Indian Point Energy Center: Difference between revisions
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.jpg||thumb|right|Holtec Indian Point Energy Center (I.P.E.C.) seen from across the Hudson River]] | |||
<Blockquote>... in New York, environmental groups and community members are sounding the alarm after [[Holtec International]], the owner of the decommissioned Indian Point nuclear facility, said it plans to dump some 1 million gallons of radioactive water into the Hudson River as soon as August. The water contains tritium, a byproduct of nuclear fission that cannot be filtered out of water and which could lead to a host of negative environmental and health effects. The advocacy group Riverkeeper said, “It’s time to draw the line against using the Hudson as a dumping ground.”<Ref>https://www.democracynow.org/2023/2/23/headlines/indian_point_nuclear_plant_owner_plans_to_dump_radioactive_waste_water_into_hudson_river</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
<Blockquote>The announcement was made at a meeting of the Indian Point Decommissioning Oversight Board and has raised strong objections from environmental advocacy groups and residents. The Hudson River is already a federally designated Superfund cleanup site due to the dumping of carcinogenic PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) by [[General Electric]] decades ago from facilities at Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, NY, upriver from Buchanan.<br><br> | |||
Dealing with the radioactive water, a product of the process to keep the nuclear reactor from overheating, is just one aspect of the overall decommissioning procedure. Spent fuel rods, which contain plutonium and uranium, and other components, will remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of millennia. These must be stored on site in effective perpetuity unless an alternative long-term storage facility is created to which they could be transported, merely “kicking the can down the road.” No such “permanent” storage location has yet been created despite 45 years of political finger-pointing. The transportation itself would present dangers, as illustrated by the recent derailment and resulting spill of toxic chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio.<br><br> | |||
An effective decontamination strategy would be to simply keep the wastewater contained on site to allow the natural decay process to proceed. Retention for approximately 25 years would reduce the quantity of tritium by 75 percent, making release into the environment less problematic. After 60 years, 96.4 percent of the stored tritium would have decayed. The NRC allows 60 years for decommissioning and spent fuel rods can remain on site for longer. However, that would require ensuring that containment was maintained throughout that time to prevent leakage into the surrounding groundwater, entailing long-term monitoring, maintenance and associated expense. Leaks in two containment tanks at the facility have already been detected. It should be noted that the tritium standards have not been updated for 50 years and may be out of date.<br> | |||
Given that and the need for onsite storage of the more long-lived radioactive materials, the question is raised: what is the need for disposal of the wastewater into the Hudson at this time, since curation of the Indian Point facility must be maintained in any case? A company spokesperson stated that in-river disposal is the “best option” available. This is eerily reminiscent of Norfolk Southern’s justification for the “controlled burn” of toxic materials in the derailed train at East Palestine. In both cases, containment of cost is evidently the primary consideration.<Ref>https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/02/24/mhus-f24.html</Ref></Blockquote> | |||
= Sources = | = Sources = | ||
Latest revision as of 00:57, 26 February 2023
... in New York, environmental groups and community members are sounding the alarm after Holtec International, the owner of the decommissioned Indian Point nuclear facility, said it plans to dump some 1 million gallons of radioactive water into the Hudson River as soon as August. The water contains tritium, a byproduct of nuclear fission that cannot be filtered out of water and which could lead to a host of negative environmental and health effects. The advocacy group Riverkeeper said, “It’s time to draw the line against using the Hudson as a dumping ground.”[1]
The announcement was made at a meeting of the Indian Point Decommissioning Oversight Board and has raised strong objections from environmental advocacy groups and residents. The Hudson River is already a federally designated Superfund cleanup site due to the dumping of carcinogenic PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) by General Electric decades ago from facilities at Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, NY, upriver from Buchanan.
Dealing with the radioactive water, a product of the process to keep the nuclear reactor from overheating, is just one aspect of the overall decommissioning procedure. Spent fuel rods, which contain plutonium and uranium, and other components, will remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of millennia. These must be stored on site in effective perpetuity unless an alternative long-term storage facility is created to which they could be transported, merely “kicking the can down the road.” No such “permanent” storage location has yet been created despite 45 years of political finger-pointing. The transportation itself would present dangers, as illustrated by the recent derailment and resulting spill of toxic chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio.
An effective decontamination strategy would be to simply keep the wastewater contained on site to allow the natural decay process to proceed. Retention for approximately 25 years would reduce the quantity of tritium by 75 percent, making release into the environment less problematic. After 60 years, 96.4 percent of the stored tritium would have decayed. The NRC allows 60 years for decommissioning and spent fuel rods can remain on site for longer. However, that would require ensuring that containment was maintained throughout that time to prevent leakage into the surrounding groundwater, entailing long-term monitoring, maintenance and associated expense. Leaks in two containment tanks at the facility have already been detected. It should be noted that the tritium standards have not been updated for 50 years and may be out of date.
Given that and the need for onsite storage of the more long-lived radioactive materials, the question is raised: what is the need for disposal of the wastewater into the Hudson at this time, since curation of the Indian Point facility must be maintained in any case? A company spokesperson stated that in-river disposal is the “best option” available. This is eerily reminiscent of Norfolk Southern’s justification for the “controlled burn” of toxic materials in the derailed train at East Palestine. In both cases, containment of cost is evidently the primary consideration.[2]