Indian Point's bid for license renewal generates much heat in court of public opinion

Indian Point's bid for license renewal generates much heat in court of public opinion
Entergy wants to operate Indian Point’s nuclear reactors for another 20 years.


By Greg BrunoTimes Herald-Record June 06, 2007

Buchanan — As emergency officials were tracking the source of radioactive water found in sewage here last month, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore was in Manhattan, ticking off reasons why Indian Point should operate for another 20 years.
Not the best timing, perhaps.
But Moore's controversial message was not completely clouded by the ill-fated coincidence. He did manage to get a few glowing editorials, and was proclaimed "one of the sanest people on the issue of climate change" by The New York Sun.
Such is the battle for public opinion at Indian Point.
In the five weeks since Entergy Nuclear Northeast submitted an application for the 20-year renewal of its licenses, which expire in 2013 and 2015, press releases and pronouncements have flown from plant supporters and critics alike.
Paul Newman, of Hollywood and salad dressing fame, became the latest celebrity to throw his name behind the plant. Some scoffed at Newman's credentials, and The Record's own editorial board labeled the Hollywood icon a propagandist.
But Jim Steets, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy, defended Newman's observations. "Paul Newman is much more engaged in environmental and specifically nuclear issues than The Record gives him credit for," Streets wrote in an e-mail.
On the other side of the aisle, most Hudson Valley lawmakers have sought to legislate their way to a closed power station. Rep. John Hall, D-Dover Plains, has said Entergy's decision to seek relicensing "defies reason" because of a rash of recent problems at the plant.
And independent advocacy groups have stepped up their campaign to close the twin reactors, which sit on the Hudson River 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan. On Monday, Riverkeeper, a Tarrytown-based environmental group, called on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reject Entergy's renewal application outright.
Public opinion has always been a player in the Indian Point debate. Fancy Web sites and corporate sponsorship — Entergy's support of Yankees baseball, for example — have saturated the regional media market before. But since Sept. 11, 2001, the PR battles have become more heated, and more costly, observers say.
According to The Center for Public Integrity, Entergy spent over $13.5 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2004. It is unclear how much money the multibillion dollar corporation has thrown at Indian Point advertising, but it's clear the company is not shy about spending to promote. In 2003, an Entergy-funded coalition of pro-Vermont Yankee supporters spent about $200,000 in advertisements, according to newspaper reports. Closer to home, Entergy spent an undisclosed amount the same year to help form the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance. That coalition of business and labor interests was founded to counter Indian Point critics.
David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the current PR war is aimed squarely at the NRC license renewal process. "What's going on at Indian Point is likely to determine how many questions the NRC asks, how many additional things the company has to do or promise," he said.
Lochbaum isn't confident the anti-plant public relations blitz will be effective. The NRC has never rejected a plant renewal application. But NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the high-profile of Indian Point is raising public awareness. And it's the public, ultimately, that could hold the key to Indian Point's future.

Nukes, coal create energy roadblock

Nukes, coal create energy roadblock
By YANCEY ROY ALBANY BUREAU Journal News
(Original publication: June 5, 2007)
ALBANY - State rules regarding power plants expired four years ago - and the issue has been deadlocked since.
Yesterday, rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats experienced first-hand why it's been so tough to find a middle ground.
The setting was a conference committee meant to hash out differences over a proposal to streamline energy regulations. But after easily agreeing to some basic goals, they hit a roadblock on whether to allow nuclear plants and every variety of coal plant to qualify for fast-track approval.
Senate Republicans insisted that the new law be "technology neutral." That is, any power source could qualify as long as it meets existing pollution standards.
Democrats who control the Assembly say they don't want to include nuclear power because the federal-approval process for such plants effectively supersedes state rules. They also want to strictly limit what type of coal plant qualifies.
Back and forth they went until they hit this point:
"What other topics do you want to discuss since we're not getting anywhere on coal or (energy) diversity?" asked Assembly Energy Committee Chairman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam, Montgomery County.
"Maybe it's best we call it a day," replied his counterpart, Sen. James Wright, R-Watertown, Jefferson County.
At issue is Article 10, a power-plant siting law that expired in 2003. Because of the gridlock, just a small amount of power supply has been added to the grid while demand has climbed. Gov. Eliot Spitzer has made Article 10 a key component of his energy strategy and of his plans he says will help the upstate economy. High energy costs frequently have been cited as reason the economy has lagged.
The governor also has called for allocating $295 million for "clean," renewable power projects - especially wind - and for reducing electricity consumption 15 percent by 2015.
Spitzer has put himself between environmental groups and energy groups on coal, by saying that one type of production process (gasification) meets the criteria for "clean coal" and, therefore, fast-track status. Power producers and Senate Republicans want a broader definition. Some environmental groups don't think any type of coal production should qualify.
"Shouldn't you incentivize the technologies that have the most benefits to the state?" said Jason Babbie of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "By opening the gates to any and all technologies, you don't know what you're going to get."

Riverkeeper Calls on NRC to Reject Entergy's Application for 20-Year Extension

Will NRC Do the Right Thing?

6-4-07 Riverkeeper Calls on NRC to Reject Entergy's Application for 20-Year Extension
FROM: RIVERKEEPERContact: Renee Cho, Riverkeeper914-478-4501 x 239 For Immediate Release 6-4-2007
RIVERKEEPER CALLS ON NRC TO REJECT ENTERGY’S APPLICATION FOR TWENTY-YEAR LICENSE EXTENSION OF INDIAN POINT***Entergy Application Ignores Annual Killing of Over 1 Billion Hudson River Fish***Entergy’s Environmental Report Ignores Critical Facts about Indian Point Radioactive Leaks(Tarrytown, NY) Today Riverkeeper formally called on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject Entergy Nuclear Northeast’s relicensing application for the two nuclear reactors at the Indian Point nuclear power facility located in Buchanan, New York. The application, submitted on April 30, 2007, is currently under review by the NRC. Federal regulations under the Atomic Energy Act require that the application be “complete and accurate in all material respects.” Riverkeeper staff attorneys have identified numerous inaccuracies and omissions in Entergy’s bid for twenty-year license extensions, including a failure to address impacts on the Hudson River fisheries and a deeply flawed analysis of the radioactive leak discovered in August 2005 that is contaminating the groundwater. “It’s quite apparent why a multi-billion dollar corporation would want to cover-up the tremendous impacts its operations have on the environment when seeking an additional twenty-years of solid profits from two polluting reactors,” stated Lisa Rainwater, Indian Point Campaign director. “However, no reason exists for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to accept an application fraught with errors and half-truths. Entergy’s failure to address Indian Point’s ongoing destruction of the Hudson River fisheries and a radioactive leak that is poisoning the groundwater renders the application incomplete. The application must be rejected. Period.” Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the applicant is required to prepare an Environmental Report to address the impacts and any adverse effects on the environment, and the reasonable alternatives available. The applicant’s assessment of future environmental impacts must be objective, and include even “adverse information.” In the application, Entergy maintains that the continued use of once-through cooling systems for Indian Point will “ensure that entrainment [of Hudson River fish, eggs, and larvae] will remain small,” despite overwhelming evidence from Federal and State reports documenting the tremendous environmental impacts of this out-dated technology. In 2003 the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a draft permit that recognized Entergy’s current method of withdrawing 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water per day was in violation of the Clean Water Act and stipulated that a closed-cycle cooling system would need to be installed, should the plant receive a twenty-year license extension, in order to mitigate an additional twenty years of fishkills. “Entergy essentially ignores that each year Indian Point causes the mortality of more than a billion fish,” noted Victor Tafur, Riverkeeper staff attorney. “They fail to evaluate current specific information prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regarding the facility’s impacts on aquatic resources. The NRC needs to take this into account during the relicensing process.” NEPA also requires that applicants address “New and Significant Information” in the Environmental Report. Since at least August 2005, radioactive leaks from spent fuel pools for all three Indian Point reactors have contributed to a massive contamination of the underlying groundwater. To-date neither the NRC nor Entergy has been able to conclusively determine the sources of the leaks, the longevity of the leaks, nor the full contamination of the site. Entergy’s analysis of the potential environmental impacts of these leaks in the application’s Environmental Report are unsupported by the facts and at odds with the current positions of both New York State and NRC Staff involved in the ongoing groundwater leak investigation. In addition, the Environmental Report fails to address potential contamination of Hudson River fish from strontium-90, one of the radioactive isotopes identified in samples taken at the plant and detected in four of twelve Hudson River fish in a preliminary analysis.Riverkeeper staff attorney Phillip Musegaas concluded, “Entergy’s license renewal application for Indian Point is a textbook example of cherry-picking facts and data to support Entergy’s astonishing assertion that the operation of Indian Point does not cause severe environmental impacts. Whoever drafted it conveniently forgot to include the most current data from New York State and the NRC regarding the impacts of once through cooling and the unresolved problems of Indian Point’s leaking spent fuel pools. The NRC must send this back to Entergy with a message: Stop wasting our time and give us an application that describes the true impacts of Indian Point on the environment.”Riverkeeper’s letter to the NRC can be viewed at: http://riverkeeper.org/dyn-content/documents/951466448464c9ba.pdfThe publicly available version of Entergy’s license renewal application, including the Environmental Report, can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/indian-point.html, last accessed May 30, 2007.

Indian Point siren testing runs until mid-June

Indian Point siren testing runs until mid-June
By ERIC TOBEYTHE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 5, 2007)
Indian Point will test emergency sirens until the middle of the month, part of an effort to install a new $15 million notification system for the nuclear plant.
The testing, which began yesterday and will continue until June 15, will be done on 20 of the 150 new sirens in the 10-mile evacuation zone around the plant that includes Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Orange counties.
"The tests are for gathering data on the volume of individual sirens," said Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point. "We want to verify that the sirens are working as designed."
The company is working to install the new system no later than Aug. 24, after missing a second deadline in April that cost Entergy $130,000 in federal fines.
Residents within hearing distance of each siren test will be notified of the full-volume soundings before by a recorded telephone message. No action by the public is required.
In the event of a real emergency, the sirens are used to alert residents to tune into the local radio or TV stations for more information. The new sound of the siren is a consistent, unwavering loud tone, according to Entergy.
Tests will be done generally at 9 a.m., noon or 3 p.m. There also might be more than one sounding of each siren.
For specific locations and dates of each test, log onto www.safesecurevital.com.

NRC schedules first Indian Point license renewal meeting

NRC schedules first Indian Point license renewal meeting

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting to discuss the license renewal process for the Indian Point nuclear power plant on Wednesday, June 27, at Colonial Terrace in Cortlandt Manor, NY.
There will be two sessions, from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. NRC staff will be available for individual discussions prior to and during the meetings, from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The NRC received an application from Entergy, dated April 23, for the renewal of the operating licenses for an additional 20 years for IPEC.
The purpose of the meeting is to maximize discussion with the public to ensure their issues and concerns may be presented, understood and considered by the NRC.
A second meeting, concerning environmental scoping, will be held at a later date.