| Emergency Plans
for Indian Point
Editorial
The New York Times
July 30, 2003
If federal officials hoped to reassure an anxious public
about evacuation plans in the event of a radioactive release
from the Indian Point nuclear reactors, some 35 miles north
of Times Square, they picked a terrible way to do it.
Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
released a two-page letter to Gov. George Pataki conveying
its "reasonable assurance" that measures to protect
residents within 10 miles of Indian Point would be "adequate."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission promptly followed with a
one-page statement asserting that the emergency planning was
"satisfactory" and should provide "adequate
protection" for the public.
And that was that. After months of criticism by local officials
and antinuclear groups, federal regulators had responded with
terse judgments that were too thinly supported to evoke confidence.
It felt more like a thumb in the eye of the critics than a
well-documented verdict.
We say that, despite our belief that the likelihood of a
large release of radioactivity from Indian Point is very low,
whether from an accident or from a terrorist attack. We also
recognize that many of those who deride the evacuation plans
are really looking for a backhanded way to shut the plant
down entirely. Even so, the emergency plans should be as sound
as possible, and the rationale for approving them should be
explained in some detail.
Just a few months ago, a report prepared for the state by
a consulting firm led by James Lee Witt, a former FEMA director,
found substantial fault with emergency preparedness at Indian
Point. It is by no means clear that Mr. Witt's concerns have
been met. His report, for example, fretted that roads might
be clogged if everyone tried to flee at once, particularly
in the wake of a terrorist attack.
By contrast, federal officials seem to have concluded that
the authorities could simply evacuate those close to the plant
and those downwind who might have radiation blown over them
while everyone else would simply be prepared to take shelter
in their homes.
Federal officials need to articulate more fully the reasoning
behind their decision, either in a detailed report or, better
yet, in public testimony. Senator Hillary Clinton has proposed
oversight hearings in Congress. That would provide a useful
forum to explore this contentious issue.
BACK TO TOP |
