[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We want to return now to a situation along the Hudson River, north of the city, that remains unresolved regarding radioactive discharges that may be coming soon from the now-closed Indian Point nuclear power plant. The owner of the plant, as part of the decommissioning process, was going to discharge water from the plant into the Hudson as early as next month. Local residents and river advocates strenuously objected and the discharges were put on hold. Then in June, the state legislature passed a bill banning these discharges of radioactive water from Indian Point.

As far as we know, Governor Hochul has neither signed nor vetoed that bill. September, when they were planning to do it, is getting pretty close. What's happening with Indian Point and radioactive water discharges and the science as well? There is a question that's being raised. There are competing science on this. Is there actually any risk from these discharges? The plant owner claims not any more than when Indian Point was operating for all those years, and that was safe. Patrick McGeehan joins us, New York Times correspondent covering transportation and infrastructure for The New York Times Metro section. Thanks for coming on, Patrick. Welcome to WNYC.

Patrick McGeehan: Good morning, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Remind us of the basics here. When and why was Indian Point shut down?

Patrick McGeehan: Indian Point was shut down when Governor Cuomo was still in office. He basically gave in to pressure from opponents of it who were afraid about a nuclear meltdown in the New York City region and so he had it shut down. He made a deal to close it, and it closed in 2021. It stopped operating in 2021.

Brian Lehrer: What's the plan for discharging what kind of water as part of this shutdown, part of this decommissioning of Indian Point if the company gets its way?

Patrick McGeehan: The company, Holtec, that bought Indian Point after it stopped operating wants to discharge this water as part of this--

Brian Lehrer: Can I jump in on that just as a point of curiosity because I'm sure some of our listeners' ears just perked up and said, "Wait, why would a company buy a nuclear power plant after it was ordered to shut down?"

Patrick McGeehan: They're in the business of decommissioning these nuclear power plants, this company, Holtec.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, that's what they do.

Patrick McGeehan: It's what they do. The operators, the utility company that was operating Indian Point, they're not in that business. They're in the business of running them, not tearing them down and dealing with the waste. That's what this company contracted to do.

Brian Lehrer: What do they want to do?

Patrick McGeehan: As part of their process of decommissioning it, their plan was to dump water from the plant that is radioactive to some degree into the Hudson as the operators had been doing for many years. What we're learning is that a nuclear power plant can be as controversial in its death as it was in its life. Now there's a whole lot of opposition to that plan, and the company is in limbo as to what to do because of all the different positions people have taken on this plan.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners with any point of view or question about the Indian Point water discharge plan or the decommissioning in general, 212-433-WNYC. Call or text, 212-433-9692 or tweet @BrianLehrer with Patrick McGeehan who's been covering the story for New York Times. Is it a knowable question or a question with a knowable answer that the company says this is no different from the routine releases when the plant was in operation and that those releases were proven to be safe?

Patrick McGeehan: It seems true that it's no different from what they were doing before, whether that's safe is--

Brian Lehrer: Meaning water with some radioactivity would not be released into the river at any greater rate, let's say per day or whatever the pace is than it was when the plant was operating. It's not like there's this whole huge vat of radioactive water and there's going to be a big dump. We're closing the plant, we're going to dump it all into the river all at once. It's going to be a gradual discharge in the form of when the plant was operating?

Patrick McGeehan: Yes, generally the company has a permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal permission to do this. This is a plan that was approved at the federal level understanding that there is some radioactivity in this wastewater and it would be in the river. They would do periodic discharges, that was the plan, but they've put that on hold because of all this opposition.

Brian Lehrer: Do environmentalists or public health officials make a claim that the discharges over the years when the plant was operating have damaged anybody's health?

Patrick McGeehan: The main environmental group that's fought this, Riverkeeper, has been fighting against Indian Point for many years saying that all of what they were doing there was harmful to life in the river, that this is not a healthy thing to be doing, to be discharging radioactive wastewater into a river full of fish and in which some people might swim.

Brian Lehrer: Or eat the fish.

Patrick McGeehan: Yes, or eat the fish, certainly fishing. The company's response is, "We're not the only ones discharging radioactive wastewater into the Hudson River. Lots of other companies do this and have permits to do it, so we're not doing anything that others aren't doing." This legislation would stop just them from doing it.

Brian Lehrer: The bill that was passed in the legislature, it would prevent this release of radioactive water?

