[ RadSafe ] Irony at Its Best a.k.a. Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant

[John Jacobus]

Editorial from today's New Your Times

See the last paragraph

December 5, 2007
Editorial

Taking Aim at Indian Point 

In an extraordinary move, Gov. Eliot Spitzer and
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo have placed themselves
at the head of the group of federal, state and local
officials who believe that the Indian Point nuclear
power plant is unsafe and poorly run and should be
closed. They should be given a chance to make their
case.

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.


--- bobcherry at satx.rr.com wrote:

> This articel is in today's New York Times:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/nyregion/04nuke.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
> Here is the lead passage in the article:  
> 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.” 
> ----
> Here is a later passage: 
> Mr. Cuomo said at the news conference that claims of
> power shortages should the plant be shut were “scare
> tactics” ...
> -----
> Oh! The irony!
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing
> list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have
> read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be
> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe
> and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Sir Winston Churchill

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs