There”™s no middle ground with nuclear energy. You either love it or hate it.
And when it comes to Indian Point, long a politically charged lightning rod, being the spokesman for the company that runs it takes aplomb and a steely coolness when for most people the response would be just the opposite.
After 23 years in that proverbial hotseat, Jim Steets is soon retiring after fielding innumerable press inquiries, taking on opposition from anti-nuke groups and politicians including Gov. Andrew Cuomo who would like to see Indian Point shut down, and demystifying the national controversy with nuclear power.
With nuclear energy a tension-fraught issue where any debate can rise quickly to fever pitch, Steets said his tactic is to always take the high road.
But sometimes, he said it”™s tough to remain nonconfrontational when people don”™t do their research, basing their arguments on misinformation.
“It”™s a lot of emotion,” Steets said. “You hear a lot of things that are said by our opponents and that can get your emotions up, but you have to just check yourself.”
As spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Steets supervises internal and external communications for six nuclear plants and leads a staff of 15 managers, specialists and administrators. Indian Point is responsible for carrying 25 percent of the power on the New York City and Westchester electric grid, Steets said.
He started in the nuclear energy industry in 1990 as the senior federal affairs representative of the New York Power Authority. He served as the communications manager for the Power Authority, being the primary spokesman for Indian Point unit 3, making the case for the economic and environmental benefits of the plant.
And while the local challenge is managing the ongoing debate over the re-licensing of two nuclear power plants at Buchanan-based Indian Point, Steets has often been called to address issues on the world stage.
Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Steets faced an unrelenting barrage of questions, phone calls and emails about Indian Point”™s potential as a target for terrorists. Although Steets worried about the potential for Indian Point to be attacked, too, he said many people don”™t realize that even if it was hit, a nuclear power plant can”™t explode.
“There isn”™t anything you can do to a commercial nuclear reactor to make it behave like a nuclear bomb,” Steets said. “The technology isn”™t there. The makeup of the fuel isn”™t enriched enough to cause a nuclear explosion. It”™s only enriched to about six percent.”
In 2011, the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan resulting from a tsunami and earthquake raised concern about the ability for Indian Point to withstand natural disasters. Steets said despite the pressure to put the public at ease, he said all he had to do was lay out the facts.
“The difference between the nuclear plants in Japan and Indian Point are important,” Steets said. “The plant at Fukushima was unable to withstand the tsunami because their fuel tanks sat above ground and were swept away. Ours are underground. The challenges could”™ve easily been dealt with in Japan if the fuel tanks were relocated.”
Steets said he enjoys helping people separate the myths from the facts about nuclear power plants and radiation. And he does so with an amiable yet firm and calm tone of voice even when reporters grill him with tough questions.
“One of the things I”™ve enjoyed is the opportunity to convince people. Whatever their beliefs may have been about nuclear power plants, they”™re probably not based on science or facts. And so when I can bring that information to them and see their point of view change, I get a lot of satisfaction from that.”
With the current relicensing of a nuclear power plant at Indian Point pending approval, Steets said it could take up to five years to fully relicense Indian Point unit 2, which Entergy bought from Con Edison in mid-2001. One year earlier, Entergy bought Indian Point unit 3 from the New York Power Authority, and the permit on that power plant expires December 2015. Unit 2, which expired in September, will operate throughout the application renewal process under federal law. Indian Point unit 1 is out of use.
Entergy is invested in the license renewal application to ensure that the two plants meet the requirements, and the NRC staff has already recommended those plants be granted their licenses, Steets said. The review process is very thorough and conducted by a  five-member, presidentially-appointed Commission that oversees the NRC.
“When all is said and done, I don”™t think anyone can say that when Entergy achieves those licenses, it did not demonstrate in a very positive, tangible way that those plants can operate safely for the next 20 years,” Steets said.
When Steets retires on Jan. 31, Jerry Nappi, communications manager at Indian Point, will take over.
“I think Jerry is going to perform his duties extremely well,” Steets said. “He”™s got a good head on his shoulders, and he”™s familiar with the political arena and the need to stay the high road on these issues.”
Steets said he will remain involved in the Westchester community as a board member of two organizations: the Boys and Girls Club of Northern Westchester in Mount Kisco and the Hudson River Healthcare based in Peekskill.
At age 60, he plans to spend more time on the fairway, but stay updated on energy-related issues.
“I”™m going to be a better golfer,” said Steets, who grew up in Spring Lake, N.J., and now lives in Middletown with his wife, Marie, who is the deputy county clerk in charge of motor vehicles for Orange County.
“I”™ll also be involved and helpful and supportive of Indian Point”™s license renewal in any way I can and any way they”™re willing to have me.”
Indian Point provides just 5% of the electricity used daily in NYC and Westchester County –not 25%. It is not capable of producing that figure. On a summer day the region uses about 13,000 MW ( during last summer’s heat wave it hit 13,215 on July 18). 25% of that would be 3,250 MW. That’s a bit much for a plant with a max output of 2,000 MW.
In addition, Entergy SELLS its electricity — it is not a captive of ConEd. Its contract with con ed is just for 550 MW. And it provides NO electricity to the New York Power Authority, which provides electricity for the subways, MetroNorth, the airports, street lights, schools, housing authority, and municipal buildings. NYPA buys that electricity from other generating companies. ( http://bit.ly/ZvIi41 )
Steets has been a very effective spokesman for Entergy Nuclear. But like all PR folks, his statements need verification.
Mr Witherspoon,
Your post indeed demonstrates some of your ignorance on the topic of deregulation. Just because a power plant owner sells their power elsewhere does not mean that that is where the power goes. Power plants do not have steering wheels. Once the power is generated, it is transmitted out to the grid to be used by customers connected to THAT grid. What do you know… Indian Point is connected to the grid that serves NYC. That being the case, every single megawatt that Indian Point produces is able to power NYC if that is what the grid operator (in this case, that would be Con Ed) deems necessary… which happens pretty much every single minute of every day of the year. Some of the power that is purchased for NYC is not even connected to the grid which serves NYC. Deregulation just allows a power plant that can make power able to sell it in any other deregulated part of the country… even if they can not deliver it to where it is being used.
Roger repeatedly confuses electricity contracts with the actual flow of electrical power across the electrical grid which are two different things. Information obtained from the New York Independent System Operator, which independently monitors the flow of electricity in New York State, among other things,, demonstrates Indian Point’s contribution averages approximately 25% of the electricity consumed in NYC and Westchester annually. Roger pulls a single day’s usage to make his point. In fact, there are many days when Indian Point’s contribution far exceeds 25%. His single day and all the others form an average of about 25% as we have repeatedly asserted and the facts support.
Jim, the wishy-washy nature of your answer says it all – while you were all too willing to have the reporter state that ‘Indian Point is responsible for carrying 25 percent of the power on the New York City and Westchester electric grid” (a statement that doesn’t make sense on its face), the best you can muster is “averages approximately 25%”…well, which is it? Or more importantly, does it matter, and the answer is a resounding NO. IP’s power is being replaced as we debate its future, by market forces (new gas plants being permitted and built in the Hudson Valley) and actions by Governor Cuomo to upgrade the state’s transmission grid, the latter of which will replace this aging nuke’s power by the summer of 2016. Readers should check out the two Synapse reports commissioned by Riverkeeper, and the Contingency Plan prepared by ConEdison, found here, http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=12-e-0503&submit=Search+by+Case+Number
Debating the energy question is a distraction from the real, documented safety and security concerns that plague these 40 year old nukes – leaking nuclear waste, major security lapses, including repeated failures of the security drills, transformer explosions, fires, oil spills, and let’s not forget the decades of environmental harm to the Hudson River. When you add it all up, the facts speak for themselves, and the facts, and common sense say close Indian Point.
When it comes to Indian Point, we don’t need the power – so why take the risk?
I wish the best for Mr. Steets for his next endeavors. He was indeed a gentleman and Mr. nice guy even for the greens. Now he does not need to be nice to them but look at that he still tries to educate while he could’ve said ” the hell with you guys, I am not wrestling with you anymore!.. ”
Save your energies Jim, enjoy the life outside the nukes with your loved ones. The nukes still needs you and your patience.