Residents, scientists, health professionals and local business owners rallied outside the Schuyler County Courthouse Monday night before the county Legislature’s regular meeting, calling on lawmakers to rescind what they described as the county’s interest in hosting a nuclear power facility at the former Camp Monterey site.
Organizers said nearly 70 people gathered outside the courthouse ahead of the meeting, with many later entering the legislative chambers to speak during public comment. Speakers repeatedly characterized nuclear development as financially impractical, dangerous to public health, and incompatible with Schuyler County’s wine, agriculture and tourism-driven economy centered around Seneca Lake.
The rally followed public reports that Schuyler County, while denying it has a viable site for a large 1-gigawatt nuclear power plant, nonetheless expressed interest to the New York Power Authority in potentially hosting a smaller nuclear reactor. Economic development officials have said the county wanted to remain “at the table” as nuclear technology evolves, particularly for systems that could support so-called “year-round high energy users.”
That language alarmed many residents, who warned that across the country, communities hosting energy-intensive operations such as data centers and cryptomining facilities have faced rising electricity costs, increased water consumption, declining property values and constant industrial noise.
Speakers at the rally and during the meeting questioned why additional baseload power would be needed in a rural county with a relatively small population and stressed that economic development decisions should prioritize long-term health, environmental protection and existing industries.
Cornell University professor Robert Howarth, an ecologist and member of New York’s Climate Action Council, told the crowd that nuclear power remains one of the most expensive and slowest forms of energy to deploy. He said that after more than 50 years of commercial nuclear power in the United States, there is still no permanent solution for nuclear waste disposal.
“Nuclear wastes simply accumulate at the sites of power plants,” Howarth said, warning that radioactive material can remain hazardous for centuries. He added that the Climate Action Council’s scoping plan, adopted by a 19-3 vote, concluded New York’s energy future should rely on wind, solar and hydropower, not nuclear generation.
Howarth also raised concerns about small modular reactors, often promoted as safer and more flexible, saying emerging research shows they may generate more radioactive waste per unit of energy while costing significantly more than traditional reactors.
Local business owners warned that even the perception of nuclear risk could undermine the region’s economy. Phil Davis, co-owner of Damiani Wine Cellars and a sixth-generation Schuyler County resident, criticized what he described as a revenue-first mindset that fails to account for rural character and environmental vulnerability.
“This endless focus on revenue being treated as a sacrosanct crusade without basic regard to the rural character of our county needs to be reined in,” Davis said.
Public health risks were a central theme throughout the evening. Several speakers cited a peer-reviewed study published in December by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health examining cancer incidence near nuclear power plants in Massachusetts. The study analyzed cancer data from 2000 through 2018 and found that residents living within roughly 30 kilometers of a nuclear facility experienced significantly higher cancer rates compared to those living farther away.
Researchers estimated that approximately 20,600 cancer cases — about 3.3 percent of all cases in the dataset — were attributable to proximity to nuclear power plants. The increased risk was strongest closest to facilities and declined sharply beyond the 30-kilometer threshold. The study also found that cancer risk associated with proximity increased with age, suggesting cumulative exposure effects over time.
The researchers controlled for other factors, including air pollution and socioeconomic variables, and concluded that the findings underscore the need to acknowledge and address nuclear energy’s health impacts as its expansion is promoted in climate policy debates.
Yvonne Taylor, vice president of Seneca Lake Guardian and a Schuyler County resident, said the findings reinforce concerns about placing any nuclear facility in a county defined by agriculture, tourism and natural resources.
“We can prevent cancer, keep our air and water clean, preserve our existing economy and lower costs by choosing more responsible development paths,” Taylor said. “The answer to our future is not radioactive.”
Marsha E. Smith, a retired registered nurse with more than four decades of experience, said she could not support introducing nuclear technology — regardless of size — into a small rural county without definitive proof of safety.
“Prove it before we consider going that route,” Smith said. “Let’s keep our community and this beautiful place healthy and safe.”
Other speakers emphasized the importance of Seneca Lake as a drinking water source, ecosystem and economic engine. Jesse Junko Beardslee, a local business owner, said that anywhere within the county would be too close to such a sensitive resource.
“The lake is a beloved attraction, a microclimate, an ecosystem and a water source,” Beardslee said. “Our environment has too much to lose.”
Jan Quarles, an organic farm owner and community organizer, said renewable energy investments could create jobs without the long-term health risks associated with nuclear power.
“The bottom line is that cancer rates increase around nuclear sites,” Quarles said. “We should be investing in solar and wind instead.”
Several speakers also criticized state leadership, including Sen. Tom O’Mara, for promoting what they called “clean nuclear power” without addressing the unresolved issue of nuclear waste disposal.
County officials have said their response to the New York Power Authority was intended to keep Schuyler County involved in future energy discussions, not to commit to hosting a large nuclear facility. Economic development leaders have maintained that the county does not meet the requirements for a 1-gigawatt plant and that no formal siting decision has been made.
Still, rally organizers said even expressing interest sends the wrong signal and risks normalizing a project they believe would permanently alter the county’s character.
“This is about stopping something before it gains momentum,” one resident said. “Once you’re on the list, it’s much harder to get off.”
No formal vote on nuclear siting was taken during the meeting.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to [email protected].