Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interview With Edwin Lyman, Jack Devine

Aired June 28, 2003 - 14:11   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Just north of New York Central Park, a nuclear power plant provides energy for more than a million people. It has been criticized, though, because of its environmental impact. Well, now some believe the potential of terrorism outweighs the usefulness of the plant. Our Deborah Feyerick reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The TV ad paints a picture of total annihilation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The radiation from an attack render New York city uninhabitable.

FEYERICK: The nuclear plant at the heart of the ad, Indian Point, 35 miles from midtown Manhattan. The 2,000 megawatt plant provides energy to millions of homes in New York City and Westchester County. But in the post 9/11 world, opponents say the threat is too great.

ALEX MATTHIESSEN, EXEC. DIRECTOR, RIVERKEEPER: These nuclear reactors that were once seen as relatively safe are now seen as predeployed weapons of mass destruction.

FEYERICK: The environmental group Riverkeeper has been fighting Indian Point for two decades, claiming the plant kills tons of fish every year. But since 9/11, the rallying cry is not fish but security.

(on camera): Officials at Entergy who run Indian Point argue that they do have security.

MATTHIESSEN: They do, but they are only required to provide security to defend against a conventional sabotage event. They are not prepared to defend against a more sophisticated, multi-directional attack by potentially suicidal terrorists.

FEYERICK (voice-over): Riverkeeper's Alex Matthiessen took us out to show us what he calls Indian Point's vulnerability. We never entered the security perimeter. Thirty minutes into our ride, we were stopped by the U.S. Naval Militia. Entergy, the company that owns Indian Point, says they were watching us the whole time.

(on camera): You look at the dome. It looks like it's just an easy target. JIM STEETS, ENTERGY: Well, it is an easy target in the sense that you can hit it with something. That doesn't mean you can do any damage to it. These domes are three and a half to six-feet thick with eight rows of two and a half inch thick steel rebar. These are massive, strong domes.

FEYERICK (voice-over): Entergy says it spent $7 million improving security since 9/11. There are more barriers and barbed wire, more guards that are armed and better trained.

STEETS: We are very confident in our capabilities, and are prepared for a post September 11 style attack.

FEYERICK: So what about the ad and its images of Armageddon? Entergy accuses Riverkeeper of waging a campaign of fear. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Riverkeeper is manipulating the facts.

NILS DIAZ, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: We know much better now what the consequences would be, and in no way, in no way do they approach any of the consequences that are being portrayed by Riverkeeper.

FEYERICK: Riverkeeper stands by its claims, saying it relies on the NRC's own studies.

The campaign to shut down Indian Point is gaining ground. Residents are thinking twice about their nuclear neighbor, and more than 300 local politicians are on board.

ANDREW SPANO, WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE: We don't want it here, we don't need it here. We can replace that energy. This is a common sense approach.

FEYERICK: Earlier this year, a state commission study concluded evacuation plans for the area were inadequate if there were a terrorist attack and a quick release of radiation.

(on camera): The Nuclear Regulatory Commission can't renew Indian Point's license without a federally approved evacuation plan. FEMA's deciding whether the existing the plan is good enough. If the answer is no the clock starts ticking. Either the evacuation plan is fixed or Indian Point could possibly be shut down.

Deborah Feyerick, CNN, Buchanan, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Nuclear power plant security -- a legitimate national safety concern, or a new angle in the age old argument against nuclear power? For point/counterpoint, we turn to Jack Devine of Polestar Applied Technology; he is in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Edwin Lyman, he represents the Union of Concerned Scientists and he is in Washington. Good to see you, gentleman. Thanks for joining us.

Well, Mr. Lyman, let me begin with you. If security has been stepped up several million dollars worth and you saw and heard in the piece that there is more security, more fences, more personnel, what are the vulnerabilities that you see of this plan?

EDWIN LYMAN, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: Well, Entergy may have spent more money on beefing up the security at this plant because they have been required to by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But I still have no confidence that Indian Point or any other nuclear power plant in the country can defend itself against an attack on the scale and sophistication of the September 11 attacks.

WHITFIELD: Well, there are something like 55 plants across the country, seven in just the New York-New Jersey area alone. Why focus on this one?

LYMAN: Well, I think Indian Point plays a special and unique role. It's clear that New York City is the number one terrorist target of al Qaeda. The threatened plot against the Brooklyn Bridge only a few weeks ago makes that clear. And because of the population density within 15 miles of the region, the extraordinary number of people that can be affected, the economic consequences, and everything else indicates that this is a plant that required extraordinary protection because of the potential impacts, if they were successful, terrorists.

WHITFIELD: Mr. Devine, how do you see it? What is at the root of this argument here?

