How Does Indian Point's Design Compare to its Japanese Counterparts?

As Westchester residents witness Japan’s waking nightmare, they have begun to reexamine their nearby Indian Point nuclear power plants and reassess whether the plants’ relatively low possibility of risk plus the reward of local non-carbon energy outweighs their potential for catastrophe.

No experts predict a similar scenario: an 9.0 magnitude earthquake followed by a cataclysmic tsunami that killed thousands and sent plumes of radioactive steam into the air this week from meltdowns and explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. 

An accident at Indian Point could expose a dense population of more than 10 million people to radiation. 

 Doris Lorenz of Cortlandt questioned the facility's existence. 

"It should never ever have been built. Why was it even allowed to be built? Why don't they put up windmills in the middle of the river? Cuomo should shut it down and bury the rods."

Japan had been top-rated for its disaster preparedness and evacuation drills. Most New Yorkers say they feel ill-prepared for a nuclear accident.

Indian Point sits along the Hudson River in Buchanan, just 24 miles north of New York City.  It has a history of safety violations including 600,000 gallons of boiling radioactive water that escaped as steam through an open valve last year and an electric transformer explosion in December. 

Daiichi vs. Indian Point design

Discussions with Indian Point spokespersons and other nuclear experts reveal similarities between the plants as well as key safety differences.  Entergy-owned Indian Point Units 2 and 3, built in 1974 and 1976, use a Westinghouse pressurized water design that generates steam to spin turbines that generate energy. (Indian Point 1 began operating in 1962 and was decommissioned in 1974.)  The Daiichi reactors, in contrast, were built in the 1960s and depend on boiling water. 

More important, the Daiichi reactors, unlike those at Indian Point, rely on American-made General Electric Mark 1 steel and concrete vessels to contain the nuclear fuel rods that power the plant.  These Mark 1 vessels, nuclear experts say, are not as strong and are more likely to crack than containment vessels made later. 

In terms of similarities, the Daiichi and Indian Point plants maintain on their sites  spent fuel rods that contain used radioactive fuel.  These spent rods along with the active uranium rods that power nuclear plants must be kept in cool water to prevent a meltdown.

Both sites rely on similar failsafe mechanisms in case control rods that normally power the plants and pump cooling water shut down. Japan’s six reactors relied on 13 backup diesel generators.  Indian Point’s two units have 8 backup generators, Nappi said. 

The tsunami knocked out the Daiichi generators leaving the plants to rely on battery power.  Batteries designed to last short-term ran out of power before emergency help could reach the devastated area and repairs could be made.

While the Daiichi plant ran out of most options and is now attempting to pour sea water on the plant, Indian Point’s backup design also offers a residual steam system to drive auxiliary pumps and move water, Nappi said.  In addition, Indian Point houses its spent fuel rods almost entirely below grade along the Hudson River making it difficult for water to seep and stay out.

Follow Port Chester Patch!

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PortChesterPatch

Twitter: http://twitter.com/PChesterPatch