Rockland County Executive: It's Time To Shut Indian Point
C. Scott Vanderhoef says the risks of the nuclear plant are not worth the rewards.
Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef said Tuesday that while he is confident in the government’s Indian Point evacuation plan, he still believes the nuclear plant should ultimately be closed.
“My own personal belief is that no matter how good your plan is … there’s always a hiccup, there’s always a problem, there’s always something behind something else that creates problems, and that we live in too densely a populated area to assure the safety and health of every single resident,” Vanderhoef said while participating in Rockland County Government Day at Rockland Community College. “And if I can’t do that, then the question becomes is nuclear power at that site, in this densely populated area, worth the cheap electricity it produces. And my response is no, that it should be closed. Not because I’m opposed to nuclear power, but because it’s in the wrong spot.”
The discussion began when Vanderhoef was talking to RCC faculty and students, along with other government officials, about what the County Executive’s office does. The talk was part of Rockland County Government Day, where various booths were set up to teach locals about what each department in the county government does. Vanderhoef’s speech was one of several “break-out” sessions during the event, where local officials talked to a small group about their specific role in the government.
Vanderhoef began by talking about the different jobs that a county executive has, one of which is serving as the chief emergency officer for Rockland. However, he noted that the one exception to this was in the case of a disaster at Indian Point, when the executives for Westchester, Orange, Putnam and Rockland would have to come together to decide the next course of action.
After making this clarification Vanderhoef moved on to discuss other topics, specifically how and why he chose to keep Rockland schools open the day after the September 11th terrorist attacks. But when Vanderhoef opened the floor up for a question-and-answer session, the focus quickly switched back to Indian Point.
One woman asked if the four county executives ever get together to discuss a possible evacuation plan. Vanderhoef said that they in fact practice such plans at least twice a year, each with different hypothetical scenarios. He noted, however, that a question has now come up about whether the evacuation radius should be 10 miles — as it is now — or 50 miles. This has mainly become an issue because officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended that Americans staying within 50 miles of the Japanese nuclear power plant impacted by the country’s recent earthquake should evacuate the area. Vanderhoef assured the crowd that the 10 mile radius would remain and that it was sufficient for evacuation.
“What NRC was they made a decision, in the Japanese plants, to tell Americans to evacuate within 50 miles of those plants,” Vanderhoef explained. “The reason they did that was because they could not get enough information from the Japanese authorities and the Tokyo Power authority, and they were fearing the worst, so they made a very conservative judgment to do 50 miles. […] So the question that is now is everybody’s mind is, ‘Is it 10 miles or is it 50 miles?’ The answer is going to be it’s 10 miles, but the NRC is going to have to explain themselves […] and then explain it to the public as to why the 10 mile limit is scientifically appropriate for purposes of getting out. “
Vanderhoef later pointed out that the 10 mile radius is in effect throughout the country, not just for the area surrounding Indian Point.
But, Vanderhoef said, no matter how often they practice these plans, something could still go wrong, especially in an area with so many people. Thus he stated that we must discuss whether alternative means of creating electricity might be better for this community, even if they are more expensive. He also suggested perhaps moving the plant to an area that is less densely populated.
“I just think there’s too much of a risk,” he said of Indian Point. “Why not biomass? Wind power? Different natural gas power? I understand it may be more expensive. Build a nuclear plant somewhere else, just not there.”
A final questioner asked Vanderhoef what they could do about this issue. Vanderhoef responded that people could write to different government officials, and the main topic they should discuss is the criteria by which the NRC decides whether or not to recertify existing nuclear plants.
“When you recertify a plant, you should recertify the plant based on whether you would build that plant today in that same location,” he concluded. “[…] Base it on those criteria, and I would suggest to you Indian Point would not be recertified. But the NRC doesn’t do that. The rules and the law say that they recertify based only on reviewing whether there’s an enormous environmental damage that might take place if it were recertified and to assure that it’s fundamental operations are continuing and they’re not too old. […] So if you write [to the government tell them to], ask the NRC, or pass a law at the federal level that requires the NRC recertifying any plant to review as if it were a new plant.”
Scott Walters
9:05 am on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
And how do we pay for all the increased costs????? No one EVER explains that!
Jerry
10:06 am on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
May I suggest that Indian Point and its 40 year-old infrastructue, be replaced with a modern nuclear facility. The safety, efficiency, and re-use of nuclear materials is much more advanced than when the generation of "Indian Point" plants was built.
A new plant does not need to be at the current location. New York state has many areas less densely populated, that could accomodate an appropriate evacuation plan. This could also serve to bring jobs to regions of the State that have been economically challenged.
Lets not forget that the earthquake was NOT the cause of the Japanese nuclear plant problems. The resultant tsunami knocked out the back-up power systems. Hindsight is 20-20, but the back-up power should have included a water-proof back-up power system (high ground, hardened lines, etc).
After reading about the environmental perils of hydro-fracking for natural gas, coal strip mining (todays NY times), and last summers off-shore oil disaster, what energy resource does not have its peril? Heck, even bio-fuels has a cost, as it is now contributing to much higher food prices and increased hunger in many third-world countries where crops are now being re-directed from feeding the population to more profitable bio fuel uses.
It is about choices. Environmental, economic, quality of life. I would not shut the door on nuclear power being a part of the future energy sources of this country.
Mike Hirsch
10:49 am on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
For once I agree with Scott. The planes that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11 could just as easily have hit Indian Point. I remember that day. That was the first thing that crossed my mind.
MitchP
12:36 pm on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Another nuclear accident will happen, it's just a matter of where and when. A ten mile exclusion zone around Indiant Point would easily infiltrate Rockland. A twenty mile zone would leave most of Westchester and Rockland uninhabitable; and then imagine the resulting effects on the entire Northeast.
And @Mike - airplanes should not be able to puncture a nuclear reactor containment building. Planes are basically lightweight aluminum tubes...smashing them into that kind of a steel or concrete structure should cause disintegration similar to what happened at the Pentagon. The Twin Towers were hollow, which is why they were compromised. With that said I'm not saying there wouldn't be damage, and I'm definitely not looking to put the science to the test...
B. Gluica
5:26 pm on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The TRUE need is for a 2 mile exclusion zone, centered exactly on the wind direction, and no exclusion zone in the other quadrants. This requires close cooperation between plant & government ( which Indian Point has had since 9-11)....The phone rings in Vanderhoef's office before it rings at NRC. The expansion to a 10 mile zone was done in case officials could not be reached. Realistically NO dust from Fukushima has gone beyond 30 km (18 miles) and only in a thin line to the northwest....AND THIS IS SIX (6) FAILED REACTORS!
Now consider IP.....No tsunami, all the mitigations IN PLACE that TEPCO arrogantly omitted.
There is in fact only one lesson to be learned from Fukushima, and that is how it DOES NOT say anything about Indian Point.
Indian Point saves lives by being on line. Its replacement will be FOSSIL BURNING. My wife has emphysema. If Vanderhoef wants to kill my wife, by shutting IP, I would have to speak personally to him about it ! 1 million lives are lost each year to fossil burning. Nuclear saves 200,000 lives per year BY JUST BEING THERE.
Remember... no one has even been injured at Fukushima, 6 reactors bad, tsunami, quake & all !
(yeah, one guy with burnt legs).
Get a sense of proportion, people!
B. Gluica
5:33 pm on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tepco was not delivering info to NRC, so NRC said " Do 50 miles" Good. Very conservative. Now, come to Buchanan, where hardwired class "A" leased landlines connect NRC to the 4 counties, & Entergy. Info will flow, and 2 miles will be evacuated, in the wind direction only.
But it will never happen, because the "Ring of Fire" quake + Tsunami are an impossibility here.
( Fukushima withstood a 9.0 quake... only the 50 foot wall of ocean water hurt it)
AND... the prevailing winds go eastward...away from Rockland!
Sunny Armer
3:52 pm on Sunday, April 17, 2011
" the prevailing winds go eastward...away from Rockland!" I see that Rockland is your only concern. To hell with the rest of the Eastern Seaboard. By the way, “prevailing” means only the usual direction of the wind. You do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. “"Ring of Fire" quake + Tsunami are an impossibility here” Well, yes, but a report from Lamont Doherty (Columbia University's earth observatory) indicates that our region is due for a big earthquake—up to a 7 magnitude. No tsunami, sure. What about blizzards and flooding? Tornadoes? And never forget human error, which caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Scott Walters
10:01 am on Thursday, April 14, 2011
There are risks involved with any type of energy production, be it natural gas explosions, electrical shorts, fires, explosions, no wind or sun, or nuclear contamination issues.
The biggest concern is the fact that everyone wants:
1) lower cost energy
2) reduced carbon footprint
3) less dependence on foreign sources of oil
4) negligible environmental impact
5) not having power producing venues in their backyard
MORE as this will detailed...:)
Scott Walters
10:05 am on Thursday, April 14, 2011
continued
What then would be the best solution? Aye, there's the rub...there is no real solution that has all of those features in play, is there????
The best solution is simply....
ALL OF THE ABOVE...use all resources available to us at the current time, allow research and development to obtain more efficient means of energy production, distribution, etc...humans are very innovative by their nature and nature is much more resilient than anyone gives it credit for.
Simply put, we have to do this, or annex some land and call it "Elsewhere" and put all the unsavory elements of our society there....