1) The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, with two aging reactors and two spent fuel pools packed well above design capacity,1 is only twenty-five miles north of New York City,2 and New York City lies both downstream and downwind of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, and all five boroughs of New York City lie in whole or in part within fifty miles of the reactors at Indian Point, and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) advised all United States citizens within fifty miles of Fukushima to evacuate the area,3 yet Entergy Corporation, the owner and operator of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, does not have, and NRC does not require, an emergency response plan that includes the evacuation of New York City and other areas within fifty miles of Indian Point in the case of a nuclear accident,4

2) The potential for severe radioactive contamination of New York City from an accident at Indian Point poses unacceptable risks of widespread and serious harm to New York City residents5, ranging from chronic diseases and cancer6, to birth defects and infant mortality7, and an accident at Indian Point could result in economic impacts8 and property losses9 that would be devastating not only to New York City and the surrounding area, but to the region and nation as a whole, and possibly the world, given our unique role within the national and global economy

3) The March 2011 nuclear accidents at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan demonstrate the potential for catastrophic accidents at nuclear power stations and reinforce the need to take seriously the risks posed by those facilities10, and the Japanese government has admitted that estimates of the amount of radiation released during the accidents and the weeks afterward were much greater than originally announced11; and radiological releases from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant continue more than two years after the accidents began12; and further catastrophic releases of radioactivity are still anticipated due to potential damage to the plant’s spent fuel pools13, and high levels of radioactive contamination from the Fukushima accidents has been deposited in towns and cities many miles from the plant14, as far away as Tokyo15, 140 miles away, with a metropolitan area population of 34,300,000

4) Twenty-seven years after the Number Four reactor exploded at the Chernobyl nuclear complex in Ukraine, the region surrounding the plant is still declared uninhabitable and will be so for many more decades,16 and areas far away from Chernobyl in Belarus, Eastern Europe, Germany, and the United Kingdom were contaminated with fallout from the accident17 at levels that have required restrictions on food18 and animal products19 for decades after the accident,20 and the New York Academy of Sciences published a report in 2009 that estimates one million people have died as a result of cancer and other illnesses resulting from radioactive contamination released by the Chernobyl accident,21

5) In 2008, Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory published a report that stated, “Indian Point is situated at the intersection of the two most striking linear features marking the seismicity and also in the midst of a large population that is at risk in case of an accident to the plants. This is clearly one of the least favorable sites in our study area from an earthquake hazard and risk perspective;22” and independent analysis of data from a 2010 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report shows that Indian Point reactor 3 has the highest risk of earthquake damage of the 104 active US nuclear reactors23

6) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has precluded concerns arising from new scientific evidence24 that the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant was built within a mile of the intersection of the Ramapo Fault Line and the Stamford-Peekskill Fault Line from being considered in relation to extending operating licenses for the reactors

7) There is no repository or long-term storage solution for Indian Point’s highly-radioactive spent fuel, and Indian Point’s spent fuel storage pools are already overfilled with spent fuel rods from the last 40 years of operations and contain enough radioactive material to render an area the size of New York State uninhabitable for decades, and Indian Point’s spent fuel pools, located in vulnerable storage buildings are also leaking radioactive water into the ground and the Hudson River25

8) The 9/11 Commission Report noted that Al Qaeda had considered a New York City area nuclear power plant as a potential target, when it planned the attack on the World Trade Towers26

9) In 2003, Governor Pataki commissioned emergency preparedness expert and former Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, James Lee Witt, to assess the possibility of evacuation from the 10-mile evacuation zone, and the Witt Report determined that most of the Indian Point evacuation plan was “inadequate27,” yet the NRC and FEMA simply reduced the evacuation plan to a 2 – 5-mile wedge in the direction of the plume28

10) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted a special exemption to the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in New York, allowing it to become the first reactor in the nation to generate electricity with an expired operating license as of September, 28, 2013 29 and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff have increasingly granted Entergy additional exemptions from the Indian Point reactors’ licensing design bases, a practice that is not authorized by either the Atomic Energy Act or Congress30; in fact, this practice is in direct contradiction to the “Sholly Amendment,” which requires that any modification or change of the nuclear license be authorized through an amendment process involving public notice and an opportunity to request hearings31; the NRC’s misuse of exemptions subverts this important requirement for transparency and has significantly reduced safety standards and required inspections

