Stakeholders in the future of the Indian Point nuclear power plant took stands across publicly drawn battle lines near the close of 2007, when a media and legal salvo from allied elected officials and regional environmental groups that want the plant closed was quickly countered by business and labor groups in the metropolitan area.
It could be several months before nuclear opponents ”“ whose ranks last month were formally joined by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the New York and Connecticut attorneys general ”“ know whether they”™ll be included in the Indian Point relicensing process.
And Entergy Nuclear Northeast likely will wait another 19 months to 27 months for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to rule on the company”™s application for 20-year license extensions for its two nuclear reactors at Indian Point, according to a spokesman for the federal agency.
Under current relicensing regulations, the NRC has never denied a license renewal while granting nearly 50. Yet this is the first time a state has intervened in an NRC license renewal proceeding in an effort to close a plant.
NRC regional spokesman Neil A. Sheehan last week said the agency”™s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by its December deadline had received 15 requests for hearings from interested parties on Entergy”™s license application. Those were supported by about 150 contentions spelling out safety and environmental concerns about the Indian Point facility in the village of Buchanan and its two aging nuclear generators, whose licenses are due to expire in 2013 and 2015, respectively.
Sheehan said the three-judge panel will review the contentions “and determine which ones warrant a closer look.” The judges will decide whether to hold hearings to include contending parties in the license renewal process, which is largely conducted in writing, he said.
The panel”™s decision is “several months” away, Sheehan said. “They have their work cut out for them. They have a tremendous amount to go through.”
The documents include a 314-page brief with 32 contentions submitted in late November by state officials. Riverkeeper Inc., the Hudson River environmental group based in Tarrytown, at the same time filed a similar petition to intervene in the relicensing process and a shorter list of contentions.
Riverkeeper President Alex Matthiessen appeared with several of the region”™s elected state and federal lawmakers, led by Lt. Gov. David Paterson and Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, at a press conference last month in White Plains hosted by Westchester County Executive Andrew M. Spano to announce the NRC filings.
The attorney general”™s remarks that day have drawn the most flak from supporters of the Indian Point center and nuclear energy. Calling it “a catastrophe waiting to happen,” Cuomo said, “My position is very simple. I believe Indian Point should be closed, and it should be closed now.” He said the plant”™s power production capacity of 2,000 megawatts could be replaced by alternative energy sources without risking major power outages.
In a written statement to the Business Journal, Laurent L. Lawrence, executive director of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, said Cuomo”™s call for the plant”™s closing was “baffling,” given the challenges faced by the region to increase electricity supply for a growing population and economy while meeting regional and New York City goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Indian Point generates enough power to keep the lights, computers, televisions, refrigerators, and more running in roughly two million average New York homes,” said Lawrence, a New Rochelle resident. “And Indian Point produces all this power with near zero carbon emissions, helping to improve our air quality and environment by mitigating 14 million tons of carbon dioxide that would result from a comparable fossil fuel plant.”
Lawrence said Indian Point”™s two reactors produce 11 percent of the state”™s total base-load energy. “And as the cheapest source of energy on the market, the power produced by Indian Point helps keep the price of more expensive sources such as coal and gas competitive,” he said. “That means lower energy bills for all of us.”
Countering opponents, Entergy officials and Indian Point supporters have cited a 2006 study by the National Academy of Sciences that found “insurmountable technological barriers” to the plant”™s replacement. “Even with the Indian Point units operational, New York State will require system reinforcements, above those already under construction, as soon as 2008 in order to meet its projected demand for electricity and maintain system reliability,” the study said.
Lawrence said four to five coal or natural gas power plants would be needed to replace Indian Point. “With the political, social, and opposition climate as it is in the region, there is little chance that even one of these plants would ever get sited, much less constructed. Indeed, who would want a gas- or coal-fired power plant in their backyard?”
“Attorney General Cuomo has aligned himself with an energy policy which is both environmentally irresponsible and cannot work for this region; he has been swayed by a very boisterous and uninformed local anti-nuclear movement,” Lawrence said. “Rather than continuing to waste money and resources fighting against an economically, environmentally, and socially necessary facility, they should be looking for additional ways to secure our future productivity.”
Ron C. Forehand, Sr., CEO of the Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce in Peekskill, a northern Westchester neighbor of the nuclear plant, said Cuomo”™s statement about Indian Point “that he would like to close it immediately, borders on being embarrassing. It sounds like something a 7-year-old would say.”
Forehand said the chamber”™s board of directors has been discussing Entergy”™s Indian Point license renewal for the last 2 ½ to 3 months. “We”™re digging” for more information, he said. The chamber board is expected to issue a statement on Entergy”™s relicensing later this month.
“In general, replacing the amount of energy that we get from there is a substantial chore,” Forehand said. “One of the things we”™ll look at is, what is the option?”
Entergy Nuclear Northeast spokesman James F. X. Steets serves as vice chairman of the Hudson Valley Gateway board. At a chamber breakfast last month hosted by Entergy, Steets sought to allay concerns about the plant”™s safety, security and environmental impact raised by opponents. He said the plant”™s approximately 13,000 employees “are unafraid” to work at the nuclear site and its reactor containment buildings could not be penetrated by jet planes in a terrorist attack, a grim prospect raised by state officials.
Steets said Indian Point pays $15 million annually in taxes and Entergy donates $2 million annually to local communities.
Steets said the relicensing process will cost the company an estimated $10 million to $15 million. “Entergy does very well with these plants, no question about it,” he said. “That is the bottom-line motivator for requesting these plants”™ licensing renewal.”
“They”™re a huge revenue source for the community,” chamber CEO Forehand said of Entergy. “They certainly are a good community servant.”
In White Plains, Marsha Gordon, president and CEO of The Business Council of Westchester, a member of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, said the “hard stand” taken by state officials against Indian Point “doesn”™t make any sense at this time. It”™s a position that”™s not consistent with the needs of the entire region, particularly in Westchester County.”
Judging by the response to the state”™s salvo, “The public and clearly the business community are not buying any argument that Indian Point should be closed down,” she said. “What”™s most important is that we need reliable power and as affordable as possible to attract employers and good jobs in the county and the region. You can”™t do that unless you keep the lights on.”
