U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas ruled last week that New York’s “Save the Hudson Act” banning Holtec International from dumping the wastewater is unconstitutional, saying that only the federal government can regulate discharges from decommissioned nuclear plants. Indian Point, which is located just south of Peekskill in Buchanan, New York, closed after nearly 60 years of operation in 2021. Holtec owns the site and is overseeing the decommissioning.
The decision has upset local lawmakers and environmental groups, who say it’s a threat to the Hudson Valley’s health, literally and fiscally. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced her intention to appeal the ruling this week, telling WAMC in a statement: “We must ensure that the Hudson River and its surrounding communities are protected for future generations.”
Tracy Brown, president of Riverkeeper, says she’s glad New York is fighting the decision. She says Holtec’s plans to discharge the wastewater are a cost-cutting measure at the expense of the environment.
"They could be storing that on the site," Brown explains. "They’re storing all kinds of other radioactive material on the site, that’s what they do. But it’s cheaper for them to take this low-level radioactive byproduct of the plant and throw it in the river.”
Holtec says the more than 1 million gallons it plans to dump (in batches of 20,000-30,000 gallons) fall under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s limits for tritium in wastewater, and that this was a regular practice of Indian Point while it was in operation. In a statement to WAMC, the company says it is pleased with the federal court’s ruling, adding: “We will continue to decommission the Indian Point site in an environmentally responsible manner working with local, state and federal stakeholders.”
At the latest meeting of the Indian Point Decommissioning Oversight Board, Holtec spokesperson Patrick O’Brien said the company has no discharges planned in the near future.
“Obviously, prior to the [Save the Hudson Act] being passed, one of things we had discussed was were there times that made more sense at a state level, local level to do those discharges that would coincide with less activity in the river," he added. "So that’s something we can come back to the table and continue to work on. And we’ll just continue to work with you on that.”
O’Brien also dismissed claims that the company is considering reopening Indian Point. The site reentered headlines earlier this year when Governor Kathy Hochul announced New York state is looking to build a new advanced nuclear power plant upstate. Holtec President Kelly Trice told Politico last month that restarting Indian Point could be possible, but O’Brien says the key word is “possible.”
“I’m here to say we are not actively looking to do that, but if that was the will and the need was there, we’d listen," he told the decommissioning oversight board.
The company has estimated that rebuilding Indian Point could cost as much as $10 billion. O’Brien says it is pursuing, however, the possibility of building smaller, modular reactors and a data center on the site.
In a statement, Hochul says she approves of James’ move to challenge the federal ruling on dumping, calling it “the right thing to do for New Yorkers.” Regarding the Save the Hudson Act, she adds: “As I said when I signed this vital legislation into law, the Hudson River is one of the New York's landmark national treasures. It's critical we stand together to protect it for generations to come to ensure the economic vitality of the region."
Even if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the discharge is allowed, Brown says a main point of the Save the Hudson Act was actually to protect the river’s economic vitality. That, she argues, is something New York has a say in.
"The river carries with it this burden of its old industrial past. Some people like me swim in the river and kayak in the river, but we still meet old-timers who are like, ‘What? I wouldn’t touch that river with a 10-foot pole!’" says Brown. "So, for the public, [dumping the wastewater brings] a feeling of dialing back on that perception that the Hudson is safe, and it is clean, and it is a place to swim and recreate. It starts to bring that uncertainty back in that it is safe.”
Brown says Riverkeeper would prefer to see the wastewater stored in containers on site for at least 12 years, until its radioactive level wears down. She says tritium is particularly difficult to separate from water, because they are similar in their chemical makeup.
“Keep it on the site, let it lose its half-life, and then let’s see where we’re at in terms of best disposal technology," says Brown. "I think it’s important to point out that even though Holtec may be able to prevail in the court of law on the technicalities of the Save the Hudson Act, they’re failing in the court of public opinion. And they’re certainly not regaining any of that trust or goodwill by fighting in the courts to try to defeat a law that was so overwhelmingly supported and passed so quickly.”
