After the recent blast, how confident are you in Indian Point's safety, Entergy's transparency or the workability of the evacuation plan? (Poll Closed)

  • I never think about Indian Point. I'm sure it's safe. And if it's not, there's not much I can do.
    2%
    143 votes

     
  • I wasn't worried before, but I am now. Maybe we should go slow on this relicensing.
    4%
    284 votes

     
  • As worried as ever. There's no way to evacuate if the worst happens, and who knows what Entergy's not telling us?
    53%
    4,018 votes

     
  • Fully confident, as ever. The blast illustrated that the reactors are well-protected and that Entergy knows how to respond in an emergency.
    41%
    3,085 votes

     

Create your own.

Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.com

27 Comments

  • Greg G. - 5 years ago

    Keep in mind folks -- even if power from IP is considered "mostly surplus" -- as soon as the surplus is eliminated, your power rates will go up. Why? Because the utilities can no longer count on revenues from the sale of said surplus to offset their operating costs, and they will pass the cost of those lost revenues along to their rate payers. If you think you pay too much for power now, just wait until the surplus is gone. The same holds true for any other utility.

    Also, keep in mind that the nuclear fuel from a shut down power plant will remain at the site for many years to come -- even after you no longer see the plant structure anymore (thinking spent fuel casks that remain onsite until a disposition pathway is approved). Nope -- the fuel isn't going anywhere soon, so you'll have risk with no benefit. So much for eliminating the nuclear threat and making life safer...

  • John Giordano - 5 years ago

    Below is a portion of an article form “The Fiscal Times”…..I hope all those opposed to Indian Point and the use of nuclear energy in the US read the entire article and other articles on the future of nuclear energy in both the US and the rest of the world.

    “China, South Korea, India and Russia are also going to be backing away from coal and adding nuclear power in a big way to meet demand. Together, these three countries will increase their nuclear generating capacity by 54 percent over the next 10 years. Their annual demand for uranium will rise to 17,580 tons from 11,390 tons last year, says Wang.
    The United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Poland and Jordan also plan to add plants. The U.S., currently the biggest world producer, with 100 reactors as of last summer, has five plants under construction. Big picture, there are 71 new reactors under construction, 174 planned or on order and 301 proposed, all on top of the 436 reactors in operation worldwide as of last October, according to the World Nuclear Association.”
    You can read the entire article at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/19/Why-New-Age-Nuclear-Energy-About-Dawn
    Note: I stand corrected in my first comment on this article I noted that France generated 47% of it’s power from nuclear energy it is actually 76.9% and they have 58 reactors. With its 66,259,012 people, France is the 21st largest country in the world by population. It is the 43rd largest country in the world by area with 643,801 square kilometers. The US has a population of 318.86 million and an area of 9.83 million km with only 100 reactors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country for a complete list.

  • Carl Lundgren - 5 years ago

    (continued from last comment)
    The point is that the common assertion that IP is indispensable because a) you need to replace MW for MW and b) that it provides 25% of the region's electricity is just plain false. The marketplace has largely replaced it already.

    The recent transformer fire proves indisputably that our grid works just fine without Unit 3 at Indian Point. The reactor went down taking 1,000 MW's off the grid and the only one who had to scramble was the NY Independent System Operator. They responded instantly and no one else even noticed a difference. The lights all stayed on, the subways are running and the air conditioners hum along as needed. And nobody's bill will go up. We have a reserve of power and generators that are eager to sell into our high priced electricity market.

    Please explain this to your local elected officials and help dispel the myth that we need the electricity from Indian Point!

  • Carl Lundgren - 5 years ago

    Entergy and proponents of nuclear power want you to believe that Indian Point is essential to our energy needs when, in fact, we only get at most 5% of our power from IP these days. Whatever your opinion of nuclear power may be and however concerned you are about the health and safety aspects, the truth that will shut down IP for good is that it is no longer economically feasible and is a bad investment for NY State. Here are some facts they don't want you to know:
    IP does not provide 2,000 MW of electricity to NYC/WC.
    IP does not provide 25% of the electricity used in NYC/WC — despite a Sunday story a couple of years ago that said one out of four light bulbs in the area was powered by IP.
    IP provides 560 MW to the area, and sells the rest wherever it can — frequently through the Independent System Operator ISONew England, especially in the winter when New England gas is converted to heating usage.
    The first misconception is to treat IP 2 and IP3 as if they were one unit. They are not and sell electricity independently. In 2000, Con Ed sold IP2 to Entergy with a 7 year contract for 100% of its output. New York Power Authority sold IP3 with the same kind of 7 year deal.

    In 2007,when they renegotiated, both companies opted for reduced amounts. By 2013, when the contracts ended, NYPA was down to just 100 MW and Con Ed was down to 300. When the next contract came up for renewal in 2014 NYPA did not renew, thus making the subways nuclear free. Con Ed renewed for 560 MW's - the only contracted electricity that Entergy sells in our grid.

    Keep in mind — and verify through Con Ed, which transmits ALL the electricity — the peak load in the summer is about 13,000 MW and winter is about 9,000 MW. The record was set July 18, 2013, at 13,260 MW during the height of that summer's heat wave. Try taking 25% of any of those numbers.

    When NYPA's contract expired— at the same time as IP2's license expired — NYPA did NOT renew because they could get reliable electricity from other vendors at lower cost. So there is NO electricity from IP going to NYPA customers — the subways, Metro North, the airports, municipal buildings, public housing, schools, and street lights. Call them to verify this.

    Con Ed renewed its contract for 560 MW. That is the ONLY contract Entergy has for IP. In contrast, in 2008, roughly 90% of the output from IP 2 and 3 were sold under long-term contracts.

    Entergy sells IP's electricity wherever it can. There is no local captive market — that was the whole point of deregulation.

    As a result, when you consider the daily needs, the peak loads, IP provides just 5% of the electricity used in our grid. In a real sense, the free market has worked well and IP is not as competitive as it once was. That is primarily due to the low cost of gas due to fracking and the surge in wind generated electricity in the wholesale market, and distributed generation through increased use of solar panels on homes and offices.

    If you call the ISO they will tell you that the electricity from IP2 is not needed and would not be missed. They also say if BOTH plants suddenly disappeared, there would be a shortfall — over time — of 500 to 700 MW — NOT 2,000. And that can be made up — according to the ISO, not me — by any combination of new power generation, new transmission, and conservation.

    During the recent DEC hearings on a plan to close IP during spawning seasons, Fred Dacimo, IP VP, led off the comments stating that IP generates 25% of the region's electricity.

    The load at 5:25 PM, the time Dacimo was speaking was 10,250 MW. A quarter of that would have been 2,562.5 MW, 562.5 MW's more than IP generates. Further, Con Ed said that they were not buying any electricity from Indian Point or any other generator at the time on the daily market. They were just using the contracted amount and did not need to go to market.

    The point is that the common assertion that IP is indispensable because a) you need to replace MW fo

  • Archbishop Anthony J Bondi - 5 years ago

    Can there be a Citizens Committee of impartial people who represent the interests of the surrounding communities and who can verify that the evacuation plans, safety concerns, and other issues that we have are truly and satisfactorily addressed? If Entergy has nothing to hide this should not be an issue. This would allay the concerns of most of the people in our area. There will always be those who are totally for nuclear energy and those who are totally against it. No amount of verifiable information either way will convince them.

  • Judy - 5 years ago

    Why did the transformer explode? They don't know. They're investigating. Don't hold your breath.
    Why are the spent fuel pools still leaking ten years after the leaks were discovered? Why is that not a problem to be fixed? Because they can't get to them?
    Why would Entergy rather spend millions of dollars on PR and advertising about how clean, safe and vital Indian Point is, instead of spending the same money on closed-cycle cooling to prevent the billions of fish and river life killed every year by the overheated water Entergy continues to discharge daily into the Hudson River?
    Why does homeowners insurance not cover nuclear contamination? (Hint: google Price-Anderson Act)
    Why do people still think Indian Point is necessary to power Westchester and NYC when the New York Power Authority (NYPA) did NOT renew their contract, because they could get reliable electricity from other vendors at lower cost. There is NO electricity from IP powering subways, MetroNorth, the airports, municipal buildings, public housing, schools,and street lights. Con Ed contracted for 560 MW, not the 2,000 that IP produces. The rest is being sold on the open market. New York doesn't need Indian Point. It's all smoke and mirrors created by their very pricey PR firm.
    The recent transformer fire proves indisputably that our grid works just fine without Unit 3 at Indian Point, which is still offline and will continue to be for some time. The reactor went down taking 1,000 MW's off the grid. Did your lights blink? No.
    We can - and should - live better without Indian Point.

  • Joseph Jones - 5 years ago

    First of all folks,
    I work for Entergy. I have been an employee of Entergy for 15 years. Prior to that employment, I was a supplemental employee for many utilities since 1984, supporting refueling outages, and other support as needed. I have glanced (I say glanced because as I began reading your comments, I would immediately stop when I saw the fear mongering) through the comments, and I must say, everyone who is against Nuclear energy is un-informed, and un-educated in Nuclear Power. Those of you who actually have a Nuclear Power plant in "your backyard", have you actually spoke with a current employee of that plant? All the comments on storage and disposal, do you realize the safe storage of Nuclear fuel is and has been taking place for many years? We safely remove and store spent fuel outside our spent fuel pool.

    Someone mentioned Spent Fuel Fire.....this is not the same fuel or reactor as Chernobyl. No fires. Three Mile Island, had no where near the damage as Chernobyl, outside the confines of the Containment Building due to the safety systems in place and the structural integrity of OUR Nuclear plants.

    It just surprises me that a lot of these comments that were made come from people whom actually vote for a President, make decisions on the education of the children in your community, some could be doctors making decisions on your health, some may be CEO's of the companies we invest in.

    Become educated on the facts before you make comments. None of the derogatory comments are true.

  • Loring - 5 years ago

    First I'll say that I don't live near indian point but there is a nuclear plan within 100 miles of my home.
    I am an electrical engineer, very concerned with effects of technology. I do have osme concerns about nuclear power but in this case I think the fears are overblown.

    The part that failed (transformer) is clerly stated as being on the non-nuclear side. This is between the steam turbine (seperated from the nuclear part by heat exchangers) and driving the 100KV or more lines leaving the plant conencting to the grid. These are literally in common with every other power plant including gas & coal. They do fail and they don't make the headlines.

    These are probably not held to nuclear reliability criteria. and its failure does not put the nuclear plant in any jeopardy.

    I think the hysteria on this is probably way overblown. And it detracts from the real problems such as how are we dealing with spend nuclear fuels.

  • Al - 5 years ago

    A few years ago Congress, heartbroken as usual over the financial sufferings experienced by Big Business, capped the liability of a nuclear power company at $100 million for each accident. With about 20 million people in the Metro Area who would be affected by a Three Mile Island / Chernobyl / Fukushima - style meltdown, that works out to $5 worth of compensation for each of us!

    And about the "evacuation" plan:

    ---How far will you have to drive before you can be sure you and your family are out of danger?

    ---How far can you seriously think you can get, with millions of other vehicles on the roads, all desperately heading the same way?

    ---Where will you be able to find shelter at the end of your long drive?

    ---And what bus driver in his/her right mind will go back INTO a radioactive area---or stay there a moment longer than they need to---once they have (hopefully) gotten their own family out of danger?

  • Eric Gendell - 5 years ago

    This was written in response the the question:
    Should we close Indian Point?

    Anyone who trusts nuclear energy is a moron.
    There are no excuses for the kind of stupidity and ignorance fueled by greed, malice and indifference to human life involved in all conventional energy, but nuclear energy may well be the worst, most dangerous and destructive.
    Lets forget for a moment, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukashima and all the disasters and near disasters that go unreported. For a moment, let us concentrate on the fact that radiation poisoning is a major cause of cancer and a whole host of degenerative autoimmune diseases.
    Ok, well that's a little too scary, so lets focus on the fact that the uranium after it is used at nuclear reactors is called depleted uranium and has a half life of 1.2 billion years and that there is no way to safely store it, that the canisters depleted uranium was stored as recently as a decade ago are leaking, causing cancer, birth defects and horrific deformities to all life.
    Ok, Ok...well that's just a little too scary for most people, but lets face it, after all these horrors, there is a down side. Since there is absolutely no way to safely dispose of the depleted uranium, the evil bastards who make the stuff decided to weaponize this deadly material and now there is a global market for this poison.
    American soldiers returning from war in the middle east in the 1990's where we had no reason to be other than to steal oil and facilitate the international heroin trade, came home with a "mysterious" disease they labelled "Gulf War Syndrome". It was no mystery. These soldiers were suffering from radiation sickness, for the armor piercing shells of conventional ordinance were made with...yup, you guessed it...depleted uranium.
    A few soldiers getting sick, dying and either becoming sterile or having record numbers of children born with birth defects and preventable illnesses from radiation poisoning, as horrible as it is, is nothing compared to the the United states of EVIL that the Ayatollah Kolhemeni affectionately and appropriately called us, the "Great Satan America" responsible for a nearly endless litany of sins, a nation waging constant war since it's inception.
    The US is a nation that had no compunction bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, in order to establish american supremacy and global dominance at the end of World War 2, .
    The same terrorist nation carpet bombed Afghanistan and Iraq with conventional ordnance with shells made with depleted Uranium and packed with powdered depleted uranium that spread into the earth and atmosphere, not to mention the trade winds and ocean currents that bring our own sins back home to haunt us and is one of the reasons why so many people are sick.
    Its not enough that we destroyed 2 nations, wiped out their heritage, destroyed priceless artifacts from "The Cradle of Civilization", but have left these nations to suffer for a thousand years, from which they may never recover.
    The united states has effectively waged the first nuclear wars in human history, yet it received no press or attention for what it was...diabolical evil on an unprecedented scale. People will be dying from radiation poisoning, Children, animals and plants will be born with horrific birth defects and autoimmune diseases for countless generations to come. There is no telling what the full consequences of predator

  • JL Jaeger - 5 years ago

    24000 year half life on nuclear waste. Need I say more?

    Cause I can...

    Each plant produces 20 metric tons of this waste per year.

  • Dr. Demosthenes Kostas - 5 years ago

    The Indian Point threatens the lives of over 10 Million Americans. A Fukushima type explosion at Indian Point will further destroy the lives of millions of Americans with cancers not to mention that it will further destroy the American economy and our world leadership. The thought of a Fukushima type of a destruction at Indian Point gives me nightmares!!!

  • Mrs. Daniela G. Luttinger - 5 years ago

    Please forgive my type-o's. "Indian Point is the OLDEST most UNSAFE plant in the USA and it discharges used water into the Hudson River...killing fish with the heat of it. It is situated on 3 earthquake faults and is, as I understand it, the same design as Fukushima, which was an American designed plant. It is a horrific accident waiting to happen and MUST NOT be relicensed against the will of our NYS Governor and his constitutents and most of our NYS representatives who want ti shut down. There is no possible evacuation plan and nuclear toxins are the MOST carcinogenic on earth and have a very long life. Indian Point could make all of New York Met area and Wall St. a DEAD ZONE for centuries to come, like Chernobyl and Fukusima. (That was unedited comment above.water ABOVE.... Forgive all type o's.This comment pg. does not allow editing.. re. my above comment.).

  • Mrs. Daniela G. Luttinger - 5 years ago

    Indian Point is the oldest most unsage nuclear plant in the country--sitting on top of 3 earthquake faults and discharging water in to the hudson. The spent fuel and radioactive waste is not fully taken care of. It is a HORRENDOUS accident waiting to happen and it suppliels LESS than 8% of the Met Areas electrical needs. It's the same design as Fukushima. Shut the horro down. THe NRC is full of nuclear industry people with special interests and cannot be trusted, according to an expose in the NY Times a few years back. Plus our Governor and many of our government representatives want Indian Point shut down and NOT relicensed. President Obama has two big faults, his closeness to the nuclear energy industry and his closeness to Monsanto. The only reason this plant is allowed to stay open is because our president is not listening to the desires of our people and their NY State representatives. SHUT IT DOWN. Nuclear toxins are the very worst and most deadly filthy poison on Earth. My husband, Dr. Luttinger, Chemist from Yale, used to be hired to measure leakage from nuclear plants and he said, before he died, that they have always leaked more radiation than they admit to. Much of the cancers we suffer have to do with nuclear toxins in the 20th century. Fukushima and Chernobyle were horrible disaster. Indian Point could be worse! SHUT IT DOWN NOW, NRC! We do not trust the Nuclear Regulatory Commission!

  • John Giordano - 5 years ago

    France supplies 47% of its power from nuclear many European countries also supply much of their energy thru nuclear power. I hear no outcry from those countries' to end nuclear energy, why here? Liberal progressives do not want us to use coal, oil, they won't approve more natural gas pipelines or fracking..... where are we to get our energy from? Burn old rolled newspapers?
    Now to be even more praticsal....do these people realize what the cost of energy would be in NYC and the lower Hudson Valley if we closed Indian Point? Look at the cost of energy on LI after the closing of the Shoreham Plant. Stop the insanity..............

  • Betsy Calhoun - 5 years ago

    Indian Point should never have been built, and certainly should be shut down. It is horrendously depressing that its danger hangs over us - so many of us - including my children and grandchildren. I congratulate the people who persevere in contesting its relicensing. We don't need it - we can have our refrigerators, etc., by other means. The funds that help support nuclear power should be diverted to a range of alternative energy sources.

  • Carl Lundgren - 5 years ago

    Explosion, fire and oil spill: these are not words you want to hear associated with a nuclear power plant in your back yard. An incident like this only adds to our argument for the complete shutdown and decommissioning of Indian Point. A number of concerns and issues need to be restated at this time:

    1) Indian Point is located in one of the most densely populated locations on the planet, only 25 miles from the New York City border, and just 35 miles from the heart of the city. A nuclear reactor would never be given permission today to be built in this location.
    2) To date, no adequate evacuation plan has been devised in the event of a nuclear catastrophe at the plant, if indeed, such a plan is even possible.
    3) The lifetime of the reactors is 30 - 40 years at best. The original aged and crumbling #1 reactor, opened in 1962, has been shut down for years. Of the two remaining reactors, #2, opened in 1973, is currently operating with an expired license, and #3, opened in 1976, will have it's license expire in December 2015. Indian Point will be the only nuclear facility in the U. S. operating without a license.
    4) Directly related to Saturday's accident, the fire resistant material around the transformers is supposed to have a rating of at least 1 hour. In fact, the rating for the material in use now is only 24 minutes. The NRC allowed Entergy to ignore the rules, and has been in litigation over the matter since 2007.
    5) This latest accident also dispels the myth perpetrated and perpetuated by the nuclear industry, and nuclear proponents such as James Hansen, that nuclear power is clean, green and carbon free. The discharge into the Hudson of oil needed to cool the transformers illustrates the point that nuclear power plants are still dependent on fossil fuels, from the production and transport of materials to the plant, to the operation of the various systems and machinery required to keep the plant operating.
    6) This accident is just the latest in a list of documented accidents and events that have occurred over the years.
    7) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), over the objections of environmental and community groups, just recently approved the construction of a 42" fracked gas pipeline extension that will run just yards behind Indian Point. What will happen if (and when) and explosion like this occurs again in the vicinity of a highly volatile gas that is sometimes released on purpose, if not by accident, from these pipelines.
    8) To compound that problem, Indian Point is located less than a mile from the Ramapo Faultline, one of the surprisngly many active earthquake regions in the NY and NJ area. Earthquakes registering as high as 5.2 on the Richter Scale have occurred in the region. Entergy claims that IP can withstand an earthquake of 6.1.
    How susceptible is Indian Point to damage from storms like Hurricanes Irene and Sandy? IP seems to have dodged bullets with both these recent superstorms but the dangers increase each passing day as climate change and the resulting rising water levels continue. Flooding from massive storms could lead to a Fukushima type disaster.
    9) Despite the claims by Entergy that New York needs the power provided by Indian Point, facts prove that only a very small percentage of power is actually provided - much less than the 25% that Entergy claims. With improvements in the energy efficiency of consumer products, the introduction of new technologies, and the increased use of alternative energy sources, there are no justifications left for the continued operation of Indian Point.

    Carl Lundgren is Chair of the grassroots activist group Shut Down Indian Point Now!

  • Diana Finch - 5 years ago

    And what about the related oil spill into the Hudson River? Do we want more of those - or even any of those - as well?

  • Dan Fullerton - 5 years ago

    There are many competent and careful employees at IPNPP. However, accidents and human error do happen. Natural disasters do happen. In fact, it is even true that terrorists strike.

    Of even more concern are what happens before and what happens after nuclear fuel enters the site at IP and other Nuclear Power Plants and after it is used. Extraction of uranium from the earth scars the earth's surface and sub-surface. The extraction process takes energy. The source(s) of that energy is carbon based fuel. The extracted materials include much more than uranium and what is not uranium is set aside without a thought. Refining of the uranium ore into concentrations sufficient to be used as fuel takes energy. The source(s) of that energy is carbon-based. Thus, before the uranium becomes fuel and enters the power plant, producing the fuel leaves a large carbon footprint. Additionally, the "left-overs" from the extraction and refining are radioactive. There are no requirements for miners and processors to protect the environment from these left-overs. People, plants, and animals where uranium left-overs are nearby suffer damage from the radioactivity. Then, too, weather events such as wind and rain erode these accumulations of left-overs. The erosion moves the left-overs down-wind and down-stream, negatively affecting people, plants and animals in the down-wind/down-stream areas.

    On the other hand, after the fuel rods have been used in the reactors, the "spent fuel rods"--actually highly radioactive waste--they must be disposed of. The fuel rods coming out are actually more radioactive and radioactively dangerous than the fuel rods going in. Some elements in the highly radioactive waste have short half-lives. Some elements have long half-lives. Consequently, the spent fuel rods have to be shielded to contain the radiation and absorb it. And, because some of the half-lives run into the thousands of years, that shielding must be maintained for millennia. This maintenance of shielded highly radioactive waste is already an extremely difficult and expensive task. It is so expensive, that Entergy at Indian Point is delaying the movement of sufficiently cooled waste into dry cask storage, storage which is much more safe than keeping the waste in "cooling pools" which are now filled to about 5 times their design capacity.

    Finally, the US government is responsible for the final repository of spent fuel rods. In the over 60 years of the use of nuclear energy, the US government has not been able to locate and design an adequate repository. None is in the works.

    When people express concern about the cost of the US budget and the deficit spending we are currently engaged in, they often express their concern in terms of "mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren." With our use of nuclear power, we are "mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren" and many generations beyond--for as long or longer, in fact, as there has been a human race.

    We do not need IPNPP. We utilize it at tremendous cost to the environment and to our descendants futures. The safest place for uranium is in the ground, without ever being mined.

  • Joe Radioactive - 5 years ago

    The NRC, the poster-boy agency for “regulatory” capture, protects no one and nothing except a regulator’s future job prospects when the revolving-door drops them back into the industry from which they came.

