BUCHANAN, N.Y. -- A 40-year battle to close the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant came to an end last week, as the last of its three reactors was permanently shut down.

Indian Point was once the single largest source of electric power in the state, but its presence on the banks of the Hudson River, just 25 miles north of New York City, has long raised safety and environmental concerns.

The first reactor shut down in 1974; the second just last year.

Liz Moran, environmental policy director for the New York Public Interest Research Group, called the final closure "a huge victory."

"This plant posed a major threat to New Yorkers," Moran contended. "Especially the over 19 million New Yorkers who live in or work in the New York metropolitan area."

Critics of the closure warned the loss of a carbon-free source of power will increase New York's reliance on natural gas at a time when the state is seeking to cut emissions from fossil fuels.

But Moran pointed out renewable energy sources are coming online at a rapid pace, including offshore wind farms capable of generating 4,300 megawatts of power, twice the capacity of Indian Point. They're scheduled to go into operation in 2024.

"There've been a number of studies that have found that this is very feasible to replace Indian Point with renewable energy," Moran explained. "We just need the political will to do it."

New York has an ambitious plan to transition to 70% renewable energy by the end of this decade.

And Moran noted the potential dangers of Indian Point and other nuclear power plants don't end when they stop producing electricity. The nuclear waste left behind will remain highly radioactive for thousands of years.

"So, the decommissioning of this plant is going to have to be closely monitored to make sure that it is done in a safe fashion that protects public health and protects the environment," Moran asserted.

Decommissioning is expected to take at least 12 years and cost $2.3 billion.

A new agreement on plans for cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford site in Washington state is receiving pushback from environmental groups.

Public comment was originally scheduled to close at the beginning of August but has been extended to Sept. 1 for the Tri-Party Agreement between the U-S Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Washington Department of Ecology.

Simone Anter, staff attorney and Hanford program director for the nonprofit Columbia Riverkeeper, said the new agreement means changes to the cleanup efforts including how and where the Hanford nuclear waste is stored.

"If new proposals are coming out to ship either grouted or liquid nuclear waste across the region, communities deserve to know that and deserve to have a voice and deserve to be engaged," Anter contended.

The agreement for dealing with 177 underground storage tanks at Hanford took four years of closed door negotiations. Columbia Riverkeeper and other environmental groups worry the new agreement opens the door for a storage method other than vitrification, which is used to turn high-level waste into glass.

Anter noted tribal nations in the region were not consulted about the proposal. She stressed even if they could not be part of the agreement, the agencies should have been considered before it was presented to the public.

"Tribal nations are not members of the public. They are government entities and should have been treated as such," Anter pointed out.

Anter added members of the public can play a big role in how the 56 million gallons of nuclear waste at Hanford are handled.

"It's really important that all these cleanup decisions put human health, the Columbia River and the environment first," Anter asserted. "I think public comments play an enormous role in reminding the TPA agencies about this."

Some organizations are renewing calls to address radioactive contamination in U.S. food and drinking water.

The issue has gained prevalence in the past year, since Japan has started releasing treated and diluted radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean from the major nuclear accident in Fukushima in 2011.

James Gormley, president of the advocacy group Citizens for Health, said in a webinar some of the substances in the wastewater can make their way into fish and other foods, and it can have harmful effects on ecosystems and the public.

"The most important effect is the effect on people," Gormley emphasized. "Bioaccumulation in the oceans. Bioaccumulation in people and in their organs. Pathological effects, epidemiological effects."

Some Missourians are familiar with the effect of radioactive contamination. Several St. Louis neighborhoods saw elevated cancer levels in the mid-20th century, after atomic waste spilled and contaminated the area.

Multiple state lawmakers have supported compensating the communities exposed to radiation.

The Food and Drug Administration has said it's maintaining its radioactivity standards as Japan discharges wastewater and doesn't expect changes to food or water supplies.

Some scientists have said they would like to see tighter standards and enhanced testing.

Bob Richmond, research professor and director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory at the University of Hawaii-Manoa, agrees. In the same webinar, he explained once a company dumps something into the ocean, it does not quickly dilute.

"The ocean is not a sterile aquarium, and once these radionuclides go into the ocean, they are taken up," Richmond explained. "They are tropically transferred throughout the food web, and they can be bioaccumulated and biomagnified in organisms."

The FDA said it has tested numerous Japanese products including seafood, tea and ginger and has not detected anything close to problematic. Still, it will be an ongoing issue, as discharges at Fukushima are scheduled to continue for the next 30 years.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups in Tennessee will soon learn more about the approval process behind a radioactive waste landfill which has been processing and storing highly enriched uranium for six decades.

The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility sued the Environmental Protection Agency to gain access to documents related to the approval of the Y12 Uranium Processing Facility in Oak Ridge.

Jeff Ruch, Pacific director for the group, explained the landfill is being built despite objections from senior government officials. He said they used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the documents and the EPA has agreed to provide 400 documents a month, through September.

"The fact that EPA is not being candid about this indicates that they have something to hide," Ruch contended. "And they've already produced several hundred documents, almost none of which are substantive. We do a lot of FOIA litigation and for us, it's a kind of a safe form of whistleblowing."

Ruch pointed out one issue is the Clean Water Act protections for the streams running by the landfill and emptying into other bodies of water have been set aside. He added unacceptable levels of radiation in the water will affect the fish and wildlife. Critics of the uranium-enriching process say it poses safety and health risks to Tennesseans.

Tanvi Kardile, coordinator for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said her group continues to raise concerns to local communities and lawmakers about what it sees as the environmental hazards and public health risks tied to creating a landfill for toxic waste.

"Oak Ridge has pretty high cancer rates already, because of the Y12 weapons complex," Kardile asserted. "As an organization, we're worried about the increase of cancer rates because of a radioactive waste landfill."