Wanted: Magic Wand for Nuclear Remake
Marek Fuchs
The New York Times
October 17, 2004

WHITE PLAINS - The idea holds a natural allure in renovation-happy Westchester, where there is no split or ranch that can't, with a home-equity loan and a little spit and polish, be turned into a Gothic revival minimansion:

Let's get hold of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, transform the thing into a gas-fired operation or a hillside of solar panels, and live happily ever after. Maybe it could be condemned; maybe Entergy, the company that owns it, would voluntarily sell it for parts. To many who have followed the Indian Point debate, these various scenarios may seem a bad case of wishful thinking -- options already rejected as impractical. But not to the county, apparently. It is paying a pair of consultants $385,000 to decide on the feasibility of these schemes.

The expense is not universally popular. Richard L. Brodsky, the state assemblyman who has been a leader in the fight against Indian Point, is not signing on. He does not go so far as to call the endeavor a waste, but he pulls up as close as he can. ''For years I've been working on this issue and have welcomed a variety of other intelligent ideas,'' he said.

''I'm not publicly critical of other pathways, but I'm not focusing my work on this.''

Nevertheless, study supporters like Michael Kaplowitz, a county legislator, say the results will serve as a good reference point when they are announced in about six months. ''We chewed our legislative cud,'' he said, ''and this will be good for a good second, third and fourth meal for the Indian Point discussion.''

Perhaps. But at the County Center two weeks ago, when the public was officially told about this $385,000 cud chew, not much of the public was even in evidence. In a room with chairs set out for 200, there were fewer than two dozen people. The modest brigade was composed of environmental activists, a few political representatives and a smattering of retirees. \Granted, the forum was held around noon on a weekday. But anyone who attended fall 2001 Indian Point events, with their standing-room-only crowds and red faces, got the sense at the recent gathering that the issue has lost immediacy, big time. With so few paying attention, is there any hope of gaining public consensus on the suggestions being studied -- especially as they are costly and risky?

One possibility the consultants will look into is condemning the plant, an idea that even Mr. Kaplowitz concedes is probably a nonstarter. Entergy will not be asked for its opinion of the study, said Seth G. Parker, a principal of Levitan & Associates of Boston, one of the two consulting firms. And that, said Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman, means the endeavor is nothing better than pretend play.

The plant is simply not for sale, he asserted. Moreover, if it ever came on the market, the county would not be able afford it. Nor could a wand be waved to make Entergy retrofit the plant of its own accord. Besides, he added, sounding more bemused as he went on, doing a gas conversion at the plant would be a cumbersome process. He predicted a decade of lost energy production as nuclear waste was removed and a gas conduit was installed to replace the Algonquin line. All in all, the job he described would make the controversial Millennium Pipeline project look like a finger-painting exercise. Mr. Steets's conclusion: The county, realizing it has lost the fight against the power plant, is now paying big bucks for the study, to give voters the illusion that it are still fighting the good fight.

But if he is right, and the study is fool's gold, what avenues do hold promise -- especially now that the federal government has approved (and ended discussion on) the evacuation plan, the plant's true Achilles' heel? Well, there is the license renewal process, which will occur in about a decade. Might a federal government less closely allied with the energy industry be persuaded to revoke Indian Point's license? Small hopes there. It's a little simplistic to suppose all Republicans are tools of industry and all Democrats boosters of the environment. Rather than rely on the kindness of future politicians, Mr. Brodsky is focusing his efforts on the water-cooling issue: the state's demand that by the time of relicensing, the plant install a closed cooling-cycle system. This would mean Indian Point could no longer siphon in Hudson River water (and kill pickerel) to regulate its reactor temperatures.

ENTERGY has demurred, saying the price for such a shift would exceed $1 billion. Which brings us to the issue of cost. The nuclear industry's trump card has always been that its power is cheaper. But as Mr. Brodsky points out, environmental issues like this cooling system, as well as the huge amounts of security needed to secure the plant, have devalued that position. And Entergy is only picking up a minor share of the security costs; they're being subsidized by the state, local and federal governments – to be direct about it, the taxpayers.

Which, in Mr. Brodsky's words, amounts to ''Capitalism for the consumer, but socialism for the nuclear power industry.'' If someone found a snappy way to shorten that, it might make a good bumper sticker.

BACK TO TOP