What started out as a cordial presentation of differing views on the safety of nuclear energy turned into a near meltdown of claims and counterclaims.

 

By Bill Lawyer

What started out as a cordial presentation of differing views on the safety of nuclear energy turned into a near meltdown of claims and counterclaims.

 

The Osborn held the program in its auditorium September 19. The moderator was attorney Elizabeth Radow, who is President of the Larchmont/Mamaroneck League of Women Voters. The speakers were attorney Michel Lee, who is active in several environmental organizations that are seeking to deny the re-licensing of Westchester’s Indian Point nuclear power plant; and James Steets, Director of Communications for Entergy Nuclear LLC, the company that operates Indian Point, along with other nuclear power plants around the United States.

 

About 55 people attended the afternoon event, and while the program went on for an hour and a half, no one left until it ended. After a lengthy initial debate, the speakers answered questions from the audience, and that’s where the arguments became more heated.

 

Each speaker was given 12 minutes to make a presentation. The moderator then asked questions which each speaker could respond to, followed by questions submitted in writing from members of the audience.

 

Lee won the coin toss and chose to let Steets go first.

 

Steets started by using a diagram handout to explain exactly how nuclear power plants operate. He pointed out that nuclear plants are the same as any other energy production plant, in that they all use heat to produce power. The difference is that nuclear fission produces highly radioactive materials that must be contained.

 

A nuclear power plant “is not a bomb”, stressed Steets, who noted that all aspects of plant operation have been developed and monitored in conjunction with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). He asserted that “billions of dollars” have been spent over the years to upgrade the operations for safety and security.

 

The reason there has been so much debate about the Indian Point Plant lately is that the two power units there are up for re-licensing in 2013 and 2015, respectively.

 

The heart of the concern over security is the safety and security of the spent fuel rods, which are kept on the site in “fuel pools.”  These are very radioactive.

 

Lee began her presentation with a lengthy discussion of why nuclear energy is unsafe, making many references to what happened recently at the Japanese nuclear power plant at Fukushima. That plant, Lee noted, “was built about the same time as Indian Point,” and highlights all the things that can go wrong, starting, ironically, with the loss of power.

 

She then read off a list of the many breakdowns, failures, and rule violations that have occurred at Indian Point over the years. She also spoke about the kinds of problems that could happen —including sabotage due to computer terrorism.

 

Lee used the Entergy statistic that $100 million has been spent on security at the plant as an argument that “if they’re that concerned about security, then it must be a very real danger.”

 

Steets made an impassioned response giving the many reasons why Indian Point is very different from Fukushima and Chernobyl. As he put it, “Do you stop using elevators just because one breaks and causes a death?”

 

During the question-and-answer period, claims, and counter-claims were raised about the impact on the economy that would occur if Indian Point were shut down. Steets referred to a report by the Manhattan Institute, but Lee said that this was a known right wing think tank supported by the energy companies.

 

They did agree that a National Academy of Sciences report was thorough and even-handed.

 

Steets argued that most of Lee’s points were about what might happen, not what has happened.

 

Other points of debate related to the feasibility of evacuation, the opinions of the nearby residents of Indian Point regarding plant safety, long-term storage of nuclear waste, and why the only insurance available covers people working in the plant, not anyone on the outside. “No companies will insure people against injury or death due to nuclear contamination,” Lee explained.

 

On a personal level, Lee said that she’s advocating for closing the plant “for the safety of my children and grandchildren.” In his rebuttal, Steets said he has no concerns about his grandchildren – that he has faith in the regulatory and supervisory ability of the NRC.

 

The program was organized by Susie McNamee, Program Coordinator for the Sterling Park facility at The Osborn