Energy Secretary Steven Chu: Indian Point Nuclear Plant Near New York City Will Be Reviewed

WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Steven Chu weighed in on Sunday on a controversial nuclear reactor located near New York City, saying that the administration needs to look at whether it should stay where it is.

At issue is the Indian Point Energy Center, located just 34 miles from New York City. The nuclear plant supplies approximately 25 percent of the city's power, and it has the backing of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I). As WNYC notes, "Reactors two and three were built in the 1970s and were slated for a 40-year-life. As in the rest of the country, plant operators are hoping to get an additional 20 years of productivity [out of] their reactors."

But New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) is calling for the plant to be shut down. His comments came after MSNBC recently reported that Indian Point's No. 3 reactor has a high risk of earthquake damage, based on an analysis of data from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

“I’ve had concerns about Indian Point for a long time," said Cuomo, adding, "I understand the power and the benefit. I also understand the risk. This plant in this proximity to New York City was never a good risk. But this is new information that we’re going to pursue.”

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) agrees with Cuomo against relicensing Indian Point.

On "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pointed out to Secretary Chu that the "Nuclear Regulatory Commission has called for a 50-mile evacuation zone around the reactor in Japan," but the Indian Point plant is much closer than that to New York City.

"Well, I think, again, the evacuation plans of the Indian Point reactor will be looked at and studied in great detail," replied Chu. "The Indian Point reactor is not in the situation like in Japan, but I think, again, we will be looking at whether those evacuation plans are adequate. ... And again, we're going to have to look at whether this reactor should remain. But, again, I don't want to make any -- jump to some judgment about what we should do going forward."

Wallace followed up and asked, "But are you saying the issue of whether to keep Indian Point in operation is in doubt, is something you're going to review?"

Chu clarified that keeping Indian Point open is a decision that will be made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will be reviewing it. "But again, this is not to say that we believe that reactor is unsafe," he added. "We believe that reactor is safe. There is constant scrutiny of the reactors in all of our plants around the United States."

Comments

[Reno Deano]

11:23 PM on 03/22/2011

Some one ought to tell Mr. Chu that he has no say so whatever in commercial reactor operations. The NRC makes all the decisions, that is unless President Obama would like to issue an Executive Order relieving the NRC of it responsibilities to license and oversee the commercial reactor programs. Mr. Chu should stick to nuclear weapons and energy research and not be making statements out of class.

[JoanMeijer]

09:43 PM on 03/21/2011

Yes and Chu like Obama love nuclear power - you could suggest have been bought and paid for by nuclear energy - and have no intention of doing the right thing which is closing down every nuclear plant and replacing it wave, geothermal, solar and wind energy which can't take out New York City or anywhere else. Chu like Obama are huge disappointments.

[Robert Cantor]

08:23 PM on 03/21/2011

Show of hands: Who here thinks the 'private sector' should handle Nuclear Plant Review?

[onehenry]

06:08 PM on 03/21/2011

The plan is much like Japans. If they need water on the reactors which will be taken out of the Hudson river. That will be a suicide mission to who has to do it. My plan is to train the CEO and his board members to do this.

[JoanMeijer]

09:45 PM on 03/21/2011

How about Chu and Obama leading the mission if they don't close the plants down and something happens. That could be a motivator. If you had to lay YOUR life on the line how would you decide?

[kaj74]

12:36 PM on 03/21/2011

I have spent all of my life growing up on the banks of the Hudson River less than 20 miles from Indian Point. There isn’t a system in place for those of us in the Hudson Valley if there were to be an accident, or an attack on our nuclear facility. Yet it seems they have it all figured out for those 40 miles away (NYC). Let along the fact, that if there is fallout, it will contaminate the river and effect the water supply of hundreds of thousands, since it’s not just those in a 40, 50 or even a 100 mile radius that depend on the Hudson.
It took us almost 30 years to get our river cleaned up because it became a dumping ground for corporations, and we wouldn’t have accomplished that if not for the River Keepers. We are still advised against eating the fish indigenousness to our area because of mercury levels.
Yet, other than greed, I am unable to ascertain why we are not investing in hydropower. The Hudson is fed by the Atlantic, and has never dried up, nor have we ever seen a dramatic decrease in our water table, and NYC, Manhattan especially, is surrounded by water.
I hope Cuomo is successful and get’s this plant shut down, and if we are unable to find alternatives that produce the same level of energy, then “the city that never sleeps” will need to nap like the rest of us to conserve said energy.

