ML082520095

Lr Hearing - FW: Editorial on Indian Point

ML082520095
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/04/2008
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML082520095 (3)

Text

IPRenewal NPEmails From: Dennis Logan Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:50 AM To: Andrew Stuyvenberg

Subject:

FW: Editorial on Indian Point FYI: Editorial from the Times at the bottom of this e-mail. -Dennis From: Ward, Jeffrey A [ja.ward@pnl.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:43 PM To: Cullinan, Valerie; Dennis Logan

Subject:

FW: Editorial on Indian Point Jeffrey A. Ward Senior Research Scientist Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory 1529 West Sequim Bay Road Sequim, WA 98382 p: 360 681-3669 f: 360 681-4559 c: 360 461-9604 From: Vail, Lance W Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:41 PM To: Ward, Jeffrey A

Subject:

FW: Editorial on Indian Point Lance W Vail Sr. Research Engineer Hydrology Group Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 902 Battelle Blvd P.O. Box 999, MSIN K9-33 Richland, WA 99352 Tel: 509-372-6237 Fax: 509-372-6089 lance.vail@pnl.gov www.pnl.gov<file://www.pnl.gov>

From: Traub, Terri L Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:24 PM To: Vail, Lance W

Subject:

Editorial on Indian Point 1

FYI...

New York Times nytimes.com August 29, 2008 Editorial Fish to the Slaughter The Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y., has a long history of problems, including radioactive water leaking from its aging fuel pools and emergency sirens that regularly fail in tests. About a billion fish are also killed each year when the plant sucks water from the Hudson River to cool its enormous condensers.

Environmental organizations like Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson have raised the alarm about this for years.

Indian Points owner, Entergy, has clung to archaic technology that pumps up billions of gallons of water a day, runs it once through the plant and back into the river. Little fish and fish eggs go through the cycle, get overheated and die.

Add to them the fish trapped against the plants water-intake screens and you have an ongoing and totally avoidable environmental calamity.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation declared this month that fish deaths at Indian Point were excessive and that Entergy should replace its cooling system with the best technology available closed-cycle towers that would use the same water over and over and reduce the deaths of fish by about 95 percent.

This is consistent with the letter and spirit of the federal Clean Water Act, which requires industrial polluters to take reasonable steps to avoid environmental damage. The ruling was a welcome rebuke to Entergy, which has dismissed the seriousness of the problem, even as it spends lavishly on advertising to promote Indian Points image as safe and environmentally friendly.

Federal and state agencies declared as long ago as the 1970s that closed-cycle cooling was the right technology for plants like Indian Point. Entergy says the towers would cost about $740 million to build.

Riverkeeper says it would be $200 million. A lawsuit that could clarify the cost issue is headed to the United States Supreme Court.

Entergy is eager to renew its reactor licenses, which expire in 2013 and 2015. That means that regulatory agencies can require the company to do the right thing. The power that Indian Point generates for businesses and homeowners cannot easily be replaced. Yet those same citizens deserve a plant that is safe and environmentally sound. Regulators must ensure that it is both.

2

Hearing Identifier: IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number: 276 Mail Envelope Properties (1FA53ADF29758448974A8AC1118E627E735929A8C2)

Subject:

FW: Editorial on Indian Point Sent Date: 9/4/2008 7:50:22 AM Received Date: 9/4/2008 7:50:22 AM From: Dennis Logan Created By: Dennis.Logan@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Andrew Stuyvenberg" <Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3505 9/4/2008 7:50:22 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: