It sounds like [New York] Governor Spitzer and AG Cuomo have decided that they should be inserted into the process for determining whether Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant's operating license should be renewed. NYT has an editorial about it here, predictably stating they support the Governor and AG.
So, should a state be able to participate in the renewal process? From the editorial, it almost sounds like the Times' editorial board wants them to have a veto on the process, but I'm afraid this would set a chilling president. For instance, if they can stop the renewal process, they would probably have grounds for demanding to sit in on new licenses. How many Governors, in an attempt to be 'green,' would veto a nuke that could bring much-needed jobs and energy to his state?
Or, if a state can sit in on the nuclear licensing process (and presumably be able to prevent it), why shouldn't they be able to stop any power plant from being constructed/operated?
The NRC's legal jurisdiction in being the sole arbiter is clear in this case. I tend to think that there is no overriding reason for this change. The NYT editorial rests on the premise that safety record, security, and local population are the factors that weigh in their favor, yet there are many factories and other industrial sites at far greater risk, and states do not currently have this level of power. Overall, I must conclude this is either a political sideshow or an unjustified power grab.
If NY has a problem with Indian Point, they should present their arguments in writing and request the NRC to do its job, not tell them how to do it.
So, should a state be able to participate in the renewal process? From the editorial, it almost sounds like the Times' editorial board wants them to have a veto on the process, but I'm afraid this would set a chilling president. For instance, if they can stop the renewal process, they would probably have grounds for demanding to sit in on new licenses. How many Governors, in an attempt to be 'green,' would veto a nuke that could bring much-needed jobs and energy to his state?
Or, if a state can sit in on the nuclear licensing process (and presumably be able to prevent it), why shouldn't they be able to stop any power plant from being constructed/operated?
The NRC's legal jurisdiction in being the sole arbiter is clear in this case. I tend to think that there is no overriding reason for this change. The NYT editorial rests on the premise that safety record, security, and local population are the factors that weigh in their favor, yet there are many factories and other industrial sites at far greater risk, and states do not currently have this level of power. Overall, I must conclude this is either a political sideshow or an unjustified power grab.
If NY has a problem with Indian Point, they should present their arguments in writing and request the NRC to do its job, not tell them how to do it.