Skip to main content

Riverkeeper Doesn't Like Indian Point's Independent Safety Evaluation

Well, what's new? I didn't catch this until yesterday, but shortly after Entergy announced an independent safety evaluation will be done for Indian Point, Riverkeeper was quick to dismiss the study. Here's Riverkeeper:
An independent safety assessment is not an assessment contracted and paid for by the company needing an assessment.
If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts the safety assessment, Entergy would still have to pay for it. Anytime a plant is under increased scrutiny by the NRC, the plant is billed for those extra hours. Riverkeeper:
There are times when the federal government needs to step in and put taxpayers’ dollars to work for the sake of public health and safety.
It is not taxpayers' dollars at work here. As said above, Entergy would still end up paying for the study. Riverkeeper:
A true Independent Safety Assessment should be overseen by federal and state regulators and include a citizen advisory panel.
There are ten experts on Entergy's ISE panel. Two of the experts, Brockman and Kane, worked for the NRC. Kane was actually the NRC's Executive Director of Operations (the EDO is one of the highest positions in the NRC without being appointed as a commissioner). Two other experts, Rhodes and Galbraith, worked for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations - the nuclear industry's version of the NRC. One expert, Helmer, was a former chair of the New York State Public Service Commission. Another expert, Todreas, has been a nuclear science and engineering professor with MIT for 38 years. Another expert, Dyson, was appointed chairman of the New York Power Authority. And three panelists, Vonk, Stevens and McCombs, have expertise in emergency preparedness. I don't know Riverkeeper's definition but it looks like the panel is made up of former "federal and state regulators" and a "citizen advisory panel." Riverkeeper:
If Entergy were truly concerned about taxpayer dollars, it would cover the full costs of emergency planning and leave regulating and nuclear oversight to government agencies charged with protecting public health and safety.
The NRC is still the regulator of Indian Point. Here's Entergy's explanation of that issue:
The ISE would supplement extensive evaluations already regularly conducted by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission through its reactor oversight process.
Riverkeeper's complaints about the ISE are baseless. If they actually had read Entergy's release, they would have seen that their complaints are being addressed. It is clear Riverkeeper has an agenda and nothing will please them.

Update
Two more members were just added to the panel:
The final additions are T. Gary Broughton, former Chief Executive Officer of GPU Nuclear, and Clayton "Scotty" Hinnant, former Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) for Progress Energy. Both bring to the panel considerable experience and a reputation for independent and thorough knowledge of the issues in the nuclear power industry.
Congressman John Hall is unimpressed.

Comments

Joffan said…
I guess Riverkeeper just can't take "Yes" for an answer. They don't know how to do anything but complain.

Maybe they thought that they would be conducting the ISE.
Anonymous said…
I think Entergy should just shut down IP and see what New York thinks about that once they have to start paying for other energy sources. Entergy could make a KILLING off that real estate. It would just be bad press for the company and the industry that some protestors managed to shut them down.

Of course, electric rates would just soar then and the people of the state would be asking the federal government to step in and do something with all those "taxpayer dollars" (aka my money).
Anonymous said…
Shut down IP? That might make a bundle for Entergy in real estate development, but what happens to all of the very fine, talented people who work there and have devoted their lives to making IPEC a productive, safe, environmentally friendly, economic source of energy for millions of people over the last several decades? We can't just toss them overboard for the sake of a few anti-nuclear nutjobs who'd likely sell their own mothers to make a deal to shut down a nuclear plant? We don't throw good people to the wolves in this business.
Anonymous said…
I wasn't being serious about really shutting down IPEC. I would hope doing that would get their attention, but most likely not. I have no doubt though that Entergy would make the best business decision, regardless of the people, with the cover of "here are 600 open jobs in the company; relocate".
Anonymous said…
A shutdown no, but how about a little strike? How about a couple of weeks for NY without IP?

:>
Anonymous said…
My ex-wife's cousin is a corporate lawyer who lives in Long Island. I have talked with him about nuclear power and the adverse impact that the decommissioning of Shoreham has had on Long Island electric rates and security of electric supply. He maintains that such conditions are well worth being without nuclear power. No matter what I said, I could never convince this otherwise very well educated and erudite man of the folly of Long Island's opposition to Shoreham. It didn't matter. Anti-nuclearism was as set as a religion within this man's soul. The same is true of many of the people in Westchester, Rockland, Orange and Putnam Counties surrounding IPEC. Also, Andrew Cuomo, the NYS Attorney General fighting against IPEC, is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo who shut Shoreham down. Andy only wants to continue Mario's work. The only reason Mario didn't shut IPEC down when he had the power was that the New York Power Authority - his state agency - owned IP3 and Con Ed owned IP2. He wouldn't have been able to maintain NYPA revenue without IP3.

Now remember: New Yorkers are the kind of people who elected into office Mario Cuomo, Andy Cuomo, Elliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton. They deserve what they get. I saw the light and moved 800 miles away, but I'm afraid that still isn't far enough. ;-)

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…