The state of Massachusetts should ensure that Holtec International is being up front about its plans to discharge irradiated wastewater from a nuclear power plant into nearby waters, the sponsor of a proposed bill to block such an action told Bay State legislators this week.
Massachusetts has “a responsibility to insist and expect full transparency and disclosure by Holtec” about its proposal to release wastewater from Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station into the Cape Cod Bay, state Sen. Susan Moran (D) told the state legislature’s joint Judiciary Committee during a hearing Tuesday. The committee met to hear testimony on Moran’s proposed bill.
“Despite strong, nearly universal opposition, Holtec has given no guarantee that the company would not discharge radioactive water into the Cape Cod Bay,” Moran said.
If it became law, Moran’s measure would ban the release of radioactive material into bodies of water within the Bay State. The bill would institute a $10,000 fine for first-time offenders and a $25,000 fine for subsequent violations.
As of Friday afternoon, the state Judiciary Committee had not voted on the proposed bill.
Holtec’s proposal has faced significant opposition from both the commonwealth and Capitol Hill. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.) in a Jan. 28 letter urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to look into Holtec’s “lack of transparency and communication” in its plans for wastewater disposal. That plea came as Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pressed Holtec to explore alternative disposal methods for Pilgrim’s irradiated water.
Holtec, for its part, has said that it would review its options and that it would not discharge any of the Plymouth, Mass., plant’s wastewater into the bay this year. Despite that, the company has cautioned that such an activity would “likely” be part of a future disposal campaign alongside evaporation and truck shipments.
Kelly Trice, president of Holtec’s decommissioning branch, defended water discharges in a Jan. 27 letter, saying that such practices are “normal for nuclear plants and are very well regulated” by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pilgrim itself has discharged water for its entire 50-year lifespan, Trice said.
Meanwhile, Holtec announced earlier this month that it had moved all of Pilgrim’s Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) waste, which includes non-fuel waste products such as “highly activated metal components,” onto the site’s independent spent fuel storage installation in early March, according to a press release. The plant’s GTCC inventory is stored in Holtec-designed canisters similar to the ones used to store spent nuclear fuel, the company said.
Pilgrim’s GTCC storage campaign expanded on “best practices” from a similar campaign Holtec completed last summer at New Jersey’s Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, the release said. Oyster Creek’s non-fuel waste inventory is also stored onsite in four canisters, the company said.
Meanwhile, Holtec is still weighing its options for disposing of the Plymouth, Mass., plant’s irradiated wastewater. The company has said that it would not follow through on a proposal to discharge Pilgrim’s water into the nearby Cape Cod Bay in 2022, but that such an action would “likely” be part of its final disposal strategy.
Holtec finished moving Pilgrim’s spent fuel inventory into dry storage Dec. 13. The company has said that it could finish decommissioning the plant, which it bought from Entergy in 2018, by 2027 or so.
