Emergency Planning Issues & the Relicensing of Indian Point

6/1/07

Emergency Planning Issues & the Relicensing of Indian Point

Emergency Planning Issues & the Relicensing of Indian Point

Current Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relicensing criteria do not take into account changes in population density, infrastructure, security risks, and the onsite storage of high-level radioactive waste accumulating at nuclear plants. A bi-partisan coalition of U.S. Representatives including John Hall (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Nita Lowey (D-NY), and Christopher Shays (R-CT) has introduced legislation that would require the NRC to address emergency planning issues at Indian Point before a decision is made to grant a twenty-year license extension.

Tell the NRC that emergency planning issues need to be addressed in Indian Point's relicensing process.

On April 30, 2007 Entergy submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to extend Indian Point's operating licenses for another twenty years. The two reactors are over thirty years old. As their safety problems continue to escalate, there is still no workable emergency evacuation plan for 300,000 residents living within the 10-mile radius of Indian Point and no evacuation plan for those living outside the 10-mile radius, including over 8.5 million NYC residents. Currently, the NRC does not take emergency planning issues, increases in population density, and infrastructure into consideration when determining whether a nuclear power plant should be relicensed.

The NRC is failing the public by not taking the findings of the Witt Report into serious consideration in determining whether Indian Point should operate for an additional 20 years. Let them know you want Witt’s concerns addressed before it’s too late! Riverkeeper will hand-deliver a copy of your letter to the NRC at the July 2007 public meeting on Indian Point’s relicensing application.

Congress Takes Action
On May 3, 2007 Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) introduced the Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act of 2007. Joined by Congressman John Hall (D-NY) and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Lowey's legislation would require the NRC to consider security vulnerabilities as well as the viability of evacuation plans for the population living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant. It would also require that any license renewal meet the same criteria an initial application would have to meet.

Specifically, it would:

• Make clear that any licensing, including initial licensing, must include a determination that the facility does not pose an unreasonable threat to persons or the environment because of safety or security vulnerabilities, including vulnerability to terrorist attacks;
• Require that there exist adequate evacuation plans for emergency events and that those plans have been approved by the relevant Federal agencies and States within 50 miles of the facility;
• Require that any renewed license must meet the same criteria and requirements that would be applicable for an original application for initial construction; and
• Require the NRC to determine that any changes in the size or distribution of the surrounding population have not resulted in the facility being located at a site at which a new facility would not be allowed to be built.

Congresswoman Lowey originally introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress.

Take Action

Click here to send a fax to Chairman Dale Klein of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, requesting that the NRC in the relicensing process for Indian Point, provide the public and elected officials with a comprehensive, detailed response to all of Witt's findings as called for in federal legislation proposed in the U.S. House (649) sponsored by Representatives Hall, Hinchey, Lowey, Engel, and Shays, and U.S. Senate (994) sponsored by Senators Clinton and Schumer. This legislation is also supported by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

For more information on Riverkeeper’s Indian Point Campaign, visit http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/indian_point or click on title of this post

Fair Use Notice / Copyrights

Fair Use Notice This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Ten Reasons To Say No To Nuclear Power

1. Climate change is underway. Renewable energy can be brought online faster, more cheaply and more safely than nuclear power. 2. Reactors are sitting-duck targets and are not even defended to the ferocity of the 9/11 attacks. 3. Nuclear power is not emissions-free. Reactors routinely release radioactivity and use fossil fuels at every step from uranium mining to waste storage. 4. Building more reactors in the U.S. sends the wrong message abroad. Commercial nuclear technology inevitably leads to nuclear weapons capability. 5. The Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive dump is unsound and even if opened could not accommodate all wastes if generation continues. 6. Evacuation plans are unrealistic. Hurricane Katrina taught us that a mass evacuation during a serious radiological release would be a chaotic catastrophe. 7. A typical 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces enough plutonium each year to make 40 atomic bombs, an unacceptable risk. 8. New and old reactors are most prone to break down. U.S. reactors are old. New ones increase the risk of accident. 9. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission—mandated to watchdog the nuclear industry – chooses to protect industry profit over public health and safety. 10. The most defenseless are at the greatest risk—children, the elderly, minorities, the poor and animals—at every phase of the nuclear fuel chain. Ten Brighter Ideas 1. If every U.S. household installed one compact fluorescent light bulb, the power savings would equal the power produced by one nuclear reactor. 1=1! 2. Twenty compact fluorescents in every U.S. home could displace at least 25% of U.S. nuclear reactors. 3. Updated lighting, appliances, heating, cooling and other electrical systems can save more energy than all 103 U.S. reactors produce annually. 4. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures for homes and businesses can save at least 20% of electricity use. 5. Turning off and unplugging electrical equipment not in use and line-drying clothes seem like small measures but can make a big difference. 6. Homeowners and renters alike can choose to buy green power instead of nuclear generated electricity. 7. Properly sealing and insulating your home can save 25%-40% of building heat loss. 8. Renewable energy sources can meet 25% of U.S. energy needs by 2025. 9. Shifting to locally-generated electricity avoids waste, reduces brownouts and blackouts, increases efficiency of service and creates jobs. 10. Every dollar spent on nuclear power instead of fossil fuels results in releasing six times more carbon than if the same dollar is spent on efficiency. www.nirs.org 301.270.6477

"The No Nuker" - where No Nukes is good news !

6/1/07