The fate of the radioactive water inside the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station — nearly a million gallons — has become one of the most difficult questions since the reactor was shut down in 2019. Pilgrim’s corporate owner, Holtec International, has proposed discharging the water into Cape Cod Bay. Now, an assessment by a Woods Hole scientist is taking center stage, but not without controversy. CAI’s Jennette Barnes has this interview.
Jennette Barnes: Ken Buesseler is a marine radiochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He studies radioactivity in the ocean. Comments he wrote last year about the nuclear plant water drew some pointed reactions last week from the state panel on Pilgrim, after a member of the public read the comments aloud. Some of the comments focus on what Buesseler says are high levels of radioactive contamination in the Pilgrim water. Using the example of cesium-137, which is in the water, he says that if 99 percent were removed, the level would still be 2 million times higher than in seawater. One Pilgrim supporter objected, saying that’s almost like yelling fire in a crowded theater. After all, the water would be diluted before release. But local activists say dilution is no solution. Buesseler wasn't there to respond. So in my interview, I asked him, how concerning is that number — a radioactive material 2 million times higher than in the ocean? And can treatment remove more than 99 percent? He says it depends.
Ken Buesseler: Processes they use, they vary in the different effectiveness for each isotope. … You know, you can repeat processes, right? It's sort of like cleaning up drinking water with a charcoal filter under your sink. If you put two of those in a row, you're going to get a higher degree of purification than if you just have one. Many of these systems, though, sort of like those charcoal filters, saturate, or they don't work the same, after several uses. So it depends on the operator and how diligent they are, how much they monitor, whether they can get to 99 or 99.9% or whatever removal.
Jennette Barnes: Since it’s unclear exactly how clean the water would be at the time of release, I asked Buesseler for his thoughts on putting the Pilgrim water in the bay.
Ken Buesseler: I don't think this is going to destroy Cape Cod Bay as we know it, right? The amounts are not significant enough. But the idea that you're putting — if they were to put the water in at these levels, it still could be of concern, not just in terms of the dilution of this material out of Cape Cod Bay, but the accumulation, the bioaccumulation, the sediment accumulation. Some of the isotopes act very differently than tritium. They focus a lot on the radioactive form of hydrogen, which is really water moving around. But cesium, as you mentioned earlier, is more likely to end up in either seafood or the sea floor and therefore not follow that same model. … And it depends very specifically on what the concentrations and amounts are in the water to be released, which currently are quite high.
Jennette Barnes: Buesseler says oceans are not a good place, or the only place, to dispose of nuclear material.
Ken Buesseler: There's options for storage: either moving offsite or storing onsite water, after you clean it up, which if they claim they can, show us they can do that, and then wait for the decay of things that are more difficult to remove, tritium being among them. … And within 12 years, the half-life, we know it will — half of it will be removed, lost, due to radioactive decay. So since they're storing already on site nuclear fuel rods, casks with material, for decades to come, potentially centuries to come, they certainly could store water in the same way with tritium. And after 60 years, more than 95% of that would be gone. So there are alternatives that are not being considered — maybe slightly more expensive.
Jennette Barnes: For this scientist, there’s a difference between allowing radioactive water release when a plant is generating power versus after it’s been shut down.
Ken Buesseler: Maybe this amount of release, these isotopes ... have been done before, but as a precedent for what we will do for the hundreds of nuclear reactors worldwide that are going offline, if we treat the ultimate disposal as putting them in the ocean, I think that's something, certainly internationally, was agreed upon, is not a good idea. And so why are we doing it?
Jennette Barnes: Back to Buesseler’s written comments that caused a stir last week. There’s a section he labeled the “bottom line.” He says the Pilgrim water needs “extensive” cleanup, followed by an assessment of how the remaining radioactive materials could accumulate in ocean organisms and sediment. And he’s calling for ocean monitoring before, during, and after any water release. For now, all eyes are on the state appeals process, as Holtec challenges a permit denial that could block discharge of the water into Cape Cod Bay.
