popular logistics

From Matthew Wald’s piece in The New York Times [emphasis supplied]:

Opponents of the Indian Point nuclear power plants, including New York State, got their day in court on Monday - sort of - to explain why they thought the two reactors should not be allowed to operate 20 more years. It signified the first time that a state had stepped forward to flatly oppose license renewals.

But like much about the tangled history of the plants in Westchester County, the hearing before a three-judge panel appointed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission was not that simple.

The proceedings got off to a prickly start when a member of the audience seated in a courtroom at the Westchester County Courthouse here complained to the panel chairman, Lawrence G. McDade, that he could not hear what was being said. “The acoustics here are what the acoustics here are,” said Mr. McDade, a former military judge, who was himself using a microphone.

The difficulty was that about 20 lawyers seated at five tables and flanked by cartons of documents, as well as another 20 or so who spilled over into the jury box, did not have microphones.

When Michael B. Kaplowitz, vice chairman of the Westchester County Board of Legislators, rose and said he could not hear the lawyers representing him - and that he was not a member of the audience but a participant - Mr. McDade told Mr. Kaplowitz that he could read the transcript later.

After a lunch break, Mr. McDade relented and had more microphones brought in.

Acoustics were not the only setback for those opposed to relicensing the two plants in Buchanan, on the east bank of the Hudson River 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan.

It was immediately clear that for the opponents - the state, Westchester County and several environmental groups - to win the day, they would have to persuade the panel and the regulatory agency itself to reconsider what arguments are admissible.

The commission has ruled that for an argument to be considered in license extension hearings, it must deal with problems that may arise because the license is extended. The state contends, however, that the region’s extraordinary population density, when considered together with the threat of terrorism or earthquake, makes the plants unsafe.

“The presence of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in our midst is untenable,” the state argued in a legal brief.

Joan Leary Matthews, a lawyer for the State Department of Environmental Conservation, said in an opening statement that “whatever the chances of a failure at Indian Point, the consequences could be catastrophic in ways that are almost too horrific to contemplate.”

Sherwin Turk, a lawyer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that questioning whether the site was a good idea in the first place was not within the scope of the proceeding.

Foes of Indian Point Begin Legal Battle, The New York Times, March 11, 2008.

Preliminary evidence, then, supports these propositions:

1. The NRC is interested in limiting the scope of the public hearings;
2. the NRC doesn’t mind if no one can hear what’s being said

Attempts by persons or groups to conceal their actions may be interpreted as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt (Wigmore On Evidence, 2nd edition, 1915, § 178). We could probably find more citations, but the point is - what’s the NRC got to be afraid of?

NYSERDA (the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) and the federal government have been testing a remote sensing system on Bridge 1027260. Like Jean Valjean, this bridge has no name. And you can tell that it’s not in New York City, because if it were here, the City Council, whose power is limited to the power to name public objects and thoroughfares - might have already named each lane and approach ramp.

Professor Kerop Janoyan and a team of graduate students from Clarkson University have been monitoring their equipment from a work barge near the bridge. (Since they seem to be working on an exposed, unheated barge, perhaps the bridge and its appurtenances should be named for them. Popular Logistics will send a correspondent in person to any naming ceremony).

We learned about this from Matthew Wald’s piece in the Times:

Peach Bottom is a nuclear power installation about 90 miles from Philadelphia, less than 100 miles from Washington, D.C., and less than 200 miles from New York City:

“Parts of York County are within the ten mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of two nuclear power plants-Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station and Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Power Plant. ” ¹ That’s a lot of risk for one community; let’s hope their evacuation planning and preparedness are in good shape. (Link to Acrobat/.pdf file on York County website).

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reported, on October 31: (updates to follow):

Washington, DC - Kerry Beal, a whistleblower who exposed overworked and exhausted guards at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant, was notified this week by owner Exelon Nuclear that he “did not meet the selection criteria” for continuing to work at the plant.

Beal filmed guards sleeping at the plant only after his efforts to notify Wackenhut (Exelon’s Peach Bottom security contractor) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the regular occurrence of sleeping guards were met with inaction. Wackenhut Corporation lost its contract to provide security to the Peach Bottom nuclear plant because of the resulting publicity surrounding the sleeping guards.

“This is the stupidest thing they could have done. Now, they’ll ensure no one else will be brave enough to come forward and try to fix problems” said Danielle Brian, Executive Director, Project On Government Oversight.
Mr. Beal’s whistle-blowing prompted USA Today to editorialize: “The Peach Bottom case is a stark example of what has to go right in the crucial effort to keep nuclear plants safe. In this case, the plant owner, the security company and the NRC all failed. It shouldn’t take a hidden camera to make them do their jobs.”

An internal Wackenhut email released by POGO today shows that up until a few weeks ago, guards were still being forced to work more than 60 hours per week. The October 16, 2007 email from Wackenhut manager David Draghi notes: “I have revised the shift schedule…If you can afford to start giving your team members a break from 60 hours please do so.”

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order from 2003 sought to reign in the problem of overworked guards. But industry efforts to weaken the Order prevailed, resulting in the current situation where security officers can work up to 72 hours per week. POGO issued a letter to NRC Chairman Klein today pointing out that pending efforts at the NRC to strengthen the rules are being dragged out for another two years.

1. From the York County Emergency Preparedness website. [↩]