On November 10, 2014, the Atomic Safety Licensing Board dismissed a contention from Clearwater concerning the safety of nuclear waste storage at the Indian Point power plant. The determination was made on procedural and technical grounds, and did not address the merits of Clearwater’s contention.
ASLB Order Dismissing Clearwater Contentions.
On October 1, 2014, Clearwater filed a brief and support testimony with the Atomic Energy Licensing Board in reactivating its nuclear waste Safety Contention SC-4, which seeks to plug the gaps in the safety analyses for the long-term storage of spent-fuel at the Indian Point Energy Center.
Clearwater’s October 1, 2014 brief supporting Safety Contention SC-4
Testimony of Arnold Gundersen.
February 14, 2014: Clearwater’s Petition for Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Partial Initial Decision.
Clearwater’s July 9, 2012 Safety Contention is based on a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not defined and developed a national repository for spent nuclear waste and the spent fuel pools housed at Indian Point not only constitute an environmental hazard, but a safety hazard that must be evaluated under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).
The spent fuel pools have become so densely packed that it is impossible to completely inspect them. Because deterioration and difficult maintenance issues have arisen during the initial licensed term for IP2 and IP3, it is only logical that these problems will continue to occur as more spent fuel rods are packed in denser numbers.
The more densely packed these rods become, the more difficult it is to halt nuclear fission.
The New York State Department of Environmental Protection’s imposition of a $1.2 million fine on Entergy marks a new and welcome level of enforcement of public safety requirements at the Indian Point nuclear plant. The DEC fine, which stems a November 2010 transformer explosion, fire, and oil spill into the Hudson River at Indian Point 2, is significantly higher than any the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has imposed on Entergy for non-compliance at Indian Point. ExecutedOrderonConsent-EntergyNuclearIndianPoint2&3LLC
December 22, 2011: Clearwater’s Initial Pre-Filed Testimony Contention EC-3A regarding NRC Staff and Entergy’s falilure to take a hard look at the potential Environmental Justice impacts of relicensing Indian Point.
Clearwater Exhibit List 12.22.11 — Revised
Clearwater Statement of Legal Position
Michael Edelstein Pre-Filed Testimony
Anthony Papa Pre-filed Testimony
Dr. Erik Larsen Pre-Filed Testimony
John Simms Pre-filed Testimony
Aaron Mair Pre-Filed Testimony
Stephen Filler Pre-Filed Testimony
Manna Jo Greene Pre-filed Testimony
April 14, 2011:
Clearwater’s Emergency Petition to Suspend All Pending Reactor and Related Rulemaking Decisions Pending Investigation of Lessons Learned from Fukushima Nuclear Power Station Accident with Other Intervenors
February 3, 2011:
Clearwater’s Amended and Extended Environmental Justice Contention related to flawed Environmental Justice analyses in Entergy’s Environmental Report and in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) … and the judge’s response
January 24, 2011:
Clearwater and Riverkeeper – joint motion to add new contentions to Indian Point relicensing proceedings relating to the potential environmental and safety impacts of the long-term storage of spent fuel at the Indian Point facility
November 6, 2009:
Indian Point Re-licensing Proceedings -Petition for New Contentions
December 10, 2007:
Full text of the Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing in the Indian Point Licensing Renewal Application (LRA) case submitted by Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. to the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) on 12/10/07
September 19, 2007:
An Overview of the Relicensing Process for Indian Point
March 2, 2007:
Briefing and Roundtable on the Indian Point Leaks