Indian Point: A Clear and Present Danger
MORE Editorials
It’s a sad comment that it may take a lawsuit to do what the owners of the Indian Point nuclear plant have failed to do: protect the 20 million people who live within the danger zone should an accident or terrorist strike occur.
Last week, the Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) filed papers with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, opposing the re-licensing of Indian Point. Their argument is that the N.R.C. has allowed Indian Point to skirt safety-oriented design requirements that have been imposed on nuclear plants in the years since Indian Point was first built. FUSE says the plant should not be relicensed until it is updated to meet those criteria.
This makes, of course, profound sense: If advances in technology and knowledge have resulted in new safety requirements for the latest generation of nuclear reactors, any reactors built years ago should also be modernized, to make sure the highest standards of safety are met.
It’s outrageous that Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the plant’s New Orleans-based owners, would even consider arguing against this logic. But it’s not a surprise: Entergy has been a sloppy and irresponsible steward of this trouble-prone nuclear plant, which should have been closed years ago. Entergy fought against a proposal that would have forced the nuclear industry to pay for extra security at nuclear plants. Earlier this year, the company was fined $130,000 for missing a deadline to have its emergency warning system operating properly, and has yet to heed warnings from the N.R.C. to fix the problem.
The lawsuit will shed welcome light on Entergy’s despicable efforts to keep New Yorkers in the dark about the danger that sits just 35 miles from midtown Manhattan. Unfortunately, 9/11 taught us to imagine the unimaginable. A terrorist strike on Indian Point could cause tens of thousands of deaths immediately, not to mention a full-scale evacuation of New York City.
What more can we say about Indian Point but that is has a record of incompetent management, excessive risks and an unacceptable proximity to the country’s economic center? If something goes wrong, the entire nation would be thrown into chaos.
The safety case written for Indian Point by Westinghouse in 1968 was a very strong document, resulting in the Indian Point Final Safety Analysis Report.
After Indian Point implemented its ground breaking safety case, (which has resulted in 35 years of safe operation), NRC took lessons learned from the IP FSAR, and codified them as regulatory guides.
The Reg Guides were never applicable to Indian Point's FSAR. (They were not intended to be retroactive).Morever, the reg guides were never the only design allowed, in later plants. They were just guides. If or when another nuke plant constructor could demonstrate an alternative way to achieve a safety margin equivalent to those in the reg guides, NRC accepted their case for doing so. It was easiest to follow the reg guide, but it was never a requirement. That is why they are "guides", not "regulations".
So.... Ms. Shapiro's ambitious regime of Reg Guide perusal, and design basis perusal has led her to finally understand the multilayered structure of NRC's legal basis.
Somewhat surprised to find no particular point of prescriptive law pertaining to safety, but only a host of different technical solutions, some shaped under the reg guides, some not, she now feigns ignorance of the actuality, and pretends in her allegations that some other, not yet existing prescriptive regime exists (or could be created) for America's 104 plants.
Citing her own desire for this regime, she complains to NRC that Indian Point does not obey her new imaginary law--- (might I call it the Shapiro Protocol)?
However, the allegations are tongue in cheek. She has published on her associated blogsite, that her tactic is to be rejected by NRC, and then sue on discriminatory grounds.
So her letter of allegation is MEANT by her to be a failure, and so it will be. Reams of confirming documents exist in the public domain demonstrating the adequacy of Indian Point's safety case.
Indian Point, and each and every other nuke plant, is held rigidly only to its own, self-generated safety case (its FSAR), and all 104 are unique.
Entergy has spent 6 years and 40 million dollars updating its Indian Point design basis, and stands in very good condition to demonstrate its own technical adequacy.
Whether any other plant has engineered some other safety method is of no concern, and no legal relevance. NRC or ASL can only rule in some fashion similar to what I have layed out for you here, so the FUSE case cannot succeed.
However, the anomalous hiring of a publicist by Ms. Shapiro points to other agendas at work here. She seeks to impress. She smooths over and downplays legal realities, to instigate public relations freebies, such as you have provided her here.
Technically, what she has instigated is a flawed triviality, doomed (and intended) to fail.
In point of fact, (to answer statements in your article)... Indian Point has been constantly renewed, internally, utilizing the best digital upgrades for any older control machinery, and is as modern as any other plant, even the youngest. NRC and ASL know this, having inspected all the upgrades & modifications year by year as they were made.
So...... much that you complain of in your article, is just not true, its just that you can only see reality as filtered by Ms. Shapiro's legalistic distortions in her harrassment case, because you've not studied the issue.
She is wrong, and she has misled you (as well as others).
Do not expect much from her effort.
As far as Indian Point having failed in some way to protect people, kindly list for me, the names of those citizens harmed by Indian Point. The list is vanishingly short. Exactly zero names, to be precise.
So what is it we face?..... A clear and present danger of enthusiastic over-exaggeration?
A clear and present political agenda, masked as a "safety" article?
A clear and present editorial decision to not check facts, before publishing?
I think what we have here is a clear and present PR stunt, by a savvy self-promoter, who has gotten her trivial letter to NRC blown up by hiring a publicist to announce it on NYT, CBS, ABC, and yes, the New York Observer.
The author of the NRC letter, a Susan Shapiro of Spring Valley, is an ex aide to Rep Richard Brodsky, and so is well versed in the ephemeral, the apparent, the PR stunt, and the agendist ploy.
If you comb the lawbooks for the last 35 years, you will find exactly zero plaintiffs who haven proven thery were harmed by Indian Point (and there were next to zero filings, too).
This icon of leftist solidarity has been worn out as a clarion trumpet of activist gathering. It's over. Connie Hogarth is 80, Pete Seeger far beyond 80, new times and new realities pertain.
The region actually needs Indian Point, and needs it badly.
Could it be better managed?
Could you manage your own affairs better?
If you answered "No", I challenge you to post your secrets here, so the rest of us might achieve perfection too. If you answered "Yes", then gather your thoughts, think how you can do better, and if you find out how, mail your suggestions to Entergy.
We already can just barely manage our lives in this crowded, contentious era. Do not seek to add de-powerment, de-industrialization, povertization, and a lights-out policy to an already daunting mix.
The lack of Indian Point would endanger us orders of magnitude more than its existence ever could.
"Connie Hogarth is 80, Pete Seeger far beyond 80, new times and new realities pertain."
Nuclear was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now... LEDs alone will reduce electrical consumption in this country by 50%.
We don't need new nukes, and we certainly don't need the increased risk of running the old ones into the ground until there's an accident we can't run away from.
Look what just happened at Vermont Yankee. An entire cooling tower collapsed from old age and stress.
We've contaminated the Earth with so much radioactive waste, generations upon generations are going to pay for our stupidity and greed.
Lovers of nukes are simply part of that corporate culture of the Peaceful Atom from the 50's... who haven't kept up with Cradle to Cradle industrial protocols and the promise of quantum physics.
They're still stuck in an old paradigm where using the most toxic substance known to man to boil water seems practical to them.
Indian Point is a disaster waiting to happen... Peekskill residents have been so dummed down, they've given up. They've elected representatives who promised to do everything in their power to shut it down... but can't, or won't, because the NRC is corrupt and rubber stamps new licenses.
John Hall, Spitzer, Robert Kennedy Jr., the attorney general... have all voiced their opposition to the plant's new license. Susan Shapiro, Sherwood Martinelli, Ulrich Witte, Harvey Wasserman and others, including yours truly, have provided both technical and media tools residents can now use to force the NRC's hand, since facts and figures doesn't mean a thing in this process... it's all about perception.
This battle will end up being fought and won in the court of public opinion. If there's a future for nuclear power, it's NOT on the banks of the Hudson river.
RemyC.
Rock The Reactors
Obviously, as the Vice President of FUSE USA, I find this a well presented, and excellantly written Editorial on Indian Point. I felt compelled to weigh in when I read the comments of On-Looker and Oh Please. Rather than specifically address their errant points, shall provide the citizens within 50 miles of Indian Point some food for thought.
1. There are deaths associated with the operation of Indian Point, most hidden behind statistical analysis, as it is easy to justify deaths when they have no face, no name. X deaths from Y cancers for Q years of operation of the facility is within acceptable risk criteria. Cold, unemotional equations.
Problem is, for those families who have a child or loved one dying from a cancer directly attributable to Indian Point, there is a face, there is a name, and that statistic is suddenly very personal.
Entergy, NEI and the NRC are very careful to avoid talking on this issue, do not want to discuss the elevated levels of cancer around nuclear facilities, do not want to discuss the increased chance of a woman giving birth to a stillborn child if she lives close to a nuclear reactor. In their grief, those women, their families, their husbands never even think that Indian Point could be the cause. How many families have dealt with one of their children having leukemia? Did they ever think the causal effect was Indian Point?
2. Entergy wants to talk about HOW SAFE Indian Point is, wants to point to their UFSAR as proof of that safety. Ask them how many exemptions, and reliefs from the 10 CFR Rules and Regulations exist for IP2 and IP3. Keep in mind, that each of those 100's of exemptions from the rules represents a LOWERING of the Safety Margins meant too protect human health and the environmental.
Ask the NRC why they want to IMPROVE the 10 CFR rule that deals with reactor core thermal shock. The answer they will not give you, but that is the truth...NONE of the PWR's such as Indian Point can meet the criteria during the 20 years of additional operation for this crucial SAFETY MARGIN. Rather than address this serious safety issue, rather than force their licensees to take appropriate mitigation steps to protect human health and the environment, the NRC is choosing to LOWER THE SAFETY STANDARDS under the guise they are OVERLY CONSERVATIVE. Is every one feeling much safer now?
3. The UFSAR is a part of the Current Licensing Basis, the foundation that is the cornerstone of every nuclear reactor, the document that the NRC is supposed to evaluate in making a decision on license renewal for Indian Point...ask Entergy or the NRC to tell you exactly what that document is, to tell you exactly what the Current Licensing Basis is, and they cannot, or will not do it. They will not tell you this, or show you the documents that make up the Current Licensing Basis because they themselves don't really know with certainty what it is.
4. Entergy/Indian Point was granted and exemption from the FIRE SAFETY RULES found in 10 CFR a few years ago. Now, they have PENDING a amendment request that would amend this already existing exemption to the FIRE SAFETY RULES to even further lower already lowered FIRE SAFETY MARGINS.
Governor Spitzer wants to add 3,000 megawatts of Wind Energy to the grid by 2015, we get 2,000 megawatts from Indian Point, so do the math. Factor in conservation efforts, and it becomes clear we can LIVE WITHOUT INDIAN POINT.
If there is a significant nuclear accident at Indian Point (keep in mind, Indian Point is one of only 3 reactors in America that have suffered a SEVERE TUBE RUPTURE) or a terrorist attack, how many of us will not live? How many of us will die slow deaths from assorted cancers? How many of our children will be born with cruel deformities? How much of New York state, New Jersey and Connecticut will become uninhabitable? Can we as a Reional Community risk a Chernobyl on the Hudson for Entergy profits?
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute-lobbying arm of the nuclear industry) is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions running advertisements in our local viewing area telling you nuclear is a safe GREEN source of energy that helps in our fight against Global Warming. They trot out Patrick Moore (disgraced founder of Greenpeace) for public meetings (at $15,000 per appearance) to trumpet the glories of nuclear energy.
The citizens of New York, and of the world should ask the nuclear industry to define nuclears thermal discharge contributions to Global Warming...as example, on a daily basis, 365 days a year Indian Point sucks in 2.4 BILLION gallons of water into its reactors intake, and discharges it back into the Hudson River at 103-105 degrees. Multiply that number times 437 nuclear reactors around the world, with that number growing with every newly sited nuclear reactor.
The fight to stop the license renewal of Indian Point is not local to Buchanan and Peekskill, it's a Regional issue, a issue that should concern every citizen living in the five boroughs of New York City. FUSE USA is a small non-profit organization with a lot of heart and determination, and it is our hope that others will join in our cause...our children are depending on us.
Sherwood Martinelli
FUSE USA www.fuseusa.org
Sherwood,
I am glad to see that you (as VP of FUSE USA) defend the article. I just don't agree with you or your organization.
I don't agree with the way you use emotional arguments instead of scientific ones. You say '... cancer directly attributable to Indian Point.' Really? Prove it. Show me. I would change my mind if you could back it up with proof.
If the 3,000 MW of wind power is added to the grid by 2015. Great! The only trouble is that it is not a baseload. That means in the dead of winter when the snow is gently falling, you generate 0 MW because there is no wind at that time. Bummer. You say 'Factor in conservation efforts..'. Do you care to quantify those efforts? How many MW are we talking about, specifically? This is another emotional arguement.
Why not ask 'Factoring in population growth, industrial growth, housing growth.....'? The reason you don't factor those in is because those factors will completely overwhelm your conservation. Bummer.
You use the word 'Chernobyl' without understanding what it means. Those Russian-designed plants are not designed (or operated) the way the ones in the U.S. are. Wonderfully bad visual images are generated with the word 'Chernobyl', tho. It is like saying '9/11' everytime you see an airliner in the sky.
You seem to worry about global warming. An understanding of basic thermodynamics shows that you will have waste heat from fossil or nuclear power plants (baseload power generation, again). The only difference is CO2 output. If dumping waste heat into the water is bad, then why not shut all fossil and nuclear power plants down? Your logic is flawed.
I could go on, but I will not.
I know you are passionate about what you do. Great! Too bad you are misdirected. We agree to disagree.