JACK DEVINE, POLESTAR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY: Well, first of all, I have to disagree with Dr. Lyman. Security is very strong at every nuclear plant I have been in, and every nuclear plant in the country. And I spent a lot of times in nuclear plants. That security is serious business, it's no nonsense, it's professional, it's pervasive. The security folks are trained and tested.

So we are starting with strong security. Secondly I think it's very important to sort of see in perspective that these plants are not inherently vulnerable as Dr. Lyman and others would suggest. It would be a very, very tough job for terrorists, once they gained access to that plant, to cause enough damage to release enough radioactivity to harm anyone.

WHITFIELD: Well, Mr. Devine, let me interject with this. One vulnerability that was pointed out by the Westchester county executive, Andrew Spano, he said during 9/11, when the attack happened at the World Trade Center, that dismantled communications between the World Trade Center, the nucleus of the communications for this plant. That was an example of a vulnerability, he thought. How do you see it?

DEVINE: I don't know anything about the communications issue at the plant during 9/11. However, the vulnerability of a plant like Indian Point to, for example, an aircraft impact like 9/11 has been very thoroughly examined, and it's quite clear that the airplane simply can't penetrate the reactor containment. It is just too rugged and tough. We have looked hard since then at other vulnerabilities. And the fact of the matter is that these plants are designed for accidents that are extraordinarily severe, not by terrorists, but from earthquakes, and tornadoes, and that sort of thing, and it turns out the consequences of a terrorist attack is not unlike those very, very unlikely but extremely severe events which now are being presented as reasons for shutting down the plant.

WHITFIELD: In fact, next month, Indian Point will be one of four plants across the country that will be undergoing some mock drills. It will involve sort of a mock terrorist scenario right up against the security that's already in place. A test, if you will, being conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to see if, indeed, this plant and others need to continue to be certified.

Why not, Mr. Lyman, wait for the results of that mock before hurling these kinds of criticisms, since there's no real specific vulnerability that you and the others were able to point out?

LYMAN: I think it's very important that Indian Point be tested. The security hasn't been tested in this fashion in 10 years. But I'm afraid there's so much attention and focus right now on Indian Point that it's going to be very hard to conduct that test with the objectivity that's required, to truly assess how the plant would respond to a real terrorist attack. They have had several months advance notice. Every politician in the New York area is going to be keenly interested in the results of that test. And Indian Point is going to be expending considerable resources in an attempt to pass.

If they fail, of course, that's going to be even more dramatic. But if they pass, I don't think that tells us anything about whether Indian Point could respond when the world isn't watching, when their defenses are down and when terrorists choose the right time to strike.

WHITFIELD: Mr. Devine, how long would it take to evaluate or reevaluate the evacuation plan, or how that plant would respond in the case of the mock drills that are going to be taking place next month?

DEVINE: Well, of course, let's back up. Dr. Lyman is not correct. We examine these plans constantly. We test security constantly, not in a comprehensive kind of drill as they are planning at Indian Point, but this is a day-to-day operation that is constantly examined and tested and approved. And it holds up quite well.

And again, let me make the point that you should not look at this as sort of an attractive target that's right for the plucking with a thin line of security, and it's the only thing that stands between the world and Armageddon. It's simply not true. Terrorists in the plant would be only the very first step in a very, very difficult process of trying to cause serious damage to that plant. It's a very rugged, rugged plant.

Now, with respect to how long it would take to re-examine security, again, I would suggest that this is an ongoing process. And everything we see as reinforced by these periodic drills is that the security at Indian Point is quite sound. WHITFIELD: And Mr. Lyman, we showed in the piece the ad campaign that started. Some are criticizing it as really striking fear unnecessarily in Americans. Do you believe it is fair to provoke these kinds of emotions with that kind of graphic advertisement?

LYMAN: I don't think the issue is provoking emotions. I think the issue is a comprehensive and accurate risk assessment to let the people of New York City know what the potential health consequences are to them. Entergy is not providing that, and Riverkeeper may be going in the other extreme. I think the truth is somewhere in between, but it's certainly closer to Riverkeeper's claim, because there are credible terrorist events which could cause a core melt- down, lead to a breach of the bypass of the containment and a Chernobyl-style radiological release that could have a significant impact on New York City. There are simulations to show that the FDA requirements for recommendations for potassium iodine could be exceeded by 100 times.

WHITFIELD: OK, Jack Devine, I will let you respond to that quickly.

DEVINE: Be fair. That's not accurate at all. That scenario that Ed is talking about is a composite of extraordinarily unlikely events. This is a one in a billion event. This is not the kind of thing which we should be worrying about and having anxiety about.

