Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pilgrim Decommissioning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Opponents ask Legislature to bar Pilgrim decommissioner from evaporating radioactive wastewater
Summary
Multiple witnesses, including local officials, physicians and fishing industry representatives, urged the committee to block Holtec’s practice of evaporating chemically and radioactively contaminated water from the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station decommissioning process, and to require independent health study and alternative disposal plans.
Local residents, public‑health advocates and commercial fishermen urged the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources to advance legislation that would halt or strictly limit evaporation or discharge of chemically and radioactively contaminated wastewater generated during the Pilgrim nuclear plant decommissioning.
Speakers testified that Holtec International — the licensee overseeing Pilgrim’s decommissioning — has been evaporating treated, then reportedly contaminated water and that community members and industry groups are concerned about airborne release and ocean discharges. ‘‘The Plymouth community has been told that aerosolizing radioactive waste is a safe method of disposal, but saying so does not make it so,’’ said Dr. Bridal Lundberg, representing medical groups and research consortia assembled to study decommissioning health effects.
Witnesses provided multiple lines of concern: local voters, who approved a municipal referendum opposing evaporation; public‑health professionals seeking pre‑release studies; and commercial fisheries representatives worried about market impacts and ecological harm. ‘‘It is unconscionable and will jeopardize thousands of jobs in the Commonwealth,’’ said Beth Casoni, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, referencing the local shellfish and lobster economy.
Members of the state Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel and other local activists detailed prior legal and administrative efforts to block or condition liquid discharges to Cape Cod Bay and said alternative off‑site, licensed storage or treatment options exist. ‘‘Holtec has chosen a disquieting method to dispose of this radioactive wastewater,’’ said Arthur Deslojas of the Sierra Club, recounting an earlier community legal win that blocked a planned million‑gallon direct discharge.
Medical and academic witnesses requested transparent, independent studies of emissions and worker and resident exposures before such disposal methods proceed. Dr. Mary Lampert (testifying virtually) and Dr. Peter Boutrakis (cited by a witness) urged an immediate halt or moratorium on evaporative releases pending health assessments. Physicians present said two professional societies — the Massachusetts Medical Society and the American Medical Association — have adopted policies supporting study of decommissioning health effects prior to widespread aerosol releases.
Holtec’s defenders were not present to testify during this panel. The legislation under consideration (House Bill 4040 and related proposals) would prevent certain discharges and require studies and notifications; witnesses recommended tightening the bill language to prevent loopholes (for example, limiting evaporation of non‑spent fuel pool water) and to prohibit continued accelerated evaporation while studies are completed.
The committee accepted testimony and written materials. No formal vote was taken. Proponents urged the committee to advance a measure that would bar the current evaporation practices and require alternatives and independent health monitoring.
Ending: The committee will consider the testimony and written follow‑ups; proponents asked the panel to amend or advance legislation to impose a moratorium on evaporation methods until independent health and environmental studies are completed and to require transparent community involvement.