    The NRC says during relicensing it won’t consider the siting of Indian Point - 21 million people living within 50 miles - the NRC-recommended exclusion zone for Fukushima. Former NRC Commissioner, Peter Bradford, called the location of Indian Point “insane” and “a nightmare” - it couldn’t be licensed there today - but the NRC says that doesn’t count. “Fuggetaboutit!”

    When the FEMA/Witt report stated even the required ten-mile zone around Indian Point couldn’t be evacuated in a timely fashion - that at most two miles might be - the NRC said, all right, then, we’ll only have to evacuate two miles. “Alice in Wonderland”.

    If there’s a spent-fuel-pool fire, pack your bags & get out - if you can. You won’t be coming back. Don’t bother to bring your house insurance policy - it has a clause that specifically exempts your insurer in case of nuclear catastrophe - check it out.

    When it turned out the manufacturer had falsified test results and vital electrical insulation required to withstand a fire one hour long could only last 24 minutes, the NRC said, well then! 24 minutes it is.

    The NRC says Indian Point’s the #1 earthquake threat among currently operating reactors. So will they consider earthquake risk during relicensing? Nope!

    The NRC’s bluffing a bad hand - that’s why they changed their licensing rules so you and I and experts and intervenors don’t get to challenge them. Fukushima called their bluff and showed that reactor designs were proven to fail when called upon? Cooling-system-failure hydrogen spikes blew the Fukushima reactors apart - a design the AEC long ago said should be scuttled, but if they so ruled, there’d be no “commercial nuclear power industry”? Oh well - it “can’t happen here”.

    Does anyone doubt that the NRC will rubberstamp Indian Point? Wake up - if the plant had already suffered a loss of coolant accident, partly melted down, had a spent fuel pool fire, and all Westchester, the City of New York, and a big chunk of the Tri-State area had to be permanently evacuated - the NRC would argue - just like after Fukushima - no need to consider that in a relicensing – once the “impossible” actually happens, it’s twice as impossible it could happen again.

    Here’s a question: which member of the NRC is willing not to go through the Revolving Door? Who will pledge today not to take a future salary from the Industry you’re supposed to regulate? Raise your hand ... hey, not all at once …

    May God help us all; because these gentlemen won’t.

  • Heidi Hutner - 5 years ago

    The governor is on record as saying the plant is unsafe and should be shut down. No nuclear power plant is meant to run forever, nor can they ever be called 100% safe. There is not such thing with human and technical error, and such a risk is just too great in this densely populated area. The plant sits near two fault lines with expected earthquakes of 7 on the Richter Scale (Columbia University Study), 40 years of nuclear waste sits onsite (spent fuel rods) and continue to accumulate in the spent fuel pools, which are far more overcrowded than they were designed for. This risk of catastrophe is enormous. Few even know about the fault lines or vast amount of spent nuclear fuel retained onsite. Indian Point is up for relicensing and it's time to decommission. The approval by FERC of a new and explosive gas pipeline to run feet from the plant is unthinkable. I worry for the future of New York. I worry for our children.

  • Susan - 5 years ago

    The explosion and fire didn't prove that the reactors are safe. In fact Unit 3 was already shut down due to a tritium steam leak on Friday the day before the accident, which has not been covered in the news.
    Also people need to know that in Unit 3 were the fire happened, is also the location were there is only 24 minutes of fire protection instead of the required 1 hour rating. Most commercial buildings are required by New York State building code to have 1 to 3 hours of fire insulation, but Indian Point only has 24 minutes. Something is wrong with this scenario, given a fire that breaches safe shut down could endanger the lives of 20 million people.

  • Dennis Willard - 5 years ago

    It is dangerous to keep it open as it is the same type of reactor as Fukushima which has been leaking since it was hit by a typhoon. It started failing inspections and regulations so they lowered the rules and regulations so it could pass. It has been leaking for quite a while now despite the insulated pools it built to cool off the rods used to generate the power. Age is a major factor to all these relaxed rules and regulations, because it is deteriorating. It has a pool that cools the rods which is a process that takes five years to cool, but they had to shorten it to 3 and 1/2 years because it is another regulation it couldn't keep. The plant is supposed to be air drying them, but they still remain in the pool. All the rods are still there from when it first opened and they just keep adding to this stockpile. It is designed like a radiator, so when the water is changed they release it into the Hudson River. I have heard the term thermal pollution being used for this as it raises the temperature of the river by 3-5 degrees when released. The pool is surrounded with sheet metal that has no insulation or protective equipment. The metal you would see in a warehouse, so just this process has proven to be dangerous. The plant is one mile away from a faultline, then another mile or so is a second one. It has also been stated there is no evacuation plan if the plant explodes, ruptures, or begins leaking into the river. It is also said it's become when not if a disaster hits the plant. The latest fire and oil spill shouldn't instill confidence it should reveal how antiquated it really is. The part that caught fire was just replaced, but they didn't bother to say it was twenty years old.

  • Jon Langberg - 5 years ago

    In concurrence with Dan above, to shut down a perfectly safe, vigilantly monitored, low environmental impact facility is the essence of pure stupidity. Remember ignorance is curable but stupid is forever.

    Example: Nuclear is bad - State of New York some years back shut down a nuclear plant in the eastern part of the state after it was built but before it made it's first watt of power. The people of the state (primarily NY City) paid for that facility to be built, paid for it to be decommissioned and then decided to buy their power from nuclear facilities in Canada at a premium price.....not a curable mental condition.

    By the way large transformers explode for their own reasons all over the world and have no correlation to Nuclear facilities unless they just happen to be attached to one. If that is the motive force for "shut it down" then let's just move back into caves because we are not smart enough to live above ground like civilized human beings.

  • Freddie Forrest - 5 years ago

    I live in Peekskill,NY.Can look out my window & see Indian Point.If it blows,I'm a goner as I have lived here nearly 9 yrs,I've never had issues with Indian point & am confident in the professional running of the facility

  • Dan - 5 years ago

    Before we so quickly judge Nuclear power, let’s stop and look at some facts. Nuclear power has a proven successful history in the United States. Most issues have been blown way out of proportion primarily because many people do not understand, are afraid, or are misinformed. Fact is there has yet to be one proven civilian death in the United States as a result of commercial nuclear electric power generation. To me, that speaks to the careful attention and dedication the industry has put forth. Yet in stark comparison to other forms of power generation, many have multiple documented cases of civilian death. Natural gas pipelines for example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#United_States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/27/3615805/west-virginia-gas-pipeline-explosion/
    http://www.weather.com/news/news/natural-gas-pipeline-explosion-mississippi
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Connecticut_power_plant_explosion

    Or the environment effects of other power producers such as coal, with 100,000 gallons of slurry spilt:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/11/disastrous-day-fossil-fuels-wv-coal-slurry-spill-pa-gas-well-explosion-nd-gas-explosion

    Today many people seem to think solar is the answer; unfortunately what most of us do not see are the damaging effects producing these cells has on the earth.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar-power.html#.VVQPRPnF98E

    I’m not saying for a second we should dismiss these alternative sources of energy, I’m all for improving. But let’s get these perfected before we get rid of what we have. Many of these alternative sources are not self-sustaining because they are not cost effective. Is it a coincidence that Vermont Yankee closed 12/29/2014 and my Western Mass Electric power rate jumped over 30% on 1/1/15? I think not. Remember this New Yorkers when you scream “Shut it down!” And for those that think 30% is not much, tell that to the minimum wage worker who is supporting his/her family.

    Bottom line is, all current power generation has negative impacts on the Earth and its inhabitants, so before we pull the trigger on the “shut it down” gun, let’s pause for a moment and think of the implications of doing so. Unfortunately most of us would not like to lose the convenience of our refrigerators, TVs, computers, cell phones, furnaces and electric cars. All of these devices require power, and I for one would like to see it generated domestically in the most cost effective, least damaging method possible. Nuclear power still has a large role in that process in my mind.

  • judith ordan - 5 years ago

    Shutdown is way over due.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment