The Empire Page

Background: Last month Attorney General Schneiderman petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to amend its regulations with regard to relicensing nuclear power plants and followed that up by petitioning the NRC to take action against the Indian Point Nuclear Facility for failing to comply with fire safety regulations.   Both Scheiderman and Governor Andrew Cuomo have been critical of Indian Point in the past.  The Empire Page sought to learn more about the Indian Point facility, which its owner, Entergry Corp. is seeking to have relicensed by talking to John Durso, Jr, executive director of New York Affordable Reliable Electricty Alliance (AREA-Alliance).

Empire Page:  John.  Let's get down to brass tacks.  The public's level of concern about nuclear energy has been heightened by what happened in Japan.   Are they right to be concerned about Indian Point?  Could what happened in Japan happen here?

John Durso: I would begin by assuring your readers that Indian Point was, is and will continue to be a safe facility.  Period.

Indian Point has received the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s highest safety rating – green - for the past six years due to the facility’s commitment to safety and security.  The federal regulators and independent experts have both recommended that Indian Point be relicensed for an additional 20 years due to the facility’s superior culture of safety.  Additionally, the owners of Indian Point – Entergy – are in the midst of investing more than that half of a billion dollars to ensure that Indian Point’s operations and infrastructure are world class. 

The tragedy in Japan and the ensuing investigation will undoubtedly result in new lessons that the nuclear industry will implement, making nuclear facilities across the nation even safer.  However, it is important to also note that in more than 50 years of commercial nuclear plant operation, not one person has died as a result of radiological exposure.  In fact, a Columbia University study of 53,000 workers in the nuclear power industry found they live longer and have lower cancer rates than the rest of us. 

Finally, it is important to note that the tragedy in Japan was not caused by the earthquake itself, but by the ensuing tsunami disabling the facility’s back-up generators.  The differences between Fukushima and Indian Point are profound.  Fukushima is located on the ocean; Indian Point is more than 30 miles inland and on a river.  Fukushima was located on the coast; Indian Point is on bedrock more than 30 feet above the Hudson River.  Fukushima’s backup generation was not prepared to withstand flooding.  Indian Point is located more than 15 feet above the maximum flood stage of the Hudson River, and protected against weather-related catastrophes.

So the bottom line is Indian Point is safe today and will be even safer in the future.”

 

Empire Page:  Martin Virgilio, the NRC's deputy executive director for reactor and preparedness programs, recently told members of a House committee that the NRC is considering expanding the evacuation zone for Indian Point.  Explain the implications were the evacuation zone to be expanded and does your organization support a change from the current zone?

John Durso: Comparisons between Indian Point and Fukushima are apples and oranges.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is already on record noting that there is no nuclear facility in America which is the size of Fukushima and subject to an evacuation zone even remotely similar to what we have seen in Japan. 

As Japan continues to recover, lessons will undoubtedly be learned in a multitude of areas.  As part of a culture that is continuously learning and improving itself, the United States nuclear industry will continue to successfully enhance the safety of its facilities, employees and the communities they serve.

There is sound science for the current 10 mile zone, which resulted from the interagency federal panel following Three Mile Island.    Emergency planners continue to be in touch with the NRC, FEMA and other key regulators on a daily basis to ensure that the surrounding communities are completely protected.  

On the issue of Indian Point specifically, I’d note that their re-licensing process is the most exhaustive in NRC history, and that federal regulators have recommended that the facility be relicensed based on their extensive safety review. 

In 2009, the NRC devoted more than 11,000 hours to inspection and related activities at Indian Point. Federal regulators are also permanently assigned to the site, responsible for investigating and reporting any issue of any size that may occur at the site.  And despite this unprecedented scrutiny, Indian Point continues to earn the highest marks from safety offered by the federal government.

Many of New York AREA’s members are proud members of organized labor.  Those who have worked at the plant and later oversaw teams who worked there have told me time and time again that if they ever even suspected an issue related to safety, they would never allowed their union brothers and sisters to report to work. 

Safety assessments and questions related to a very unlikely evacuation should be left to regulators and public safety experts – and not to politicians.

 

Empire Page: Attorney General Schneiderman is raising an alarm about the issue of storage of spent nuclear fuel on the site as a safety issue.  Shouldn't that be dealt with prior to relicensing of the plant?

John Durso: Indian Point’s spent fuel pools and dry cask storage are safe and will be continuously and intently scrutinized until they move to a permanent federal repository. 

To ensure the day to day safety operations of nuclear power plants in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has permanent, on-site personnel at each of the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants to inspect and verify the safe operation of nuclear power plants. Every year, nuclear power plants are evaluated by the NRC, providing a regular public assessment of the facility. Ongoing review includes the storage of spent fuel at the plant facility.

It is important that the public know that in addition the exhaustive relicensing review, the operational integrity and safety of spent fuel storage is a matter for annual review by the NRC.

Further, dry cask storage is a state-of-the-art technology which will soon be in use by approximately half of all nuclear facilities across the U.S.  Each dry cask weighs over 180 tons and these large, air tight and steel-reinforced containers have been tested and remained completely intact even after missile explosions.   They allow for previously-cooled spent fuel to be securely stored on site for decades, and  are closely monitored 24/7. 

All of that said, federal leadership is needed to implement a reasonable, long-term solution for the spent fuel already stored on-site at nuclear facilities across the nation.   Federal law previously required the U.S. Department of Energy to remove spent fuel from their current sites more than a decade ago, but the lack of a permanent repository impeded this effort – and led to greater use of on-site, dry cask technology. 

Prospects for long-term storage continue to remain unclear.  Politics led to the demise of Yucca Mountain, eliminating a workable, long-term solution.  As a result, we are back to square one.  Following the French model and implementing a national reprocessing effort may be one such future option should Yucca fail to be revived in the future.

While facilities such as Indian Point can continue to store spent fuel on-site in a safe and highly secure manner for decades to come, the reality is that federal leadership is crucial for implementing a long-term solution.“

 

Empire Page: Attorney General Schneiderman is also focusing on the issue of storage of spent nuclear fuel on the site as a safety issue.  Shouldn't that be dealt with prior to relicensing of the plant?

John Durso: Indian Point’s spent fuel pools and dry cask storage are safe and will be continuously and intently scrutinized until they move to a permanent federal repository. 

To ensure the day to day safety operations of nuclear power plants in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has permanent, on-site personnel at each of the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants to inspect and verify the safe operation of nuclear power plants. Every year, nuclear power plants are evaluated by the NRC, providing a regular public assessment of the facility. Ongoing review includes the storage of spent fuel at the plant facility.

It is important that the public know that in addition the exhaustive relicensing review, the operational integrity and safety of spent fuel storage is a matter for annual review by the NRC.

Further, dry cask storage is a state-of-the-art technology which will soon be in use by approximately half of all nuclear facilities across the U.S.  Each dry cask weighs over 180 tons and these large, air tight and steel-reinforced containers have been tested and remained completely intact even after missile explosions.   They allow for previously-cooled spent fuel to be securely stored on site for decades, and  are closely monitored 24/7. 

All of that said, federal leadership is needed to implement a reasonable, long-term solution for the spent fuel already stored on-site at nuclear facilities across the nation.   Federal law previously required the U.S. Department of Energy to remove spent fuel from their current sites more than a decade ago, but the lack of a permanent repository impeded this effort – and led to greater use of on-site, dry cask technology. 

Prospects for long-term storage continue to remain unclear.  Politics led to the demise of Yucca Mountain, eliminating a workable, long-term solution.  As a result, we are back to square one.  Following the French model and implementing a national reprocessing effort may be one such future option should Yucca fail to be revived in the future.

While facilities such as Indian Point can continue to store spent fuel on-site in a safe and highly secure manner for decades to come, the reality is that federal leadership is crucial for implementing a long-term solution.

 

Empire Page: AG Schneiderman specifically states Indian Point 'has not installed required fire detectors or fire suppression systems," "has not strengthened electrical cables to withstand fire damage" and is relying on having employees "perform series of complex manual actions" rather than install "automatic response systems".  Has the NRC been lax in requiring Indian Point to address these issues?

John Durso: I’d emphasize that Indian Point is already the most scrutinized nuclear facility in the nation, with more than 11,000 hours of federal inspection having already taking place at the facility as part of Indian Point’s current license renewal application. 

Federal inspectors are permanently assigned to the facility, responsible for investigating any complaint, issue or concern immediately.  And if that wasn’t – or isn’t enough, in 2008 a panel of highly renowned, independent experts also evaluated 64 safety issues at Indian Point, and reaffirmed that the plant is safe. 

Make no mistake about it, Indian Point was, is and will continue to be a safe facility.

 

Empire Page: One of the issues many business raise across New York State these days is the cost of energy.  What would happen to energy supply and prices if Indian Point's license was not renewed?

John Durso: It’s hard not to overstate the impact of Indian Point on New York’s power supply – and New York’s economy.

In terms of supply, let’s start with the basics. The more than 2,000 megawatts of clean, safe, baseload power produced by Indian Point accounts for 12% of New York State’s total electricity supply.  It also powers up to a quarter of the total electricity consumed by downstate New York, and up to a third of the power consumed in New York City alone. 

With no viable replacement option available to replace Indian Point and no power plant siting law on the books in New York, no wonder why the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO), the operator of New York’s grid, has repeatedly issued terse warnings against the closure of Indian Point.  As they state, such an action would degrade the grid while leading to a violation of reliability standards.  

If this isn’t bad enough, let’s also look at the impact Indian Point has on the downstate economy.  In 2008, the Westchester Business Alliance conducted a study on the economic impact of Indian Point.  They found that that Indian Point alone is responsible for more than 11,000 regional jobs, more than $2 billion in annual wages and more than $5 billion in annual economic impact. 

And for small businesses trying to keep their businesses afloat and working families as they continue to try and make ends meet, they would be dismayed to learn that the same study found that closing Indian Point would raise electric rates as much as 150% in the Lower Hudson Valley, while impacting rates statewide as well.