Local Phone Savings and Free Long Distance In New York - Prices Starting at Only $16.95 Per Month!
February 2, 2008
Indian Point - shutdown without license renewal would raise local electricity prices so much that thousands of jobs would likely be created elsewhere, as businesses avoid the area
The Westchester Business Alliance commissioned a researcher to estimate what the likely economic effects would be if the two nuclear plants shut down when, or before, current operating licenses expire. A pdf version of the full report is available here. The study concludes that natural gas-powered electricity is the most likely substitute, and that this would cost about six times more than Indian Point power. By 2017, the report concludes "WestchesterÕs electric prices could rise to over $0.50 per kilowatt-hour or over three and one half times the projected national average should the Indian Point plants be retired." Current prices in the area are about $0.20, which is amongst the most expensive power in the nation. Westchester CountyÕs high energy costs are cited as a reason for losing thousands of manufacturing and other industrial jobs over the past two decades.
The report states that "While WestchesterÕs long-term economic outlook is promising with projected employment growth of as high as 36,000 new jobs by 2017, higher energy prices will surely reduce this forecast. As many as 11,000 fewer jobs, $2.1 billion in cumulative lost wages, and nearly $5.5 billion in cumulative lost economic output could result from higher energy costs."
[Ref: Dr. Howard J. Axelrod (Energy Strategies, Inc.), "AN ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY NEEDS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY | The Economic Impact of Rising Energy Prices and Shortages in Supplies", Prepared for Westchester Business Alliance, January 31, 2008]
January 31, 2008
Constellation's options on whether to site first new EPR in Maryland or New York was front page news in both states today:
This is from the front page of today's The Sun, of Baltimore, Maryland.
------
This is from the front page of today's The Post-Standard, of Syracuse, New York.
January 28, 2008
This is from the front page of today's The Post-Standard, of Syracuse, New York.
February 22, 2007
* New York - overview of two former radwaste disposal sites (West Valley and Cornell)
New York state prohibits some medical waste from being disposed in landfills
In New York State, untreated regulated medical waste cannot legally be shipped to landfills for disposal; untreated regulated medical waste must be shipped to an approved regulated medical waste treatment facility.
[Source: New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation DSHM/BHWRM Radiation Section, "Comments on December 2006 Draft IMPEP Report", January 24, 2007, attachment to letter to USNRC -- ML070300441]
April 25, 2006
New York State - NRC sees state need to beef up authority over deliberate misconduct by unlicensed folks
"The enforcement authority provided in the New York State Penal Code does not meet two of the essential objectives of the NRCâs deliberate misconduct regulation. First, the Penal Code only applies to an individual who submits false information to a public office or officer, and does not create a penalty for the submission of false information to a licensee, applicant, certificate holder, contractor, or subcontractor. Second, the Penal Code would not prohibit deliberate misconduct by an individual that causes or would cause a licensee, applicant, or certificate holder to be in violation of a rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition or limitation of the license. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should adopt the essential objectives of this regulation in the appropriate New York regulations or legally binding requirements to meet the Compatibility Category C designation assigned to 10 CFR 30.10, 40.10, 70.10 and 71.8."
NRC's letter to the state, dated April 25, 2006, is available via ADAMS as ACN ML061150021, which was released to public on June 24, 2006.
* [2006-03-22] Cold War-Era Supplies Found in New York
Marcus Franklin, Guardian
August 23, 2005
* Indian Point - good people have come up with the best possible plan for an evacuation. It won't work
June 5, 2004
New York's tough new regs, for old coal plant pollution, thrown out by judge, due to failure to provide required notice during rulemaking
A New York judge threw out the state's tough new acid rain regulations yesterday on a technicality, providing a reprieve to owners of 10 old coal-fired power plants and derailing, at least temporarily, measures that were to have been a high point of Gov. George E. Pataki's environmental record.
Environmentalists said the unexpected ruling would keep harmful chemicals in the state's air and prolong the exposure of New York forests, lakes and streams to the harmful effects of acid rain, which has already damaged sensitive areas like the Adirondacks. The energy companies that challenged the new rules, which were to take effect in October, will be able to delay making costly improvements to the coal-fired plants still operating in the state. Some are half a century old and are considered major sources of air pollution.
Although New York officials insisted that their efforts to reduce air pollution were continuing to move forward, the ruling yesterday was a setback for Governor Pataki, who promised in 1999 that New York would have the country's strictest acid rain regulations.
The new rules, which have already been delayed for several years, would reduce smokestack emissions of nitrogen by 75 percent and sulfur by 50 percent, far below levels set by the federal government.
Several energy companies jointly filed a lawsuit challenging the regulations. They said the new rules would lead to higher consumer electricity rates without reducing pollution.
But Peter M. Iwanowicz, the director of environmental health for the American Lung Association of New York State, said that a delay of even a few months in adopting the rules would have a serious effect on the health of New Yorkers.
"It will mean that more people will die, more people will get sick and more children will have asthma attacks because the air will be dirtier for longer," Mr. Iwanowicz said.
In striking down the regulations, Justice Leslie Stein of State Supreme Court in Albany ruled that they had been adopted improperly after the state missed a deadline for publication of a notice to inform the public of proposed changes in the rules.
But Justice Stein rejected the energy companies' claim that the Department of Environmental Conservation did not have sufficient authority to adopt such stringent and far-reaching rules.
Lesa A. Bader, a spokeswoman for NRG Energy, one of the electric generating companies that brought the suit, said that despite the issues raised in the court case, the company "remains committed to working with New York and the governor to achieve reductions in emissions."
NRG, a Minneapolis company, operates several coal-fired plants in New York, including the 749-megawatt C.R. Huntley plant in Erie County, near Buffalo, which was built in 1942.
Most of New York's coal-fired plants are in the central and western parts of the state. All of them must continue to meet federal standards.
Jason K. Babbie, an analyst with the New York Public Interest Research Group, said the power companies were attempting to obstruct the state's efforts to clean the air.
"It seems like a last-ditch effort to hold on to the oldest and dirtiest technology available instead of taking a step into the 21st century," he said.
Governor Pataki and state environmental officials have not yet decided whether to appeal the decision or immediately restart the process of drafting the new regulations.
"The state remains fully committed to achieving the objectives of the original regulations," said Michael J. Fraser, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Conservation.
John F. Sheehan, a spokesman for the Adirondack Council, an environmental advocacy group, said that even a short delay in adopting the new rules would hurt because power companies would forgo complying with them months in advance, which often occurs with a new regulatory arrangement.
[Source: Anthony DePalma (NYT metro desk), "State Judge Rejects Rules On Acid Rain", The New York Times, June 5, 2004, p. B1]
June 3, 2004
* Nine Mile Point 1&2 license renewal meeting (June 16)
* Indian Point - NRC reply to neighboring Villages' safety concerns
August 13, 2003
West Valley spent fuel shipment last month prompts question of how adequately-informed the local officials along the way are required to be
Shortly after midnight on July 13, a seven-car train carrying 125 irradiated fuel assemblies left the West Valley site in New York, headed for disposal site in Idaho. The shipment arrived in Idaho four days later, apparently without incident. DOE officials have said that security and emergency preparedness were coordinated with state and tribal officials along the 2,360-mile route before and during the shipment, and the danger of the materials warranted secrecy from the general public. Public Citizen, a non-governmental organization, confirms that officials in Missouri were notified of the shipment and that it passed smoothly through that state, but the group is concerned that other localities which should have been informed were not.
Public Citizen cited Bill King, a town supervisor in Ashford, N.Y., where the West Valley facility is located, as saying local volunteer firefighters were not informed of DOE's schedule to ship the radioactive waste. Here's how the Las Vegas Sun editorial today told King's story: "Bill King certainly had good reason to be upset about being kept out of the loop. King... oversees the police force in the New York town where the nuclear waste was being stored, and he very likely would have been first on the scene if there had been an accident as the waste was first being moved. 'My own people, these volunteers that I have, could have been taken right into something that could have killed them,' King said. Other officials in nearby towns weren't told about the shipment, either, he added." And the local congressman, Rep. Amory Houghton, R-N.Y., has complained to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham that he was not informed.
