Public Policy

Chairman Shays, distinguished members, I am Michael Slobodien, Director of Emergency Programs for Entergy Nuclear Northeast. I am honored to appear before you today and appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this testimony.

I am a board-certified health physicist with 33 years of professional experience in radiation safety, industrial hygiene, environmental programs, and emergency planning. I have responsibility for the overall program management of Entergy’s emergency response activities for the Indian Point Energy Center, James A. FitzPatrick, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants. My offices are in White Plains, New York. I report to Michael Kansler, President of Entergy Nuclear Northeast.

Entergy is the second largest operator of nuclear power plants in the United States with 10 operating reactors. Entergy is the nation’s largest provider of nuclear power industry license renewal and decommissioning services. We managed the planning and early implementation of the decommissioning strategy for the Millstone 1 reactor in Waterford, Connecticut and currently manage the decommissioning of the Maine Yankee reactor in Wiscasset, Maine.

Today I would like to make several points regarding the Indian Point Energy Center and the implications it has for the health and safety of the citizens of New York and the adjacent states of Connecticut and New Jersey. In these remarks I rely on established science.

A most significant point is that an accident at the Indian Point plants involving the release of large amounts of radioactivity is extremely unlikely, even in the event of a terrorist attack of the types we have seen on civilian and military targets world wide. This includes the intentional crash of a large aircraft into our hardened facilities. The design of the Indian Point nuclear plants incorporates extensive safety - feature redundancy and physical protection to ensure that the reactors and spent fuel facilities can withstand a wide spectrum of accidents whether caused by human error, mechanical failure, natural disasters, or acts of terrorism.

These plants are, in no way, dirty bombs. In fact, a nuclear power plant can not undergo a nuclear explosion – it is a physical impossibility.

According to James Kallstrom, former director of the New York City office of the FBI who, at the request of Governor George Pataki, performed an exhaustive security study of Indian Point in the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attacks on this nation, Indian Point is “an extremely safe place” and is among the best protected and most secure civilian facilities in the country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has frequently said that Indian Point is the best-defended reactor in the country.

While it is possible, although extremely unlikely, that there could be a circumstance that could lead to a release radioactivity into the environment, the distances from Indian Point to New York City, Connecticut and New Jersey are such that radiation doses would be lower than the levels that could cause acute injury or illness. Any long-term health effects would be indistinguishable from normal background levels. In short, the citizens of Connecticut and New Jersey are not at risk from an accident at Indian Point including an event that could be caused by terrorists. In the same way, the citizens of New York are not at risk from the three Millstone nuclear power facilities in Waterford, Connecticut.

This is based on extensive world-wide experience in radiation effects gathered since the earliest use of radiation as x-rays discovered by Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895. Since that time, no environmental agent has been studied more extensively than radiation. Our understanding of radiation’s transport in the environment, resulting doses, and consequent health effects is documented in many reputable sources including the National Academy of Science committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, The Radiation Effects Research Foundation which has studied and continues to follow the population in Japan’s response to radiation exposure since 1945, the World Health Organization, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer just to mention a few. I have attached a bibliography of reports and Internet web site resources to my written statement.

A second key point is that the analyses related to accidents and their consequences for the Indian Point plants take into consideration a wide spectrum of causes including human error, mechanical failure, natural disaster, and terrorism.

None of the factors noted above, including a terrorist attack would lead to a release of radioactivity different from what is already analyzed. In fact, our emergency plans and those of government are designed to deal with challenges that might be caused by a terrorist attack and are not dependent on the cause of an accident. The plans are symptom based and are designed to work regardless of the circumstances that could cause a release of radioactivity to occur.

A third key point is that a release of radioactivity to the environment, regardless of the cause, would move into the air in a plume whose size and shape would be determined by prevailing weather. Plumes tend to be narrow. Their concentration decreases rapidly with down wind distance, and the effects diminish proportionately to the increase in down wind distance. Plumes are functions of nature, they are predictable, and they are easily monitored. We know that plumes that could come from Indian Point would tend to remain in the Hudson River Valley and that their concentrations diminish rapidly with down wind distance. Our knowledge of plumes coupled with our extensive knowledge of radiation effects enable experts such as Richard Codell and Sarbeswar Acharaya of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conclude that New York City, Connecticut and New Jersey residents are not at risk from a serious accident at the Indian Point Energy Center.

While it is possible to find nuclear power plant accident analyses that predict dire consequences, such analyses have employed grossly unrealistic or impossible assumptions.

Lastly, I would like to take a few moments to speak to the report on emergency preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone issued by James Lee Witt Associates.

We noted that the report contains useful insights and recommendations many of which we had under way prior to the start of the Witt study.

Two of the areas noted for improvement in the Witt report are public education and outreach. We agree and believe that all of us here today share in the responsibility to improve the level of education about nuclear power and radiation safety. This is essential to counter the fears inspired by certain advocacy groups noted by Mr. Witt who “… in pursuit of their agenda to close Indian Point ... have misused NRC data presumably to frighten and alarm the public. Misuse of information can lead to behavior that may endanger the public health and safety.” The fears of the public about nuclear power are largely a result of the misuse of information. This is an issue not limited to Indian Point; it is a national issue.

We disagree with a number of the points in Mr. Witt’s report and do not find support for the conclusion that the present radiological emergency plans are not adequate to protect public health and safety. We believe that those plans are capable and have been demonstrated to be able to protect public health and safety in the extremely unlikely event of a serious accident at the Indian Point Energy Center.

Entergy is committed to operating all of our nuclear power plants with safety as the foremost objective. With that in mind, we engaged a panel of experts including some of the most respected scientists and engineers in the areas of nuclear engineering, reactor safety, risk assessment, health physics, counter terrorism, social psychology, emergency communications, and traffic engineering to advise us as we move forward with our emergency planning improvement efforts. This panel provided comments to Mr. Witt on his draft report. A brief curriculum vitae of these experts is attached for your review.

We invite the members of the committee to visit the Indian Point Energy Center to see for yourselves the nature of security and emergency preparedness.

Entergy is pleased to be able to present this testimony. We are prepared to work with Congress as you work toward improving the nation’s security and emergency preparedness.

This concludes my remarks. Thank you.