New York
Public Interest Research Group
Pace Law
School Energy Project
October
26, 2000
Honorable
Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General
Office
of the Attorney General
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer:
We are
writing you to request the creation of an independent nuclear watchdog to
provide the means for public interest intervention at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC)
regarding the proposed divestiture of New York’s nuclear power plants and their
operation in deregulated and restructured electricity markets. In light of recent accidents, including a
high level emergency at Con Edison’s Indian Point 2 (IP-2) nuclear power plant
earlier this year, and numerous instances involving the poor treatment of
safety-conscious nuclear plant employees (whistleblowers), there has never been
a greater necessity for an advocate on nuclear safety.
We
believe that deregulation is pressuring nuclear operators to cut corners on
safety, while the NRC is reducing oversight.
The NRC’s recent weakness in ensuring the safe operation of several New
York State commercial reactors, including the IP-2 plant, suggests that there
is a compelling need for additional oversight to ensure that deregulation does
not have a negative impact on nuclear safety.
In fact, we are convinced that there is a need for an independent
nuclear watchdog that can tap into the expertise at the PSC, the NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation, the NYS Department of Health and the NYS Energy
Research and Development Authority to allow New York to be more proactive in
monitoring nuclear safety within the state’s rapidly changing nuclear industry.
In
the past year and half, there have been several dangerous situations at New
York’s commercial reactors – a result of aging equipment, poor training, lack
of attention to emergency planning, cost cutting, personnel turnover, and
systemic mismanagement. These situations
included:
·
On April 24 and
June 24, 1999, Nine Mile Point 2 suffered a failure of electrical and emergency
coolant systems during emergency shutdowns.
Since the April event, the same emergency back up has failed nearly
every time it has been needed.
·
On
August 31, 1999, Con Edison’s IP-2 plant suffered multiple electrical failures
which disabled 75 percent of IP-2’s control room alarms and left operators
literally flying blind for six hours.
In a September 15, 1999 letter to the NRC, the Union of Concerned
Scientists points out that the IP-2 August 31 event duplicated five of the six
conditions that led to the Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 2 accident. (The six conditions that led to the accident
at TMI Unit 2 are listed in “Nuclear Accident and Recovery at Three Mile
Island: A Special Investigation,” June 1980.
The investigation was undertaken by the Subcommittee on Nuclear
Regulation, part of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.)
·
Last fall, during a push by its owner, the New York
Power Authority (NYPA), to dramatically reduce the length of a planned shutdown
for refueling at the Indian Point 3 plant, worker safety was compromised. As a
result of NYPA’s decision to relax protective clothing requirements, nearly 200
employees were radioactively contaminated. This came at a time when NYPA was involved in
preliminary talks with Entergy Nuclear, Inc. over the sale of its two reactors.
In a interview with New York City TV station WABC, a plant whistleblower
explained that a great deal of pressure was placed on employees to finish the
refueling quickly: “There was a rush to get it done in [a company record of] 40
days and to impress the potential buyer of the plant.”
·
The
February 15, 2000 accident at IP-2 resulted in a radioactive release triggered
by a ruptured steam generator tube. In
addition, operators had problems in shutting the reactor down. The accident was a direct result of Con
Edison deliberately postponing maintenance over a period of a decade. (In the midst of all the controversy
surrounding IP-2, Con Edison has shown the plant to several companies,
including Entergy Nuclear, Inc., who are interested in buying the troubled
reactor.)
The
widely reported February accident at the IP-2 reactor offers the clearest
illustration of the dangers associated with exposing nuclear power to the
competitive marketplace. Strong
evidence indicates that New York’s move to deregulate electricity markets was,
in part, a cause of the accident, the most serious in the 27-year history of
the plant. According to their own internal planning documents, Con Edison decided in 1997 not to replace the
aging and leak-prone steam generators even though they had already been
replaced at every other nuclear plant where they were initially installed. That
decision led directly to the February accident that put in jeopardy the health
and safety of millions of people living near the plant, which is located along the Hudson River near Peekskill, just 35
miles north of Manhattan.
The
problems at Con Edison's IP-2 reactor go
beyond the ruptured steam generator tube.
In fact, the accident raises questions about Con Edison's commitment to
operate the IP-2 plant safely. The history of repeated mismanagement of the
IP-2 plant, in conjunction with the restructuring of the nuclear industry,
makes for a worrisome combination. The
situation at IP-2 is reminiscent of the problems that plagued the Millstone
reactors in Connecticut where the NRC allowed a deteriorating safety culture to
go on for years. Connecticut Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal has been active on this matter for years and is a
good resource for information about the need for increased regulatory oversight
of troubled reactors.
The concern that energy deregulation would adversely
impact nuclear safety prompted a coalition of 40 environmental and consumer
groups, including Environmental Advocates, Pace Law School Energy Project, and
Citizens Awareness Network to deliver two separate letters to Governor Pataki
urging that the New York State Public Service Commission complete a full public
review of key policy issues - particularly nuclear safety - associated with the
operation of nuclear power plants in competitive markets prior to any
consideration of their sale.
According
to Stephen Kohn - one of the nation's foremost experts on whistleblower law
(author of the first legal treatise on whistleblowing and successful litigant
of many of the nation's landmark whistleblower cases) - New York State ranks
last with respect to providing adequate protection to nuclear power plant
employees who have been retaliated against after raising safety concerns. A more detailed analysis about why New York
State law fails to sufficiently guard nuclear whistleblowers from harassment
and retaliation is provided in Mr. Kohn’s new book, Concepts and Procedures in Whistleblower Law. Environmental Advocates will be working with
Mr. Kohn and Assemblyman Brodsky to strengthen existing whistleblower
protection legislation.
The NRC has always admitted that it can only oversee a
small portion of the industry’s safety issues and relies heavily on nuclear
plant employees to identify potential safety problems to management and, if
necessary, to the NRC. Now, with
deregulation, the NRC depends even more on workers at nuclear plants to be the
“eyes and ears” for the NRC. The NRC has seen its budget slashed by $70 million
between the years 1993 and 2000. This
has resulted in over 500 fewer personnel and a weaker reactor oversight process
than it had before restructuring began.
Protection
of safety conscious workers is of paramount concern, especially in light of
electric utility restructuring and the infusion of competition into the energy
marketplace. Employees working at nuclear power plants should not feel
pressured or intimidated by their supervisors in airing concerns about safety
that may be expensive to remedy. Sadly,
we have witnessed the harassment of employees at New York nuclear power plants
much too often. A recent example of
such harassment involved an employee at NYPA’s Indian Point 3 plant who had
concerns about the facilities corrective action process and its effectiveness
in identifying problems and ensuring their timely resolution. The employee, after raising safety concerns,
was treated with such sustained abuse that she ultimately had to transfer out
of the Operations Review Group.
Our vision for the role that the independent nuclear watchdog would play includes the authority to:
· Intervene in NRC proceedings including the transfer of nuclear licenses from electric utilities to the new nuclear conglomerates like AmerGen, Entergy, and Dominion Resources.
· Initiate petitions pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.206 to the NRC to enforce existing safety standards and regulations and to enact new regulatory orders to protect public health and safety.
· Release periodic safety reports on the operation of New York’s nuclear power plants in deregulated and restructured markets. These reports could propose more stringent safety standards for consideration by the NRC or Congress.
· Release biannual reports that document environmental impacts such as water consumption, fishkill, and radio-nuclide pollution.
· Ensure protection of nuclear plant whistleblowers.
We
would be interested in meeting with your office to further discuss the idea of
an independent nuclear watchdog and other related issues pertaining to New
York’s nuclear industry.
Sincerely,
Ed Smeloff
Executive Director
Pace Energy Project
78 North Broadway
White
Plains, NY 10603
Kyle Rabin
Nuclear Energy Policy Project Director
Environmental Advocates
353 Hamilton Street
Albany, NY 12210
Jason
K. Babbie
NYPIRG – New York Public Interest Research Group
107 Washington Ave., Floor 2
Albany,
NY 12210
Cc:
Peter
Lehner, Chief of the Environmental Protection Bureau
Mary
Ellen Burns, Assistant Attorney General in Charge, Chief of the Energy and
Telecommunications Bureau
Patricia
Smith, Assistant Attorney General in Charge, Chief of the Labor Bureau
Charlie
Donaldson, Assistant Attorney General
Judith
Enck, Policy Advisor
Thomas
Congdon, Policy Analyst