Panel Completes Independent Safety Evaluation on Indian Point

The Independent Safety Evaluation (ISE) panel's report, while identifying areas for improvement that need to be addressed, confirms that Indian Point Energy Center is a safe and secure plant, Entergy officials said Thursday.

What does Entergy need to work on?

... the Panel found that IPEC’s relationship with the public and stakeholders, particularly on matters of emergency preparedness, is not healthy. Additionally, the Panel concluded that IPEC’s emergency response facilities and equipment do not meet high industry standards, and should be upgraded.

Overall, the Panel found that security at the plant is strong but problems with staffing shortages in some security functions and certain aging security systems and equipment should be addressed on a priority basis.

Check out the report (pdf) and let us know your thoughts. Was the panel worth it? Do you think they were objective? Will their assessment have any weight with the public? Will anyone actually read the report? And so on.

Update: Thoughts from Idaho Samizdat.

Comments

Anonymous said…

The public did not need the report. The 70% who want IPEC open, are already aware that the false fears hyped by paid PR agencies were simple politicking for dollars.

The 5% who are dedicated to closing the plant, are all career PR hacks, to whom a report by God himself would be simply one more fact to disbelieve, for pay.

The inept band of pirates who have commandeered the N.Y. State government, (under bluebeard Spitzer), are simply mouthing what they are told to mouth, by the owners of the antinuke email lists that will be needed to re-elect them in 2012.

Only the talking heads needed the report.

The public did not.

August 4, 2008 at 7:07 AM

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...

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog