NYPA to reduce their dependency on Indian Point's electricity at a time when their nuclear plant operating licenses are expiring and their long term future is still not decided.

Part of the reason the electricity from Indian Point has been considered so vital to the New York City /Westchester electric infrastructure is due to widespread misunderstanding of the term "baseload electricity." The use of that term by nuclear industry proponents usually implies that it is an essential foundation on which regional electricity needs are built. That is not the case.

"We have three classifications of electricity providers," said Ellen Foley, spokeswoman for ISO New England, which includes Entergy's Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim nuclear plants in its energy mix. "Baseload plants typically run all of the time. Intermediate plants can go on and off, or increase and decrease their power in a short period of time. The peak units can be turned on or off in 10 minutes and are used — as their name implies — in periods of very high demand.

"It can take a couple of days to power up a nuclear plant. If that changed, and they had more flexibility and could power up and down in a short time, they would be considered intermediate just like hydro or natural gas."

Nuclear power is considered baseload because, when compared to other forms of power generation, they have an inferior on/off switch.

Since they have to operate at full capacity, Foley said, "Typically what they will do is sell their output through contractual arrangements to stay on line at their maximum level. With Vermont Yankee, there is no way to know how much of their power stays in Vermont and how much goes elsewhere. More than likely, they are running and selling their power throughout New England."

While the market place is wide open and constantly evolving, some things do not change.

"Entergy can sell electricity wherever there is a buyer," said McCann, "but it cannot produce it wherever it wishes to. Physically, they are here. These people will negotiate for every nickel and dime, but I can't see them abandoning Indian Point."

Electricity Fact Sheet

Q: How much electricity do Indian Point 2 and 3 produce?

A: According to Entergy's annual report for calendar year 2009, Indian Point 2 produces 1,028 megawatts of electricity and Indian Point 3 produces 1,041 megawatts.

Q: How much electricity is used in the New York City / Westchester County service area of the NY State power grid?

A: New York City and Westchester County use 9,000 to about 13,000 megawatts of electricity during peak periods daily, according to Consolidated Edison, which transmits all of the electricity. The lowest use is in the winter, the highest in the summer.

Q: What percentage of the area's electrical needs was met by Indian Point when it sold all of its power to Con Ed and NYPA?

A: The percentage ranged from about 22% in the winter to 15% in the summer.

Q: What percentage of the area's electrical needs is met by Indian Point now?

A: The 560 megawatts contracted to Con Ed and NYPA amount to 6.2% in the winter and 4.3% in the summer.

Q: Entergy claims Indian Point provides up to 40% of the electricity used in the New York City/ Westchester County grid. How do they arrive at that figure?

A: Energy use is based on the peak, or maximum load of the day when people are actually using electricity. For Entergy's 40% claim to be accurate,electricity usage in New York City and Westchester would have to fall to only 5,000 megawatts.

Con Ed reports that the energy load drops to that level between 3 AM and 5 AM, Sunday mornings, about three times in the late spring and three times in the early fall when it is too cool for air conditioning, too warm for electric heaters, and the city sleeps. During those isolated periods the 2,000 megawatts from Indian Point - if it were all used in the region - would comprise 40%.

Q: Is it legitimate to use the exception - when everyone sleeps - to calculate Indian Point's value to the regional power grid?

A: No. The industry's buyers and providers base their contracts on maximum projected electricity use, not the occasional exceptional circumstance. 

If it were legitimate to use the exception, when most electrical systems were turned off, it would also be legitimate to claim that the most consistent power source in the region is the Eveready Bunny, whose batteries powered flashlights throughout the New York City/ Westchester County grid during the 2003 Blackout.

State and Local Power Distribution

Q: How much electricity is generated in New York state?

A: According to the New York Independent System Operator, which runs the power grid, total electric power generation in the state is 37,416 Megawatts transmitted over 10,877 miles of high voltage lines.

Q: How much electricity is generated in the New York City/ Westchester power section of the grid?

A: The NY ISO reports there are 11,087 Megawatts of generating capacity in this region.

Q: What were the peak electric load forecasts for 2009 and this year?

A: The NY ISO reported the projected peak usage for 2009 was 33,425 Megawatts though the actual peak reached just 30,844 Megawatts. The projected peak this year was 33,025 Megawatts.

Q: How has the price of electricity changed in the wholesale marketplace?

A: The average annual cost of electricity in 2008 was $95.31 per megawatt/hour. In 2009, the average annual cost of electricity was $48.63 per megawatt/hour.

Q: How does the cost of natural gas affect the price of electricity generated by nuclear power?

A: Natural gas sets the market price in the day-ahead and spot markets, which are calculated every 5 minutes. Nuclear power comes in at a lower cost than natural gas and the difference is the profit earned by the nuclear operator.

Q: How much of the electricity generated in New York is sold in the markets and how much is sold under long-term contracts?

A: About half the electricity generated in New York is sold under long term contracts to distributors such as Con Ed and NYPA, or to individual users like Fordham and New York Universities, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The remaining 50% is sold on either the day-ahead, or the spot markets.

Q: Must the electricity made in New York be sold to companies or distributers within New York?

A: No. The NY ISO is connected to ISO New England, the Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland ISO encompassing the Mid-Atlantic states and, in Canada, the Ontario ISO and the Quebec Provincial Utility. Electricity can be sold in the day-ahead and spot markets, or long term contracts made to clients throughout the network.

Q: What does Indian Point primarily rely on: long-term contracts or the markets?

A: According to an analysis by Standard & Poor's Entergy has contracts for 90% of Indian Point's electricity this year; 95% of its output in 2011, 76% of its output in 2012, 31% of its output in 2013, 25% of its output in 2014, and 15% of its output in 2015.

Locally, Indian Point is contracted to provide NYPA with 200 megawatts through 2013. It is contracted to provide Con Ed 875 megawatts through the end of 2010, and 360 megawatts through 2012.

Roger Witherspoon writes Energy Matters at www.RogerWitherspoon.com

###

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2010

Oil Spill at Indian Point Contaminates Hudson River

http://www.lefthudson.com/2010/12/oil-spill-at-indian-point-contaminates.html

The mainstream media seems to have missed the environmental tragedy behind the electrical transformer explosion at the Indian Point 2 nuclear reactor on November 7. While The New York Times, Journal News and other media outlets glossed over this story and mentioned the shutdown of the reactor, they didn't seem compelled to do much digging. If they had, they may have discovered one of the grim consequences of this event was that thousands of gallons of oil were released into the Hudson River. Riverkeeper, however, did the media's job for them and revealed the spill, and they tell the story in their blog:

Though it was not disclosed to the public, Entergy Corporation, the owner of Indian Point, called in a report several hours after the transformer fire to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) notifying the state that oil from the transformer had been released as a result of the event. By the next day, involved officials had ascertained that the “entire contents” of the 20,000 gallon capacity transformer had “been lost,” with the oil having been released into the site’s storm drain system and discharge canal, and to the Hudson River. According to DEC’s spill reports, oil sheens were repeatedly observed in the Hudson River in the days following the transformer explosion, and the Coast Guard was called in for support. After the incident, private contractors hired by Entergy scrambled to contain and remediate the oil, yet, as of November 21, 2010, less than 10,000 gallons of oil have been recovered, and it is still not clear how much oil has ended up contaminating the river. There are also indications that Entergy made it extremely difficult for DEC spill response personnel to access the site after the accident, in order to assess the magnitude of the spill. Riverkeeper fully expects DEC to take enforcement action against Entergy for this latest environmental fiasco.

Almost as bad as the spill itself is Entergy's secretive behavior. Suppressing the oil spill from the public eye tells me that it's not the good corporate citizen that it portrays itself to be. If anything, it makes me even more wary of its capability of managing the power plant safely. We've had misstep after misstep, shutdowns, radiation leaks, and transformer explosions. In that time, the operators of Indian Point have not been transparent as to the nature of these problems, which leads me to believe that they're hiding a lot more.

Posted by Cliff Weathers at 1:56 PM

###

Riverkeeper Uncovers Oil Spill at Indian Point

Photo courtesy Giles Ashford
View

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

For more information:
Tina Posterli, (516) 526-9371

http://www.riverkeeper.org/news-events/news/stop-polluters/power-plant-cases/riverkeeper-uncovers-oil-spill-at-indian-point/

November IP2 transformer explosion led to Spill into Hudson River

Ossining, NY – December 2, 2010 – Riverkeeper announced today that last month’s electrical transformer explosion at Indian Point resulted in thousands of gallons of oil being released into the environment and the Hudson River. Though it was not disclosed to the public, Entergy Corporation, the owner of Indian Point, called in a report several hours after the transformer fire to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) notifying the state that oil from the transformer had been released as a result of the event. By the next day, involved officials had ascertained that the “entire contents” of the 20,000 gallon capacity transformer had “been lost,” with oil flowing into the site’s storm drain system and discharge canal, and to the Hudson River. According to DEC’s spill reports, oil sheens were repeatedly observed in the Hudson River in the days following the transformer explosion, and the Coast Guard was called in for support.

“This oil spill, and Entergy’s failure to notify the public of it are shocking reminders of this corporation’s indifference to Indian Point’s true impacts on the Hudson River, and its disregard for transparency and accountability to the public,” stated Paul Gallay, Executive Director and Hudson Riverkeeper. “Riverkeeper fully expects DEC to take enforcement action against Entergy for its latest assault on the Hudson, an invaluable natural resource that belongs to the public, not to Entergy to use as its private dumping ground.”

