“As I see it, states can close nuclear reactors within their borders under the 1983 Supreme Court ruling, Pacific Gas and Electric vs. Energy Resources Commission.

The court declared: “To the present day, Congress has preserved the dual regulation of nuclear-powered electricity generation: The Federal Government maintains complete control of the safety and ‘nuclear’ aspects of energy generation; the states exercise their traditional authority over the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, rate-making, and the like.”

New York could close nuclear plants, particularly Indian Point, and justify it by asserting that, in the event of a large or immense radiation release, the state could not afford the cost of evacuating huge numbers of people and/or “spent” fuel pools, nor could it afford to care for those people. The state could not absorb the huge loss of economic activity and tax revenues that would result from an enormous radiation release.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation could revoke pollution discharge permits it has granted to nuclear stations operators and/or terminate variances granted to regulations.

Indian Point should be closed for many reasons. Like Dai-ichi in Japan, it has multiple reactors: a natural or other disaster impacting one reactor would likely impact the other.

Indian Point is only one-fifth the distance from New York City that Dai-ichi is from Tokyo, and is located near the intersection of active earthquakes faults.

If the millions of people who live in the New York City region had to flee, where would they go? What would happen to their jobs if they could never return?



To view the complete editorial, click the link below: