Pataki Does Not Support Closing Indian Point Now
By James C. Mckinley Jr.
New York Times
August 1, 2003

G ov. George E. Pataki does not favor shutting down the Indian Point nuclear power plant, even though he disagrees with the Bush administration's decision to approve emergency plans for dealing with a radiation leak there, his spokeswoman said yesterday.

Lisa Dewald Stoll, the governor's chief spokeswoman, said closing the plant would not make it safe or lessen its appeal as a target for terrorists, mainly because the radioactive spent fuel rods would have to remain in place.

"To simplify the issues around Indian Point down to a question of whether the plant should be open or closed is to ignore the more important and very real security issues involved," she said. "The governor is looking for a legitimate solution to the safety concerns surrounding the plant because, as everyone knows, the plant's closure in and of itself does not mitigate the risk posed by the spent fuel rods which would remain at the site."

Ms. Stoll would not elaborate on how the Pataki administration intended to make the plant safer. "We are working on it," she said.

Rather than shut the plant down, she said, the governor favors closing it only after "cleaner, safer, more sustainable replacement energy can be identified."

Ms. Stoll's statement was the strongest position the Pataki administration has taken on the question of whether the plant should be closed.

A broad range of community advocates, elected officials, antinuclear groups and homeowners have campaigned to have the plant shut down out of fears it is a public safety threat and terrorist target. The plant is on the Hudson River in Buchanan, N.Y., about 35 miles north of Midtown.

Mr. Pataki's exact position on whether the plant should be shut down has been vague in the 18 months that the issue has been more stridently debated. Until now, the governor has studiously avoided calling for a shutdown.

Asked about the plant yesterday at a news conference, Mr. Pataki said he disagreed with the decision on Friday by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve evacuation plans, despite his administration's decision not to certify the plans this year. He left the room, however, when reporters asked if that meant he thought the plant should be closed. Later, Ms. Stoll released her statement.

Faced with pressure from antinuclear advocates during his re-election campaign, Mr. Pataki hired a consultant, James Lee Witt, a former FEMA director, to assess the danger. "We rule out no option," Mr. Pataki answered on Aug. 1, 2002, when he was asked about closing the plant.

Then, last January, after Mr. Pataki was re-elected, Mr. Witt issued an interim report calling the evacuation plans for the plant inadequate and said more planning needed to be done to take into account a fast release of radiation, perhaps from a terrorist strike. At first, Mr. Pataki declined to comment on the report beyond calling on federal authorities to review their standards for emergency plans "and determine if they are strong enough to meet the post-Sept. 11 reality."

On Jan. 30, when the state decided not to certify the evacuation plans because the four counties surrounding the plant refused to send the necessary paperwork, Mr. Pataki released a statement saying that the Witt report "has heightened our concerns about the adequacy of the emergency plans for these communities." He did not say what, if anything, he planned to do to improve the plans.

Mr. Witt released his final report on March 7, and Mr. Pataki's office referred questions to the state's Office of Emergency Management.

In April, in an interview with News 12 in Westchester, Mr. Pataki first disclosed his reluctance to shutting the plant down, saying it would be decommissioned someday anyway and much of its radioactive material would remain in place because there was no place to send it for storage.

"We can't just throw a switch and say Indian Point is going to be safe," he said.

It was only last week that Mr. Pataki commented on the substance of the Witt report. "I think the Witt report is accurate, which is why when the evacuation plan was up for certification I refused to certify it," he told reporters after FEMA announced it was endorsing the evacuation plans despite the objections of local communities. State officials in January had said they could not certify the plans because the counties had not submitted the paperwork, not out of any position on the merits of the plan.

When asked if the plant should be shut down, Mr. Pataki said it was in the hands of the federal government. "That's not our decision," he said. "That's their decision."

Then, on Tuesday, the governor said, "Notwithstanding my refusal to certify the plans, the N.R.C. and FEMA have gone ahead and accepted the plans, and I have some real, real concerns about that I will be expressing down the road."

Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper, an environmental group leading the campaign to close the plant, said he believes Mr. Pataki has tried "to avoid the issue altogether, seeing it as one that is controversial and potentially pits him against his friend in Washington," meaning President Bush.

BACK TO TOP