Riverkeeper learned of the spill through its efforts to investigate the cause of the transformer explosion on November 7. “This latest incident should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who believes Entergy is a good corporate neighbor who can be trusted to operate Indian Point safely,” said Phillip Musegaas, Riverkeeper’s Hudson River Program Director. “From the steam generator tube rupture and yearlong shutdown in 2000, to the news of radioactive water leaks in 2005, to two transformer explosions in the last three years, Indian Point has a shameful history of concealing the real effects of its operational mishaps from the public.”

After the incident, private contractors were hired by Entergy to contain and remediate the oil, yet, as of November 21, 2010, less than 10,000 gallons of oil had been recovered, and it is still not clear how much oil ended up contaminating the river. There are also indications that Entergy made it extremely difficult for DEC spill response personnel to access the site after the accident in order to assess the magnitude of the spill.

Prior to learning of the oil spill, Riverkeeper formally called for an independent investigation to determine the cause of the latest transformer incident and to review the adequacy of Entergy’s maintenance procedures. The degraded component which caused the explosion on November 7 was apparently the same type of component which failed and led to the transformer explosion in 2007.

20,000 EXCESS CANCER CASES IN 15 YEARS NEAR INDIAN POINT

NEW REPORT SUGGESTS RADIATION EXPOSURE MAY BE ONE CAUSE

Contact Joseph Mangano                                                       609-399-4343 odiejoe@aol.com

November 18, 2010 – Cancer incidence rates in the four counties closest to the Indian Point nuclear plant have risen much more rapidly than U.S. rates since the early 1990s, according to a report released today.  If trends in local rates had equaled U.S. trends, over 20,000 fewer local residents would have been diagnosed with the disease.

“Cancer incidence rates in counties closest to Indian Point was 11% below the U.S. two decades ago, but now is 7% above the U.S.” says Joseph Mangano MPH MBA.  “There are reasons for this gap, and one that should be considered is continuing radioactive emissions from Indian Point.”  Mangano is Executive Director of the New York-based Radiation and Public Health Project research group (RPHP), and author of the study.

Counties included in the study were Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester, where about 9,000 residents are diagnosed with cancer each year.  Patterns in each county were similar, i.e. a rate below the U.S. in the early 1990s that is now above the nation.

RPHP used data from the New York State Cancer Registry (for county cancer rates) and from the National Cancer Institute (for national cancer rates).  It compared cancer rates for the 5-year period 1988-92 with later 5 year periods (1993-97, 1998-02, and 2003-07).

Unexpected rises occurred for 19 of 20 major types of cancer.  The greatest increase was found in the local rate of thyroid cancer, which has moved from 13% below the U.S. to 51% above.  There are no known causes of thyroid cancer other than exposure to radioactive iodine, only produced in atomic bomb tests and nuclear reactor operations.

RPHP researchers have published 27 medical journal articles and 7 books on health risks of radiation exposure.  It conducted the only study of in-body radiation levels near U.S. nuclear plants; Strontium-90 in baby teeth rose sharply near seven U.S. nuclear plants, including Indian Point, since the 1980s.

The 40 year licenses of Indian Point’s two reactors expire in several years, and Entergy Nuclear, has asked federal regulators to extend these licenses for an additional 20 years.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is planning to update a 1990 study of cancer near nuclear plants.  Mangano states that the Indian Point report can provide helpful suggestions on how the NRC might construct the new study.

RISING CANCER INCIDENCE RATES IN COUNTIES CLOSE TO INDIAN POINT

Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA

Radiation and Public Health Project

November 18, 2010

Summary.  Cancer incidence rates in the four counties closest to Indian Point (compared to the U.S.) have risen since the early 1990s.  At that time, the local rate was 11% below the U.S.; now it is 7% higher.  If the local rate had stayed at 11% below the U.S., 20,000 fewer local cancer cases would have occurred in the past 15 years.

Introduction.  The Indian Point nuclear plant lies close to the point where four New York counties meet.  Nearly all of the residents of these counties (Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester) live within 20 miles of the plant.

The New York State Cancer Registry makes data on cancer incidence (cases) available on the Internet by county, for all cancers combined and 20 common cancer types.  These data can be used to compare trends in local and national cancer incidence rates.

Cancer incidence data near Indian Point have never been analyzed by federal or state health officials.  (The 1990 study by the National Cancer Institute on cancer near U.S. nuclear plants included Indian Point, but only used deaths, not cases).  With the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission planning an updated study, it is important to evaluate methods of studying cancer.

Sources.  The 1990 NCI study was based on an analysis of trends in local cancer rates near nuclear plants, compared to U.S. rates.  The NCI typically selected counties within 20 miles of nuclear plants for study.

Indian Point lies near the intersection of Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester counties in New York.  The area has a total population of about 1.73 million, the large majority of whom live within 20 miles of Indian Point.

The New York State Cancer Registry has operated since the mid-1970s, and maintains incidence data by county, gender, and cancer type on its web site.  National data on cancer incidence since 1975 are provided by the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) system, consisting of 5 states and 4 metropolitan areas (10% of the U.S. population).  SEER is often used to represent the U.S. as a whole.

Methods.  The 1990 NCI study was restricted to cancer mortality; it included data from 1950 to 1984, when few states operated registries that collected cancer cases.  It is often more meaningful to study cancer cases (not deaths) when investigating environmental effects, since some cancers have low death rates.  For example, thyroid and child cancer, which are known to be susceptible to radiation exposure, have high survival rates, and thus studying cases is more helpful.

This analysis will compare trends in age-adjusted cancer incidence rates (all ages) for the four-county area and the U.S.  Trends will be assessed using five-year periods.  The earliest period (1988-1992) will be the baseline and rates in three subsequent periods (1993-1997, 1998-2002, and 2003-2007) will be compared to the baseline.

The data provided on the Internet are given for each county.  A four-county rate will be calculated by multiplying each county’s rate by the proportion of the county’s population for the region, and adding each of the four totals.  The U.S. rates for each five year period are produced by adding the rate for each year and dividing by five.

Comparisons will be made for incidence of all cancer types combined, plus 20 common types of cancer, which account for nearly 90% of all cancer cases in the U.S.

Results – Total of 20,087 Excess Cancer Cases.  In 1988-1992, there were 32,697 residents of the four counties closest to Indian Point diagnosed with cancer.  The local age-adjusted rate was 452.9 cases per 100,000, or 10.8% below the U.S. rate of 507.8.

In the subsequent five-year periods, the local rate exceeded the U.S., by progressively higher percentages (see table below).  This increase from the baseline figure was highly statistically significant.  If the local cancer rate had remained 10.8% below the U.S., 20,087 fewer persons would have been diagnosed with cancer in the 15 year period 1993-2007.  Based on the figure of 126,745 cancer cases diagnosed from 1993-2007, the 20,087 figure represents an “excess” of 15.8%.

                        Local Rate

Period             vs. U.S. Excess Cases Total Cases % Excess

1988-1992       - 10.8                      ------                           32,697                       ------

1993-1997       +  1.1                     4,601                           38,616                       11.9

1998-2002       +  6.7                     7,598                           43,391                       17.5

2003-2007       +  6.8                     7,888                           44,738                       17.6

Total 15 Year Period                  20,087                         126,745                      15.8

Results – By County.  Each of the four counties reported an excess number of cancer cases (see table below), including Orange (16.7%), Putnam (24.7%), Rockland (10.1%), and Westchester (16.4%).

County Rate Compared to U.S. Rate                                     15 Year

County                        1988-92 1993-97 1998-02 2003-07 % Excess

Orange                        -   7.9               +  7.6               +  8.6               +  9.8                   16.7

Putnam            - 15.9               -   5.3               +12.0               +15.2                   24.7

Rockland         -   2.0               +  6.1               +10.9               +  7.1                   10.1

Westchester    - 14.0               -   2.0               +  4.2               +  4.8                   16.4

Results – By Type of Cancer.  Excess cases were also reported for 19 of the 20 types of cancer (see table below).  The excesses range from 56.1% (for thyroid cancer) to 0.7% (for pancreatic cancer).  The only cancer for which there was no excess, i.e. increases in local rates were less than the U.S. over time, was cancer of the larynx.

Type of Cancer                       Excess Cases Total Cases % Excess

Thyroid                                         1,656                             2,953                       56.1

Prostate (males)                           5,768                           18,964                       30.4

Testis (males)                                  172                                692                       24.8

Hodgkin’s Disease                          192                                935                       20.6

Urinary bladder                            1,237                             6,365                       19.4            

Kidney/renal pelvis                         640                             3,536                       18.1

Multiple myeloma                           267                             1,601                       16.7

Melanoma                                        525                             3,561                       14.7

Brain                                                269                             1,912                       14.1

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma            719                             5,470                       13.1

Colorectal                                     1,851                           14,292                       13.0

Stomach                                           325                             2,515                       12.9

Liver                                                153                             1,478                       10.3

Breast (females)                           1,698                           19,155                         8.9

Leukemia                                         247                             3,472                         7.1

Oral cavity/pharynx                        140                             2.315                         6.0

Esophagus                                          59                             1,239                         4.8

Lung/bronchus                                 556                           16,130                         3.4

Pancreas                                             22                             3,317                         0.7

Larynx                                            -103                                989                      -10.4

Discussion – Potential Link with Indian Point.  Cancer can be caused by multiple factors.  Tobacco use is often cited as one common example of harmful lifestyle choices.  But the local lung cancer rate change was only 3.4% above the U.S.  Other cancers strongly linked with smoking (oral cavity and larynx) had excesses of only 6.0% and -10.4%.  Thus, local tobacco use does not appear to be a major factor in rising cancer rates.

