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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...