5 thoughts on “Problem Memo: Indian Point Nuclear Energy Center”

1. You’ve done a pretty good job laying out the health and environmental issues that stem from Indian Point. I didn’t know much about this nuclear plant other than that it existed, so it was definitely informative. However, I think putting this nuclear plant and problem in context would be helpful. Since I don’t know much about the overall operations of nuclear plants in the United States, is Indian Point a unique situation? Are nuclear plants not supposed to be close to such an enormous population? Are there inefficiencies in the design of the plant which cause these issues, or is it just the costs associated with cheaper energy? This might stray a bit from the problem, but how does the plant impact the energy situation of the area – is it causing these problem and not even helping us out with cheap energy?

2. I agree with Doug. Your problem undeniably addresses the public health and environmental issues linked to the Indian Point. It is a very interesting topic . Not only you’ve mentioned the high environmental costs, seismic aspects attributed to it. You’ve argued about its link to possible high cancer rates. According to your memo, one can only gather that this nuclear plant and it’s got to go. However, I can’t help but to ponder about what safety measures has the Environmental Protection Agency undertake to prevent these issues ? Aren’t they aware of what these reactors can do to the population? Could they have commissioned a nuclear plant that can only be harmful/ fatal to the community? Have they outweigh the pros and cons ? I’d like to know more about it.

3. I also concur with Doug and Jennifer. As a piece of antidotal evidence I know someone who used to work at Indian Point (years ago) and they always told me how the plant was generally in disrepair and that there were a lot of patchwork fixes. Your point about its proximity to a large population is interesting as I was always under the impression that Nuclear power plants needed to be close to where they serviced since as power goes through lines over a distance it loose’s its power (bad sentence, but I hope the point makes it across). So I would expect that the proximity to where these plants service is an overall problem based on my limited knowledge of both Nuclear Power plants as well as how electricity works. Since there are technical aspects to this that the average person may not know I think a bit more explication on the operations and technical challenges that face policy on this matter would be helpful. Otherwise a very important topic and a great start.

4. Thank you kindly for the responses, guys. You’ve raised a very good point about the lack of context which is something I struggled with when drafting the memo. Earlier versions included more detail on the benefits of the plant and how they would weigh against the costs but I ultimately decided to leave this out as I was afraid it would open a can of worms in terms of both its history and technical aspects (most of which I found too complicated to sufficiently describe).

   Broadly speaking, Indian Point is not that unique – there are many nuclear power plants in the vicinity of human populations that wreak havoc on the surrounding environment (such as the Hanford site out in Washington State, which is truly horrific: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26658719). The more I read about the subject the more I got the sense that the real problem is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and by extension the U.S. Government itself, which has been supporting the nuclear energy industry since the cold war. As Jon’s friend mentioned, Indian Point is loaded with aging infrastructure, which is the direct result of the NRC giving the managers of Indian Point numerous safety exemptions over the years (http://www.riverkeeper.org/news-events/news/stop-polluters/power-plant-cases/indian-point/riverkeeper-and-richard-brodsky-release-list-of-safety-exemptions-granted-to-indian-point). Even the fact they still have a once-through cooling system as opposed to a closed loop is the result of such an exemption – the NRC mandated that Indian Point install a closed loop system in the 1980’s and has granted extending waivers allowing them to operate as is ever since.

   The entire history of nuclear energy in this country is loaded with stories like these and I was worried that by getting into the weeds I would expand the scope of the assignment by turning the policy memo into an indictment of a government that has failed its duty to the public. That probably would have been the more interesting paper but ultimately I chickened out and decided to stick to the basic formula of “this is a problem because…. ” All this to say, I’ve been at a bit of a loss as to how to adequately address such a problem.

5. Chris, this was a highly informative and eye-opening memorandum. You did such a great job highlighting the issues you addressed. I liked that you linked the issue of the nuclear hazards to upholding the agency’s mission, strengthening the argument and reminding the NRC of their responsibility to the public and the environment. The two solutions that stuck out were for NRC to deny the renewal of the power plant’s license, effectively shutting them down; and to responsibly dispose of the radioactive materials and nuclear product currently stored there.

   The question then becomes, if these plants are shut down, what happens to the jobs and livelihood of the current employee population? If their licensure is not renewed by the NRC, what will be the economic effect for those who lose their jobs as a result? Since Indian Point produces about 25% of NYC and Westchester’s electricity, what will supplement the production once the plants are shut down? Despite the continued existence of the nuclear plants being so toxic to the environment and the public, perhaps there are other options that can be considered, as well. A safer means of storing the radioactive materials (if such a thing exists) as the nuclear plants get phased out could allow for the area to develop alternative means of energy production, which, in turn, would create new jobs for those who would lose their jobs if the nuclear plants are shut down. Since a renewed license would be good for another 20 years, gradually phasing out the plants might give the community enough time to develop viable alternatives rather than shutting down the plants all at once and having to deal with the economic impact caused by vast unemployment.

   This is definitely a problem that needs to be resolved. Great topic!

Comments are closed.