skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: New York vs. United States: Federalism and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste

Journal Article · · Natural Resources Journal; (United States)
OSTI ID:6469439

Although 97 percent of LLRW is so slightly radioactive that it requires little or no shielding to protect the public, the remaining 3 percent consists of materials that must be shielded for periods ranging from 300 to several thousand years. Some of the material classified as LLRW contains [open quotes][open quote]hot spots[close quote], where concentrations of radioactivity may be quite high.[close quotes] Even aside from such hot spots, LLRW poses a threat to human health. While nuclear power plants generate the bulk of LLRW, a significant quantity of LLRW is generated by industry, and academic and medical institutions. States are allowed to regulate LLRW that is generated by the private sector, as long as the regulations are compatible with, and at least as restrictive as, those of the NRC. However, states may not regulate LLRW generated by NRC-licensed nuclear power plants. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLR-WPAA, or the Act) attempted to solve the problem of insufficient LLRW disposal capacity in the United States by further shifting responsibility for LLRW disposal to the states. The Act required each state to provide an approved disposal site that could be located either within that state or within a region formed by a compact including that state. In June, 1992, the United States Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Act that would have forced a state to take title to all LLRW generated within its borders if that state failed to meet a 1996 deadline for providing such a disposal site. This note will examine the constitutional basis for, and the consequences of, that decision. In addition, this note will suggest that the Court's new criterion for determining when a federal statute violates principles of federalism be replaced by a more coherent and workable test resting on a theory of political accountability and on the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution.

OSTI ID:
6469439
Journal Information:
Natural Resources Journal; (United States), Vol. 34:1; ISSN 0028-0739
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English