By Josh Benson and Ian Blecher

April 14, 2002 | 8:00 p.m

Structural engineer Nausherwan Hasan used to talk about the

sturdiness of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester, 30 miles north of Manhattan, and took pride over the years as the facility churned out safe, relatively clean power for much of metropolitan New York. Mr. Hasan knows about these things: He helped build Indian Point, doing repairs and reconstruction on the oldest parts of the facility in the late 1980's. But things are different now. These days, Mr. Hasan worries about the storage of nuclear waste at the facility; Indian Point, he says, was never designed to hold such waste for long periods of time. He's also concerned about the reports he's heard about corrosion in one of the reactors' domes. And Mr. Hasan, who had an office in the World Trade Center until Sept. 11, doesn't want to think about what could happen in the event of a similar attack at Indian Point. "The plants have a lot of safeguards to protect them," he told The Observer . "But then again, nobody perceived that we could be shot at from the air, and it happened. The plants are not designed for that kind of direct hit. Things like that disturb you." Mr. Hasan's sentiments help to explain the groundswell of opposition to Indian Point's continued operation. For years, the plant's critics were the usual suspects: no-nukes activists, assorted dissident scientists and the odd not-in-my-backyard local public official. After the cataclysmic events of Sept. 11, however, the mainstream has joined the fringe, united in fear of a nuclear catastrophe. It's no longer just the no-nukes crowd that's haunted by visions of ­horrendous carnage and the nation's largest city being rendered uninhabitable for generations. "I always thought there were enough safeguards built into this thing to withstand any accident," said one former Con Edison executive who worked at Indian Point. "But now it's different. You're talking about the possibility of planes flying into this thing, and there would be no way to protect the whole plant against an attack like that. What are you going to do, put up some kind of invisible force field?" The rising anxiety level has not been especially surprising given the dire scenarios that were hashed out following Sept. 11. (A worst-case terrorist attack, according to reports, would result in 50,000 deaths in the first year, unquenchable radioactive fires and widespread contamination that would leave lower Westchester County and the five boroughs hopelessly poisoned by radioactivity.) More recently, the issue has been taken up in the city media, making the front page of the Daily News and attracting the attention of The Times ' Bob Herbert. Even before the World Trade Center attack, the 36-year-old facility had its share of safety concerns. Two years ago, when the plant was still owned and run by Con Edison, one of two working reactors was given the lowest possible safety rating by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission because of "ongoing substantive" problems with plant operations. It continues to be ranked as one of the worst-operated plants in the country. And it's had to be shut down twice since 2000 because of operational mishaps. Under the Entergy Corporation-a company with lots of experience running nuclear plants, but which had the unbelievably bad luck to take over Indian Point on Sept. 5, 2001-public fears have grown. Residents in Westchester and Rockland counties have heaped scorn on a number of the plant's emergency measures in the case of a meltdown, most notably an "evacuation plan" that seems about as realistic as taking cover under a desk in the event of a nuclear attack. The system of storing "spent" fuel-deep pools containing radioactive uranium rods-has been widely criticized as being a potential target for suicide hijackers. And there have been fresh concerns about the plant's security personnel after a recent incident, in which local police had to be called when one security guard allegedly pulled his gun on a colleague over a personal dispute. (The guard has since been fired.) Then there's the larger question of site security: With the F.B.I., C.I.A., New York State Police, U.S. Office of Homeland Security, Coast Guard and Entergy's private security force all contributing to site security, who is ­ultimately responsible for defending the plant in an emergency? "I guess ultimately the N.R.C. is, though it's not as simple a question as it used to be," said Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy. "Primarily, it's Entergy's responsibility." Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was asked the same question. "[Entergy] bears the ultimate responsibility," he said. "We have primary responsibility." Then he clarified the matter. "It would depend on what type of an attack," Mr. Sheehan said. "If we're talking about two intruders on foot, it's pretty obvious that's the plant security force's responsibility. If we're talking about a 757 hitting the plant, there's the question of who bears responsibility." Indeed, while Entergy may be equipped to deal with intruders, there isn't much the company-or anybody else-can do about the airspace over Indian Point. After Sept. 11, planes were banned from flying near the plant, but that ban has been lifted. "That barely existed in the first place," Mr. Steets said, before noting, "The Department of Defense is, you know, the best judge of what's appropriate." Lt. Col. Michael Humm, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, referred questions about the plant to "the security folks at Indian Point for the answers that you're looking for." Back to Mr. Steets: "We have a well-armed, well-trained security force," he said. "These are not your movie-theater, shopping-plaza security; these are well armed and well trained." And, he said, "the National Guard is on-site and the Coast Guard is patrolling the river." Whatever difficulties exist, they are unlikely to lead to a closure of Indian Point anytime soon, for a number of reasons. For one, opponents can express all the displeasure they want, but any decision to decommission would ultimately have to be made by the N.R.C.'s board, an appointed body that has defended the plant's safety. For another, some of the state's most influential public officials, whose support would be necessary to close the plant, are keeping their distance from calls to shut it down. Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have expressed concern over the plant's safety, as has Governor George Pataki, who stands to have the most influence over what would ultimately amount to the Bush administration's decision. But none has shown much appetite for actually closing Indian Point, perhaps because it would cut off one of the region's main sources of energy and a major employer. Lights Out? What impact any closure would have on New York's energy supply is a matter of dispute. The plant's operators say that closing down Indian Point would result in massive price increases for New York consumers and a greatly increased likelihood of blackouts. They point to Con Edison's shutdown of one of Indian Point's reactors in the summer of 2000, which helped drive price increases of 25 percent. As for the plant's safety, Indian Point defenders also say that safety issues have been exaggerated in order to frighten people about the facility. "A lot of people are being misled," said Mr. Steets, the Entergy spokesman. "It's important to us to get our message out, which is that the plants are safe, secure and vital." Some of the officials charged with defending the facility say that closing it wouldn't necessarily even improve safety in the short term. "People want to shut the plant down, but it would only make a minimal impact on security," said James Kallstrom, Governor Pataki's director of the Office of Public Security. "We'd have to live with the [radioactive] fuel rods for five years anyway."  Environmental activists, on the other hand, contend that the impact of an immediate closure of Indian Point would be safe and manageable. "We don't believe that shutting it down would cause any brownouts or blackouts, and any increase in price that would occur would be mitigated," said Ashok Gupta at the National Resource Defense Council. "[The plant owners] are the ones engaging in scare tactics to take advantage of people: 'It's either this or freezing in the dark.' There are other options." Mr. Gupta said that with new, conventionally fired power plants, energy conservation measures and heavier reliance on renewable resources, New York could make up the energy lost by closing Indian Point. Other Indian Point opponents suggest that the public would support a shutdown even if it did mean enduring hardships. "I think if people knew what the risks were here, they'd eat by candlelight if they had to," said Robert Kennedy Jr. of Riverkeeper, an environmental group that has been organizing efforts to close Indian Point. Whether people are actually willing to make those sorts of sacrifices-or whether they're are even aware of them-an increasing number of Indian Point critics seem prepared to deal with the consequences in exchange for peace of mind. "It shouldn't come as a surprise that this issue is really taking off," said Representative Elliot Engel, a Democrat whose district takes in parts of the Bronx and Westchester. "We know that 9/11 is probably not the last terrorist attack in this country, and Indian Point is an accident waiting to happen anyway. I'm not an anti-nuclear person, but as long as Indian Point has the potential to be-God forbid-the biggest disaster ever, we should shut it down."