11) For the past few years, Clearwater, Riverkeeper, and New York State have pursued legal cases surrounding Entergy’s application to relicense Indian Point to operate for another 20 years32, a facility where one reactor has already reached the end of the 40-year lifespan that it was designed for; with a track record of leaks33 and transformer explosions34, relicensing Indian Point poses an undue risk to the residents of New York City and the surrounding region, and there are much cleaner, safer, readily available sources of energy35, as well as long-overdue upgrades and maintenance to our energy infrastructure and efficiency measures that would support generating power cleanly, safely and sustainably from renewable sources36

12) The City University of New York reported in 201137 that two-thirds of the buildings in New York City have roof space suitable for generating electricity with solar panels, and that the city could supply half of its peak electricity needs with solar energy, for a total of 5,847 mega-watts (MW) of electricity,38 and the October 2011 report by Synapse Energy Economics, Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant Retirement Analysis,39 found that “energy efficiency resources, beyond those currently planned for, could provide as much as 1,570 MW of capacity savings in the Indian Point region”

13) The October 2012 Synapse Energy Economics report, Indian Point Replacement Analysis: A Clean Energy Roadmap,40 confirms that all of the electricity generated by the Indian Point Nuclear Plant can easily and affordably be replaced by energy efficiency improvements and green energy sources

14) The 2011 and 2012 Synapse Energy Economics report and the New York State Assembly committees on Energy and Corporations41 have concluded that, not only is New York City not dependent on the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant for our electricity supply, but that the scheduled retirement of the reactors in 2013 and 2015 can proceed without posing any immediate risk of electricity shortages or major electricity cost increases in the downstate New York region

15) The August 2012 Final Draft report to the State Energy Planning Board on the reliability of the state’s electricity transmission and distribution system was approved and confirmed the Synapse report’s and Assembly committees’ conclusions that Indian Point is not needed for New York City’s energy supply, finding that New York “has robust planning and regulatory processes” that would prevent the closure of Indian Point from creating a serious electricity deficiency, and that “over 11,000 MW of new generation, dedicated transmission, and other upgrades could be applied toward a replacement for Indian Point,”42 a pool of replacement options totaling more than ten times the possible deficit that may result from the closure of both Indian Point reactors

16) A Stanford University study co-authored by Mark Jacobson finds that it is technically and economically feasible to convert New York’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one powered by wind, water and sunlight by 203043, and realizing the city’s potential for reducing energy consumption and generating clean, renewable energy would more than compensate for the electricity supplied by Indian Point, create thousands of jobs,44 lower electricity costs for New York City ratepayers,45 and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, thereby strengthening the city’s economy and creating new industries while improving air quality and reducing major health problems affecting city residents, such as asthma and other respiratory conditions and heart disease

 

 

1 Risnit, Michael. “Indian Point readies shift of spent fuel: IP3 refueling requires transfer to IP2 pool; appproval took 3 years.” The Journal News. July 19, 2012. Available at http://www.lohud.com/article/20120719/NEWS02/307190050/Indian-Point-readies-shift-spent-fuel-IP3-refueling-requires-transfer-IP2-pool-appproval-took-3-years

 

2 Applebome, Peter. “Living With a Nuclear Question Mark in the Backyard.” New York Times. March 16, 2011. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/nyregion/17towns.html

 

3 Vastag, Brian, Rick Maese, and David A. Fahrenthold. “U.S. urges Americans within 50 miles of Japanese nuclear plant to evacuate; NRC chief outlines dangerous situation.” Washington Post. March 16, 2011. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-urges-americans-within-50-miles-of-japanese-nuclear-plant-to-evacuate/2011/03/16/ABwTmha_story.html

 

4 James Lee Witt Associates, LLC. Review of Emergency Preparedness of Areas Adjacent to Indian Point and Millstone. New York Power Authority. January 10, 2003. Applebome, Peter. “Fukushima, Indian Point and Fantasy.” New York Times. March 20, 2011. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/nyregion/21towns.html

 

5 Natural Resource Defense Council. “Energy Facts. Nuclear Accident at Indian Point: Consequences and Costs.” Available at http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/indianpoint/files/NRDC-1336_Indian_Point_FSr8medium.pdf

 

6 Weathers, Cliff. “Study: Indian Point Threatens Water Supply.” Nyack News & Views, February 2, 2012. Available at http://www.nyacknewsandviews.com/2012/02/cw_indianpoint201202/

 

7 Riverkeeper. “Radioactive Waste and Pollution.” Available at http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-polluters/indian-point/radioactive-waste/

 

8 NRDC. Op Cit vii.

 

9 Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “Impact of a Meltdown at Nuclear Plant: Consequences of Reactor Accident (CRAC-2) Report – NRC & Sandia Studied Meltdowns/Risks at US Nuclear Plants in 1982.” Available at http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/crac2.pdf

