            |
|
|
|
Environmental Advocates Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Natural Resources Defense Council New York Public Interest Research Group No Escape Pace Energy Project Riverkeeper, Inc. Scenic Hudson Standing for Truth About Radiation Westchester People's Action Coalition
May 30, 2000
The Honorable George Pataki Dear Governor Pataki: On February 2, Pace Law School Energy Project, Environmental Advocates, Natural Resources Defense Council, and 40 other groups delivered a letter to your office urging that the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) complete a full public review of key policy issues associated with the operation of nuclear power plants in competitive markets prior to any consideration of their sale. These policy issues include: (1) the process to be used for the divestiture of nuclear power plants by their current owners, (2) plans for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, and (3) nuclear safety under competitive market conditions. As we mentioned in our previous letter, we believe that these issues - nuclear safety, in particular - require immediate policy guidance by the Public Service Commission. In light of these dangerous occurrences, we are deeply concerned that the generic proceeding on nuclear power in competitive markets - in which numerous participants were discussing these issues - has been suspended with no apparent date for its continuation. We appreciate that hearings have been held by various committees of the New York State Assembly and understand that they have an ongoing concern with nuclear energy policy issues. Still, they cannot substitute for the detailed development of policy by the relevant state entity responsible for the oversight of the electricity industry in New York. For that reason, we believe that there is an overwhelming need for your personal intervention in requiring the PSC to reactivate and complete its generic proceeding prior to evaluating individual reactor sales. Below, we provide detailed summaries of the recent accident at Indian Point Unit 2 and two situations that have occurred at Indian Point Unit 3: Indian Point Unit 2 Reactor On February 15, the Indian Point 2 reactor (IP2) suffered a rupture in a steam generator tube triggering a serious level 2 emergency alert. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the rupture of multiple steam generator tubes in conjunction with a main steam line break could result in the meltdown of the reactor fuel rods and risk the release of catastrophic amounts of radiation into the environment. Con Ed planned to replace the 26 year old steam generators in 1993, with a new set that they had purchased in the late 1980's. But for economic reasons Con Ed has decided to repeatedly defer the replacement of the steam generators. The NRC did not call this deferral into question until the February accident occurred. While the radiation release was said to be small, the accident looms larger given the potential for a similar but much more serious accident with multiple tube ruptures. Also troublesome is that the NRC has admitted that it did not fully follow up on key safety questions before granting Con Ed an exemption from steam generator inspections in 1999. If Con Ed had been required to conduct the inspection in May 1999 it presumably would have detected the tube defect and prevented the rupture. Indian Point Unit 3 Reactor While the February 15 accident at IP2 reactor has received a good amount of attention from elected officials, policymakers, and the media, another dangerous situation at the New York Power Authority's (NYPA) Indian Point 3 plant (IP-3) has gone virtually unnoticed. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NYPA knowingly exceeded federal regulations intended to protect plant workers from excessive radiation exposure in an effort to cut costs associated with refueling the plant. An NRC Integrated Inspection Report dated December 8, 1999, documents repeated radiation contamination of plant employees working within IP-3's containment building over a 40 day period last September and October. The report states that more than a dozen workers were contaminated as the direct result of "a conscious choice to relax some of the protective clothing requirements (e.g., allowing single layer rather than double layer clothing in highly contaminated areas)." Clothing requirements were relaxed because the cooling fans used within the warm reactor dome were broken. NYPA insisted that heat exhaustion was a bigger threat to worker safety than exposure to radiation. According to the December NRC inspection report, "the radiation protection department did not provide effective guidance to preclude excessive personnel facial contamination's" and the "corrective action guidance after the first large number of contamination's did not prevent additional contamination's." There were 188 contaminations in all, exactly twice the goal that NYPA had set for itself with respect to limiting worker exposure to radiation. There were at least two other options available that would have protected workers from heat stress without sacrificing radiological protection. However, both of these options would have imposed schedule delays thereby preventing NYPA from reaching it's 40 day goal - so NYPA opted to send workers into contaminated areas with less than adequate protective clothing. When large numbers of workers got contaminated, the plant owner did not take action to prevent even more contaminations. The outage schedule, however, was met. The contaminations took place during a refueling outage between September 10, 1999 and October 20, 1999. In fact, the abbreviated refueling period was an all time record for NYPA whose previous refueling outage topped 120 days. The record setting performance came at a time when NYPA was involved in preliminary talks with Entergy Nuclear, Inc. over the sale of its two reactors. The timing of the record raises the question: Was NYPA trying to lure or impress Entergy Nuclear? The Mississippi-based energy company did reach a deal with NYPA last month to purchase the IP-3 reactor and another nuclear plant near Oswego on Lake Ontario. In a recent interview with New York City TV station WABC, a plant whistleblower explained that a great deal of pressure was placed on employees to get the refueling done quickly. "There was a rush to get it done in 40 days and to impress the potential buyer of the plant," the whistleblower told WABC. "The actions, and inaction's, during the refueling outage strongly suggest that the plant owner placed more emphasis on the production goal than on the safety goal," said Dave Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a March 9, 2000 letter to the NRC. "Had safety been the top priority, the plant owner would have taken steps to ensure that the worker contamination goal was met. The facts clearly demonstrate which goal - production or safety - was prized by the plant owner." Another matter at IP3 involves the treatment of safety conscious plant employees. In a February 10, 2000 letter to the NRC, David Lochbaum urged the commission to order NYPA to investigate the work environment and the treatment of safety conscious employees at IP3 and take immediate actions to remedy any deficiencies. According to the UCS letter, an employee at the plant, after raising safety concerns, was treated with such sustained abuse that she ultimately had to seek a transfer. The NRC admits that it can only oversee a small portion of the nation's nuclear plant safety infrastructure. The commission relies on reactor employees to identify potential safety concerns. In light of electric utility deregulation, which nuclear safety watchdogs believe will force plant operators to cut costs in a manner that jeopardizes employee health and safety, protection of responsible workers is of paramount concern. New York State currently has a unique opportunity to protect employees and nuclear power plants. State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky re-introduced legislation - for the eighth consecutive year - which would establish a nuclear power plant whistleblower access and assistance program. Senator Thomas Morahan has introduced a companion bill in the Senate. This is the first time that this legislation has had a Senate sponsor since you supported the bill in 1993. The whistleblower protection act acknowledges that a key element to the safe operation of nuclear power plants is a work environment that encourages employees to come forward with any concerns they may have regarding reactor operation safety. Safety Concerns Exist for Companies Seeking to Buy Reactors Companies seeking to buy nuclear reactors in New York should be required to prove that they could operate reactors safely in a competitive market. Entergy and AmerGen also have a history of cutting corners. British Energy (BE), AmerGen's parent company, has already been criticized by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) - Great Britain's equivalent to the U.S. NRC - for dangerously reducing staff and cutting corners on maintenance in a manner that negatively impacted safety at their 11 reactors. On January 28, 2000, the NII ordered BE to halt its job reduction program until the company could demonstrate that safety was not being adversely affected by the cutbacks it was enacting. Just prior to their announcement, the NII published a safety management audit of BE containing 103 recommendations to maintain or improve its operations at several of its nuclear facilities. The NII report warns that BE could lose its license unless it acts to prevent further staff losses. Entergy's reputation as a qualified nuclear plant operator has also been called into question. Since 1994, Entergy Nuclear has been cited by the NRC for 29 violations and slapped with 10 fines totaling more than $632,500 for problems at four of its reactors. Last summer, Entergy was the only U.S. utility that had to order rolling blackouts due to poor maintenance at its fossil fuel power plants. These blackouts affected 565,000 customers in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Critics have charged that Entergy's cost-cutting practices have led to inadequate maintenance and a reduced and inadequately trained work force. In 1997, the Texas Department of Public Utility Control fined Entergy $9 million for its maintenance practices. The fact that these companies have such histories raises concern about how they might operate New York's reactors. Exposing nuclear power to the rigors of marketplace competition could have long-term consequences for public health and safety, the economic well being of several local communities, and the quality of sensitive environmental resources. The state must proceed with caution and scrutiny in order to understand the role of nuclear power in the new energy marketplace. Again, we are bringing our concerns to your attention in light of recent events at the Indian Point 2 and 3 nuclear plants and the increased interest in the transfer of ownership of other nuclear facilities in New York, including Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2. We believe the issue of nuclear safety is of such overriding significance to the citizens of New York that it needs to be addressed prior to any decision by the PSC to allow the transfer of ownership of nuclear plants in New York. We look forward to your reply and we remain interested in meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss these issues and actions that can be taken. Sincerely,
Ed Smeloff, Executive Director Kyle Rabin, Program Associate Brian Flack, Staff Attorney Nathanael Greene Cara Lee, Environmental Director Andy Mele, Executive Director Debby Katz, Executive Director Theresa Rose Hanczor Mark Jacobs, Executive Director Scott Cullen, Counsel Margo Schepart Marilyn Elie Cc: Members of the New York State Senate and Assembly
|