Westchester Votes Against Indian Point
By WINNIE HU
The New York Times
September 10, 2002

WHITE PLAINS, Sept. 9 — The Westchester County Board of Legislators passed a resolution tonight calling for the eventual closing of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, a move that both the plant's supporters and opponents were quick to claim as a victory.

More than 150 people turned out for the hearing on the resolution, an issue that has drawn overflow crowds to three public hearings in the past year and spurred a loud, vigorous debate over the future of the nuclear power plant, which is in Buchanan, N.Y., about 40 miles north of Midtown Manhattan.

Still, the resolution is largely symbolic because county legislators do not have the authority to close the plant. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Rockland County Legislature and scores of towns and villages in both counties have passed similar resolutions, with little effect.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that oversees Indian Point, announced last month that the plant's owner, the Entergy Corporation, had made recent improvements that were significant enough to raise the plant's dismal safety rating, if slightly. It no longer has the worst safety rating of the nation's 103 commercial nuclear plants, but instead, is listed among the 6 worst in terms of safety.

The Westchester legislators voted unanimously tonight for a resolution that had been amended from an earlier version calling for an immediate closing. The final version still calls for closing the plant "at the earliest possible time," and for federal, state and local officials to develop a transition plan that would provide for an alternative energy source, mitigate the impact of the plant's closing on local taxes and displaced workers, and protect the spent radioactive fuel rods.

"This is, I believe, a blueprint for all interested parties in coming up with a solution for the Indian Point problem," said Michael B. Kaplowitz, the Democratic legislator who proposed the resolution. "It's much more practical and reasonable if you work toward something."

Mr. Kaplowitz said that the resolution was worded in such a way that closing Indian Point did not depend on the prior implementation of a transition plan. He emphasized that "they're not dependent on one another."

But George Oros, a Republican legislator whose district includes Buchanan, said that he interpreted the resolution to mean that county legislators would call for the eventual closing of the plant — sometime in the future — only after the transition issues were completely addressed. He does not support an immediate closure.

"I'm supporting this resolution because, in my eyes, it does not call for the closing of the plant," he said. "The proponents who want to close the plant want to save face by putting out a very tepid resolution."

Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, also pointed out that the resolution called for things like finding an alternative energy source that would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish in the immediate future. He said that Indian Point generated up to 2,000 megawatts of electricity for homes and businesses in Westchester and New York City.

"It seems to me that they're not anxious for the closing of the plant after all," he said. "I think they want to have it both ways, because they don't have the authority to shut down the plant so they can pass resolutions that are meaningless."

Indian Point's opponents, though, called the resolution a significant step.

"It demonstrates a lack of support for this plant in the very county where it operates," said Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper, an environmental group that has led efforts to close the plant.

BACK TO TOP