Three-Way Negotiations on Nuclear Safety Issues

Groups Call for Strong Protections for Nuke-Plant Whistleblowers and

Greater Financial Help for Nuclear Host Counties

(Garrison, N.Y.) -- Riverkeeper, Inc. and Environmental Advocates of New York today called on Gov. George Pataki and the Assembly and Senate leadership to negotiate stronger protections for nuclear power plant whistleblowers and to reduce the financial burden on counties that are forced to plan for nuclear emergencies. Three-way negotiations on nuclear safety protections are continuing this week. (The negotiations regard S.7835; S.521/A.528; and S.6459/A.10396.)

“The fact that these issues are receiving so much attention is a testament to the public’s growing concern over Indian Point,” said Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper, Inc. Alarmed residents of Westchester, Rockland and other metropolitan area counties are increasingly worried about the danger to the two nuclear reactors at Indian Point in Buchanan, Westchester County – from terrorist attack, radioactive waste storage and poor plant operation practices.

Protecting Safety-Conscious Workers

The legislation proposed by the Governor in late June seeks to rectify flaws with New York’s 1984 whistleblower statute. According to the nation's foremost experts on whistleblower law, New York has one of the weakest statutes in the nation. “The inadequacies of New York's 1984 ‘Whistleblower Statute’ make true protection in New York all but non-existent for safety-conscious nuclear power plant workers,” said Kyle Rabin, policy analyst for Riverkeeper, Inc.

New York’s current statute requires not only a “good faith” and reasonable belief that a law, rule or regulation has been violated, but the employee must also demonstrate an actual violation. “This requirement inhibits the disclosure of potentially improper conduct and creates a very difficult element of proof – one that could require an employee to hire expensive experts and conduct a technical trial-within-a-trial in order to demonstrate illegality,” Rabin said.

“Nuclear power plants pose unique risks, and the workers there deserve unique protections. The law should encourage workers to come forward to air safety concerns,” stated Christine Vanderlan of Environmental Advocates of New York, “When we protect the safety of nuclear workers, we’re protecting ourselves.”

Legislation proposed by the Governor and introduced in the Senate (S.7835/Velella) offers some improvement over existing law, but needs to go further to truly protect workers at nuclear power plants. In contrast, the Assembly passed legislation earlier this year that provides whistleblowers with adequate protections (A.528/Brodsky). Unfortunately, the Senate match of the bill (S.521/Morahan) is stalled in committee.

Assisting Municipalities with the Costs of Emergency Preparedness

Municipalities that host nuclear power plants spend millions of dollars a year to plan for emergencies. Nuclear companies offset these costs, but do not cover them. “Taxpayers should not bear the costs of planning for a nuclear accident and maintaining readiness for an emergency. The nuclear companies, who are already reaping substantial profits on the backs of the public, ought to cover these expenses,” Matthiessen stated.

While S.7835 would raise the annual fee that a nuclear plant licensee would pay per reactor into the State Disaster Preparedness Commission fund from $550,000 to $1 million and would reconfigure the 50/50 distribution of these funds to the state and counties, it still does not eliminate the burden on county governments, who currently pay more than they receive from the State Disaster Preparedness Commission fund on an annual basis. In contrast, S. 6459/A.10396 (Brodsky/Morahan) requires that a nuclear plant licensee, (i.e. Entergy, RG&E and Constellation) be responsible for the full costs of nuclear emergency planning. For example, Westchester County reports that its total nuclear emergency planning costs exceed $4.5 million a year. However, Westchester County currently receives approximately $412,500 a year. Under the proposed legislation, Westchester would receive an addition $800,000 a year, still far short of the county’s actual costs.

Under current law — and under the Governor’s proposed revisions — the taxpayer is subsidizing the nuclear industry by paying for the cost of radiological emergency planning. The two groups urge that the law be changed to end this subsidy.

-30-