 

10 Greenpeace. “Fukushima nuclear crisis.” February 2012. Available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/nuclear/2012/Fukushima/Fact%20Sheets/Fukushima%20Nuclear%20Crisis.pdf+

 

BBC News Asia. “Fukushima report: Key points in nuclear disaster report.” July 5, 2012. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18718486

 

11 Democracy Now! “Japan Admits 3 Nuclear Meltdowns, More Radiation Leaked into Sea; U.S. Nuclear Waste Poses Deadly Risks.” June 10, 2011. Available at www.democracynow.org/2011/6/10/as_japan_nuclear_crisis_worsens_citizen

 

12 Xaykaothao, Doualy. “With Radiation, Doubt Grows in Fukushima Farms.” NPR, March 7, 2012. Available at http://www.npr.org/2012/03/08/148183579/with-radiation-doubt-grows-in-fukushima-farms + Buesseler, Ken. “What Fukushima accident did to the ocean.” CNN, March 11, 2012. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/buesseler-fukushima-ocean/index.html

 

13 Hiroko Tabuchi. “Spent Fuel Rods Drive Growing Fear Over Plant in Japan.” New York Times, May 26, 2012. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/concerns-grow-about-spent-fuel-rods-at-damaged-nuclear-plant-in-japan.html?pagewanted=all

 

14 Hiroko Tabuchi. “Japanese Officials Failed to Use U.S. Data Tracking Radiation After Tsunami.” New York Times, June 19, 2012. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/world/asia/japan-did-not-use-us-radiation-data.html

 

15 CNN. “Radiation spikes in Tokyo neighborhood, officials say.” October 13, 2011. Available at http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/13/world/asia/japan-radiation/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 +Hiroko Tabuchi. “Citizens’ Testing Finds 20 Hot Spots Around Tokyo.” New York Times, Oct. 15, 2011, Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/world/asia/radioactive-hot-spots-in-tokyo-point-to-wider-problems.html?pagewanted=all.

 

16 Madrigal, Alexis. “Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Radioactive Longer Than Expected.” Wired Magazine. December 15, 2009. Available at http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/chernobyl-soil/. Citing: Ivanov, Yu. A., V.A. Kashparov, et al. “Long-Term Dynamics of Radionuclides Vertical Migration in Soils of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Exclusion Zone.” AGU 2009 poster session.

 

17 Busby, Christopher C. “Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about Current Radiation Risk Models.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009 December; 6(12): 3105–3114. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800337/#b1-ijerph-06-03105

 

18 Der Spiegel. “Looking Back at Chernobyl: In Germany, Fears of Food Contamination.” April 19, 2006. Available at http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/looking-back-at-chernobyl-in-germany-fears-of-food-contamination-a-411272.html

 

19 Hall, James. “Chernobyl sheep movement restrictions finally lifted.” The Telegraph. March 20, 2012. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9156393/Chernobyl-sheep-movement-restrictions-finally-lifted.html

 

20 Fairlie, Iain, and David Sumner. The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH): An Independent Scientific Evaluation of Health and Environmental Effects Twenty Years After the Nuclear Disaster Providing Critical Analysis of a Recent Report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Altner Combecher Foundation, Berlin. April 2006. Available at http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

 

21 Yablokov, Alexey V., et al. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Volume 1181, December 2009. Available at http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1 Full repot available at http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

 

22 Lynn R. Sykes, John G. Armbruster, Won-Young Kim, and Leonardo Seeber. “Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City–Philadelphia Area.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 1696–1719, August 2008. Available at http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/pressreleases/1696.pdf

 

23 Dedman, Bill. “US Nuke Plants Ranked by Quake Risk.” NBC News New York, March 16, 2011. Available at http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/US_nuke_plants_ranked_by_quake_risk-118071354.html +Data: Hiland, Patrick. “Safety/Risk Assessment Results for Generic Issue 199, ‘Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants’.” September 2, 2010. Available at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/quake%20nrc%20risk%20estimates.pdf

 

24 Sykes, Lynn R., et al. “Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City–Philadelphia Area.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 1696–1719. August 2008, doi: 10.1785/0120070167. Available at http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/pressreleases/1696.pdf

 

25 Clearwater. “As NRC Acknowledges Spent Fuel Dangers, Defers Relicensing Decisions, Clearwater Files Contention on Unsafe On-Site Storage of Indian Point Spent Fuel.” August 27, 2012. Available at http://www.clearwater.org/latest-news/as-nrc-acknowledges-spent-fuel-dangers-defers-relicensing-decisions-clearwater-files-contention-on-unsafe-on-site-storage-of-indian-point-spent-fuel/

 

26 Rabin, Kyle. “9/11 Report Reveals Al Qaeda Ringleader Contemplated a NY-area Nuclear Power Plant as a Potential Target.” Energy Bulletin, July 25, 2004. Available at http://www.energybulletin.net/node/1243

 

27 James Lee Witt Associates, LLC. 2003. “Review of Emergency Preparedness of Areas Adjacent to Indian Point and Millstone.” Prepared for the Power Authority of the State of New York under Contract for New York State Nuclear Plan Review, 4500058472. Available at http://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Final-Witt-Report-issued-03-07-03.pdf

 

28 Kevin McMahon and Joe Jones. “Staged Evacuation.” Nuclear Energy & Global Security Technologies, National Evacuation Conference. NNSA & Sandia National Laboratories, February 2012. PowerPoint presentation available at http://www.nationalevacuationconference.org/files/2012/presentations/day1/JoeJones_KevinMcMahon.pdf

 

29 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-witherspoon/indian-point-2-license-expired_b_3819994.html

 

30 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “List of Indian Point exemptions, 1968-present.” Updated 6/20/12. Available at http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1217/ML12172A370.pdf

 

31 463 U.S. 1224. 103 S.Ct. 3560. 77 L.Ed.2d 1407. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION et al., petitioners, v. Steven SHOLLY et al. No. 80-1640. Available at http://openjurist.org/463/us/1224/united-states-nuclear-regulatory-commission-v-sholly

 

32 Clearwater. “Indian Point Campaign Documents and Filings.” Available at http://www.clearwater.org/ea/indian-point-campaign/ip-documents-and-filings/ +Riverkeeper. “Power Plant Cases.” Available at http://www.riverkeeper.org/news-events/news/stop-polluters/power-plant-cases/

 

33 Clearwater. “Environmental Advocacy: Key Points made by Panelists and Presenters at Indian Point Technical Briefing and Round Table.” March 2, 2007. Available at http://www.clearwater.org/ea/indian-point-campaign/environmental-advocacy/

 

34 Wald, Matthew M. “Indian Point Reactor Shut Down After Transformer Blast.” New York Times, November 8, 2010. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/nyregion/09nuke.html

 

35 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. “Renewable Energy.” Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40899.html

 

36 The New NY Agenda: Power NY. 2010. Available online at http://www.andrewcuomo.com/system/storage/6/89/e/798/andrew_cuomo_power_ny.pdf 37 City University of New York. New York City Solar Map. June 2011. http://www.nycsolarmap. 38 Navarro, Mireya. “Mapping Sun’s Potential to Power New York.” New York Times, June 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/science/earth/16solar.html?_r=1 39 Woolf, Tim, Matt Wittenstein, and Bob Fagan. “Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant Retirement Analysis: Replacement Options, Reliability Issues, and Economic Effects.” Synapse Energy Economics. Cambridge, Massachusetts. October 17, 2011. Available at http://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Synapse-Report-Energy-alternatives-to-Indian-Point-10-17-11.pdf 40 Woolf, Tim, et al. “Indian Point Replacement Analysis: A Clean Energy Roadmap: A Proposal for Replacing the Nuclear Plant with Clean, Sustainable Energy Resources.” Synapse Energy Economics. Cambridge, Massachusetts. October 11, 2012. Available at:http://www.riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Synapse-Indian-Point-Replacement-Study-10-11.pdf 41 New York Assembly member James F. Brennan and New York Assembly member Kevin A. Cahill. “Assembly Committees’ Preliminary Findings Show Indian Point Can Be Shut Down: Proper planning would allow Indian Point to close with little impact on ratepayers and reliability.” February 1, 2012. Available at http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/James-F-Brennan/story/46159/ Also available at http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Kevin-A-Cahill/story/46160/ 42 New York Independent System Operator. “Final Draft: New York State’s Transmission and Distribution Systems Reliability Study and Report.” August 30, 2012. pp. 84-85. 43 http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolicy.pdf 44 Max Wei, Shana Patadia, and Daniel M. Kammena. “Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US?” Energy Policy 38 (2010): 919–931. Available at:http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/WeiPatadiaKammen_CleanEnergyJobs_EPolicy2010.pdf 45 Farrell, John. “How Distributed Solar Can Reduce Electricity Prices.” Clean Technica, February 13, 2012. Available at: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/13/how-distributed-solar-can-reduce-electricity-prices/