[Reno Deano]

11:28 PM on 03/22/2011

Evidently you have been hiding under a rock to not be aware of the federal mandates regarding Indian Point Emergency Plans and their involvement with the local communities. I see you are against Nuclear Power because of biased fear and your other neighbors will not let them (utilities) build hydro-electric plants on the rivers. Boy have you guys got a good game going. Get out of your hole and look at the activities to deconstruct the largest hydro-electric plants in the Northwest.

[kaj74]

10:43 AM on 03/23/2011

Wow, you are a very pleasant individual. It always warms my heart to see such patient and wonderful people share their wisdom.
I am against Nuclear energy because of the very real dangers it presents to my community as has been demonstrated in Chernobyl and now in Fukushima. To insinuate that my real and justified concern, based on real life scenarios, is biased, not my fear.
Now, in the community, of which the rock I live under is located, unless you happen to hear the emergency broadcasting interruption, there aren’t any billboards etc. to inform you of the imminent danger. There isn’t an evacuation plan. There aren’t any community meetings. It’s not discussed with our kids in school.
My family is informed and have one, but that’s because my husband is a first responder, in NYC, which means we (my 3 children and I) get to leave him behind, how wonderful for us. We can also surmise how generous the corporation that owns Indian Point would be if this played out and he got cancer. And we can’t rely on the Government; look what they did to 911 responders.
And what about all the things we’ve worked so hard for? Our home and the memories? Forget about getting compensation for our belongings, what about our lives and livelihood.
That’s the view from my hole, try pulling your head out of yours, and I don’t mean a hole in the ground.

[Reno Deano]

04:26 PM on 03/23/2011

Kaj74, here is a link to Indian Point contacts that can discuss with you the pertinent "facts" regarding reactor safety and Emergency Preparedness Plans for their plants. Please share with your like minded friends.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/ip2.html

[Rich Sacco]

12:17 PM on 03/21/2011

Just curious, but if Indian Point were to be closed, what does that actually mean as far as safety? There still would be the need to maintain the spent fuel pools, unless we are going to move it all, which as far as I know doesn't happen... That being said, the danger still exists...

[kaj74]

12:43 PM on 03/21/2011

They would weigh it down and sink it. Fully submerged, we wouldn't have to worry about it overheating and leaking radiation. That has been the procedure with all depleted facilities in the past.

[Rich Sacco]

02:46 PM on 03/21/2011

Sorry but for the sake of clarification, where would they sink them? It is my understanding that all spent fuel pools have the rods fully submerged beneath 30 feet or so of water, and that water needs to be circulated. The catastrophe in Japan had much to do with these "spent" pools, as it did with the active reactors. In reactors 5-6, that is all that was of concern. Wouldn't this still be necessary (to keep them beneath circulating water in pools that need continual maintenance?

[mrJJ]

09:01 AM on 03/21/2011

NRC Proposes Fee Changes for Nuclear Facilities

As it works to finalize this year’s budget, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday proposed a number of fee changes for nuclear facilities.

The agency expects to collect $915.3 million in fees in fiscal year 2011, which is $400,000 more than it received in 2010. By law, the agency has to collect about 90 percent of its budget from fees charged to the sites it oversees. The fee proposal and the NRC’s funding level could change in the coming weeks as Congress continues to debate this year’s federal budget.

http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/03/21/nrc-proposes-fee-changes-for-nuclear-facilities032102.aspx

[DEMatHEART]

06:13 AM on 03/21/2011

New York State is also an earthquake-prone area - not of the magnitude of Japan - but it makes one wonder how many of the nuclear reactors in NY are situated near fault lines.

