New York appears to have become the first state to oppose renewal of a nuclear power plant license:
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo said on Monday that the state had asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny an application to extend the license of the Indian Point nuclear reactors, citing “a long and troubling history of problems.”
Mr. Cuomo, flanked by Lt. Gov. David A. Paterson and members of the Congressional delegation at a news conference, claimed that the nuclear plant, in densely populated Westchester County, could not be defended from a terrorist attack and that the surrounding area could not be evacuated if a major accident occurred. The state filed a 313-page petition on behalf of Mr. Cuomo and Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Friday.
N.R.C. Officials could not recall a previous occasion when a state had tried to block a license extension. Most recently, opponents’ ire had been directed at the plant owner’s belated progress in meeting federal deadlines to install warning sirens around the plant, which is on the Hudson River in Buchanan.
The state also contends that the application to extend the plant’s license for 20 more years, which was filed on April 30 by the plant’s owner, Entergy Nuclear, failed to account for pipes, cables and fire-protection systems that have deteriorated at the nuclear reactors, which began operation in the mid-’70s.
“I believe Indian Point should be closed and it should be closed now,” Mr. Cuomo said at the news conference at the Westchester County administrative building.
Officials of the N.R.C. could not recall a previous occasion when a state had tried to intervene in a license-extension proceeding to block the extension. New York State owned Indian Point 3 from 1975 until 2000.
Citing Past Troubles at Indian Point, State Urges Panel to Deny License Extension, by John Sullivan and Matthew L. Wald.
Some background on Indian Point:
Twenty million people live within the 50-mile “peak injury” zone of Indian Point, located 24 miles north of the Bronx on the banks of the Hudson River in Westchester County. A large radioactive release triggered by a terrorist attack on or accident at the facility could have devastating health and economic consequences, rendering much of the Hudson River Valley, including New York City, uninhabitable. (Riverkeeper’s Indian Point Page).
In its editorial “Taking Aim At Indian Point,” dated December 5, 2007, The New York Times argued that New York’s case deserved a public airing, despite the Times’ editorial position in favor of nuclear power. The Times correctly points out that were Indian Point to close, the region would need another 2,000 megawatts to replace that energy supplied by Indian Point.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must decide in the next year or two whether to allow Indian Point to remain open after its two reactor licenses expire in 2013 and 2015, should grant New York’s request to intervene in the relicensing process. It should provide a full airing of the issues raised by Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Cuomo, which focus mostly on Indian Point’s vulnerability to terrorist attack, its record of leaks, accidents and environmental damage and its status as the nuclear plant with more neighbors than any other in the country — 20 million people within 50 miles, in a region where mass evacuations might be all but impossible.
This would require changing the rules of such hearings, which focus on the soundness of the plant and the ability of the utility to run it. By asking for a hearing, Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Cuomo have joined local politicians and activists in arguing that the 9/11 attacks changed things and that the commission has not adequately considered the risks and consequences of terrorism as it reviews relicensing applications for the plants it oversees.
We, too, believe that domestic security is of utmost urgency. The intense scrutiny that New York wants to apply to Indian Point — about 30 miles up the Hudson River from Manhattan — should apply to all nuclear plants in the country, including those whose spent-fuel pools are above ground and thus more vulnerable than Indian Point’s.
This should not be misconstrued as an attack on nuclear power, which we strongly believe has a place in the nation’s energy mix. Indeed, our support for New York’s position comes with a major caveat: The state has an obligation to explain what it would do about the 2,000 megawatts of electricity that would be lost if the plant closed. Its solution must not compromise New York’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gases in the region. Replacing one potential menace with another — like an environmentally dirtier and costly natural-gas plant — would be a bad outcome.
The question is – if we decide to close the plant – whether New York can rapidly come up wih 2,000 megawatts – comprised of energy savings, or “nega-watts,” and new supply. Whether or not we close Indian Point now – the 2,000 megawatt saving seems like a good interim goal for reasons of health, thrift, and long-term safety (i.e. global warming).
