Pilgrim nuclear plant not likely to get DEP permit to dump wastewater - The Patriot Ledger
Pilgrim nuclear plant not likely to get DEP permit to dump wastewater
Holtec nuclear power plant permit likely to be denied. Public outcry is swift − and loud
David R. Smith
PLYMOUTH— Discharging even treated water from the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station will hurt the local economy and sea life. The bay will be regarded as an unsafe place to swim, striking a blow to local tourism. Most of all, doing so is just plain illegal under state law.
That's what the public had to say in backing the state's decision to deny the owner of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power permission to discharge 1.1 million gallons of treated wastewater into Cape Cod Bay.
The concerns are not new. But they are still loud and were raised again at a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection-led public hearing in Plymouth on Aug. 24. The hearing sought public comment on its tentative denial of the Pilgrim owner's plans for discharge, which the DEP announced last month.
The denial is rooted in the state’s determination that any discharge from the plant, whether radiological or chemical, is prohibited under the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act, which prohibits “the dumping or discharge of commercial, municipal, domestic or industrial waste” into the areas covered under the act.
“Holtec’s application says that what it wants to discharge is industrial wastewater. That is precisely what is prohibited by the Ocean Sanctuaries Act,” Jim Lambert, a longtime Duxbury anti-nuclear activist and member of the state’s nuclear decommissioning citizens advisory panel said.
In addition to Cape Cod Bay, Plymouth, Kingston and Duxbury bays are also considered protected areas under the act.
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station's history and current status
The plant operated for nearly 50 years before closing in 2019, at which point Holtec took on its decommissioning.
Holtec signed a settlement agreement with the state in 2020 that said it would abide by all federal and local laws and regulations, including those in Massachusetts that are more stringent than national standards.
The company announced in November 2021 that it intended to discharge the remaining water. The suggestion was met with swift outcry from the public, environmental groups and area legislators.
The company eventually agreed to not make any moves to discharge without clear public consent to do so. Holtec's critics say the company applied for the permit modification when it knew it did not have that consent.
Keating, Markey, Moran and Warren weigh in on Holtec permit request
While there were some Pilgrim supporters and people who spoke only on their own behalf, the majority of comments made during the two-hour hearing came from people representing environmental groups, both local and national.
The region’s state and federal legislators also sent representatives to read statements on their behalf.
“Denying Holtec’s permit modification request is a win for the environment and for all the people, businesses and organizations that rely on Cape Cod Bay’s reputation for clean and safe water,” said Jim Cantwell, state director for U.S. Sen. Ed Markey.
“(The discharge) would adversely affect the delicate habitat and diverse wildlife that make up our coast, as well as the health of generations to come,” said state Sen. Sue Moran, D-Falmouth, who attended the meeting. "This has far-reaching ramifications and could significantly harm the region's tourism industry's seafood production and overall ecological health."
The law allows for some exceptions to the discharge prohibition, such as wastewater from electric power generation and continuation of an existing permit, conditions Pilgrim met when it was generating power.
“The water subject to this proposed modification is not the product of electric electrical power generation, nor does it qualify for any other exemptions mentioned in ... the Ocean Sanctuaries Act,” a statement from U.S. Rep. Bill Keating said.
The determination noted that in its application to modify its existing permit to allow for the discharge, Holtec described the remaining water at the plant as “industrial waste,” which the act does not allow to be introduced into the water.
Plymouth meeting predominately anti-discharge
Jim Lampert said a reading of Holtec’s permit application did not make reference to state agencies.
“When you read it, it becomes pretty clear that Holtec was concerned only with getting an EPA permit. They must have expected that the state would go along with whatever Holtec did and simply didn't care about Massachusetts laws or regulations. The application never mentions them,” he said. “The application ignores Holtec’s contractual agreement to comply with Massachusetts laws. The federal Clean Water Act could not be clearer. Massachusetts can have regulations that are more stringent than those of the EPA,” Lambert said.
More on the Holtec discharge permit: Activists, lawmakers applaud state's rejection of nuke wastewater discharge into bay
He added that the EPA cannot issue a permit unless the state certifies that the proposed permit complies with Massachusetts law.
Holtec puts the cost of shipping the water to an out-of-storage location at $20 million. Storing it on site until another solution is found would add to the length of the decommissioning process, Holtec has said.
Much of the debate over whether to allow it has centered on tritium, a nucleotide that cannot be readily filtered out as it's chemically similar to water.
The danger posed by accumulated tritium has been a subject of debate, with one side arguing it’s a naturally occurring element that filters out of organisms quickly and is only potentially dangerous when a high enough concentration is created in a lab.
The other side has said its effects on pregnant women and young children has not been sufficiently studied and that it can bioaccumulate in the water and move up the food chain to humans.
That issue is more or less moot given the fact the denial is based on state law that doesn’t need to consider whether tritium is harmless or harmful All that matters is that the tritium, along with other chemicals that may remain in the filtered water are pollutants as defined under the sanctuaries act.
Neil Sheehan, a spokesperson for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, confirmed his agency is not involved in the denial process and does not plan to weigh in on the determination as things stand now.
The handful of people who were against the denial focused their attention on disputing the notion tritium and the other elements that might be present do not pose a public safety risk and less on the law being used to deny the request.
Susan Tordella, of Eco-Nuclear Solutions, a pro-nuclear group, wore a “Nuclear is Zero Carbon” T-shirt as she advocated on behalf of Pilgrim.
“I support the discharge with confidence that it will not harm the environment based on data records of decades of safe discharge,” she said.
Bill Campbell, who identifies himself as a retired electrical engineer, described Holtec “as a good corporate citizen performing the Pilgrim decommissioning in a truthful and open manner.”
Several speakers said the permit modification request conflicts with many other laws, including the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act, antidegradation rules and crimes against public health.
Mary Lambert, Jim Lambert’s wife, also serves on the decommissioning panel. She spoke on behalf of her organization, Pilgrim Watch.
“These are all laws the DEP should include in its final denial to be able to use them in court if Holtec files an appeal,” she said. “Multiple arrows in the quiver are better than one.”
The public comment period runs through 5 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 31.
MassDEP's next steps
The state will render its final determination some time after the public comment period closes at 5 p.m. Thursday Aug. 31.
Comments may be emailed to massdep.npdes@mass.gov (subject line: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station).
Mailed comments should be addressed to Cathy Coniaris, MassDEP, 100 Cambridge St., Boston, MA 02114.