[ARandomGuy]

10:40 AM on 03/21/2011

Ummm hate to burst your bubble but NY doesn't even make the top 10 of states that are the most earthquake prone.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/top_states.php

[DEMatHEART]

07:23 PM on 03/21/2011

There are several agencies who have concerns about NY state as well.

http://masoncountydailynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2898:new-york-attorney-general-demands-earthquake-study-on-nuclear-plant&catid=41:top-headlines&Itemid=131

I used to live in western NY and experienced two 5.0 earthquakes in our little town in the 1960s - enough to shake the lockers in our school, roll the floor under our feet, and rattle dishes off the shelves at home. And this was in a town that housed a high-security prison!

Just sayin' ! You can't be too careful when it comes to nuclear power and fault lines...especially in a densely populated area like NYC.

[desertman]

11:21 AM on 03/21/2011

Even if it was I don't think NY has a tsunami problem. The reactors made it through the quake just fine.

[Edson Dailo]

05:10 AM on 03/21/2011

If people are unaware of all the data about nuclear power, and Japan is just nearby or a neighboring country, we can’t hide the fact that the negative speculations will arise. Health and lives are concern most especially, because we do not want ourselves and our loved ones suffer anything unpleasant such as this http://fms.nu/hkxXTu
The question should be, are we well informed?

[Rantibus]

04:26 AM on 03/21/2011

A lot of people cite nuclear as being a viable alternative to curbing climate change. This would only be true if the nuclear industry had continued to grow at the same rate it did between 1981 and 1990. Right now, it would require at least 14 nuclear plants to be built for the next 50 years and in addition, 7.5 plants built a year to replace those in need of decommissioning. (these figures are from a study done by the National Resources Defense Council and GE Energy)
It would also require 10 new nuclear waste dumps the size of the Yucca Mountain site and an expenditure of at least one trillion dollars.
CEO of American Electric Power, Micheal Morris stated in 2007 that "I'm not convince that we'll see a new nuclear station before probably the 2020 timeline." And there is also the fact that nuclear energy is roughly 50 percent higher per kilowatt hour than average retail electric prices.
Renewable resources coupled with energy efficiency is the most viable alternative, but that doesn't put dollars in Republican pockets from the energy industry, so I guess we're all screwed.

[Mister Grumpy]

02:44 AM on 03/21/2011

Since this nuclear plant supplies 25% of New Yorks energy needs......... How was the governor planning on replacing the lost energy?............. a possible solution would be to harness all the hot air generated by the useless New York politicians..........

[DickClark]

08:28 AM on 03/21/2011

....and add to the political hot air ....."grumpy" hot air......plus further development and improved access to.....solar......wind......geothermal......and tides....i.e. Ireland.......

[desertman]

11:23 AM on 03/21/2011

French fry grease.

[WarmSnowMan]

01:43 AM on 03/21/2011

Nuclear energy is safer than coal energy which kills 13,000 US residents per year from pollution.
http://www.lungusa.org/about-us/our-impact/top-stories/toxic-air-coal-fired-power-plants.html

Nuclear energy is even safer than wind power per KW hour.
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

[Alex Zhang]

02:05 AM on 03/21/2011

I agree with your first statement, but as for the second, the TYPE of accidents caused by nuclear energy and wind power are really different. The cause of most of the deaths resulting from wind power is very direct and observable. The problem with nuclear energy is that without a more complex understanding of how to make it maximally safe, it can cause harm in ways that are difficult to measure. A nuclear reactor doesn't have to undergo an "accident" for it to be harmful. In my view, we should spend more time understanding nuclear power rather than prematurely implementing it, only to put ourselves in the position (now) of defending our use of it by appealing to statistics that can be quite misleading.

[DickClark]

08:29 AM on 03/21/2011

Nuclear waste is NOT safe.......deal with all aspects of the problem please......

[WarmSnowMan]

01:38 AM on 03/21/2011

The idea of extending the life of these ancient 1970s reactors is dangerous.

And if you search the industry websites, they having in mind extending them repeatedly -- their target is 80 more years of life.

Much better to build newer safer reactors.

[DickClark]

08:31 AM on 03/21/2011

......"newer, safer"........not possible.....and you know it......never possible to forsee the unforseen.....as recent events prove.

[Closer to the Edge]

09:12 AM on 03/21/2011

I know nothing of the sort. I do know when a comment is based on unreasoned fear instead of facts.

[desertman]

11:26 AM on 03/21/2011

I don't believe you are correct. The reactors survived the quakes. They did not survive the tsunamis. Air travel is not abandoned when there is a crash.

[Alex Zhang]

01:29 AM on 03/21/2011

The reactors along the New England region already emit iodine-131 which raises our risk of developing thyroid cancer. The sheer number of reactors in this area pose a significant danger to all forms of life on the east coast. My wife studies nuclear reactors and her professors constantly advise their students to take iodine pills.

[Alex Zhang]

01:56 AM on 03/21/2011

@ WarmSnowMan. She studies at Columbia University. Her professor is Paul G. Richards. She knows not to take too much. However, the entire New England area is very susceptible to radiation poisoning. Her professor lives there because he is often called upon to inspect nuclear reactors. He doesn't take iodine pills himself because apparently, he has "given up" on not getting exposed to radiation (due to the nature of his job).

[desertman]

11:29 AM on 03/21/2011

How much is released annually and from which reactors? Link please.

[DocStrangelove]

01:28 AM on 03/21/2011

Nuclear energy will NEVER be safe enough to use.

Tthe possible resultant devastatio­­n FAR outweighs any short-term benefits..­­. the WASTE problem alone being too much of a risk, & those who feel that this kind of disaster "can't happen here" is either oblivious to the ironies history or they are just succumbing to human ARROGANCE.

Thalidomid­­e was safe too, remember?

Japans earthquake building codes are the most stringent in the world.. & they are unsurpasse­­d technologi­­cally... yet even they STILL failed to withstand the force of nature.

Both the San Onofre & Diablo Canyon nuclear plants are on ACTIVE FAULTS.. & they are closer to major metropolit­­an areas than the Japanese plants are... not to mention that they are 40 years OLD without any appreciabl­­e updates & much more vulnerable (despite the bleatings of regulators to the contrary).

WIND, SOLAR, TIDAL, GEOTHERMAL­­, HYDRO-ELEC­­TRIC…

WE CAN DO THIS!

ALL it takes is the RESOLVE.

After Pearl Harbor, we managed to rebuild our ENTIRE Pacific Fleet, create an AIR FORCE practicall­­y from SCRATCH & go on to win a WORLD WAR.. all within FOUR YEARS.

After Sputnik, we managed to mobilize & take a "program" that was ostensibly a handful of "elitist" eggheads playing with rockets in their backyard, &, in TEN YEARS, landed a MAN on the MOON.

Let the cynics step aside if they're afraid to try... their obstinate attitudes & their CONTEMPT for "American Knowhow" & let those of us who can HANDLE the TASK do the heavy lifting.

[wakeisland]

07:34 AM on 03/21/2011

what do you do with all those massive toxic lithium batteries and the acid batteries that the use to store the power become waste what do you do with them???
Do you see the area where the lithium is mined it is like a toxic wasteland.

Wind it would take a farm of 400 windmills to make up the energy from 1 nuclear plant.
The left doesn't want wind in their back yard look at ted kennedy's cape cod.
plus all those birds and bats that it kills and the high maintenace

[PoloniumMan]

08:21 AM on 03/21/2011

I think you may have underestimated the required windmills. To provide 1-watt of power with the same "firm" capacity of a nuclear power plant would required 9-watts of installed wind. Take Diablo Canyon with twin 1,100 MWe power plants. Assuming 5-MW windmills, there would need to be 3,960 windmills distributed over a geographic area larger than the state of California.

Note: "firm" capacity is not a good measure because it's still a probability dependent on the weather as opposed to planned shutdowns for refueling/maintenence at nuclear power plants.

[DickClark]

08:35 AM on 03/21/2011

no "high maintenace" at nuclear plants of coarse.....

[desertman]

11:31 AM on 03/21/2011

It will continue to be used regardless.