Skip to main content

Panel Completes Independent Safety Evaluation on Indian Point

From Entergy's press release:
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.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…