The Dark Shadow of Indian Point

(5 Letters to the Editor) NY Times 27may03

To the Editor:

Herschel Specter ("Nuclear Risk and Reality," Op-Ed, May 20) suggests that after a successful attack at the Indian Point nuclear plant, Westchester and New York City residents can calmly wait to see if the radioactive plume comes their way. That would be funny, except that the nuclear bureaucracy and industry really believe it.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, established as an independent regulator, now acts like a subsidiary of the nuclear utilities.

Its regulations exempt utilities from responsibility for protecting reactors against "an enemy of the United States," including terrorists, but it has not asked the United States government to provide security that the industry cannot.

The result is inadequately protected plants, far more vulnerable to catastrophic consequences than the industry and the N.R.C. concede.

PAUL LEVENTHAL Washington, May 20, 2003

The writer, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, helped prepare the law that established the N.R.C. in 1974.

To the Editor:

"Nuclear Risk and Reality," by Herschel Specter (Op-Ed, May 20), is insensitive, at best, about the perils terrorists pose to the Indian Point nuclear power plant.

He opines about a nuclear plume being created by an explosion at the plant: "Typically, in less than two miles, the plume is too weak to cause early fatalities. A few miles further, and the plume is too weak to cause early injuries."

As the congressman who represents some of the 20 million people who live around the plant, I am appalled by Mr. Specter's callousness. Life is more precious than electricity. Families who live around Indian Point should not have to worry about "early" or "late" fatalities because people like Mr. Specter wrongly figured their lives into a cost-benefit analysis.

ELIOT L. ENGEL Washington, May 20, 2003

The writer, Democrat of New York, is a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

To the Editor:

Herschel Specter (Op-Ed, May 20) makes a convincing argument for some perspective on the terrorist threat to Indian Point. More to the point, is evacuation really an option? We can't even get out of town on a normal Friday night.

So the question is whether the risk of operating Indian Point outweighs its benefits.

As a near-lifelong resident of Westchester, I find that the most vocal opponents of Indian Point fall into two categories: outsiders with an antinuclear agenda of their own and Johnny-come-latelies to the county, who discovered that Indian Point existed only after they settled here.

In all my years in Westchester, the only injuries I ever suffered came from some person in my vicinity and never from Indian Point.

ROBERT F. CICERO Yonkers, May 20, 2003

To the Editor:

The optimism expressed by Herschel Specter (Op-Ed, May 20) about the possible consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant in the United States is belied by the experience of Chernobyl.

Among other things, his contention that any plume would be "too weak to cause early injuries" beyond a radius of a few miles overlooks the devastating effects of the Chernobyl plant failure on lands and people hundreds of miles away. PETER S. ALLEN Providence, R.I., May 21, 2003 • To the Editor:

Herschel Specter (Op-Ed, May 20) discounts the weaknesses of the Indian Point emergency plan as "minor shortcomings." By contrast, James Lee Witt, Gov. George E. Pataki's independent reviewer of the plan, has indicated that any serious attempt to fix the plan would require an immense financial investment.

But then, one would expect Mr. Specter, a consultant to Entergy, the owner of the plant, to discount any news that might cause the public to question whether Indian Point should remain open.

ANN HARBESON Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. May 21, 2003