Patrick McGeehan: Yes, it would prevent a nuclear power plant from discharging radioactive water into the Hudson. It's written to be just about Indian Point. It passed in June, so now we're waiting to see if the governor will sign it.

Brian Lehrer: Has the governor given an indication? June was two months ago?

Patrick McGeehan: No, there hasn't been any clear indication from the governor's office whether this is going to be signed or not. Now, it might be because they didn't feel that there was any hurry because the next scheduled-- the next plan was to discharge in September at the soonest. September is just around the corner now and so the assemblywoman who sponsored this bill, she says that she gets constant questions about this, what's going to happen, what's going to happen? We don't have an answer yet from the governor's office.

Brian Lehrer: I'm sure the company would like to know too since September is right around the corner. John in Peekskill, right in that area. John, you're on WNYC. Thanks for calling in.

John: Hi, Brian. Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

John: Okay. Thank you for all the work you do, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you.

John: Yes, simply it's the cost to the company versus the safety to the community. There's really no major cost for the company to hold the water on-site at least for a year and possibly longer. They come up with all sorts of reasons why that's not feasible, but it really comes down to whether the company's willing to invest money, which is actually our money. It's the decommissioning fund that people paid for in their utility bills. It's actually our money. The company, the cheaper they do it, the more money they walk away with, and that's really what's going on here.

Brian Lehrer: John, to the extent that you know the answer to this question, what I've read that the environmentalists want is what you said, to store the water on the site until they come up with a different solution for disposing of it. Do you have an understanding of what a potential different solution is?

John: There are different possibilities that have been offered. One is just to shift the water somewhere else, which isn't a great idea, but even just storing it on-site, the main contaminant, although there are other contaminants, there's Tritium in the water here. There's other radioactive nucleotides that are very dangerous and long lasting.

Brian Lehrer: Tritium is the one I keep seeing reported on. Familiar with that?

John: Yes. It has a half-life of 12.5 years. Even if they held it for the 12.5 years, because the solid waste is going to be on-site a lot longer than that. Even if they held it for that, its half-life is it's half the danger it's going to be holding it that long even if they have to disperse it into the river later on.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting, John, thank you very much. Why wouldn't the company say yes to that, Patrick, if you know, if the water would become 50% less dangerous in 12 years? They've already got it in whatever you call the holding tank that's on the side of Indian Point. Why can't they just say, "Yes, okay, sure, let's reduce the risk. We're already holding it in this tank-" or these tanks or however those are actually constructed, "-so we'll just do that for a while, no problem"?

Patrick McGeehan: Well, it would definitely add to their cost. It's not a cost that they factored in, I don't think, but there's also the complication that the Mayor of Buchanan, the village in which Indian Point sits, Theresa Knickerbocker is the mayor there. She says, Holtec, the company will not get permits to store that wastewater on-site. She wants them to discharge it into the river.

Brian Lehrer: The town is against that? The town wants it discharged into the river?

Patrick McGeehan: Yes, she thinks the safest way is to put it in the river because otherwise now you're risking having radioactive wastewater leaking into the ground and possibly getting into the groundwater. That's what she doesn't want.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. With New York Times Metro infrastructure correspondent, Patrick McGeehan, on the latest development. In a way, they're non-developments, and we're just giving you an update on the fact that nothing is happening but something might happen soon with respect to the decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear power plant and whether the company that now owns it is going to get to discharge radioactive water into the river next month as they've been planning and whether Governor Hochul is going to sign or veto a bill passed by the legislature in June to prevent that, and as we've been hearing just now from Patrick, even local officials versus environmentalists are at odds on what to do, with both sides claiming they're acting in the interest of environmental health. 212-433-WNYC. Jenny in Westchester, you're on WNYC. Hi, jenny.

Jenny: Hi, Brian. Thank you so much for taking my call. I am very concerned about this issue. I'm one of the members of one of the groups, in my case, Indivisible group in Westchester that is planning to go to a rally tomorrow at 12 noon at the Westchester County Center. This is designed specifically to call public attention to the fact that Governor Hochul has not signed this bill which a great deal of effort went into passing, activists, energy community organizers, and legislators who sponsored and then lobbied for the passage of this bill, and it is very frustrating and concerning that we have heard nothing from Governor Hochul about her intentions.

