|
---|
Category:Legal-Pre-Filed Exhibits
MONTHYEARML16081A3252016-03-21021 March 2016 NRCR12001 - NRC Staff Prefiled Hearing Exhibit List (Revised) ML16078A4172016-03-18018 March 2016 ENTR20726 - Entergy Track 2 Exhibit List ML16078A4122016-03-18018 March 2016 NRC000236 - Crack Growth Rate Comparison - Eason Pathania Model to MRP Model- Excel Spreadsheet ML16078A4132016-03-18018 March 2016 NRCR11001 - Exhibt List NRC Staff Prefiled Hearing Exhibit List (Revised) ML15321A0352015-11-17017 November 2015 NYS000582 - Diagram of Strength Vs Amplitude by Dr. Richard T. Lahey ML15315A0132015-11-11011 November 2015 ENTR00726 - Track 2 Hearing Exhibit List ML15309A1292015-11-0505 November 2015 ENT000726 - Entergy Track 2 Hearing Exhibit List ML15309A1712015-11-0505 November 2015 RIVR14001 - Riverkeeper Tailored Track 2 Exhibit List ML15309A2212015-11-0505 November 2015 NRCR10001 - NRC Staff Track 2 Exhibit List ML15309A1552015-11-0404 November 2015 NYSR25001 - NYS Revised Tailored Exhibits List Relevant to Track 2 Contentions ML15313A4602015-11-0404 November 2015 NYSR25001 - Corrected Page 24 to Exhibits List Relevant to Track 2 Contentions ML15307A1152015-11-0303 November 2015 NYSR24001 - State of Ny Revised Hearing Exhibits List ML15307A8112015-11-0303 November 2015 NRC000230 - Corrections to Prefiled Testimony NRC000168 and NRC000197 ML15302A4672015-10-29029 October 2015 ENTR16001 - Entergy Revised Exhibit List ML15252A4442015-09-0909 September 2015 NYS000563 - Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Systems, USNRC Technical Training Center, Reactor Concepts Manual, Pages 4-1 to 4-28 ML15252A4432015-09-0909 September 2015 NYS000566 - Figure 1 for Supplemental Reply Testimony of Dr. Richard T. Lahey ML15252A5042015-09-0909 September 2015 NYS000568 - Supplemental Reply Statement of Position of the State of New York in Support of Contention NYS-25 (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15252A5062015-09-0909 September 2015 NYS000570 - Supplemental Reply Statement of Position of the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Contention NYS-26B/RK-TC-1B (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15252A5092015-09-0909 September 2015 RIV000164 - NUREG-1740, ACRS, Voltage-Based Alternative Repair Criteria: a Report to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on a Differing Professional Opinion (2001) ML15252A5112015-09-0909 September 2015 RIVR13001 - Riverkeeper Updated Exhibit List ML15252A5752015-09-0909 September 2015 NYS000573 - Supplemental Reply Statement of Position of the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Contention NYS-38/RK-TC-5 (Public, Redacted) (September 9, 2015) ML15252A5792015-09-0909 September 2015 NYS Updated Exhibit List ML15261A8302015-09-0404 September 2015 ENTR00615 - Entergy'S Statement of Position Re Contention NYS-25 (Embrittlement) - Redacted ML15222A9152015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000648 - M. Mitchell, Chief, Vessels and Internals Integrity Branch, Response to Non-Concurrence Regarding Safety Evaluation for Topical Report MRP-227, Pressurized Water Reactor Internals Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines (Undated) ML15223A4512015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000206 - Indian Point, Unit 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Ufsar), Rev. 25, Chapter 14 - Safety Analysis (2014) ML15223A4542015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000207 - Regulatory Information Conference Presentation Slides, Recent Materials Inspections of PWR Reactor Internals (Mar. 2015) ML15223A4502015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000205 - Indian Point, Unit 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Ufsar), Rev. 25, Chapter 3 - Reactor (2014) ML15223A3932015-08-10010 August 2015 NRCR00104 - on Yee Statement of Professional Qualifications (Revised) ML15223A3912015-08-10010 August 2015 NRCR00105 - Ching Ng Statement of Professional Qualifications (Revised) ML15222A8212015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000617 - Curriculum Vitae of Timothy J. Griesbach ML15223A6712015-08-10010 August 2015 NRCR00147- NRC Staff'S Revised Statement of Position on State of New York and Riverkeeper'S Joint Contention NYS-38/RK-TC5 (Revised) ML15223A6752015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000227 - Gary Stevens Statement of Professional Qualifications ML15222A8222015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000618 - Curriculum Vitae of Randy G. Lott ML15223A7022015-08-10010 August 2015 NRCR900001 - NRC Staff Pre-filed Hearing Exhibit List (Revised) ML15222A8252015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000629 - Letter from C. Grimes, NRC, to D. Walters, NEI, License Renewal Issue No. 98-0030 Thermal Aging Embrittlement of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Components (May 19, 2000) ML15222A8302015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000634 - Entergy, IP2, FSAR Update, Revision 25 (2014) (Excerpts) ML15223A7792015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000224 - IP3 FSAR Rev. 04 Chapter 16 ML15223A7812015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000226 - Jeffrey C. Poehler Statement of Professional Qualifications ML15223A7832015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000228 - Indian Point Unit 2 Technical Specifications 3.1.4 ML15223A7852015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000229 - Indian Point, Unit 3 Technical Specifications 3.1.4 ML15223A7872015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000196 - NRC Staff'S Initial Statement of Position on Contention NYS-25 (Reactor Vessel Internals) ML15223A3872015-08-10010 August 2015 NRCR00118 - Indian Point Unit 3 Technical Specifications (Excerpt) (Revised) ML15222A8352015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000621 - Westinghouse, WCAP-17894-NP, Rev. 0, Component Inspection Details Supporting Aging Management of Reactor Internals at Indian Point Unit 2 (Sept. 2014) ML15223A8052015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000169 - Indian Point, Unit 2 Technical Specifications (Excerpt) ML15223A9452015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000223 - IP3 FSAR Rev. 04 Chapter 14 (2011) ML15223A3862015-08-10010 August 2015 NRC000222 - IP3 FSAR Rev. 04 Chapter 3 (2011) (Excerpt) ML15222B1242015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000680 - Curriculum Vitae of Barry M. Gordon ML15222B1262015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000687 - NRC, Safety Evaluation Report, Topical Report on ASME Section III Piping and Component Fatigue Analysis Utilizing the Westems Computer Code (WCAP-17577, Revision 2) (Undated) ML15222B1612015-08-10010 August 2015 ENTR00186 - Curriculum Vitae of Mark A. Gray ML15222A8482015-08-10010 August 2015 ENT000637 - NUREG-1874, Recommended Screening Limits for Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) (March 2010) 2016-03-21
[Table view] |
Text
NYS000286 Submitted: December 21, 2011 Is Indian Point the Next Fukushima? - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/opinion/is-indian-point-the-next-fuk...
Reprints This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
December 16, 2011 By VICTOR GILINSKY Santa Monica, Calif.
NINE months after an earthquake and tsunami destroyed the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan and set off the worlds worst radiation crisis since Chernobyl, the Japanese government finally announced on Friday that the plants reactors had been stabilized.
But federal regulators have yet to absorb the lessons from this crisis. The owners of the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester County, 25 miles north of New York City, are asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend their operating licenses for 20 years. Gov. Andrew M.
Cuomo strongly opposes those renewals.
However unlikely, the possibility of a major meltdown at a plant in the United States cant be dismissed. And yet Gregory B. Jaczko, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told Bloomberg last week that there would be enough time for millions of people in the region to get away because nuclear accidents do develop slowly, they do develop over time, and we saw that at Fukushima.
But even if that were true, many might never be able to return. Some 160,000 Japanese are still displaced because the radioactive contamination in an area far less populated and less dense than the New York area was so intense and far-reaching. The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions cost-benefit analyses for Indian Point and other nuclear plants in the United States do not factor in these possibilities. The consequences of land contamination should be weighed in any decision to re-license the plants two reactors, which are up for renewal in 2013 and 2015.
The reason the contamination is so long-lasting is that Cesium 137, the most dangerous isotope released in a severe accident, has a half-life of 30 years. A contaminated area one that was, say, four times above the maximum permissible post-accident radiation level for human habitation would stay above that level for nearly a human lifetime.
The standard for a mandatory evacuation at Fukushima was set at about 20 times the maximum radiation level allowed for normal operation. That is not a life-threatening level, but it is high enough that the International Commission on Radiation Protection warns against year-round human habitation.
1 of 3 12/17/2011 9:00 AM
Is Indian Point the Next Fukushima? - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/opinion/is-indian-point-the-next-fuk...
Hundreds of square miles around Chernobyl, site of a meltdown in 1986, are still off-limits. The Japanese evacuated a comparable area northwest of the Fukushima site. Its not practical to decontaminate an area that large, and few people are going to want to live there even if they are allowed to.
Dr. Jaczko said it was unlikely that a nuclear accident would require prompt action beyond more than a few miles. That might be correct in terms of avoiding immediate health effects from radiation (though after Fukushima, he advised United States citizens in Japan to stay at least 50 miles away from the reactors). But his remark does not begin to capture the human and economic devastation in Japan. At Fukushima, some areas more than 25 miles from the reactors were contaminated beyond the mandatory evacuation level.
The lack of attention to possible land contamination is a major gap in the American system of nuclear safety regulation. After Fukushima, it should be the main safety concern and one that is not addressed by evacuation, no matter how efficient.
A severe accident at Indian Point, whose two reactors opened in 1974 and 1976, is a remote but real possibility. Weve had two severe accidents with large releases of radioactivity in the past. The Chernobyl accident was dismissed in Western countries on the grounds that it was the product of Soviet sloppiness and couldnt happen here. But the Fukushima accident involved reactors built to American designs.
The essential characteristic of this technology is that the reactors uranium fuel about 100 tons in a typical plant melts quickly without cooling water. The containment structures surrounding the reactors even the formidable-looking domes at Indian Point were not designed to hold melted fuel because safety regulators 40 years ago considered a meltdown impossible.
They were wrong, and we now know that radioactive material in the melted fuel can escape to contaminate a very large area for decades or more. It doesnt make sense to allow such a threat to persist a half-hours drive from our nations largest city.
Victor Gilinsky, an energy consultant, was a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1975 to 1984.
2 of 3 12/17/2011 9:00 AM
Is Indian Point the Next Fukushima? - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/opinion/is-indian-point-the-next-fuk...
3 of 3 12/17/2011 9:00 AM