The greatest excess occurred for thyroid cancer, with a 56.1% excess rate for the 2953 cases diagnosed in the most recent 15 years.  In 1988-1992, the local thyroid cancer rate was 13.3% below the U.S., but in subsequent periods, the gap between the local and national rates grew, until it reached 51.0% higher (see table below). 

                        % Local Rate

Period             vs. U.S. Local Rate U.S. Rate

1988-1992       - 13.3%                         4.66                   5.38

1993-1997       +17.3%                         7.27                   6.20

1998-2002       +46.4%                       11.39                   7.78

2003-2007       +51.0%                       15.79                 10.46

Thyroid cancer excesses occurred in all four counties.  In the most recent period (2003-2007), the Putnam, Rockland, Orange, and Westchester County rates were 105.5%, 74.5%, 63.5%, and 33.4% above the U.S.  Putnam, Rockland, and Orange had among the highest thyroid cancer rates of all U.S. counties with at least 100,000 residents.  There are no known causes of thyroid cancer other than exposure to radiation, particularly radioactive iodine (produced only in atomic bomb tests and nuclear reactor operations).

Discussion – Disseminating Data and Policy Implications.  These findings, which are consistent and statistically significant, indicate that one or more factors are causing local cancer rates to increase over time.  Rising cancer rates in areas near Indian Point, whose reactors are aging and corroding over time, raises concerns.  A previous study of radioactive Strontium-90 levels in baby teeth of Indian Point-area children also show a consistent rise after the late 1980s, and higher levels than areas far from nuclear plants.

It is important not only to continue research of this type, but to ensure that results are shared with policy makers, who should be encouraged to consider them.  In particular, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be informed of results, because the Commission is considering an application by the Entergy Corporation to grant a 20-year license extension for the Indian Point reactors.  The NRC should examine these data and discuss them with the public as a “report card” of Indian Point performance before making any decision on license extension.

The NRC is also planning an update to the 1990 National Cancer Institute cancer study near U.S. nuclear plants, and should be informed that the approach used in this report is a workable one.  The methods used can help the NRC and its contractor, the National Academy of Science, develop a methodology for the study.

Results should also be shared with the public, who have the right to be informed of health threats in their communities.  Information can be communicated in a variety of ways, i.e. through media reports, citizen-based community groups, and postings on web sites.

Radiation and Public Health Project


Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director

716 Simpson Avenue, Ocean City NJ  08226

odiejoe@aol.com

www.radiation.org

609-399-4343

###

Explosion forces shutdown at Indian Point nuclear plant

MONDAY, 08 NOVEMBER 2010 16:52

BY ROGER WITHERSPOON

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

An explosion and fire in a transformer at the Indian Point power station Sunday evening forced the eighth shutdown in two years of one of the site's twin nuclear reactors.

There were no injuries resulting from the blast, and Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the site, did not report any immediately detectable damage to its nuclear reactor safety systems. But the blast, at 6:39 p.m. Sunday, triggered the declaration of a "nuclear alert," which prompted officials in the four surrounding counties — Rockland, Westchester, Putnam and Orange — to open their emergency response centers in preparation for a regional evacuation if the situation deteriorated. But the damage was confined to the transformer system, which connects the nuclear plant to the regional electric grid, and the alert was lifted about 11 p.m.

The "alert" is the second lowest of the four stages of emergency declarations at the nuclear site. Officials emphasize that there was no danger to the public at any time during this event. But if the situation had escalated, it would have affected all of North Jersey as far south as Newark.

Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the huge transformer sits in the open next to the non-nuclear, electric generating building.

"These transformers fail occasionally," Sheehan said, "and there is a blast wall adjacent to the transformer and a deluge water system that activated and tamped down the fire. The company's fire brigade on site responded and sprayed foam to ensure the flames were out."

Indian Point 2 and 3 are located in Buchanan, N.Y., on the site of a sprawling, former amusement park on the bank of the Hudson River opposite Bear Mountain, about 25 miles north of Manhattan. The twin reactors produce a combined 2,000 Megawatts of electricity, most of which is sold into the NYC-Westchester service area of the power grid. Their output is about 16 percent of the 9,000 to 12,000 MW delivered daily by Con Edison, the regional electricity distribution company which sold Indian Point 2 to Entergy in 2001.

The sudden loss of the 1,000 megawatts produced by Indian Point 2 had no noticeable effect on the region's electric consumers and little impact on the state's power distribution network. Ken Clapp, spokesman for the New York Independent System Operator, which operates the state's power grid, said New York State has 37,000 Megawatts of generating capability and the New York City / Westchester region served by Con Edison has 11,087 Megawatts of locally produced energy. The New York system can also tap electricity, when needed, from New Jersey's power plants which are connected to the adjacent Penn-Jersey-Maryland grid.

On Sunday evening, demand throughout the state was down considerably, with the peak for day at only 20,200 Megawatts. As a result of the reduced demand, Entergy may have been selling much of its electricity to other regions of the state, or neighboring states and Canada. But the sudden dropoff of 1,000 megawatts did affect the temporary stability of the grid, Clapp said, and had to be replaced.

"We maintain a reservoir of 1,200 megawatts which can be added within 10 minutes, and another 1,800 megawatts which can be added within a half hour," Clapp explained. "The electricity produced by Indian Point was replaced in the system by the short term reserve within 10 minutes."

The Buchanan fire department responded to the blast, but its firemen were not allowed on the restricted site. The explosion occurred in a 900,000-pound transformer serving Indian Point 2. The transformers take the electricity coming out of the plant's generators at 22,000 volts and step it up to 345,000 volts to feed into the regional power grid. The transformer serving the adjacent nuclear plant, Indian Point 3, exploded in 2007.

David Lochbaum, the nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former consultant the NRC, said the key components in the transformer — called bushings — at IP 3 had been in service since 1976, when the plant opened.

"When the plant operates the bushing is energized and heats up," Lochbaum explained, "and when it shuts down the bushing cools and shrinks. Entergy's later analysis stated that the thermal cycling apparently caused a failure to be introduced so electricity leaked out, caused a spark and lit the oil.

"Their report said they had tested the bushing a few months before the explosion and found it was unusually warm, but not outside the manufacturer's limits, so there was no reason to fail it and replace it."

Lochbaum said there are about six transformer explosions annually, with about two thirds caused by parts wearing out and the remaining third caused by "power uprates," in which the plants are allowed to operate at higher temperatures than their original design plans called for. These uprates typically increase the power output of the nuclear plant 10 percent to 20%, with corresponding increases in temperatures.

"When you increase the power output," said Lochbaum, "you put more electricity through the lines, more flows through the bushings, and you can cause them to expand more than they have in the past. That puts stress on parts that did not handle stress well."

While the NRC's records show that Entergy replaced the bushing in its IP 3 transformer, there is no indication that they replaced those serving the sister plant, though IP 2 is actually three years older. Entergy is already being investigated by the NRC for possible systemic issues in its program to manage ageing equipment and systems that are common to both facilities.

###

NRC Probes Indian Points’ Troubled Steam Generators

http://spoonsenergymatters.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/indian-point.jpg

By Roger Witherspoon

Federal officials are investigating Entergy Nuclear Corps’ management of its massive steam generators following the latest in a series of mechanical failures which forced six plant shut downs in the last two years.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors are specifically examining the cause of the Sept. 3 malfunction in a steam generator serving the reactor in Indian Point 2, which triggered an automatic “trip” or shut down.  But NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Tuesday “We are always looking for trends and commonalities across the site. If the evidence points to a problem that is more systemic than merely the latest event, then that is something we want to focus on.

“We could look at this as a cross-cutting issue and ask does it affect other areas of plant operations? If they have reactor cooling pump problems at both plants, does it say something about the maintenance at the plant as a whole?”

At this point, said Sheehan, the NRC inspectors are treating this latest shut down as a stand alone incident at Indian Point 2 rather than a problem in overall management at both nuclear units 2 and 3.

But David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the history of steam generator problems at Indian Point should lead the NRC to taking a broader view at the outset.http://spoonsenergymatters.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/david-lochbaum-senate-testimony.jpg

“This is a technical industry,” said Lochbaum, a former NRC instructor, “and people in the industry like to weigh things objectively. But when you look at how effective the training or maintenance is, it is harder to measure. The NRC is struggling to come up with objective measures of quality operation instead of a gut feeling that they are not doing it right.”

The plant, which produces about 1,000 Megawatts of electricity sold primarily to Consolidated Edison, the regional power distributor, remains shut while Entergy officials try to determine why the pumping system serving the steam generators failed and allowed the water levels to rise to dangerous levels.

“Entergy needs a ‘Been there, done that’ T-shirt,” said Lochbaum. “They’ve repeated this drill over and over.”

The steam generators in Indian Point 2 shut down due to erratic water levels April 21, 2008 and April 3 2009, while Indian Point 3 shut down May 15, 28, and 31 2009. The latest incident involved a malfunctioning feedwater pumps. The NRC tracks the number and types of forced shut downs under the heading of “Unplanned Scrams per 7,000 Critical Hours”  (   http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/IP2/ip2_pi.html#IE01 ) and can change the safety rating of the plant if there are three or more within that time frame. If the problems turn out to be systemic, the NRC could assign a lower rating to the entire two-unit site rather than just to Indian Point 2.

http://spoonsenergymatters.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/indian-point-layout1.jpg

The problem with unstable water levels in the steam generator is that it can trigger significant damage throughout the plant. The steam generators are heat transfer systems which  form the bridge between the reactors and the 40-ton electric generating turbines. Pressurized, highly contaminated water, heated to about 700 degrees travels from the nuclear reactor to the steam generator, where it goes through several thousand U-shaped tubes and circles back to the reactor. A second water loop, with little radioactivity, runs this clean water over the tubes, where it is heated to about 500 degrees Fahrenheit but kept liquid under pressures of about 1,200 pounds per square inch. For comparison, the pressure in a home heating system is about 32 PSI.

Superheated water in the secondary loop travels to the generating turbine, where it is released from the pressure system. It then flashes into steam, expanding by a factor of about 700, and rushed past the blades of the turbine. A water bath on the other side of the turbine – drawn from the Hudson River at Indian Point and the Delaware River at New Jersey’s Salem plants – cools the steam back to water and it is sent back to the steam generator for reheating.

The problem comes when the huge pumps circulating the water malfunction and, as a result, there are drops of water mixed with the steam hitting the turbine blades, which spin at 1,800 Revolutions Per Minute. “These water droplets hit the fan blades,” explained Lochbaum, “and it can come apart sending out metal missiles as it shreds. That happened at the Salem plants in the early 1990s, and tore the turbine apart and the company paid a high price for it.

More recently, it happened at the D.C. Cook plant in Michigan in 2008, and the shreds tore through the oil lines used for lubrication and the hydrogen gas lines used to cool the generator and that triggered a pretty serious fire. You try to avoid that outcome.”

###

August 10, 2010

New York Times

Wrong Answer at Indian Point

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/opinion/11wed3.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Ever since New York State ruled in the spring that the obsolete cooling system at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y., pollutes the Hudson River and kills too many fish, the plant’s owner, the Entergy Corporation, has been seeking public support for what it calls a “smarter solution” to the problem.

Finding some solution is important for Entergy, which wants to keep operating Indian Point’s two nuclear reactors, whose federal licenses expire in 2013 and 2015. To renew the licenses for another 20 years, Entergy needs a water-quality certificate from the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

The agency denied the certificate in April. Indian Point’s cooling system sucks up about 2.5 billion gallons of river water a day — by far the largest single industrial use of water in New York State, according to the agency. The water passes through the plant and is dumped back in the river, hotter than before. About a billion fish, larvae and eggs are killed each year, trapped against the cooling system’s intake screens or drawn through its pipes, or fatally stressed by the heated water, which holds less oxygen.

As it has since the 1970s, the government has pointed Indian Point toward a simple, sure way to solve the problem: cooling towers that recycle water in a closed loop and thus require very little from the river. Environmental law requires power plants to use the “best technology available” to minimize the damage they do, and closed-cycle cooling is widely recognized to be as good as it gets.

Entergy officials say otherwise. They have appealed the denial, arguing, among other things, that the cooling towers would take too long to build and would be monstrosities the size of Yankee Stadium. The company also says the new towers would belch dangerous “particulate matter” into the air. Entergy is, therefore, offering another technology: “wedge-wire” screens submerged in the river that they say would protect fish at lower cost.

In rebuttal, the state argues that closed-cycle towers could easily be smaller and that the “particulate matter” is harmless water vapor and salt. It also says Entergy’s claim that fish and larvae will swim away from or be swept safely around the screens is unproven and that, in any case, the screens will do nothing to solve the problem of returning heated water to the river.

The state also points out that if Indian Point’s owner had been serious about protecting the environment and obeying the law, it would have started on the cooling towers 30 years ago. Instead the company gambled on denial and delay. Entergy is an important energy source for the region. But Albany must make sure that the company addresses, not ducks, the problem.

###

Samuel S. Epstein

Nuke Accident Would Dwarf Oil Spill

Bob Herbert's July 19 New York Times column rightly states that the harm from a meltdown at a nuclear power plant "would make the Deepwater Horizon disaster look like a walk in the park." Herbert also warns that systems needed to prevent a meltdown are not well developed. "Right now, we're not ready," he says.

The damage from the April oil well rupture which spewed into the Gulf of Mexico is still being calculated. It killed 11 workers and thousands of aquatic creatures. Recovery workers have become ill attempting to cap the damaged well. The ecosystem of a large body of water and coastline has been damaged. The economic losses are staggering.

But the Deepwater disaster still can't hold a candle to a nuclear accident.

Understanding why a meltdown would be so devastating is possible only after recognizing that nuclear reactors produce the same radioactive chemicals in atomic bomb explosions. Splitting uranium atoms produces a cocktail of 100-plus chemicals that are radioactive waste products, including Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90.

If water cooling a reactor's core or waste pools was removed, from mechanical failure or act of sabotage, huge amounts of toxic gases and particles would be released and breathed by humans. Many thousands would be stricken immediately with radiation poisoning, and subsequently with cancer. Infants and children would suffer most.

From 1945 to 1963, atom bombs were tested in the atmosphere in remote areas of the south Pacific and Nevada. But still, the fallout drifted long distances and contaminated the diet of all Americans. In 1999, the National Institute of Medicine concluded that up to 212,000 Americans developed thyroid cancer from the Nevada tests.

But reactors are not in remote locations. Most are near highly populated areas. One example is Indian Point, which is just 23 miles from the New York City border. The plant has three reactors; one has shut down, but the other two have been operating since the mid-1970s. Its aging parts are corroding, and several "near miss" meltdown situations have occurred in the past decade, according to a 2006 Greenpeace report.

If Indian Point experienced a meltdown, and an evacuation was attempted, New York area traffic would be far worse than its usual crawl. Radioactivity, carried by winds, would reach 21 million people living within 50 miles of the plant. Even among those evacuated, many would not be able to return to their homes, since their environment would remain contaminated.

Indian Point may be the worst case scenario for a meltdown, as New York is the most populated city in the U.S. But nuclear plants are situated on the outskirts of virtually every major metropolitan area in the nation.

Bob Herbert's warning that systems to prevent meltdowns at nuclear plants are insufficient was also a conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. One of the hijacked planes headed for Manhattan flew directly over Indian Point. Had the plane crashed into Indian Point's core or waste pools, the consequences would have been far worse than the loss of nearly 3,000 lives at the World Trade Center.

Safety systems exist at nuclear plants, but anything less than 100 percent effectiveness is dangerous. One flaw came to light in 2002 at the Davis Besse plant near Toledo Ohio. Boric acid had eaten through nearly all of an 8-inch a steel beam in the plant's ceiling, reducing it to less than half an inch at its thinnest part. Disturbingly, the problem was discovered accidentally, not from any routine safety procedure.

The meltdown scenario is disturbing, but there is more to the nuclear threat. Most radioactive waste is stored, but some is routinely or accidentally released into air and water from all 104 U.S. nuclear reactors. These enter our bodies through breathing, and also the food chain.

No government program has ever measured how much radioactivity from reactors enters our bodies, as officials call these amounts "negligible." But a landmark study, whose results have been published in five leading medical journals, has provided evidence to the contrary. Levels of Strontium-90 in nearly 5,000 baby teeth are 30 to 50% greater in children living closest to nuclear plants, and are rising over time. In the 1950s and 1960s, Strontium-90 was often cited as one of the most toxic chemicals in bomb fallout.

Tooth study results raise the question of whether reactor emissions have raised cancer rates near nuclear plants. Again, government officials dismiss this possibility. But near nuclear plants in New York and New Jersey, increases in Sr-90 in teeth were matched by similar increases in local childhood cancer rates a few years later.

Children suffer the greatest damage from radiation exposure, but adults are not exempt. Thyroid cancer is one of the most radiation-sensitive cancers, because radioactive iodine in bomb fallout and reactor emissions seek out the thyroid gland and destroy its cells. A 2009 scientific article reported the highest U.S. thyroid cancer rate in a small 90-mile radius. This encompassed eastern Pennsylvania, central New Jersey, and southern New York, where 16 reactors are located.

Other scientific reports have documented evidence that nuclear plant shut downs are followed immediately by dramatic reductions in local infant deaths and child cancers. This is similar to what happened nationally following the 1963 ban on above-ground atomic tests.

Proposals to build new reactors to replace carbon-producing coal plants are accompanied by claims that nuclear power is "clean." This could not be further from the truth. We should never forget that nuclear reactors are essentially controlled atom bombs.

As lessons of the Deepwater fiasco are learned, we must understand the hard truth that certain energy sources pose very high risks to our security and health. We must do all we can to prevent another massive oil spill, or a nuclear meltdown. But we should go further, by developing energy sources that are safe. Solar panels need no security precautions. Windmills don't cause environmental catastrophes. We must be proactive and safe.

Samuel Epstein MD

Professor emeritus of Environment and Occupational Medicine

University of Illinois-Chicago School of Public Health and

Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition

Author of the 2005 Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War and the 2009 Toxic Beauty books.

www.preventcancer.com

Joseph Mangano MPH MBA

Executive Director, Radiation and Public Health Project, New York

Author of the 2008 Radioactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link

www.radiation.org

###

Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition

For Immediate Release

DEC Denies Water Quality Certificate for Indian Point

The Department of Environmental Conservation has taken a major and historic step toward ending the rape of the Hudson River by Indian Point. For the last 30 years Units 2 and 3 have decimated the ecosystem as they used enormous amounts of Hudson River water as a free resource to cool the reactors, and as a dump for waste heat and  radioactive materials.

A review of the documentation submitted by Entergy and the analysis prepared by the state reveals that the multinational  corporation deliberately employed obsolete data, misleading algorithms, false assertions, unsupported conclusions and tortured logic to justify a system that kills more than 2 billion fish per year. The state has invited Entergy to resubmit their application if they would use appropriate data and accurate models to make their case. This time Entergy will have 30 days instead of the 30 years it has taken to get to this point.

The 23 page document that was sent to Entergy Corporation by the DEC on April 2 is scrupulous in its scientific methodology, painstaking in the legal precedents it cites and firm in its determination to uphold the Clean Water Act that protects us all.  A careful reading of the document makes clear that the material Entergy submitted in an effort to avoid the expense of closed cycle cooling was both dated and deceptive.  For example, raw thermal data was collected in the river from September through November 2009.  This was in contravention of the Department's request for data during the critical summer months. This means that the model submitted by the company to predict thermal discharge characteristics from Indian Point Energy Center was taken well past the typical high temperature season of July and August and did not meet minimal thermal standards and criteria.

Entergy maintained in its submissions that the Water Quality Certificate should be issued because it was in compliance with a long extended 1987 SPDES (State Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit. Entergy submitted an engineering  study on February 12, 2010 that concluded that a closed cycle cooling system was feasible but not reasonable and as an alternative provided their evaluation of an intake system called a “wedge wire screen” that could potentially reduce but not minimize fish kill at the facility.  The company proposed that this alternative be considered Best Technology Available as called for in the Clean Water Act.  Entergy also indicated that since the Water Quality Permit was reissued in 1982 the department should simply do so again.

The Department concluded that continued operation of Units 2 and 3 under the 1987 SPDES permit does not comply with existing legal requirements.  In 2003 the DEC issued a draft SPDES permit that  required Entergy to evaluate conversion to closed cycle cooling as the Best Technology Available as is required by law. The report notes that more than 30 years ago the NRC evaluated and selected closed cycle cooling as the only appropriate technology for reducing adverse environmental impact from Indian Point.  The DEC pointed out to Entergy in a 2009 letter that the agency is not required to process Entergy's request in the same way it did in 1982, especially since that Certificate did not deal with how the plant complied with State water quality standards of the time. While Entergy maintains that radiological assessments of ongoing leaks to the Hudson River have not indicated any environmental or health risks, the Department views radiological materials as "deleterious substances" that could impair the water for its best usage.

The Department carefully reviewed Entergy's proposal to use wedge wire screens to reduce impact on the fish population.  The conclusion was that this proposed alternative to closed cycle cooling is not Best Technology Available because it is experimental in nature and has never been used on a body of water similar to the Hudson River.  Further, DEC determined that it would reduce, not minimize fish kill. This point is especially important because the native Long Nose and Atlantic sturgeon which both use the estuary as a breeding ground are endangered.  Sampling from 1975 to 1990 indicated that numbers of both fish were impinged in the intake pipe for Units 2 and 3.  This "taking" of endangered species is prohibited by law. The wedge wire approach also does not address the issue of thermal pollution. Accordingly, based on information submitted by Entergy, the Department concluded that while conversion to a closed cycle cooling system was expensive and might require a lengthy construction period, this type of system  is available, feasible and the Best Technology Available. Therefore it is required in order to meet state water quality standards.

Based on its thorough review, the Department has concluded that Entergy has not demonstrated compliance with the Clean Water Act and denial of their request for a Water Quality Permit is warranted.

It is important to note that approximately one third of the nuclear power plants in the United States already have closed cycle cooling, including Vermont Yankee, which is owned by Entergy.  Most use a radiator type of cooling that is much less expensive than the “cooling tower” approach Entergy puts forward as causing an undue financial burden.  Secondly, Indian Point supplies roughly 15% of the electricity to the grid that serves NYC and Westchester, not the 30% frequently cited.  While it is true that Con Ed gets 30% of its electricity from nuclear power plants, not all of it comes from Indian Point. The state has a total of six nuclear plants. There are an additional three in New Jersey that also supply Con Ed and their input is included in the 30% figure.  What is at stake here for the industry is more than just the Indian Point Entergy Center. It is a clear statement that power plants across the state will have to stop freeloading at the public's expense, will have to conform to Clean Water Act standards and will have to include proper disposal of thermal waste as a legitimate business expense. Should the expense of doing business prove too onerous for some nuclear plant operators, undoubtedly the free market will work and other more efficient energy providers will step forward and provide us with an abundance of energy generated in a cleaner and more modern fashion at a profit.  Entergy is selling fear of change as an excuse to evade the law and maximize profits, all at the expense of evading the law and harming the environment.

###

NRC Admits it Can’t Prevent Leaks at Indian Point

On Earth Day, April 22, I attended the NRC’s Annual Assessment of the Indian Point Nuclear Plant.  The NRC spoke about their on-going observations of Indian Point.  They are always pretty much the same and they generally sound like this – “We found a few issues that you guys should focus on, but we find no major flaws and there is no danger to the public health and safety.”  I have attended these meetings virtually every year for about a decade, since the pipe failure in February 2000 that released radioactive steam into the air and contaminated water into the Hudson through the Buchanan sewer system.  Then the Entergy executives spoke.  This is sometimes infuriating and sometimes hysterically ironic.  At this meeting it was both.  Don Mayer mentioned how well the back-up battery systems on the sirens worked when there were large power outages from our recent severe storms.  This was hilariously ironic because Entergy fought furiously to avoid the expense of the batteries and Mike Slobodein, Entergy’s emergency management director wrote a letter to this newspaper that they preferred an auto-dialer system to alert people that there was an emergency at Indian Point.  I guess he did not realize that many people have wireless home phones that would not work if the power went out and the sirens didn’t work.

An infuriating part was when they mentioned all that they are doing about the on-going leaks through underground pipes and they constantly used the term “non-disruptive.”  What that means is that they are not about to spend the time and money to dig up the pipes that are buried underground to see which ones are degraded and will start to leak soon.  When citizens were allowed to ask questions, I asked the NRC Regional Director about the term “non-disruptive” and whether that meant no external visual examinations of the buried pipes.  I also asked whether that meant that they have no way to prevent more leaks.  His response was that he had already admitted that there was “a gap” in the pipe inspection programs and that he could not say that there would not be leaks in the future.  My question now is how big and how bad will the leaks be?

To provide some context, more than 25% of the operating reactors in this country are known to have had tritiated water leakage problems.  Indian Point is one of them, and in fact, Indian Point is the only one known to have also leaked Strontium, Cesium and Nickel as well as Tritium into the groundwater below the plant.  In February of 2009, they had a pipe leak that was discovered when water ran across a building floor.  The flow took days to control and the company estimates that 100,000 gallons of tritiated water leaked.  The truth is that they do not really know how many gallons went undetected.  These problems will not get better as the plants age.  And the NRC is deciding whether these plants should go for an additional 20 years and have already granted Entergy an extra 50 year allowance to clean up the site when the plant ultimately closes.

Days after the meeting, Entergy VP Fred Dacimo complained in this newspaper that Entergy should not have to build “cooling towers” that would cost more than a billion dollars to build.  He was saying that if Entergy puts some rotating screens in the intake pipes it would be okay to suck in 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water each day and shoot it back out twenty to thirty degrees hotter than when it came in.  There is a difference between closed cycle cooling and cooling towers.  Closed cycle cooling reduces the need for water by reusing the same water over and over again.  It uses 90 percent less than the plant does now.  Entergy is not being forced to use cooling towers.  They have been ordered to go to closed cycle cooling which is common in the industry. Entergy's Vermont Yankee plant already has closed cycle cooling.  The State Department of Environmental Conservation said it would take cost benefit analysis into account if Entergy would provide detailed plans of the type of system it intends to use, along with its building permit applications for verification. Entergy declined.

Time after time this multi-billion dollar corporation plays the victim and looks to maximize profits even if it means more risk for the public or more harm to the environment.

###

Editor

North County News

April 25, 2010

Indian Pointless

by Marilyn Elie

The column, "Indian Points to Ponder," which ran in your paper on April 21 is full of errors.  While everyone is entitled to their opinion, facts are not subject to whim.  I would like to correct the most egregious polemics and, unlike your columnist, cite sources so that readers can check out the following information and make their own informed decisions.

The Indian Point reactors produce about 2,000 megawatts of electricity. The New York City/ Westchester grid uses 9,000 to 13,000 megawatts daily, depending on the temperature. These figures are available on the Independent Systems operators website. Elementary school division revels that this comes to 22 to 15 percent of the region’s electrical power.  Check the Con Ed web site and you will see that 30 percent of the electricity they purchase comes from nuclear power.  However this includes all of the reactors in New York and New Jersey - not just Indian Point.

The twin, 40-foot-wide intake conduits to the two power plants take in 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water daily: in the process, they suck in at least 1.5 billion fish annually. That’s fish, not fish eggs, larvae or plankton as was stated. As part of the environmental impact assessment, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation counted the number of 5 species of fish – two surface dwellers, one mid level swimmer and two benthic fish over the course of a year.  An additional 500 million fish died when they encountered the thermal plume from the hot water dumped back into the river as part of once-through cooling.  This is all detailed in the Environmental Impact Statement released by the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation in 2003.

This and other conclusions in the report were arrived at using stringent scientific methods.  It is not nameless or faceless bureaucrats who did this work.  Rather it is duly appointed, highly trained professionals, acting in the public interest to protect the eco system of the Hudson River, a Heritage Site that belongs to us all. Entergy has been allowed to use this public resource as a dump for far too long. The 23 page letter detailing the denial of the water quality certificate and the work that went into it is posted on the DEC web

Every year the once through cooling system at Indian Point uses the equivalent of twice the volume of the river from the Battery to Troy, a distance of 183 mile.s Indian Point is the single largest user of water in the state. This is documented in the EIS published by the DEC in 2003 and is far more than the 1 percent figure, used without a citation in the April 21 column.

The death of two billion fish each year is not “well within the bounds of the eco system’s ability to replace the loss.” This argument has lost at every judicial proceeding. There is no comparison between 2 billion fish that fail to reach maturity because they are eaten by other fish and nourish the food chain and 2 billion fish sucked out of the food chain by the intake pipe and dumped back into the Hudson River ecosystem as decaying organic matter. Removing so much from the bottom of the food chain has an adverse impact on the entire ecosystem. If you don't care to read the court proceedings, look up food chain in any high school biology text for more details on how this works.

There is a difference between closed cycle cooling and cooling towers.   As the name implies, closed cycle cooling reduces the need for water by reusing the same water over and over again. The statement that closed cycle cooling “uses twice as much water as the current system” is absurd.  It uses 90 percent less. The DEC did not require Entergy to use Cooling Towers.  It required them to go to closed cycle cooling which is common in the industry. Entergy's Vermont Yankee plant already has closed cycle cooling. It looks and operates much like a giant radiator and cost $300 million, not the exorbitant sums referenced in the Entergy PR campaign. Figures which are used to generate fears of scarcity and a higher electricity bill.

The DEC said it would take cost benefit analysis into account if Entergy would provide detailed plans of the type of system it intends to use, along with its building permit applications for verification. Entergy declined, preferring to appeal the decision and issue public relations statements to the gullible such as your columnist, rather than actual plans to regulators. The system that Entergy wants to substitute for closed cycle cooling is called wedge wire.  It is designed for lake use and is not effective in fast moving rivers such as the Hudson. In addition, the use of screens would not address the thermal discharge responsible for killing hundreds of millions of fish. Entergy’s public offer to use these as a “substitute” for closed cycle cooling can only be seen as a public relations dodge, not a solution to a real environmental problem.  Again, see the letter to Entergy on the DEC web site for details on this.  It is a great example of the use of science in making informed public policy. It is also an easy read.

    Far from picking on Indian point, the DEC has taken a serious look at the rape of the river by 17 heavy industrial firms – power plants, cement makers, and others – which are responsible for the death of more than 17 billion fish annually in New York’s lakes and rivers.  All are being ordered to adhere to the dictates of the Clean Water Act and use the best technology available to cool their equipment and minimize the damage to public property. The other companies are working with the DEC to meet the state’s requirements and end the degradation of our lakes and rivers.

     Only Entergy has mounted a massive, million dollar publicity campaign using uninformed and thoughtless commentators who refuse to check their facts and poison the air of public discourse. It is past time for both forms of pollution to cease.

###

State Says Indian Point Plant Violates the Clean Water Act

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Published: April 4, 2010

CORRECTION APPENDED

In a major victory for environmental advocates, New York State has ruled that outmoded cooling technology at the Indian Point nuclear power plant kills so many Hudson River fish, and consumes and contaminates so much water, that it violates the federal Clean Water Act.

The decision is a blow to the plant's owner, the Entergy Corporation, which now faces the prospect of having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build stadium-size cooling towers, or risk that Indian Point's two operating reactors -- which supply up to 30 percent of the electricity used by New York City and Westchester County -- could be forced to shut down.

Entergy officials said that they were ''disappointed'' in the ruling and that they might fight it in court. The original federal licenses for the two 1970s-era reactors expire in 2013 and 2015, and a water quality certificate is a prerequisite for a 20-year renewal by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But a prolonged appeal in New York could delay a shutdown, Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the commission, said late Saturday.

An Entergy spokesman said that converting Indian Point's cooling system would cost $1.1 billion and would require shutting both reactors down entirely for 42 weeks.

The ruling in New York comes after President Obama pressed for the construction of new nuclear plants in his State of the Union address. But it is the second instance since of a state asserting its power to threaten an existing nuclear plant. In Vermont, the State Senate voted overwhelmingly in February to block operation of Entergy's Vermont Yankee plant after 2012, citing leaks of radioactive tritium, inaccurate testimony by company officials and other problems.

Nuclear proponents said they hoped that the federal government would determine that the nation's energy needs should take precedence over such state-level actions. ''The N.R.C. may decide this is not a policy they're going to give credence to,'' said Arthur J. Kremer, chairman of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, of which Entergy is a member. ''It's bad news for investors in new power facilities and in upgrading old ones.''

The battle over Indian Point, which is in Buchanan, about 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, has been raging for decades, and the latest decision will not soon end that fight.

But the strongly worded letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation, issued late Friday, said flatly that Indian Point's cooling systems, even if modified in a less expensive way proposed by Entergy, ''do not and will not comply'' with New York's water quality standards.

It said the power plant's water-intake system kills nearly a billion aquatic organisms a year, including the shortnose sturgeon, an endangered species. The letter also said that radioactive material had polluted the Hudson after leaking into the groundwater.

The ruling concerned the cooling system at Indian Point Units 2 and 3, which were commissioned in the early 1970s. (Indian Point 1 was shut down in 1974.) Both take in enormous volumes of river water -- a combined 2.5 billion gallons a day, or more than twice the average daily water consumption of all of New York City -- and use it to create steam for turbines and to cool the reactors. The water is then pumped back into the Hudson, 20 or 30 degrees hotter.

Sucking so much water causes plankton, eggs and larvae to be drawn into the plant's machinery, or entrained, and the water pressure also causes fish to be trapped, or impinged, against intake screens, the state said.

The plant's ''once-through'' cooling system was obsolete by the late 1970s, when the state of the art became ''closed-cycle'' cooling -- more akin to a car's radiator -- which consumes less than 10 percent as much water and kills fewer organisms.

''Conversion from a once-through cooling system to a closed-cycle cooling system, while expensive and involving a potentially lengthy construction process, is nevertheless the only available and technically feasibly technology'' for Indian Point to satisfy the ''best technology available'' requirement of state water-quality regulations, an official of the Department of Environmental Conservation official wrote.

If Entergy fails to overturn the state's ruling, it could take the fight to Washington. And the New York region's economic reliance on Indian Point could give the corporation considerable leverage. Even Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat who is one of the plant's loudest critics, said he expected Entergy to ''try to get the N.R.C. to back off the requirement'' for a water quality certificate.

Other opponents of the plant hailed the ruling.

''The era in which you can take 2.5 billion gallons of water from the Hudson River every day, and return it to the river untreated and polluted -- those days are over,'' said Mr. Brodsky, who, with the folk singer Pete Seeger, successfully sued to get the state to enforce the clean-water laws at Indian Point. ''Entergy has to either stop polluting the river or close the plant. End of discussion.''

Alex Matthiessen, president of the environmental group Riverkeeper, said it was conceivable that Entergy could spend the money to retrofit its cooling system and then reapply to the state. But that would cause a huge delay, he added.

''For all we know, this is it -- the beginning of the end,'' he said.

Ms. Screnci, the spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the commission was ''a ways away from reaching a decision on whether to renew the license.'' But she added: ''It's my understanding that the law says that this certification must be in place for us to renew the license. So we'll be watching to see what occurs in the meantime.''

Correction: April 29, 2010, Thursday

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An article in some editions on April 4 about a ruling by New York State that the Indian Point nuclear power plant violates the federal Clean Water Act referred imprecisely to the portion of the electricity used by New York and Westchester County that the plant provides. It is up to 30 percent, but can be considerably less depending on the time of year and which other power plants are working; it is not always 30 percent. Because of an editing error, the article also misstated, in some copies, the year the plant opened. It was 1962, not 1973.

###

New York State DEC Denies Indian Point water use permit

4  Fires rage in Nuclear Plants across the Nation

 April 3, 2010

The DEC denied Indian Points water use permits because they do not and will not comply with existing new York water quality standards.

The legal team of Assemblyman Richard Brodsky and Rockland County Attorney Susan Shapiro first started litigation this issue in 2002.  

Currently this team is litigating the failure of the NRC to enforce fire protection regulations at Indian Point by reducing fire protection from 3 hours to 24 minutes.   

Over this past weekend of March 27-28 four nuclear plants in the US had fire events.  Emergencies were declared at two Progress Energy nuclear power plants in the Carolinas over the weekend due to fires.   There was also a fire at a nuclear power plant in Ohio on Sunday that sent two firefighters to the hospital.   

These fire events underscore the need for the U.S Nuclear Industry to comply with fire safety regulations.. However, at the request of the owners of Indian Point, the NRC has waived regulatory requirements for fire protection insulation to protect key safety systems for at least one hour and have lowered the requirement to 24-minutes.  Their rationale was that all foreseeable fire events would be adequately controlled and extinguished within twenty four minutes.  Here are excerpts from the NRC incident report from the fire event at the Perry plant in Ohio. 

“At 1818 , the control room was notified of a lube oil fire on Reactor Feed Pump Turbine B……The fire was reported to be out by the fire brigade leader at 2122.”

Despite the NRC assurance that fires can be controlled within 24-minutes, this nuclear plant fire took a little over three hours to control.  The NRC regulatory compromises directly contravene the NRC primary responsibility of protecting the public health and safety.

BACKGROUND

For 20 years Congress has been holding hearings about fire safety problems at nuclear plants.  The NRC approved Hemyc as a fire wrap for use in most nuclear plants, because  Hemyc manufacturers claimed it had a 1 hour fire rating.  Yet when Congress finally ordered the NRC to test Hemyc the results proved that Hemyc only works for 24 minutes.  The NRC response was not to retrofit the plants to improve product performance, , but  it was to reduce product requirements. There is no question that fire is among the greatest dangers at nuclear plants and these old plants are not in compliance.  By refusing to enforce the fire protection regulations the NRC has abdicated its job to protect public health and safety.

In a historic litigation Stakeholders near Indian Point have filed suit in district court due to the NRC arbitrary decision to drastically reduce fire protection at Indian Point to only 24 minutes placing the public at risk of a meltdown.  About 8% of US population resides within 50-miles of Indian Point.  This is why attorneys Susan Shapiro and Richard Brodsky,  representing the Indian Point Stakeholders; Westchester’s Citizen’s Awareness Network, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, Rockland County Conservation Association,  Public Health and Sustainable Energy and New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky have filed suit on behalf of public safety.

###

ENGEL BLASTS INDIAN POINT FOR CORPORATE SCAM



Mon, 08 Mar 2010



http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/ergy_etr_engel-blasts-indian-point-for-corporate-scam--830722.htm



(Congressional Documents and Publications/ContentWorks via COMTEX)

Washington, D.C.

Congressman Eliot Engel called on the New York State 
Public Service Commission to deny Entergy Corp.'s effort to spin off Indian 
Point 2 and 3 and four other of its nuclear energy generating plants into a 
separate corporation, saying it could lead to increased electricity rates 
and put taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars.



The proposed spinoff company, Enexus Energy Corp., would start off some $3 
billion in debt and its only assets would be their nuclear plants, including 
the two at Indian Point, which were built to last 35 years and are now 
almost 40 years old. Another plant, Vermont Yankee, is being investigated by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for radioactive leaks. Just last week the 
Vermont State Senate voted to close that plant by 2012. Indian Point and 
Vermont Yankee have applications pending for licenses to continue operating.



The Public Service Commission (PSC) is holding hearings on the proposed 
spinoff. The PSC's Senior Advisory Staff originally recommended that the PSC 
reject the proposal unless debt was mitigated, the company's long term 
financial capabilities enhanced, and rate payer benefits provided. Entergy 
resubmitted plans, but the Senior Staff said they did not meet the 
requirements and Thursday the PSC ruled it would take further comment while 
aiming to have a ruling by March 25th.

Rep. Engel, a senior member of the house Energy and Commerce Committee, 
said, "This new corporation appears to be an effort to shed the legitimate 
costs of running nuclear power plants and leave the taxpayers holding the 
bag when the plants close or something goes wrong. Considering the age of 
Indian Point and the number of problems it has had, including the inability 
to set up a new warning system in a timely fashion, problems are 
inevitable."


Opponents of the proposal say that as a limited liability corporation Enexus 
would not be responsible for many of the expenses needed to run the plant. 
They also fear that it would not be legally responsible for decontaminating 
some 1.6 million cubic feet of radioactive soil in Westchester when the 
plant is closed, leaving taxpayers responsible for perhaps hundreds of 
millions of dollars in cleanup costs.



Another concern is that the new corporate structure would prevent the parent 
company, Entergy, from shouldering responsibilities for paying costs related 
to accidental spills or radioactive leaks.



Entergy declared bankruptcy in August 2006 after Hurricane Katrina caused it 
$475 million in damages.



In addition to New York approval, the spin off requires authorization from 
the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) and the Vermont Public Service Board. FERC and the NRC gave 
initial approval on June 12, 2008, and July 28, 2008, respectively. Hearings 
in the Vermont case were completed in August 2008. Final action has not been 
taken by the Vermont Public Service Board.
Entergy wants to spinoff six reactors: FitzPatrick, Indian Point 2 and 3, 
Pilgrim in Massachusetts, Palisades in Michigan and Vermont Yankee in 
Vermont.

###

Entergy Rebuked by New York State Attorney General in Enexus Case: Decision Pending

By Press Release on February 11, 2010

For Immediate Release:

Paul Burns, VPIRG 802-793-1985

The Office of New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo blasted Entergy officials yesterday for more corporate shenanigans from a company already mired in controversy here in Vermont.  According to the NYS OAG’s letter, Entergy waited until just hours before a decision is expected from state regulators in New York to file major new documents in the case concerning their plans to spin-off a handful of their decaying nuclear plants to a shell corporation called Enexus.

The OAG decried the legal maneuver, saying that it would “thoroughly frustrated public review, comment and participation.”  The Attorney General also noted that Entergy’s submission “contained several inaccurate responses” including one that claimed that no solid or hazardous waste has ever been disposed of on site at the company’s Indian Point reactor.

The OAG went on to explain that “How an indebted Enexus, which according to recent news reports would also face subsurface pollution issues at its Vermont Yankee facility, will decontaminate and restore the Indian Point facilities is one of the important questions in this proceeding.”

“Entergy Louisiana appears to be incapable of conducting itself in an honorable and trustworthy manner no matter where it’s operating,” said Paul Burns, Executive Director of VPIRG.  “Its track record of deception and failure in Vermont is not some sort of fluke; it’s more like an addiction.”

“The company can send all the new out-of-state executives it wants to Vermont and it’s not going to change a thing because the corporation itself is not reliable.  The latest shenanigans in New York just prove that Vermonters will never be able to trust Entergy’s corporate management and therefore we should keep moving toward the timely retirement of Vermont Yankee,” Burns added.

 ###

Entergy nuclear spinoff hits roadblock at NY PSC

Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:36pm EST

* NY PSC staff says deal not in public interest

* PSC says considering other options

* Spinoff already has federal approvals

NEW YORK, Feb 11 (Reuters) - New York's utility regulator said on Thursday its staff found Entergy Corp's (ETR.N) plan to spin off six nuclear power plants, including three in New York, to a new company, Enexus Energy Corp, was not in the public interest.

The New York State Public Service Commission said in a release it was considering other options, including changes to the transaction to improve the financial stability of the three New York reactors and provide benefits to ratepayers.

Officials at Entergy did not immediately comment.

Entergy wants to transfer the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear station in Oswego County and the Indian Point nuclear station in Westchester County to Enexus.

Entergy shareholders would eventually receive all of Enexus's capital stock and receive cash and reductions in outstanding debt worth about $3.5 billion. Upon completion of the transaction, the shares of Entergy and Enexus would trade independently.

The PSC staff said the proposed transaction was problematic because the amount of debt leverage to finance Enexus was excessive.

The PSC did not say when it would reconsider the Enexus spinoff but noted it would look at staff recommendations and hear from interested parties before bringing the matter back "for final deliberations at the earliest possible Commission session."

Entergy announced the spinoff in November 2007. In January 2008, Entergy sought a ruling that the New York PSC need not review the proposed spinoff. But in May 2008, the PSC said it would review the spinoff because of its potential to harm captive New York utility ratepayers.

After review by administrative law judges and months of negotiations, Entergy in July 2009 requested the PSC take action no later than November so the proposed spinoff could be completed by the end of 2009.

In addition to New York approval, transfer of the nuclear units requires authorization from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Vermont Public Service Board.

FERC and the NRC gave their initial approvals on June 12, 2008, and July 28, 2008, respectively. Hearings in the Vermont case were completed in August 2008. Final action has not been taken by the Vermont Public Service Board.

Entergy wants to spinoff six reactors: FitzPatrick, Indian Point 2 and 3, Pilgrim in Massachusetts, Palisades in Michigan and Vermont Yankee in Vermont. (Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing byDavid Gregorio)

###

Gun goes off at Indian Point power plant

http://news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=241880&position=0&news_type=news

(01/19/10) BUCHANAN - A security guard at the Indian Point nuclear power facility has been suspended after his gun went off while inside the plant.

Officials say there was no damage to the plant in the Saturday mishap, and no one was injured. It appears the guard pulled the gun from its holster when it went off.

Entergy, the company that owns the facility, is calling the matter an accident, but it has launched a full investigation into how this happen. The nuclear regulatory commission has joined in the investigation.

Indian Point union workers are currently negotiating a new contract and have threatened to strike. The talks are on hold until Wednesday at the request of a federal mediator.

recall the 2008 incident of gun possession by a contractor

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/indian.point.nuclear.2.734352.html

###

Local Residents Outraged About Release of Radioactive Steam over Hudson Valley

Posted on January 12, 2010 by katonahgreen

http://katonahgreen.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/local-residents-express-outrage-over-release-of-radioactive-steam-over-hudson-valley/#comment-134

Two days after the fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission learned that an estimated 600,000 gallons of boiling, radioactive water turned to steam and was released over the lower Hudson Valley in November, 2009,  as a result of a malfunction that caused Westchester County’s Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant to be shut down.  Mired in slow response, vague details and insufficient health impact information, residents of Katonah, South Salem and Somers respond with outrage to a report on an investigation into the  incident published  January 8th in the Daily News.

The Daily reports, “NRC inspectors are still trying to figure out what really happened. A report on the incident is expected at the end of the month….The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not have safe levels set for inhaling tritium.”

Here are responses from local residents to the report:

But it’s OK, according to the NRC: “Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said the release valves “were intentionally opened (as per plant procedures) as part of the shutdown.”…. “Sheehan stressed that the level of a radioactive isotope tritium in the steam was below the allowable federal levels for drinking water. The News, however, reported that the release of tritium was not in drinking water but in escaped steam which is inhaled through the lungs.”

Just another example of how the NRC has made it clear that their highest priority is to keep their regulatory charges profitable, and their agency relevant. A year or two ago at a public hearing regarding the extension of Indian Point’s license, after waiting in a long line of equally agitated citizens, I got to make my point to their faces. I worked in the engineering industry for fourteen years. No amount of engineering expertise can guarantee there will be zero malfunctions, and the NRC and their clients are being disingenuous when they tell us otherwise. I got no response – they are obliged to listen only. We know an airliner will come down occasionally; a petrochemical plant will blow up, and hard drives fail. The difference here is that failure can wreak a catastrophe of such scale that it is no longer possible to speak in terms of net benefits. That’s why nuclear power plants are essentially uninsurable, and can only operate with the risk passed to the public via the Price-Anderson Act .

Isn’t it ironic that public health insurance, which may protect us when we fall ill of leukemia from radiation exposure, is deemed by detractors as an excessive intervention by the government in the private economy, but socializing the risk of the Nuclear industry that creates these hazards is OK? The nuclear exposure from the steam release may be “below the allowable limits”, but the cynicism is off the scale. -Dan

Dan Welsh of South Salem way is currently doing penance for a previous career selling several hundred thousand tons of polyester production capacity to the Chinese. His sentence is sitting on the Lewisboro Town Board, attempting to promote sustainability measures to same in the midst of the worst economy in decades, in one of the most politically charged towns in the county. Your sympathies are appreciated.

______________________

Where can I find data quantifying the range of acceptable levels of tritium to drink or inhale?  Also, once airborne, how long do these particulates stay suspended prior to settling on land, and water?

I felt the same kind of anger when Guiliani decided to spray the boroughs with malythian for West Nile Virus.  I had no choice about this happening over my neighborhood.  Although the advice for residents was to keep their windows shut for several hours, many residents had no air-conditioning and fans are useless with shut windows during a hot summer evening.  Needless to say, many NYC residents (my young developing children, to name three) built-up a whole lot of toxins during those sprayings.

When it comes to environmental health, we need to be stronger as a community. We need to join together and voice our disapproval whether it be from nuclear power plants spewing toxic chemicals into the air; coal firing plants and chlorine plants spewing mercury vapor into the air, which later mix with water vapor to become methyl-mercury polluting the fish, plants and animals we eat or the needless spraying of pesticides because 2 people were afflicted with West Nile Virus.

To quote Bill Moyers, “If you are not outraged, you aren’t paying attention”!-Lisa

Lisa Silver is co-founder of Citizens for a Sustainable Lewisboro.

______________________

This effects us all and the hue and cry should reach all the way to Washington!

Herb Oringel, Chair, Energy Advisory Panel, Town of Somers
______________________

Here is a link to the description of the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster which happened under similar circumstances with a valve not shutting off.

Please comment below after the descriptive tags for this article. Post this article to your Facebook page, email it to friends, get feedback!

Get Involved! Join the local green conversation, scheming and real gatherings. Follow KatonahGreen on

Twitter
Facebook Page
Meetup Group

###

Nuclear steam leak intentional: Response to Indian Point plant shutdown

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/01/08/2010-01-08_nuclear_steam_leak_intentional_response_to_indian_point_plant_shutdown.html

BY ABBY LUBY 
DAILY NEWS WRITER

Friday, January 8th 2010, 4:00 AM

The recent shutdown at the Indian Point Nuclear power plant and release of contaminated steam into the atmosphere was intentional, the federal agency that oversees the nation's nuclear power plants insisted Thursday.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said the release valves "were intentionally opened (as per plant procedures) as part of the shutdown."

The steam went undetected for two days in November from Unit 2 at the Westchester-based nuke plant.

NRC inspectors at Indian Point later learned that an estimated 600,000 gallons of boiling, radioactive water turned to steam and was released over the lower Hudson Valley.

Sheehan explained that boiling, radioactive water did not flash into steam as it exited the valves and hit the air, but rather that the valves first reduced pressure in the form of steam created in the steam generators.

"The boiling has already occurred in the steam generators before the steam ever reaches the atmospheric steam dump valves," he said.

A Daily News investigation confirmed that the steam dump valves were intentionally opened because of a problem in the generator at Indian Point that caused the plant to shut down.

But it also found the valve didn't close when it was supposed to and kept releasing steam into the environment.

NRC inspectors are still trying to figure out what really happened. A report on the incident is expected at the end of the month.

Because a radioactive steam cloud is difficult to see, the massive amount of steam was verified by a NRC inspector at the plant.

Sheehan stressed that the level of a radioactive isotope tritium in the steam was below the allowable federal levels for drinking water. The News, however, has reported that the release of tritium was not in drinking water but airborne in escaped steam which is inhaled through the lungs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not have safe levels set for inhaling tritium. The NRC uses the drinking water levels whenever radiated water is dumped into the Hudson River or when it threatens to contaminate ground water.

Entergy, the owner of the Indian Point, files annual reports about radioactivity regularly released into the air and water.

But The News found the reports are published too long after the fact and mired in technological jargon, unlike timely news stories that inform the general public.

Sheehan responded that "The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes seriously its mission of protecting people and the environment. Part of that mission is assessing the significance of events and responding accordingly."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/01/08/2010-01-08_nuclear_steam_leak_intentional_response_to_indian_point_plant_shutdown.html#ixzz0c3Mb9zJE

###

Courthouse News Service

January 05, 2010

Lawmaker Sues Feds Over Nuke Plant Safety

By TIM HULL 

    (CN) - A New York assemblyman claims the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is endangering the public by allowing the Indian Point nuclear plant to use substandard insulation around electric cables that would control the shutdown of the reactor in the event of a core meltdown. Richard L. Brodsky, assemblyman for the 92nd District, says the NRC had no authority to grant the Indian Point Energy Center, in Westchester County, an exemption to use insulation that protects shutdown cables against fire for 24 minutes, instead of the legally required one hour.

     Brodsky, a Democrat, says the plant has been operating under the exemption since 2007.

     Brodsky sued the NRC in Manhattan Federal Court, with co-plaintiffs the Westchester Citizens Awareness Network, Public Health and Sustainable Energy, and the Sierra Club. They claim the NRC violated federal environmental laws and regulations by granting the exemption without legal authority to do so, and without holding public hearings.

     "The 'exemption' now allows the nuclear reactor to operate with greatly reduced fire protection thereby putting the public at heightened risk of consequences of a loss of reactor control resulting from a fire, catastrophic event, terrorist attack, or a combination of those events," Brodsky says in the complaint.

     NRC regulations require all nuclear power plants built before 1979 to wrap their emergency shutdown cables in fire-retardant insulation capable of withstanding a fire for one hour.

     Indian Point's exemption requires its insulation to hold off the flames for just 24 minutes, Brodsky says.

     The 2nd Circuit dismissed a similar complaint from Brodsky last year on jurisdictional grounds.

     The plaintiffs want the court to declare that the NRC exemption violates federal law, and force the plant into compliance.

They are represented by Brodsky and Susan Shapiro of Spring Valley, N.Y. 

From the Web site Law360

Nuclear Agency Under Fire Over NY Power Plant

Law360, New York (January 04, 2010) -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is under assault from a New York state assemblyman and the Sierra Club, which allege the federal agency has failed to uphold necessary fire protections at Entergy Corp.’s Indian Point nuclear power plant.

Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky filed suit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing the NRC of illegally granting Entergy an exemption from insulation standards put in place to safeguard against a catastrophic fire at the facility.

The NRC has allowed Entergy to permanently avoid insulation requirements for the electric cables that control reactor shutdown in an emergency and are critical to protect against a meltdown, according to the complaint.

While the agency has historically required commercial operators to provide insulation that would protect the cables from fire for at least one hour, the Indian Point facility is permitted to operate with insulation that would withstand fire for only 24 minutes, the complaint argues.

In September 2007, the NRC granted Entergy an exemption from the insulation standards in violation of the Atomic Energy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the suit alleges.

“The ‘exemption’ was illegally granted in complete secrecy with no public notice, no opportunity for public comment, no opportunity to offer or question evidence, no public hearing,” the plaintiffs said.

“As a result of these actions Indian Point is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of its license and the laws and relations governing commercial nuclear reactors and is not operating with a greatly enhanced danger to the public,” the complaint added.

Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC, said the agency had not yet received a copy of the complaint, but emphasized the adequacy of the safety precautions at the Indian Point plant.

“We have a high degree of confidence that the Indian Point plant can safely cope with a fire situation,” Sheehan said. “They’ve developed plans, we’ve inspected them on a regular and ongoing basis and believe they properly protect the plant and public health.”

Brodsky and fellow plaintiffs Citizens’ Awareness Network and the Sierra Club originally filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but that court ruled in August 2009 that it lacked jurisdiction over claims for violations of the Hobbs Act, according to the suit.

In dismissing the suit, however, the appeals court encouraged the plaintiffs to pursue their claims in the district court under the APA, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs are represented by Brodsky.

Counsel information for the NRC was not immediately available.

The case is Brodsky et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, case number 7:09-cv-10594, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.