As the clock is ticking on a plan to do something that is not just going to affect people who live immediately in the vicinity of Indian Point but all of Westchester, all of the lower Hudson Valley, and New York City, we really need to call attention to Governor Hochul's lack of response and get her to sign this bill. Again, that's at 12 noon at Westchester County Center in White Plains.

Brian Lehrer: Have you heard or people in the group that you're in grappled with what we just heard from Patrick a minute ago, which is that the mayor of Buchanan is more concerned about the public health implications of keeping the water on-site than discharging it into the river?

Jenny: I am not in that community, I'm not close enough to the issue. I am taking it on faith that the number of people who have advocated for this bill and then Senator Harckham and assembly member Levenberg who sponsored it, that they have considered that alternative and decided that dumping it is the worst alternative.

Brian Lehrer: Jenny, thank you very much. Steve in Hell's Kitchen, who says he's a molecular biologist who has served as a radiation safety officer. Steve, you're on WNYC, thank you for calling in.

Steve: Good morning, Brian. I have a history in radiation safety. I actually was a graduate student in Columbia which had an on-site reactor. What most people don't seem to realize is that the burning of fossil fuels releases more radionuclides, the correct pronunciation, into the atmosphere than any of the water that's going to be released from Indian Point 1 and 2 in Buchanan.

I actually have a townhouse in Nyack, 11 miles downriver. Currently, I'm living in Hell's Kitchen which sits right over the Hudson River. There's a lot of hysteria about this, which is totally inappropriate and not scientifically based. There's no reason not to release this water and close down that facility. Let's get it done and use it for something else. Frankly, this is not a science-based argument, it is just hysteria.

Brian Lehrer: Why do you think, given the science that you just stated, and if that's accurate, environmentalists would be so opposed and local residents would be so opposed if that's actually the safer alternative? They know something has to be done with the water.

Steve: Yes, and holding it is not a safer alternative. Basically diluting it into the waters of the Hudson, which are going to flow into the Atlantic, it's not going to have a major environmental impact, and none of the environmentalists, and I'm one of them, has been able to show that that is the case. We've been working very hard, and I've been a resident of Nyack for many years, to clean up the Hudson. This will not impact that. Let's get it done and let's use the site for something more productive rather than as a holding tank for the water which frankly is not all that radioactive, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Steve, thank you very much. All right, well, we've certainly heard from various callers, Patrick, that there are different sides to this.

Patrick McGeehan: Absolutely. Now the real question is, if the governor signs this bill and they block the release into the river and the town will not issue permits to hold the wastewater on-site, then what do they do with this radioactive water? The next option, I believe, is to put it into tanker trucks and drive it somewhere, and finding a place that wants it is not going to be easy.

Brian Lehrer: Why wouldn't every place be against that unless it's one of those situations, which are so sad, where places that need economic development or economic input of some kind, money, because they're poor localities, they will set themselves up to receive one kind of pollution or another. You hate to be the ones shipping to those locations and say, "Yes, it's okay, you take our radioactive water. It's not safe for us, but it's safe enough for you as far as we're concerned."

Can I ask you, before you go, one related but off-topic question? I don't know if you've covered this, so if you haven't, let me know, but maybe you have as an infrastructure reporter, replacing the energy from Indian Point, because I don't remember the percentage, I think it was in your last article on this, it was producing a significant percentage of the power for New York City and Westchester.

Of course, there were people on the other side of the decommissioning argument who said, "Look, in the climate change era, nuclear power is considered clean in that it's not carbon-emitting. The history of nuclear power plants in this country is that they are incredibly well regulated and safe." Certainly, Governor Cuomo's position and the arguments that he accepted were that in the unlikely event of a worst-case scenario, it's just in too dense an area, being where it is, so close to New York City and as densely populated even as the northern suburbs themselves are. So they shut it down. How are they doing it, replacing the energy, if you know?

Patrick McGeehan: Well, it's going gradually so far because the energy is supposed to be replaced by green sources like wind and solar, but we haven't developed enough wind and solar to replace the output of those two reactors. At the moment, there's more fossil fuel generation fueled by natural gas in the state than there was prior to the closing of Indian Point, so it's still not having the desired effect, and everything is still on the come in terms of offshore wind and more solar and hydro to replace that nuclear power.

Brian Lehrer: Patrick McGeehan covers transportation and infrastructure for the metro section of The New York Times. Patrick, thanks a lot.

Patrick McGeehan: Thank you.

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.