Decommissioning board examines wastewater solutions
A week after Holtec, the firm that is decommissioning the Indian Point nuclear power plant, challenged a state law that prevents it from discharging radioactive water into the Hudson River, an oversight board discussed alternate methods of handling the waste.
Holtec, which says it needs to dispose of at least 1.3 million gallons of wastewater, told the Indian Point Decommissioning Oversight Board that the amount will increase but did not indicate by how much. While the plant routinely discharged radioactive wastewater into the river during the 50 years it operated, the process has drawn renewed concern by critics who say the risks have been underestimated.
Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear engineer and nuclear industry executive, told the oversight board at its April 25 meeting that the federal Environmental Protection Agency standard set in the 1970s for tritium, the radioactive material in the wastewater, was “not a health-based standard. It’s based on what was easily achievable.”
Gundersen said that further research is needed to determine the “synergistic toxicity” of tritium, or how it could potentially increase the toxicity of non-radioactive pollutants it comes in contact with, particularly the PCBs in the Hudson River.
“We need to take another look at tritium, because it’s not as benign as we think,” he asserted. “Let’s wait for the science to catch up and store it until then.”
Environmental groups would like to see the wastewater kept on-site for at least 12 years, which is the amount of time that it would take for the tritium to decompose to half its current potency.
David Lochbaum, a retired nuclear engineer and former director of nuclear safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists who serves on the oversight board, has repeatedly warned that the tanks used for long-term wastewater storage have leaked elsewhere, and that they must be vented, which allows tritium to escape into the atmosphere.
In his presentation, Gundersen explained how the leakage problem could be addressed by storing the wastewater in tanks housed in the plant’s former turbine building, which has not yet been torn down. An empty backup could also be available if one of the tanks fails.
Berms placed around the tanks would stop leaks from reaching the Hudson, he said, and a rubber diaphragm placed over the vents once the tanks are filled “would allow air movement due to minor temperature changes while preventing evaporation.”
Frank Spagnuolo, a representative from Holtec, said Gundersen’s plan would not solve its primary problem: Until the tanks and pools have been emptied and the wastewater is off-site, the company cannot fully decommission the plant.
Holtec announced in November 2023 that the ban on discharging wastewater into the Hudson would delay the completion of its work from 2033 to 2041. It sued New York State in federal court on April 18 to overturn the law. At the April 25 meeting, Spagnuolo said the company had calculated the time lost to legal battles into the anticipated delay.
“The tanks need to get released somehow, somewhere,” Spagnuolo said. “We can make this our grandchildren’s problem, if that’s what we decide to do.”
In a second presentation, Bridget Frymire of the New York Department of Public Service discussed the feasibility of shipping the wastewater off-site. That is what happened at the decommissioned Vermont Yankee plant from 2021 to 2023, although Frymire noted the site already had a railroad spur.
Vermont Yankee’s wastewater was shipped to a Texas facility where it was solidified and buried. A facility in Tennessee that is also licensed for radiological waste disposal could put the Indian Point wastewater through a similar process.
This potential solution did not appease many of the community members who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting and said that offloading the Hudson Valley waste to another community would be an environmental justice violation. It would, however, shorten the decommissioning timeline.
State Sen. Peter Harckham, a member of the board, suggested it would be helpful to see a cost and timeline comparison between Gundersen’s plan, shipping the wastewater off-site and going through “eight years of litigation.”
Because of the litigation, Holtec said it would not comment on whether it is considering either of the plans discussed at the meeting. The next meeting of the decommissioning board is scheduled for June 13.
Yesterday, a truck full of gasoline collided with another truck on Interstate 95 near Norwalk. There was a huge fire. Imagine if the truck had contained nuclear waste instead of oil.
Some are opposed to dumping it in the Hudson. Others are opposed to offloading it to another community, or transporting it in general. So what do we do with it?
Mr. Gundersen is a decommissioning expert and he presented a good solution to store the radioactive waste safely on-site. The radioactive wastewater should not be sent to another community to deal with and would not be transported along roads and rails where there could be accidents.
The goal of Indian Point decommissioning is the return of the Buchanan riverfront land for other uses. This means restoring the area to natural, background radiation levels. This cannot be done with 1.3 million gallons of tritiated water on-site. Holtec, like Entergy and the New York Power Authority and Con Edison before it, is allowed under federal law to discharge this water. Stop the delay. The plants are shut down and the goal of anti-nuclear groups has been realized.