Entergy: Who’s irresponsible?
In a Huffington Post Green post, Jim Steets, Director of Communications for Entergy, states, “Indian Point is safe. It is irresponsible to claim otherwise.”
Riverkeeper has another take on what is irresponsible. For starters, what’s really irresponsible is to continue to operate an outdated nuclear plant only 30 miles from Times Square without a workable evacuation plan. It’s also irresponsible to let transformers degrade and catch on fire two years in a row, and release thousands of gallons of oil into the Hudson due to an out of control electrical fire, then try to conceal it from the public.
Using 2.5 billion gallons of water each day from the Hudson and killing billions of its fish each year because of the choice to continue to use old and damaging cooling technology is more fodder to add to the irresponsibility list – a list that goes on and on and on.
In a New York Times article, the NRC stated that Indian Point is the only nuclear plant in the country that is still using substitute fire prevention procedures that the agency has not approved. Within the course of two days, NRC announced it has rejected Entergy’s plea to exempt it from over forty different fire safety regulations, and is requiring nuclear plant operators to conduct new seismic studies to determine if the plants could withstand the shaking predicted by the government’s new seismic model. And, when it comes to closing Indian Point, two key state assembly committees say “yes we can!” Sounds like Entergy’s the one that’s being irresponsible.
But the true height of irresponsibility would be to ignore all that is known about the risks involved with keeping Indian Point open and let this nuclear dinosaur operate for another 20 years.