I took the following notes during a meeting in May of the board's Committee on the Environment and Energy.Re-posted here to eliminate the spam comments in the original post.
The media webcast is available at this link.
Channel 12 filmed the session, but I don't know what footage they will use, if any. (The station did report this evening on the "must-fix list" inspectors gave Entergy.)
Former Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (who did not seek re-election in November while he was running for Attorney General), has questioned safety issues at Indian Point and the role of the NRC for years.
Today Brodsky urged Westchester County legislators to press hard for changes in the way Entergy does business: Stop the 1000s of undisclosed exemptions, and stop the deception.
Providing some background information, Brodsky said that after a near meltdown at an Alabama reactor in 1975, the NRC created some rules, including on that said the insulation on electric cables wiring had to protect against fire for 60 minutes. When they tested the insulation 5 years ago at Indian Point, it lasted only 27 minutes, the NRC chose not to clamp down but to give Entergy an exemption: they relaxed the 60-minute protection — in secret — to 24 minutes. As a result:
He said he's taken two steps: protracted litigation (now in the 2nd Circuit) to challenge the legal basis of exempting the fire safety rule in secret, and filing a FOIL request.
The original complaint against the NRC was made by Brodsky (with several environmental groups as co-plaintiffs) in 2007. Then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed an amicus brief in support of their concerns [Spano vs. NRC, 2d Cir. 07-0324-ag], and Brodsky wants the Board of Legislators to file a similar amicus brief in the ongoing litigation.
[US District Court Loretta Preska dismissed the case on March 4, 2011, just days before Fukushima. From Courthousenews.com:
Brodsky also gave the Board a copy of his 2002 evaluation of the Evacuation Plan, which he urged them to look at. The county has to certify the sufficiency of the plan annually, and he believes that the County Executive did do that (but is not sure).
Legislator Kaplowitz asked Brodsky for his thoughts on the evacuation plan. County Executive Andrew Spano had not certified the evacuation plan, at least in one year. He also said that he had been led to believe that even with a de-certified plan, the plant could continue to operate. Brodsky responded that the NRC's powers are extraordinary and they operate in secret. He said he wasn’t suggesting that the county’s denying approval of a plan would shut the plant down, but:
Kaplowitz said that after Fukushima, the committee held a series of “plan, not panic” meetings, trying to get the facts. They continue to promote the idea of extending the 10-mile radius to a 50-mile zone. Brodsky said if it makes sense to use the 50-mile zone in Japan, it makes sense to do it here, and the reason they don't want to do it here is because it's not possible." The government is equivocating.
Brodsky said the March dismissal of his lawsuit was "stunning in its refusal to recognize the factual realities which are conceded by both sides." He feels it would be very powerful if the County questions the fire exemption rule, use that as the "lever" to make sure people are safe.
Brodsky said the court granted the NRC “unfettered discretion” to do anything it wants. "The consistent legal deferral to the NRC is what marks this decision." To protect the people, they’ll have to turn to the Second Circuit, maybe the Supreme Court.
Legislator Harckham said he's been frustrated by the NRC's refusal to include safety issues in relicensing. What other things can be done along that front? Brodsky said that the NRC explicity refusing to deal with the safety/health issues is illegal and unethical, but he feels fire safety litigation is key. There are actually 70 things going on at Indian Pt that are relevant, among them:
— It’s the most expensive power in NYS, and Entergy makes an annual profit of 60-70% return on equity a year
— Not operated safely or in the economic interests of the people
— Lack of back-up electricity
— Spent fuel pools
— Guards can’t carry automatic weapons
— Refusal to consider terrorism in their calculations.
Kaplowitz said what is paramount is public safety. Brodsky said that for those who are in favor of this plant, it is in their interest to have an "effective and credible NRC," that these safety issues "are not of the kind that they now are." He thinks the Board could take a position on the fire safety issue in the current litigation and reserve other issues regarding energy for another forum. What he's asking the county to get involved with is the fight on the many secret safety exemptions. What disturbs him is when elected officials take the position that what the NRC says is okay.
Another issue: Entergy has sought an insurance cap on economic damages. If the plant is so safe, why did they want a cap?
