Short Circuit

A setback for nuclear power

The nation's nuclear power industry is already reeling from cost overruns, widespread public doubts and a snarl of ever changing Government regulations. Last week it was dealt another blow: the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-to-0 decision, upheld a California moratorium enacted in 1976 that bans certification of new nuclear facilities until the Federal Government finds a way to dispose permanently of the plants' highly radioactive waste products. The ruling, which affects only future construction, opens the door for wider state involvement.

Critical to the court's conclusion was its judgment that the California law was motivated by economic, not safety, considerations. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 permits states to regulate the economic aspects of nuclear power--issues such as land use, rate making and the need for electricity--and allows the Federal Government to retain complete control of the safety aspects. Because the absence of permanent nuclear-waste dumps could lead to reactor shutdowns and disruption of electric service, said the court, the California statute rightfully protects the state's role as an economic arbiter of nuclear power. "The legal reality," wrote Justice Byron White, "remains that Congress has left sufficient authority in the states to allow the development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for economic reasons."

Other opponents of nuclear power regarded the ruling as a potent new weapon. "The decision is another nail in the coffin of nuclear power," declared Michael Paparian, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, an environmental organization. "The ruling," said Jerry Brown, who was Governor of California when the moratorium was passed, "further strengthens the power of the states to regulate their own economic destiny."

The ruling should further embolden the anti-nuclear-power movement nationally. Six states already have bans in effect that are similar to California's; other state legislatures are considering comparable legislation. And though the decision does not affect the nation's 83 licensed and operating nuclear facilities, it could encourage efforts to halt completion of the 57 federally approved plants now in various stages of construction. "I'm not arguing that you could pull the plug on every plant that's being built," said Chris Flavin, an energy expert with the Worldwatch Institute. "But the decision may give states an incentive to try."

Nevertheless, industry representatives viewed the ruling as a setback but not a disaster. "It's not a new power," said Carl Goldstein, spokesman for the Atomic Industrial Forum, the trade group for the nuclear industry. "The Supreme Court just reaffirmed the states' traditional authority over economic issues." Said Russell Hawkes, spokesman for Southern California Edison Co., which, with Pacific Gas and Electric Co., brought the original lawsuit: "The decision sets an unfortunate precedent. But it has no immediate impact on our company." Neither utility has plans for new facilities in this decade; none of the state's six reactors are currently running.

Moreover, the industry points to legislation passed four months ago by Congress that establishes a timetable for selection of nuclear-waste disposal sites and methods. Energy Department officials have already announced ambitious plans to pick three sites for exploratory drilling by the end of the summer, a full 15 months ahead of schedule. None too soon: 8,800 tons of toxic nuclear waste are now temporarily stored in pools of water next to existing nuclear plants.

The nuclear power industry could also take heart from another Supreme Court ruling last week: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) need not consider the psychological effects on local residents of reopening the undamaged reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility near Harrisburg, Pa. The plant's other reactor had broken down on March 28, 1979; neither has been operating since. Leaders of People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE), the citizens group that challenged the startup, were disappointed but vowed to continue their fight. With NRC approval, however, Metropolitan Edison Co., which operates the plant, hopes to reopen the unharmed reactor in July. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.