Public Citizen doesn't claim to know if any laws or regulations were violated, but have asked a National Academy of Sciences board that is studying nuclear-waste transportation to evaluate the issues involved. Public Citizen analyst Lisa Gue told reporter that "...it gets back to the question of whether existing regulations are sufficient to protect the public interest and we think not." The Las Vegas Sun editorial notes, with the disgust born of the prospect of 77.000 tons of spent fuel aimed at Nevada, that Congress is considering legislation permitting DOE to restrict the public's access to unclassified information about nuclear waste activities, such as transportation. The Sun recommends the opposite approach: forcing the Energy Department to be more open -- and not shut out the public -- when it comes to the transportation of man's deadliest waste, which is nuclear waste.
[Refs: Steve Tetreault (Stephens Washington Bureau), "Waste shipment raises concerns; Some officials complain that DOE didn't tell them of plan to ship irradiated fuel assemblies", Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 13, 2003; and Las Vegas SUN, Editorial, "Secrecy envelops nuke waste", August 13, 2003]
August 2, 2003
* Indian Point-Counterpoint; Closing nuke plants wouldn't ease terrorist threats, but would squeeze NY power supply
Newsday (New York),Êp. A16 --
This editorial describes the withholding of emergency planning cooperation by local officials as a disservice to the community. The goal of those who are using this political tactic is to shut down Indian Point. But until there's a federal repository for spent fuel, the fuel will remain at the plant and emegency preparedness should be something that officials try to make as effective as possible. Playing politics with public safety in post-9/11 New York is a sorry sight to witness.
May 14, 2003
Gov. Pataki steers clear of public debate over Indian Point e-plan
The Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition wants Gov. Pataki to join them in calling for shutdown of the nuclear plants at Indian Point. During re-election campaign last year, the Gov. said that his opinion on whether the plants should be closed would be based on a then-forthcoming report by former FEMA director James Witt. The governor's spokesperson, Suzanne Morris, told local newspaper that "Ultimately, the JLW report did not recommend the closure of the facility." The newspaper noted, however, that "Witt was not asked to study if the plants should be closed, only to evaluate the emergency evacuation plans." [Source: Roger Witherspoon, "Pataki dodging Indian Point, activists say", The Journal News (White Plains, NY), May 14, 2003]
Overview of Witt report and repercussions
James Lee Witt Associates has made their "Indian Point review of emergency preparedness report" available online as a zip file here. The report was presented to the Governor in December 2002 and made public on January 10, 2003.
Witt concluded that the emergency plans would not work in a serious emergency because of the region's dense population and limited infrastructure. He criticized every aspect of the plans, including the underlying assumptions used by his former agency and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop and test the plans.
As a result of Witt's report, the four county executives refused to sign annual certifications stating that the plans had been updated and were effective. The county executives refused to send the documents to the State Emergency Management Office, halting what for years had been a routine process.
The state, in turn, refused to send its own approval of the plans to FEMA, citing the counties' lack of cooperation. FEMA has since been gathering information on its own, and officials said they would make a recommendation soon to the NRC about the evacuation plans.
[Source: Roger Witherspoon, "Pataki dodging Indian Point, activists say", The Journal News (White Plains, NY), May 14, 2003]
In 2002, The Long Island Power Authority and New York State Energy Research & Development Authority studied the potential for offshore wind power. The study showed a potential for up to 5,200 MW of offshore wind. LIPA decided to start with an initial 100-MW effort. LIPA announced that 30 to 50 wind turbines could produce the 100 MW, and it is now studying the best sites. [Source: Platt's Global Power Report, "LIPA seeks input from wind developers on solicitation for 100 MW of power", August 29, 2002, p. 13]