The court's dismissal of the case does more than defer to the NRC. It said there's an implied power to exempt from the rules set out in the Atomic Energy Act.
In his final comments Brodsky remarked that one of the reasons nuclear power has hit a wall is because "people rightly don't trust the NRC. It is a captive regulatory body. The issue of the thousands of exemptions is "at the heart of the erosion of public confidence in the NRC, and we must not fail to make the strongest possible case."
With the exemptions, Brodsky said the NRC relied on a document called the "Fire Hazards Analysis” — which they don't have because it doesn’t even exist.
The discussion was entirely dominated by Democrats, for which I would like to thank them. I don't believe a single Republican member on the Committee contributed a thing — but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Today Brodsky urged Westchester County legislators to press hard for changes in the way Entergy does business: Stop the 1000s of undisclosed exemptions, and stop the deception.
Providing some background information, Brodsky said that after a near meltdown at an Alabama reactor in 1975, the NRC created some rules, including on that said the insulation on electric cables wiring had to protect against fire for 60 minutes. When they tested the insulation 5 years ago at Indian Point, it lasted only 27 minutes, the NRC chose not to clamp down but to give Entergy an exemption: they relaxed the 60-minute protection — in secret — to 24 minutes. As a result:
"The health and safety consequences are enormously more dangerous than they need to be. I want to emphasize that I think the chances of an accident at Indian Point remain small. The problem is the consequences are so enormous and unfixable."Brodsky said there are probably thousands of exemptions to safety standards at Indian Point and we don't know what they are."
He said he's taken two steps: protracted litigation (now in the 2nd Circuit) to challenge the legal basis of exempting the fire safety rule in secret, and filing a FOIL request.
The original complaint against the NRC was made by Brodsky (with several environmental groups as co-plaintiffs) in 2007. Then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed an amicus brief in support of their concerns [Spano vs. NRC, 2d Cir. 07-0324-ag], and Brodsky wants the Board of Legislators to file a similar amicus brief in the ongoing litigation.
[US District Court Loretta Preska dismissed the case on March 4, 2011, just days before Fukushima. From Courthousenews.com:
The original complaint cited 21 causes of action seeking to void Entergy's exemption and provide unspecified relief to the plaintiffs.Brodsky presented the Board with copies of all the litigation. An appeal has been filed (last Friday), and he expects the litigation to take 6-9 months.
In her March 4 decision, Judge Preska grouped the plaintiffs' charges into five categories, and dismissed each in turn.
The plaintiffs claimed that the NRC lacked authority to grant an exemption, violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to hold a public hearing on the issue, flouted the National Environmental Policy Act by not preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, failed to consider probative evidence, and awarded the exemption too quickly to evaluate the request. But Preska deferred to the judgment of the NRC, which she said the courts should not second-guess.]
"[The NRC] is simply not doing its job. . . The people of this area need the protection that only the courts can provide with respect to this fire safety issue."He then gave the Board a copy of the FOIL request he submitted for all the exemptions the NRC, because they don't even know how many they issued. Since he's received nothing from the NRC so far, he thinks the county should work for the people of the county to make this information public (i.e., do its own FOIL request).
Brodsky also gave the Board a copy of his 2002 evaluation of the Evacuation Plan, which he urged them to look at. The county has to certify the sufficiency of the plan annually, and he believes that the County Executive did do that (but is not sure).
"If Westchester County is participating officially in a public health and safety fiction, I urge this committee to present to the Board of Legislators some policy instrument which will instruct the County Executive not to do that.That was the end of his official presentation, and they proceeded with questions.
. . . if Westchester County is telling the NRC that this evacuation plan will protect the health and safety of the people of this area, then it is doing the people of this area a grave disservice.
Legislator Kaplowitz asked Brodsky for his thoughts on the evacuation plan. County Executive Andrew Spano had not certified the evacuation plan, at least in one year. He also said that he had been led to believe that even with a de-certified plan, the plant could continue to operate. Brodsky responded that the NRC's powers are extraordinary and they operate in secret. He said he wasn’t suggesting that the county’s denying approval of a plan would shut the plant down, but:
". . . the key and missing commodity for years in this debate has been the truth . . . I think the county should prepare, and should have a plan. There's a responsibility to mitigate the consequences under any circumstances. But, I do suggest that when and if the plan to certify is adequate, we're telling a lie.He doesn't believe the Board should avoid the question as to whether that evacuation plan would protect residents.