WHITFIELD: All right. Jack Devine of Polestar Applied Technology, Edwin Lyman of Union of Concerned Scientists, thank you both for joining us. Appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired June 28, 2003 - 14:11   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Just north of New York Central Park, a nuclear power plant provides energy for more than a million people. It has been criticized, though, because of its environmental impact. Well, now some believe the potential of terrorism outweighs the usefulness of the plant. Our Deborah Feyerick reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The TV ad paints a picture of total annihilation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The radiation from an attack render New York city uninhabitable.

FEYERICK: The nuclear plant at the heart of the ad, Indian Point, 35 miles from midtown Manhattan. The 2,000 megawatt plant provides energy to millions of homes in New York City and Westchester County. But in the post 9/11 world, opponents say the threat is too great.

ALEX MATTHIESSEN, EXEC. DIRECTOR, RIVERKEEPER: These nuclear reactors that were once seen as relatively safe are now seen as predeployed weapons of mass destruction.

FEYERICK: The environmental group Riverkeeper has been fighting Indian Point for two decades, claiming the plant kills tons of fish every year. But since 9/11, the rallying cry is not fish but security.

(on camera): Officials at Entergy who run Indian Point argue that they do have security.

MATTHIESSEN: They do, but they are only required to provide security to defend against a conventional sabotage event. They are not prepared to defend against a more sophisticated, multi-directional attack by potentially suicidal terrorists.

FEYERICK (voice-over): Riverkeeper's Alex Matthiessen took us out to show us what he calls Indian Point's vulnerability. We never entered the security perimeter. Thirty minutes into our ride, we were stopped by the U.S. Naval Militia. Entergy, the company that owns Indian Point, says they were watching us the whole time.

(on camera): You look at the dome. It looks like it's just an easy target. JIM STEETS, ENTERGY: Well, it is an easy target in the sense that you can hit it with something. That doesn't mean you can do any damage to it. These domes are three and a half to six-feet thick with eight rows of two and a half inch thick steel rebar. These are massive, strong domes.

FEYERICK (voice-over): Entergy says it spent $7 million improving security since 9/11. There are more barriers and barbed wire, more guards that are armed and better trained.

STEETS: We are very confident in our capabilities, and are prepared for a post September 11 style attack.

FEYERICK: So what about the ad and its images of Armageddon? Entergy accuses Riverkeeper of waging a campaign of fear. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Riverkeeper is manipulating the facts.

NILS DIAZ, CHAIRMAN, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: We know much better now what the consequences would be, and in no way, in no way do they approach any of the consequences that are being portrayed by Riverkeeper.

FEYERICK: Riverkeeper stands by its claims, saying it relies on the NRC's own studies.

The campaign to shut down Indian Point is gaining ground. Residents are thinking twice about their nuclear neighbor, and more than 300 local politicians are on board.

ANDREW SPANO, WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE: We don't want it here, we don't need it here. We can replace that energy. This is a common sense approach.

FEYERICK: Earlier this year, a state commission study concluded evacuation plans for the area were inadequate if there were a terrorist attack and a quick release of radiation.

(on camera): The Nuclear Regulatory Commission can't renew Indian Point's license without a federally approved evacuation plan. FEMA's deciding whether the existing the plan is good enough. If the answer is no the clock starts ticking. Either the evacuation plan is fixed or Indian Point could possibly be shut down.

Deborah Feyerick, CNN, Buchanan, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Nuclear power plant security -- a legitimate national safety concern, or a new angle in the age old argument against nuclear power? For point/counterpoint, we turn to Jack Devine of Polestar Applied Technology; he is in Raleigh, North Carolina; and Edwin Lyman, he represents the Union of Concerned Scientists and he is in Washington. Good to see you, gentleman. Thanks for joining us.

Well, Mr. Lyman, let me begin with you. If security has been stepped up several million dollars worth and you saw and heard in the piece that there is more security, more fences, more personnel, what are the vulnerabilities that you see of this plan?

EDWIN LYMAN, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: Well, Entergy may have spent more money on beefing up the security at this plant because they have been required to by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But I still have no confidence that Indian Point or any other nuclear power plant in the country can defend itself against an attack on the scale and sophistication of the September 11 attacks.

WHITFIELD: Well, there are something like 55 plants across the country, seven in just the New York-New Jersey area alone. Why focus on this one?

LYMAN: Well, I think Indian Point plays a special and unique role. It's clear that New York City is the number one terrorist target of al Qaeda. The threatened plot against the Brooklyn Bridge only a few weeks ago makes that clear. And because of the population density within 15 miles of the region, the extraordinary number of people that can be affected, the economic consequences, and everything else indicates that this is a plant that required extraordinary protection because of the potential impacts, if they were successful, terrorists.

WHITFIELD: Mr. Devine, how do you see it? What is at the root of this argument here?

JACK DEVINE, POLESTAR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY: Well, first of all, I have to disagree with Dr. Lyman. Security is very strong at every nuclear plant I have been in, and every nuclear plant in the country. And I spent a lot of times in nuclear plants. That security is serious business, it's no nonsense, it's professional, it's pervasive. The security folks are trained and tested.

So we are starting with strong security. Secondly I think it's very important to sort of see in perspective that these plants are not inherently vulnerable as Dr. Lyman and others would suggest. It would be a very, very tough job for terrorists, once they gained access to that plant, to cause enough damage to release enough radioactivity to harm anyone.

WHITFIELD: Well, Mr. Devine, let me interject with this. One vulnerability that was pointed out by the Westchester county executive, Andrew Spano, he said during 9/11, when the attack happened at the World Trade Center, that dismantled communications between the World Trade Center, the nucleus of the communications for this plant. That was an example of a vulnerability, he thought. How do you see it?

DEVINE: I don't know anything about the communications issue at the plant during 9/11. However, the vulnerability of a plant like Indian Point to, for example, an aircraft impact like 9/11 has been very thoroughly examined, and it's quite clear that the airplane simply can't penetrate the reactor containment. It is just too rugged and tough. We have looked hard since then at other vulnerabilities. And the fact of the matter is that these plants are designed for accidents that are extraordinarily severe, not by terrorists, but from earthquakes, and tornadoes, and that sort of thing, and it turns out the consequences of a terrorist attack is not unlike those very, very unlikely but extremely severe events which now are being presented as reasons for shutting down the plant.

WHITFIELD: In fact, next month, Indian Point will be one of four plants across the country that will be undergoing some mock drills. It will involve sort of a mock terrorist scenario right up against the security that's already in place. A test, if you will, being conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to see if, indeed, this plant and others need to continue to be certified.

Why not, Mr. Lyman, wait for the results of that mock before hurling these kinds of criticisms, since there's no real specific vulnerability that you and the others were able to point out?

LYMAN: I think it's very important that Indian Point be tested. The security hasn't been tested in this fashion in 10 years. But I'm afraid there's so much attention and focus right now on Indian Point that it's going to be very hard to conduct that test with the objectivity that's required, to truly assess how the plant would respond to a real terrorist attack. They have had several months advance notice. Every politician in the New York area is going to be keenly interested in the results of that test. And Indian Point is going to be expending considerable resources in an attempt to pass.

If they fail, of course, that's going to be even more dramatic. But if they pass, I don't think that tells us anything about whether Indian Point could respond when the world isn't watching, when their defenses are down and when terrorists choose the right time to strike.

WHITFIELD: Mr. Devine, how long would it take to evaluate or reevaluate the evacuation plan, or how that plant would respond in the case of the mock drills that are going to be taking place next month?

DEVINE: Well, of course, let's back up. Dr. Lyman is not correct. We examine these plans constantly. We test security constantly, not in a comprehensive kind of drill as they are planning at Indian Point, but this is a day-to-day operation that is constantly examined and tested and approved. And it holds up quite well.

And again, let me make the point that you should not look at this as sort of an attractive target that's right for the plucking with a thin line of security, and it's the only thing that stands between the world and Armageddon. It's simply not true. Terrorists in the plant would be only the very first step in a very, very difficult process of trying to cause serious damage to that plant. It's a very rugged, rugged plant.

Now, with respect to how long it would take to re-examine security, again, I would suggest that this is an ongoing process. And everything we see as reinforced by these periodic drills is that the security at Indian Point is quite sound. WHITFIELD: And Mr. Lyman, we showed in the piece the ad campaign that started. Some are criticizing it as really striking fear unnecessarily in Americans. Do you believe it is fair to provoke these kinds of emotions with that kind of graphic advertisement?

LYMAN: I don't think the issue is provoking emotions. I think the issue is a comprehensive and accurate risk assessment to let the people of New York City know what the potential health consequences are to them. Entergy is not providing that, and Riverkeeper may be going in the other extreme. I think the truth is somewhere in between, but it's certainly closer to Riverkeeper's claim, because there are credible terrorist events which could cause a core melt- down, lead to a breach of the bypass of the containment and a Chernobyl-style radiological release that could have a significant impact on New York City. There are simulations to show that the FDA requirements for recommendations for potassium iodine could be exceeded by 100 times.

WHITFIELD: OK, Jack Devine, I will let you respond to that quickly.

DEVINE: Be fair. That's not accurate at all. That scenario that Ed is talking about is a composite of extraordinarily unlikely events. This is a one in a billion event. This is not the kind of thing which we should be worrying about and having anxiety about.

WHITFIELD: All right. Jack Devine of Polestar Applied Technology, Edwin Lyman of Union of Concerned Scientists, thank you both for joining us. Appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com