Federal Regulators Sued Over Nuclear Waste Storage

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Three northeastern states sued federal regulators Tuesday for allowing nuclear power plants to store their radioactive waste at reactor sites for up to 60 years after each plant closes down.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the lawsuit was meant "to keep the pressure on the federal government to come up with a long-term solution" to the problem of nuclear waste storage.

"I am committed to forcing the feds to take the hardest look possible at the risks of long-term, on-site storage, before they allow our communities to become blighted and our families, properties, and businesses threatened by radioactive waste dumps for generations to come," Schneiderman said.

President Obama is supporting construction of more nuclear plants as a way to fight dependence on foreign oil. But funding has been cut for a proposed high-level radioactive waste facility in Nevada, with no alternative named.

"You certainly can't proceed to expand nuclear power, as the federal government is proposing, without dealing with this issue," Schneiderman said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled in December that toxic nuclear waste could be stored in pools or dry casks at the nation's 100-plus nuclear sites for 60 years after a reactor shuts down. Until then, the limit was 30 years.

Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said Tuesday that the NRC did numerous studies supporting the safety of such storage.

But the lawsuit, which was joined by Connecticut and Vermont and filed in Washington, said the NRC violated federal laws requiring a site-by-site review of health, safety and environmental hazards.

Schneiderman said the NRC ruling "essentially says they can just push off the issue about what to do about nuclear waste far, far into the future without ever conducting an environmental impact statement, without analyzing the effects on the communities around these facilities."

He said any studies the NRC did "don't comply with federal laws that govern environmental impact statements."

"I could say I conducted a study by wandering around the plant," Schneiderman added.

The lawsuit does not suggest a solution.

"We are not telling the federal government how to solve the problem," he said.

Schneiderman announced the lawsuit at a news conference in White Plains, N.Y, about 18 miles from the Indian Point nuclear plants in Buchanan. Nuclear waste storage is among the issues in Entergy Nuclear's fight to get new 20-year licenses for the Indian Point plants.

Schneiderman called Indian Point "perhaps the most dangerous facility in the country" because of its proximity to New York City.

"This is a problem for communities all across America. It is a particular problem in the densely populated area around Indian Point," he said.

But Schneiderman said he was not arguing for or against the new licenses.

"This is a case addressing a broader national issue about what we do with nuclear waste," he said.

"

Comments

[Michael Mann]

01:20 AM on 02/20/2011

Another scam to wring more money from taxpayers and give it to lawyers, think about it the State is sueing the federal government, no matter who wins my federal tax dollars and my state tax dollars go to the lawyers. Talk about frivilous lawsuits.

[Brian McDermott]

09:47 AM on 02/18/2011

It's all politics. There are no technical barriers to the long term, safe disposal of nuclear waste. Long-lived isotopes can be incorporated into materials chemically identical to naturally occurring rocks and minerals, which are stable over millions and billions of years.

[Roy Robson]

06:02 PM on 02/17/2011

All the power companies want is a return on investment...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703786804576138390195744476.html

[Jarret Adams]

03:24 PM on 02/17/2011

Used nuclear fuel can be safely stored at plant sites for decades, the NRC has determined. But a much better option is to recycle our used fuel. Most other countries with significant nuclear power sectors do. This would allow us to make better use of our natural resources, reuse material that still has value and make waste management easier. Reduce, reuse, recycle -- it makes sense.

[esquilax]

05:20 PM on 02/17/2011

But Jarret, by recycling and declaring the very significant cost of processing that material, the economics of nuclear weaken still further. That's why the "too cheap to meter" crowd love long term storage and plant operating extensions; it kicks the cost down the road a bit further. Shhhhh!

[dezakin]

07:19 AM on 02/18/2011

The cost of reprocessing is higher than the cost of storage using PUREX. Now you've taken something that's a simple fact and added negative connotations as if storing is a bad thing, when the price of reprocessing can only fall as spent fuel becomes colder over the decades and technology advances.

[PoloniumMan]

11:25 AM on 02/20/2011

Spent fuel is self-reprocessing. As the fission products decay away, the fuel becomes safe enough to handle in a glove box as opposed to a hot cell. There's no hurry to cut open the dry casks, we're still burning decommissioned nuclear weapon fuel. The federal government should set up regional storage centers in areas near nuclear plants. An example is the storage area that is holding ALL of the spent fuel from the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee nuclear generating station.

http://www.connyankee.com/html/fuel_storage.html

http://www.connyankee.com/index.html

[aligatorhardt]

08:00 AM on 02/18/2011

Again with the myth of reprocessing? Too expensive and unable to use more than a small percentage of existing waste. Not a solution but just another pork project for the nuclear industry. Where are the working units? They exist only in plans.

[maslin]

01:30 AM on 02/20/2011

Uh, ask the French.

[markkocaldo]

01:08 PM on 02/17/2011

Actually the 9th circuit court appeals court ruled yesterday in a similar case in Cali, that Enviro's had no case zero zilch and dismissed it.

http://www.santamariatimes.com/news/local/article_b6c8d7b4-3a64-11e0-a022-001cc4c03286.html

Wacky Dem politicians in New York, Connecticut and Vermont are about to get their butts kicked.

[aligatorhardt]

12:40 PM on 02/17/2011

As usual the answer to nuclear waste is to ignore it until the people making money off it are safely gone or hidden, then the rest will be stuck with the problem. The only way to limit this problem is to stop building these power plants and force the proper disposal of existing wastes. After 60 years of nuclear power it is evident that there is no good solution to the problem of the wastes. Somewhere will be stuck with it until the end of time. With so many better ways to generate electricity, the nuclear option is not an option.

[markkocaldo]

01:12 PM on 02/17/2011

Ironically, the only way to get rid of the football field sized mound of existing nuke waste is to burn it in Gen IV reactors like India's new 500 MW first of 5 units.

That will generate enough power to fuel all the worlds energy needs for hundreds of years. Whats left is at such a low level it could be stuffed back in an uranium mine.

Sounds like a win win.

[alvdh1]

02:13 PM on 02/17/2011

Sethy,

You changed your name. There was only one fool around here claiming that India has a GEN IV reactor under construction - which is unfounded, untruthful and more of your nuclear gimmickry.

[aligatorhardt]

07:58 AM on 02/18/2011

Sounds more like a total lie. Reprocessing can only use a small percentage of the waste and there is no reprocessing plant to prove even that. Increases costs to be more expensive than most clean energy sources. Total fail.

[padrushka]

04:36 AM on 02/17/2011

"You certainly can't proceed to expand nuclear power, as the federal government is proposing, without dealing with this issue," bet they can but great work people!

[esquilax]

01:56 AM on 02/17/2011

NPP economics are thoroughly broken. In every country where there is open information (ie not China) those same Governments are struggling with this industry in it's twilight. Waste storage and decommissioning costs are staggering.

[maslin]

01:35 AM on 02/20/2011

Highly funny, and completely wrong. This industry is on the verge of a huge new buildout - in countries it has never been before, in countries it already exists, in countries that phased it out.

This is so obviously counterfactual it makes me wonder why you bothered to write that. I mean, you can sit there and say "Terrible idea" all you like but you can't deny that there is a huge worldwide push in this area.

Don't worry, you'll get a nice new plant in Australia soon.

[esquilax]

07:49 AM on 02/20/2011

"Don't worry, you'll get a nice new plant in Australia soon."

Right sparky.