. . . There are levels of insanity here that shouldn't prevent us from trying . . . to mitigate the consequences of an accident. But, we shouldn't go out pretending to the people we represent that somehow you're safe, or that you're protected, or that this plan will work."
Kaplowitz said that after Fukushima, the committee held a series of “plan, not panic” meetings, trying to get the facts. They continue to promote the idea of extending the 10-mile radius to a 50-mile zone. Brodsky said if it makes sense to use the 50-mile zone in Japan, it makes sense to do it here, and the reason they don't want to do it here is because it's not possible." The government is equivocating.
"If you can't evacuate New York City, say so."Brodsky said governments have to tell the truth, and that the government is not telling the truth about nuclear power or Indian Point. He feels that if the NRC gave Entergy a secret exemption to the 1-hour rule, we should do everything we can to fix that. If all we have left is the courts, this committee, this government, has to be "part of the effort to persuade the courts that we have to change this."
Brodsky said the March dismissal of his lawsuit was "stunning in its refusal to recognize the factual realities which are conceded by both sides." He feels it would be very powerful if the County questions the fire exemption rule, use that as the "lever" to make sure people are safe.
Brodsky said the court granted the NRC “unfettered discretion” to do anything it wants. "The consistent legal deferral to the NRC is what marks this decision." To protect the people, they’ll have to turn to the Second Circuit, maybe the Supreme Court.
Legislator Harckham said he's been frustrated by the NRC's refusal to include safety issues in relicensing. What other things can be done along that front? Brodsky said that the NRC explicity refusing to deal with the safety/health issues is illegal and unethical, but he feels fire safety litigation is key. There are actually 70 things going on at Indian Pt that are relevant, among them:
— It’s the most expensive power in NYS, and Entergy makes an annual profit of 60-70% return on equity a year
— Not operated safely or in the economic interests of the people
— Lack of back-up electricity
— Spent fuel pools
— Guards can’t carry automatic weapons
— Refusal to consider terrorism in their calculations.
Kaplowitz said what is paramount is public safety. Brodsky said that for those who are in favor of this plant, it is in their interest to have an "effective and credible NRC," that these safety issues "are not of the kind that they now are." He thinks the Board could take a position on the fire safety issue in the current litigation and reserve other issues regarding energy for another forum. What he's asking the county to get involved with is the fight on the many secret safety exemptions. What disturbs him is when elected officials take the position that what the NRC says is okay.
Another issue: Entergy has sought an insurance cap on economic damages. If the plant is so safe, why did they want a cap?
The court's dismissal of the case does more than defer to the NRC. It said there's an implied power to exempt from the rules set out in the Atomic Energy Act.
"Although the [act] lists things which the NRC can grant exemptions for, it does not list health and safety. The NRC has said we're going to do it anyway. And we're going to do it secretly. We're not going to make it public. No right of public participation, no public notice."Legislator Rogowski asked if there is any will in Congress to make the legislation more explicit. Brodsky said: "Not with this Congress."
In his final comments Brodsky remarked that one of the reasons nuclear power has hit a wall is because "people rightly don't trust the NRC. It is a captive regulatory body. The issue of the thousands of exemptions is "at the heart of the erosion of public confidence in the NRC, and we must not fail to make the strongest possible case."
With the exemptions, Brodsky said the NRC relied on a document called the "Fire Hazards Analysis” — which they don't have because it doesn’t even exist.
"The point of this legislation is not to view it ideologically. You can be pro-nuke, you can be anti-nuke, but you gotta be pro-safety."Rogowsky raised the issue of the tremendous growth in the towns surrounding the plant, and should these communities have had a role in building permits, etc. Brodsky said the locals were not involved with the original siting of the plant, and that there is no question that this plant would not be sited here today.
The discussion was entirely dominated by Democrats, for which I would like to thank them. I don't believe a single Republican member on the Committee contributed a thing — but please correct me if I'm wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment