[Senate Hearing 117-355]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 117-355

     ISSUES FACING COMMUNITIES WITH DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR PLANTS

=======================================================================

                             FIELD HEARING

                               before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, 
                      CLIMATE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                       MAY 6, 2022--Plymouth, MA

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works




               [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov


                                ______
                                 
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

48-424 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2022







               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia, 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                     DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                     JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

             Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
               
                              ----------                              

         Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety

               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Ranking Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex       JONI ERNST, Iowa
    officio)                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
                                     SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
                                         Virginia (ex officio)







                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                              MAY 6, 2022
                           OPENING STATEMENT

Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Massachusetts..................................................     1

                               WITNESSES

Keating, Hon. Bill, U.S. Representative from the State of 
  Massachusetts..................................................     4
Lubinski, John W., Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
  and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.............     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Markey 
        Senator Inhofe...........................................    17
Singh, Kris, Ph.D., President and CEO, Holtec International......   137
    Prepared statement...........................................   141
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Markey...........................................   161
        Senator Markey for Senator Elizabeth Warren..............   167
Fettus, Geoffrey H., Senior Attorney for Nuclear, Climate, and 
  Clean Energy Programs, Natural Resources Defense Council.......   171
    Prepared statement...........................................   174
Moran, Hon. Susan L., Massachusetts State Senator, Plymouth and 
  Barnstable District............................................   185
    Prepared statement...........................................   188
Schofield, Seth, Senior Appellate Counsel, Office of the Attorney 
  General of Massachusetts.......................................   191
    Prepared statement...........................................   193

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIALS

Letter to Senator Markey from the Massachusetts Lobstermen's 
  Association, April 25, 2022....................................    33
E-mail message to Senator Markey from Christine Silva, May 2, 
  2022...........................................................    35
Letter to Senators Markey and Inhofe from:
    Massachusetts State Senator Susan L. Moran et al., May 5, 
      2022.......................................................    38
    The League of Women Voters of the Cape Cod Area, May 5, 2022.    43
    Mary and James Lampert, May 6, 2022..........................    46
    The Massachusetts Seafood Collaborative, May 6, 2022.........    95
    Pine duBois, May 19, 2022....................................    97
Testimony of Theodore L. Bosen, May 2, 2022......................   100
Background to Governor Baker Letter..............................   102
Letter to Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker from the Town of 
  Duxbury Board of Selectmen, February 24, 2022..................   105
How Secure Is Our Nuclear Site?, by Henrietta Cosentino..........   110







 
     ISSUES FACING COMMUNITIES WITH DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR PLANTS

                              ----------                              


                          FRIDAY, MAY 6, 2022

                               U.S. Senate,
         Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                        Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate,
                                        and Nuclear Safety,
                                                      Plymouth, MA.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. at the 
1820 Courtroom, Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street, Plymouth, 
Massachusetts, Hon. Edward J. Markey (Chairman of the 
Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Markey.
    Also present: U.S. Representative Bill Keating.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 
field hearing of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works 
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety. Today's 
hearing is entitled Issues Facing Communities With 
Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants in the United States.
    First of all, I want to thank my Ranking Member, Senator 
Jim Inhofe, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
Chairman Tom Carper and Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito, 
for their support in holding this important field hearing. I am 
grateful for their commitment to the important issue of nuclear 
plant decommissioning, and for their innate understanding of 
the power of holding hearings where those affected by Federal 
policy issues can attend and can take part.
    As Chair of the Subcommittee, I am grateful to welcome my 
friend, Bill Keating, who is the Congressman here from 
Plymouth, from the South Shore of Massachusetts. Of course, he 
is the Congressman from America's hometown, Plymouth. And so we 
welcome Congressman Keating to our hearing.
    Senator Warren was not able to join us today. However, her 
staff, Hannah Benson and Liv Teixeira, are present, and Senator 
Warren will be submitting questions to the witnesses for the 
record.
    I want to extend my thanks to the Town of Plymouth for 
hosting this field hearing today at the Town Hall in the 1820 
Courtroom. It is an historic room for an historic hearing. 
Thank you to the members of the Plymouth Select Board and Board 
of Health.
    And thank you to the Plymouth Town staff for their work, 
including Town Manager Derek Brindisi and Assistant Town 
Manager Brad Brothers. Derek and Brad entered their roles just 
days before we told them we were bringing a Senate committee to 
Plymouth. So Derek, Brad, the entire Plymouth team jumped right 
into the planning and the preparations, and we thank them so 
much for all of their great work.
    Our deepest thanks to the entire team at Plymouth Area 
Community Access Television for their masterful preparation and 
tech work to ensure this hearing is accessible for those in 
both the real and the virtual worlds.
    In addition to State Senator Sue Moran, who is a witness on 
our second panel today, we are also being joined by the members 
of the Region-State Legislative Delegation, State Senator 
Patrick O'Connor, State Representatives Matt Muratore, Kathy 
LaNatra, Kip Diggs, and Steve Xiarhos, are all here today.
    We thank you all so much for your interest and concern 
about this very important issue.
    I also want to acknowledge the many members of the Nuclear 
Decommissioning Citizen Advisory Panel attending today. Thank 
you to NDCAP for your work, for dedicating your time to this 
important issue of monitoring and advising on the 
decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
    I also want to thank the many community groups who have for 
decades worked tirelessly to ensure the community's voice is 
heard and is listened to throughout the operation, the 
shutdown, and the decommissioning of the Pilgrim Plant. This of 
course includes Mary and Jim Lampert from Pilgrim Watch, and 
Diane Turco of Cape Downwinders.
    I also understand that we are joined by leaders from the 
Duxbury Select Board, the Massachusetts Lobstermen's 
Association, and the Massachusetts Seafood Collaborative, and 
our local Laborers, Carpenters, and Ironworker Unions.
    Finally, I want to thank the members of the public who are 
attending the hearing in person in the overflow room and on the 
live stream. Your concerns and participation are what makes the 
policy process work.
    For decades now, the people of Plymouth and the communities 
across the country have looked to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to be the independent regulator of nuclear safety it 
was intended to be. However, in many instances, instead of 
fulfilling its responsibility to protect public health and 
safety, we find ourselves today with an agency that 
historically has consistently prioritized industry profits over 
public protection. Over the years, communities with 
decommissioning nuclear power plants have repeatedly called on 
the Commission to be a good regulator and for nuclear companies 
to be good neighbors. But those calls have gone unanswered.
    We have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 
nuclear industry to listen to the residents near San Onofre 
Nuclear Generating Station, who worry about what an earthquake 
could do to the 3.6 million pounds of radioactive waste buried 
underneath that plant, which sits on an active earthquake fault 
line. We have asked them to listen to communities like Zion, 
which are struggling to overcome the social and economic burden 
of indefinitely hosting stranded nuclear waste in Illinois when 
there is no long term storage solution in sight.
    We have simply asked them to listen to the people that have 
the most to lose and the least to gain from the decommissioning 
process. But time and time again, they have failed to do that.
    As the local residents at today's hearing remember well, in 
August 2019, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the 
transfer of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station license from 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., to Holtec International, a 
ruling made even before it resolved open petitions in the 
proceeding docket or answered critical questions about safety, 
security, and funding.
    Keeping Holtec's business interests on schedule was a 
higher priority than answering public questions. And this 
blatant disregard for public input isn't unique to Pilgrim. We 
have seen it play out at other decommissioning power plants 
across the country.
    For example, in November 2020, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission approved the transfer of the license for the Indian 
Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York from Entergy to Holtec 
without even holding a single public hearing. This is 
unacceptable. Our communities deserve to have their concerns 
accounted for.
    We may not know exactly how nuclear power plants are put 
together, taken apart, but we know what it is like to live in 
fear of a nuclear disaster. We may not all be nuclear 
physicists, but we know what it feels like to breathe clean air 
and drink clean water. And we may not be accountants who have 
memorized every line item in a nuclear plant's budget, but we 
do know that when spent fuel is stranded at our nuclear plants 
for decades with no solution for long term storage, someone is 
going to be left footing the bill.
    The families and the businesses and communities with 
decommissioning nuclear power plants do not all claim to be 
nuclear experts. But they do have honest and legitimate 
concerns about how a decommissioning nuclear power plant 
affects their health, their safety, their families, their 
livelihoods, their local economy. And it is well past time that 
the NRC and the nuclear industry take their input seriously.
    As Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Hanson stated in 
a speech at the Regulatory Information Conference last year, 
``Public trust is essential for the future of nuclear power and 
use of nuclear materials. To ensure the public trust, it is 
necessary that the Government act as an independent, impartial 
regulator. Additionally, the public should be comfortable in 
trusting industry to deliver on its promise of developing and 
operating safe, reliable, and economic nuclear power plants and 
facilities.''
    I agree with what Chairman Hanson said about this process. 
Right now, that trust is hanging by a thread. While I am deeply 
disappointed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 
nuclear industry's failure to meaningfully listen and respond 
to the concerns of communities with decommissioning nuclear 
power plants, I did not convene this Subcommittee hearing 
simply to pass blame and point fingers.
    Instead, I am hoping that this hearing will serve as an 
opportunity to identify real and meaningful actions that local 
communities, State governments, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and nuclear companies can take to create 
opportunities for public engagement. Communities around Pilgrim 
have a worthwhile story to tell about how the current process 
has failed them. We hope the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 
other communities can benefit from this hard won expertise.
    The proposed decommissioning rule that is currently open 
for public comment serves as a critical opportunity for the NRC 
to re-assert itself as an independent, impartial regulator 
worthy of the public trust. Instead of simply approving this 
rule, which would allow the NRC and plant operators to cut 
corners on safety and limit public engagement at the expense of 
the communities near nuclear plants, I hope the NRC takes this 
opportunity to improve the rule. By putting a stronger rule in 
place the NRC can ensure that communities have a seat at the 
table when it comes to the decommissioning process, better 
protect the safety and financial health of every community, and 
live up to Chairman Hanson's goals of securing the public 
trust.
    I look forward to hearing all of the testimony here today, 
discussing how to create a more meaningful role for our 
communities in the decommissioning process.
    Now I would like to turn to Congressman Keating, to 
recognize him for an opening statement.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BILL KEATING, 
      U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Representative Keating. Thank you, Senator, and I thank all 
the people who are here.
    Having a field hearing is not an easy task [indiscernible] 
staff [indiscernible] everyone that was involved in 
[indiscernible] make today a reality.
    I am so pleased that we are here on this important issue. 
It is an issue that clearly was a prevalent issue long before I 
came to Congress, about the safety of the nuclear facility at 
Pilgrim. Clearly during the period of decommissioning it has 
become a critical issue here in southeastern Massachusetts.
    This isn't just about the Town of Plymouth or the Town of 
Duxbury or neighboring towns in the region. It is about more 
than that. It is about our important resources and our 
important industries here. It is about aquaculture. It is about 
fishing, lobstering. It is about tourism, and it is about the 
quality of life for people who live in this vicinity.
    And it is more than that, even. Because as we gather here 
today, this Committee is going to be looking at the larger view 
of what we can do in terms of the rules surrounding 
decommissioning. And more importantly, the roles of community 
and community voices, officials and residents and groups that 
are affected by things to have a strong voice in this process, 
something I am very concerned isn't the case now.
    This remains a top priority for me in this region. But 
beyond that, with so many new plants being decommissioned in 
the next few years, particularly the ones by 2025, this is a 
national issue as well. The decisions and how things transpire 
here in Pilgrim will undoubtedly affect plants in the entire 
United States of America.
    So we are really at a pivotal time at a very important 
issue that we have to deal with. This issue shouldn't be 
decided by corporate profit and loss. It should be decided by 
public safety and security. And it shouldn't be administered by 
agencies who say what they can't do but a government that 
demands what it must do.
    The way this can happen is only through transparency and 
openness. Sadly, I don't believe that has been the case with 
Holtec to date. There is still time going forward. I look at 
this hearing as one of the most vital starting points for that 
dialogue to occur.
    So as we yield for the question and answer period, I will 
yield back to the Senator, and thank him for doing the hard 
work it took to put this hearing together here today.
    Senator Markey. And I thank Congressman Keating for his 
focus on this issue as well.
    I chaired a hearing up in Lawrence after the explosion, the 
natural gas explosion which clearly identified significant 
deficiencies in the safety procedures to ensure that that 
community was not in fact endangered, and there was a clear 
failure there to anticipate those safety problems. This hearing 
follows on that so that we can ensure that we get all the 
questions asked and answered before we run any risk for members 
of this community.
    So we now will turn to our esteemed first panel, on which 
we will hear from John Lubinski, who serves as the Director of 
the Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Office at the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Director Lubinski has a wide 
range of experience at the NRC, having served in a variety of 
key roles across the agency for nearly 29 years, and has 
dedicated his career to ensuring public health and safety in 
his regulatory capacity.
    Director Lubinski began his career at the NRC as a 
mechanical engineer in May 1990, serving in a number of high 
profile positions.
    We will now proceed to Mr. Lubinski and his testimony. And 
then there will be a question and answer period that 
Congressman Keating and I will conduct.
    We welcome you, Director Lubinski. Welcome to Plymouth. We 
just celebrated the 400th birthday of Plymouth, the incredible 
role which Plymouth Harbor has played in the history of our 
country, which is the reason why we are so concerned. We just 
want to make sure that everything is done correctly.
    So we welcome you, sir. Whenever you are comfortable, 
please begin.

  STATEMENT OF JOHN W. LUBINSKI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR 
    MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
                           COMMISSION

    Mr. Lubinski. Good morning, Chairman Markey and 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, and Representative 
Keating. I also would like to thank the Town of Plymouth for 
hosting this meeting. I appreciate being here today.
    As you stated, I am John Lubinski. I am the Director of the 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards at the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And I appreciate the opportunity 
to testify today to discuss the NRC's role and responsibilities 
associated with decommissioning.
    As an independent safety regulator, the NRC provides 
oversight during decommissioning to ensure the safe 
dismantlement and radiological decontamination of nuclear power 
reactor sites in a manner that protects public health and 
safety and the environment. The NRC regulations and inspection 
programs specify actions that both the NRC and the licensee 
must take to demonstrate that a nuclear power plant is 
decommissioned safely, and that there are opportunities for 
public engagement during key stages of the decommissioning 
process.
    Over the past 25 years, the NRC has gained extensive 
decommissioning experience and has ensured the safe 
decommissioning of almost 80 sites, including 11 power 
reactors. As of today, there are 25 nuclear power reactors at 
19 locations across the country undergoing decommissioning.
    The NRC regulations state that decommissioning must be 
completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations, 
but do not specify any interim milestones. Of the 25 power 
reactors currently in decommissioning, 17 are undergoing active 
dismantlement and decontamination. And eight nuclear power 
reactors have been placed in a safe, stable condition to allow 
the radioactive decay of contaminated material until active 
dismantlement phase begins.
    Recently, more retired reactors, including Pilgrim, moved 
immediately into active decommissioning so that sites could 
more quickly be cleaned up to levels to permit the release of 
the property for other uses. For most decommissioned nuclear 
power reactors, the spent fuel remains in dry storage casks on 
a concrete pad at the site which is known as an independent 
spent fuel storage installation. The NRC will continue to 
inspect these facilities and enforce regulations to protect the 
stored spent nuclear fuel until it is removed from the site and 
the storage facility itself has been decommissioned.
    The NRC will also continue to independently review the 
reports that decommissioning licensees submit annually on the 
status of their decommissioning trust fund to confirm there is 
adequate funding to complete decommissioning.
    Finally, the NRC continually evaluates its regulations and 
revises them to improve the regulatory process. There is a 
rulemaking underway now to update the NRC's decommissioning 
regulations which were last revised in 1997. The NRC values 
public involvement in its activities as a cornerstone of 
maintaining strong, transparent regulations, and the agency 
recognizes the public's interest in the decommissioning 
process.
    In response to requests, the NRC has extended the public 
comment period on the proposed decommissioning rule by an 
additional 15 weeks for a total of 180 days. During the public 
comment period, which closes on August 30th, the NRC plans six 
public meetings, including at four locations across the 
country, to provide the opportunity for members of the public 
to provide input. The last of these meetings will be held in 
Plymouth on Monday, May 9th, at the Hotel 1620 at Plymouth 
Harbor. This will be a hybrid meeting so that members of the 
public can either participate in person or virtually if they 
cannot attend in person.
    I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today on 
the NRC's role for ensuring that the decommissioning of nuclear 
power plants is completed safely and is protective of public 
health and safety and the environment. I am pleased to answer 
any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lubinski follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Lubinski.
    I will recognize myself for a round of questions, and just 
begin by again thanking you for your participation.
    For years, I have called on the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to do more to respond to the concerns of residents 
around decommissioning nuclear plants, but time and time again, 
those calls have been ignored. Prior to the NRC's approval, the 
proposed decommissioning rule last November, I repeatedly wrote 
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, asking the Commission to 
make critical changes to improve public and stakeholder 
participation, establish a comprehensive set of decommissioning 
and cleanup regulations, and address concerns about the safety 
and the duration of onsite storage of spent fuel, an issue of 
specific concern to the residents who live around the Pilgrim 
plant.
    Those suggestions were disregarded. And the frustration you 
hear from stakeholders and residents is the result of that 
disregard for the requests which had been made. Instead, the 
proposed rule allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 
plant operators to cut corners on safety and limit public 
engagement at the expense of the communities near nuclear 
plants, communities like Plymouth.
    Director Lubinski, is there anything in this proposed rule 
that strengthens stakeholder involvement in the decommissioning 
process?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you for the question, Senator Markey. 
Let me start with the proposed rule itself. The fact that we 
have issued a proposed rule for public comment and are seeking 
public input, including six public meetings under the 
Administrative Procedures Act, we are proposed to post proposed 
rules for public comment.
    However, there is not a timeframe that says we need to go 
to 180 days. We felt it was important to extend that comment 
period so that we can engage with members of the public to 
provide a full understanding of our background of the proposed 
rule, so that they can provide informed comments. As I noted, 
we are holding four of those public meetings remotely, so that 
we can have in person communications with individuals.
    The rule itself will continue to maintain several 
opportunities from the standpoint of public engagement during 
decommissioning. The current regulations do require and put 
requirements on the NRC, not just licensees, but on the NRC to 
hold public meetings at the time we receive the license 
termination plan, as well as proposed shutdown activities 
reports. We seek active input from communities when we receive 
those reports.
    Also, as we continue to receive license amendments from 
plants during decommissioning, we have opportunities for 
members of the public to file for hearing requests. And when 
there is significant interest in those communities, we do hold 
public meetings on those amendment requests to seek input. We 
do evaluate the input provided by members of the community 
before making final decisions.
    Senator Markey. Well, I thank the NRC for extending the 
comment period on the rule to August. We appreciate that. But 
we are asking about the contents of that rule, the actual 
additional protections that will be granted for public 
participation, and the changes that need to be made in order to 
strengthen the rule.
    So right now, under this decommissioning proposed rule, 
assuming no license transfer happens, is there a requirement 
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must consider and 
respond to public comments on the decommissioning plant?
    Mr. Lubinski. Your question is if there are no transfers of 
the facility?
    Senator Markey. That is correct.
    Mr. Lubinski. As I noted earlier, and under 
decommissioning, licensees are required to provide a post-
shutdown decommissioning activity report. Under that report, 
they are required to provide their plans for how they plan to 
decommission, and the NRC is required to hold a public meeting.
    We consider those comments to determine whether or not the 
licensees are fully in compliance with our regulations and 
maintaining safety as part of their process. The licensee is 
required to provide to us for our review and approval a license 
termination plan. As part of that license termination plan, 
there are opportunities for hearings for members of the public. 
And we are required to hold public meetings and will consider 
that information.
    So from a public engagement, there are two clear 
requirements in our regulations that require us to have the 
public engagement, and to fully assess the comments provided to 
us during those meetings.
    Senator Markey. Well, if the NRC doesn't have to consider 
and respond to public comments on a plant's decommissioning 
process, the rulemaking just sets up a show trial. There is 
already too little input from States and from stakeholders. The 
rule would actually codify that.
    Decommissioning can take 60 years. Perhaps the people of 
Plymouth and other communities in America never fully 
understood that, that decommissioning can take 60 years. The 
remnants of the process might last even beyond then. The Yankee 
Rowe, a nuclear plant in Rowe, Massachusetts, was declared by 
the NRC to be done with its decommissioning in 2007. But its 
spent nuclear fuel is still onsite in Rowe, Massachusetts, 
because the U.S. Government has for years pursued the false 
fantasy of Yucca Mountain in Nevada for nuclear waste disposal. 
There is a real fear that Pilgrim will be in a similar 
situation decades from now.
    State and local shareholders shouldn't have to sit quietly 
and accept a decommissioning plan that could determine their 
safety, security, and economic future for decades to come 
without having a voice today. They will have to live for 
decades with the consequences of the decisions being made 
today. They shouldn't be sidelined to just sit back and watch 
as a company can run rampant over their reputation and 
interests and they shouldn't have to fight to get our 
preeminent national regulator to do its job and actively 
represent the public interest on what happens to close a 
nuclear plant.
    In the latest version of the proposed decommissioning rule, 
the NRC would have no ability, none, to approve, change, or 
deny plants' decommissioning proposals known as post-shutdown 
decommissioning activity reports. So it is like a glorified 
filing cabinet. The NRC's only job would be to acknowledge 
receipt and completion. But that would be the role that the NRC 
would be playing.
    Director Lubinski, is it true that under this rulemaking, 
that the NRC just checks to make sure that all the necessary 
parts of the shutdown and decommissioning plan are in the 
report without having to formally approve the report?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you, Senator. The current version of 
the rule still requires licensees to provide their post-
shutdown decommissioning activities report. It includes for the 
licensee the requirements on what to provide to the NRC.
    The NRC does review that report. The NRC reviews the report 
for multiple purposes. One is to understand from a planning 
purpose what the licensee will be doing during decommissioning, 
understanding what oversight activities will be needed during 
certain phases of decommissioning so we can assure that we are 
there onsite to see the more risk significant activities that 
occur, that we can understand and have resources when they 
submit license amendments to us to make changes to their plant 
that are needed to go through decommissioning, understanding 
the timing when they will be submitting their license 
termination plan, which is the legally binding requirement that 
is reviewed by the NRC and must continue to be adhered to by 
the licensee during decommissioning.
    And the timeframe for when it will provide its amendment to 
do the final termination of the license at the site, which 
again will be subject to NRC review and approval before the 
site can determine that it can be released for unrestricted 
release. During that process, it also allows the NRC to 
continue to perform its oversight functions at the site through 
having inspectors at the site oversee the activities of the 
licensee.
    So the requirement is still there for licensees to provide 
the report, and the NRC processes do review the report. If the 
NRC were to identify in that report any concerns or issues that 
required NRC action, we could take such action.
    One of the requirements also is that the licensee must 
demonstrate that they are bound from an environmental 
standpoint by previous environmental impact statements that 
were performed at the site. If they have determined at that 
point in that report that they have not been bound, they are 
required to provide to us what those changes are, and the NRC 
would review those under NEPA to determine whether there are 
any significant environmental impacts.
    Senator Markey. Well, but you still don't have to formally 
approve the plan. You don't have that responsibility.
    Mr. Lubinski. The requirement for approval falls under the 
license termination plan, which becomes the legally binding 
requirement for which they will do decommissioning.
    Senator Markey. I appreciate that. But at that stage, it is 
like having a mechanic that checks to make sure you have all 
four tires on a car, and tells you you are good to go without 
checking to make sure that those tires don't have a hole in 
them. It is a policy designed for a crash.
    If the NRC had to formally approve the decommissioning 
activities report, would it be considered a major Federal 
action that would require a new National Environmental Policy 
Act review?
    Mr. Lubinski. If I can go back one step, because you did 
mention that this is part of the proposed rule. The NRC will be 
seeking public comment on the post-shutdown activities report. 
And if interested parties believe it is something we should 
review, we will consider those comments as part of the proposed 
comments on the rule.
    If in the future the NRC would put a requirement in place 
for licensees to submit for us for review and approval as part 
of a license amendment for their site, us to approve the post-
shutdown activities report, this would be an action under NEPA 
that we would have to look at the environmental impacts. Under 
that review, it would depend on the scope of the activities 
that are included in that report. Whether or not we would do an 
environmental assessment if we were to reach a conclusion that 
there was a finding of no significant impact, we would issue an 
environmental assessment as part of that review of the license 
amendment.
    If we could not reach a finding of no significant impact, 
we would perform a supplemental environmental impact statement.
    Senator Markey. Has the NRC ever taken action on changing a 
decommissioning report?
    Mr. Lubinski. Excuse me, Senator, if I can ask you to 
clarify. When you say report, are you referring to the post-
shutdown activities report?
    Senator Markey. Has any plant ever been told that it needs 
a new NEPA review?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you for the clarification. You are 
referring to the NEPA review. My understanding at this point, 
and we can get back to you with a clarifying answer, is that 
the reports that have come in, and what I mean by that is the 
license amendments for license termination, as well as the 
license termination plan reviews, that all of them have had a 
NEPA review that has resulted in an environmental assessment 
with a finding of no significant impact.
    I am not aware of where we have done a supplemental EIS. 
But I can get back to you to clarify factually whether or not 
we have ever done that.
    Senator Markey. Well, I would appreciate if you would get 
back to me. But I think you will find that the answer is in the 
negative.
    Do license termination plans have the same information in 
detail as a shutdown report?
    Mr. Lubinski. The amount of information in the reports are 
different because they serve different purposes. Under the 
post-shutdown activities report, we are asking the licensee 
about their planning for decommissioning, the type of 
activities they would be performing, how they would be using 
their decommissioning trust funds, timing of submissions. The 
license termination plan provides the details of the criteria 
that they will use to result in unrestricted release, what 
activities they will perform to do that. Based on our review 
and approval, it then becomes a legally binding requirement in 
addition to the current license that they must meet those items 
in that license termination plan.
    Only after we do a review and make a determination that if 
the licensee were to follow that plan, they would meet all NRC 
regulations and safety requirements for license termination 
would we approve that license amendment.
    Senator Markey. Has the NRC ever asked a plant to modify a 
submitted PSDAR?
    Mr. Lubinski. Under the regulations, that is a report that 
is required to be provided to the NRC. We have asked questions.
    Senator Markey. No, I am asking, have you ever asked a 
plant to submit a modification of their submission?
    Mr. Lubinski. I believe we have asked questions of the 
licensee that has resulted in them submitting changes. We have 
not required them, to my knowledge, but I can get back to you, 
to submit a brand new report.
    Senator Markey. And again, you can understand why that 
doesn't seem, as a result, as a very effective check on how the 
owner of the plant would be viewing the NRC's rule, if no 
modification has ever been requested.
    If the NRC had to formally approve the decommissioning 
activities report, would that provide an opportunity, for 
stakeholders, to challenge the activities outlined in the 
report through an adjudicatory hearing?
    Mr. Lubinski. If the NRC were to put a requirement in place 
that required the review and approval and a license amendment 
to be submitted for the incorporation of that report, there 
would be opportunities for hearing.
    Senator Markey. And I agree, it makes more sense to me to 
conduct an environmental review and give the public, those 
sitting here today, an opportunity to weigh in before the 
decommissioning process begins. This would have helped avoid a 
lot of the problems our communities have experienced with 
Pilgrim's decommissioning process so far, with the community's 
alarm over the Holtec plan to dump 1 million gallons of 
radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay being just the latest 
example.
    Don't you think that makes more sense, Mr. Lubinski, that 
the process have the public participation, the public 
questioning, up front rather than after the fact?
    Mr. Lubinski. I believe right now the requirements that we 
have put in in the proposed rule, as well as the current 
regulations, with respect to the post-shutdown decommissioning 
activity report, are adequate to protect public health and 
safety. This is the reason that when my staff submitted the 
report to the Commission for approval, we did not put a 
requirement for that to be a license amendment.
    With that said, we are actively seeking public input to 
determine what the final decision would be. I believe from a 
safety standpoint, our oversight and the remainder of our 
licensing activities do provide adequate protection.
    Senator Markey. Well, again, the community does not agree 
with you. More public participation is needed.
    So as you are aware, last December Holtec announced it 
intended to dump 1 million gallons of radioactive water from 
the spent fuel pool, reactor pool, and other areas of the 
plant, into Cape Cod Bay, claiming it had the green light from 
the NRC to discharge the water at any time. And while the NRC 
has acknowledged that Holtec's National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System permit will almost certainly need to be 
amended by the Environmental Protection Agency before the 
discharge is allowed to account for non-radiological water 
pollutants, I am concerned that the NRC has failed to engage 
with all Federal agencies that have a stake in the matter.
    Our office has spoken with NOAA's Office of National Marine 
Sanctuaries, which has informed us that under the OCEANS Act, 
Federal agencies are required to consult with the Office of 
National Marine Sanctuaries on Federal agency actions that may 
affect any sanctuary resource such as the Stellwagen Bank 
National Marine Sanctuary. Given that the Stellwagen Bank 
National Marine Sanctuary encompasses the waters at the mouth 
of Massachusetts Bay between Cape Ann and Cape Cod Bay, I would 
contend that the dumping of 1 million gallons of radioactive 
water into Cape Cod Bay may affect the Stellwagen Bank National 
Marine Sanctuary.
    Director Lubinski, has the NRC consulted with the Office of 
National Marine Sanctuaries about Holtec's proposal to release 
radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you, Senator. With respect to our 
coordination with other agencies, we do that under our NEPA 
process when we look at our environmental impact statements. 
With respect to Pilgrim, environmental impact statements were 
performed during operation of the plant, license renewal for 
the plant, and the NRC also did have a generic environmental 
impact statement for decommissioning.
    We have determined that all of the activities at the plant 
are within the scope of those documents that were reviewed. As 
part of those reviews, we do look at marine sanctuaries. We are 
required to consult with the National Marine Sanctuaries if we 
identify any impacts that we believe would destroy, cause the 
loss of, or injure a sanctuary. It was determined as part of 
those reviews that that impact would not occur to the 
sanctuary, and therefore, formal consultation did not occur.
    We are in receipt of a letter from National Marine 
Sanctuaries asking about our decision on that. And we will be, 
we are still evaluating that letter and will be providing a 
response.
    Senator Markey. So the Office of National Marine 
Sanctuaries sent the Commission on March 14th a letter 
regarding the issue. You haven't responded to it yet. I would 
ask you to respond in a very timely fashion, especially since 
you are going to be having a public hearing up here. Everyone 
here should know what your response to them is.
    So you have had it on your desk, it is sitting there, it 
needs a response. And the people here deserve that, because one 
of the issues that people are so concerned about is the 
economic damage to our vibrant blue economy here in 
Massachusetts, and on the Cape, the shellfish, the seafood, the 
tourism industries all depend on clean, healthy water and their 
reputation for safety to make a living.
    Director Lubinski, does the NRC have a responsibility to 
consider these issues when establishing its standards for the 
release of radioactive water?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you, Senator. In response to your first 
statement, we will be responding to that letter of March 14th. 
I can commit to you that we will be doing that.
    Senator Markey. You cannot commit to when you will be 
responding to it, is that what you are saying?
    Mr. Lubinski. I do not have a date right now, sir.
    Senator Markey. I think the people who are going to be 
attending the public hearing have a right to know what the 
answers to those questions are before you have the public 
hearing. You have had sufficient notice in order to do the 
work. I would ask that you ensure that your staff at the NRC 
does the work to guarantee that that material is in the hands 
of the people from the community of Plymouth.
    Mr. Lubinski. If I could ask for clarification, Senator, 
when you are referring to the public hearing, which public 
hearing are you referring to?
    Senator Markey. That you are going to be having on this 
issue, Monday, May 9th.
    Mr. Lubinski. That is not the subject of the meeting we are 
having on Monday. It is not a hearing. This is a meeting on the 
decommissioning rule itself. It is not specific to any specific 
plant.
    I will strive to be able to provide Monday a commitment of 
a date when we will be providing to the letter. And we would 
not be providing something in a public meeting about a response 
to an individual without responding to them first. So we do 
want to make sure that put something in writing. And we will 
strive to have a date by Monday of when that response will be 
issued.
    Senator Markey. Well, again, that is the concern which the 
community has. These are the issues that they are concerned 
about, the impact on the community, on safety, on the water, on 
the economy, on the fishing industry. And I think obviously the 
questions that have been raised by the Office of National 
Marine Sanctuaries is directly relevant to why these hearings 
are being held. They want the answers to the questions.
    NEPA reviews require the consideration of ecological, 
esthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and health 
effects of Federal action. But no NEPA review was required for 
the decommissioning plan because its approval isn't considered 
a major Federal action. And the new decommissioning rule would 
not change that.
    Director Lubinski, would a new NEPA review for 
decommissioning mean that the NRC would have to evaluate the 
effects of decommissioning activities, such as radioactive 
water dumping, or the cultural and economic well being of the 
region?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you. With respect to the release of 
water into the Cape Cod Bay, that was something that was looked 
at during the operation of the plant as well as during license 
renewal. Under the NEPA process, it is something that we would 
look at under the environmental impact statement.
    As I mentioned earlier, we did look at the marine 
sanctuaries as part of those reviews. The requirements that are 
on Holtec today and previously on Entergy for the release of 
that material still apply today, would apply to Entergy, 
applies to Holtec today. They will be required to meet those 
standards.
    We have done a review of that under NEPA, as noted in the 
EIS and the supplemental EIS that was done for license renewal. 
So that was accomplished.
    If, and I use the word if, if a new requirement was put in 
place under decommissioning, it would require an amendment to 
the license. We would do a review and meet our NEPA 
requirements. Depending on the scope of that, whether or not it 
would be an environmental assessment, or an environmental 
impact statement would have to be determined.
    Senator Markey. So the concerns obviously are great about 
the impact which radioactive water could have on the community. 
The International Atomic Energy Agency is the preeminent global 
body for promoting the use of nuclear power.
    On the subject of releasing radioactive water, the 
International Atomic Energy Agency writes, ``There are also 
public relations and environmental issues to consider. For 
example, there are instances where effluent is within the 
discharge criteria and may be authorized for release, but 
discharge may be unacceptable in terms of public relations. The 
political and environmental aspects need to be considered 
during the stages of planning and licensing of 
decommissioning.''
    Will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission follow the advice of 
the IAEA and consider the environmental and political 
implications of allowing Holtec to dump 1 million gallons of 
radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you, Senator. As an independent safety 
regulator, we have looked at what the impacts would be of 
radiological safety from release by Holtec of water effluents 
from the site. We believe that the requirements in place on 
Holtec today would ensure public health and safety from the 
release of that material from a radiological standpoint.
    With respect to reviews that are done such as on 
socioeconomic impacts, we do look at those when we perform an 
environmental impact statement. That would have been looked at 
during operation as well as license renewal. Because again, it 
is the same requirement today that they had during operation 
for the release of that material.
    From a public relations standpoint, we do not look at the 
public relation aspects of such releases.
    Senator Markey. Well, the NRC has essentially cut itself 
off from any ability to mitigate, direct, or understand the 
site specific issues around water discharge. And that is a 
problem. As the decommissioning rule currently stands, NRC gets 
to wash its hands of any radioactive water and leave our 
residents to wade through that issue on their own. But that 
doesn't have to be the case. Under current Federal regulations, 
the NRC could actually set more stringent radiological 
standards for Pilgrim's water.
    Director Lubinski, is the NRC looking at using this 
authority as a result of the specific economic and ecological 
concerns raised by local stakeholders?
    Mr. Lubinski. Currently today, the NRC, through its 
licensing process and regulations, has requirements on Holtec 
at the Pilgrim site that govern the release of the material. 
They are required to meet those requirements. They have a 
radiological environmental monitoring program that would 
determine, based on a release, what the dose would be to 
members of the public for that release. They must meet the NRC 
regulations for that dose criteria.
    We have NRC inspectors that review these programs on an 
annual basis to ensure that licensees are meeting those 
requirements. We believe the current requirements are 
sufficient to protect public health and safety. As part of the 
proposed rule on decommissioning, we have not proposed changes 
to any of those effluent releases. And at this time, with 
respect to Holtec's operation of Pilgrim, we have not 
identified any issues that will lead us to believe we need to 
put more stringent standards in place.
    Senator Markey. The reason it is an important issue is that 
the proposal will allow for three times as much water released 
in 1 year as Pilgrim has ever released in the past. The old 
conditions, as a result, are not the same. And when you talk 
about public relations, what you are talking about is the 
economy of Plymouth. You are talking about the culture of 
Plymouth, how people view Plymouth, how people view the water 
of Plymouth, how people interact with this community, whether 
or not that becomes associated with how this community is 
viewed.
    So it is a critical issue, because this is an historic 
community with an underlying economy and culture which has to 
be protected.
    I will just conclude this phase of my questioning and just 
make a motion to submit testimony. I have testimony from the 
Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, local residents and 
realtors, and local elected officials, detailing those 
concerns. And I ask unanimous consent that this written 
testimony be submitted for the record.
    Without objection, so ordered, so that the public comments 
will be included in the Senate hearing record and submitted to 
the NRC as part of their consideration.
    [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Markey. I am going to stop my questioning at this 
point in time and recognize Congressman Keating, who has been a 
real leader on this issue of the discharge of radioactive water 
into Plymouth Harbor.
    Representative Keating. Thank you, Senator.
    Thank you, Director Lubinski.
    I am not sure of the Senate rules in this regard, but 
oftentimes in our House hearings, if time does not permit and 
there is the ability to ask questions in writing after, I would 
do that. If that is the case, Director, could you give your 
assent to answering those questions? I have had community 
people ask me certain issues that the time doesn't allow all of 
them to be asked. But if that could be done as part of this 
hearing, and get an answer, would I have your agreement on 
that?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you for the request. I will defer to 
Chairman Markey as far as protocol. We will, my understanding 
is, receive questions for the record after the hearing, and we 
will of course respond to those. As you said, Senator protocol, 
I will defer to him. With respect to Representative Keating, if 
you have specific questions that you would like to submit to 
the NRC, either related to this hearing or separately, we will 
of course respond to you with those questions.
    Representative Keating. Thank you.
    Senator Markey. The Senate Committee will be accepting 
questions from Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
Senator Inhofe and other members who have a concern on this, 
including answers to any of the questions which Congressman 
Keating will be posing to the NRC for written response.
    Representative Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have been listening, as I think everyone has been here, 
to the colloquy back and forth with you and the Senator. And it 
just strikes me as, it is a process where you are all dressed 
up with nowhere to go. That is what it sounds like to me. It 
sounds like, if the word is, well, it is formal, well, make 
sure you have the tux and the bow tie on, then you give the OK. 
That is what I heard.
    But I want to dig down a little bit, and just be clear. I 
think people here after listening to all that want to really 
get this question answered, too. Will the new decommissioning 
rule address the ability of the licensee to discharge a million 
gallons of radioactive effluent from the spent fuel pool into 
Cape Cod Bay? Will the new proposed rule address that ability 
in any way that doesn't exist now?
    Mr. Lubinski. Currently there are requirements----
    Representative Keating. No, I am asking about the new rule. 
Will that be doing anything else in that specific regard than 
exists now?
    Mr. Lubinski. If I can, it is making no changes to the 
current requirements. There are current requirements that 
govern that.
    Representative Keating. That is all I wanted to know. I 
wanted to know about the new rule going forward in that regard.
    Again, to this process, it is so unilateral. It is just by 
definition, just the example that was given in terms of marine 
sanctuaries. So the NRC will look at it, if they identify 
something that they think is an issue, then they will reach out 
and contact the agency, an agency that is on the ground or in 
the water in this instance, that knows more specifically about 
the impact, not only from their own experience, but from their 
ability dealing with community groups.
    So does the NRC have the practice? Because you are not 
prohibited from going further. I understand that. So I don't 
understand the adherence to rules when you are allowed to go 
further, when you have expertise there, not only in terms of 
the science, but all that community work that those groups do 
dealing with their issues that would be relevant to what you 
are looking at.
    This concept, I was hoping in the new rules that there 
would be some kind of change in that regard. But it isn't 
there. And specifically, in terms of your testimony here today, 
I was struck with this concern, that it sounds to me that you 
are looking at this change to dump a million gallons of 
effluent into Cape Cod Bay, radioactive materials, the same way 
that you have looked at in the past the discharge in other 
years, with a commissioned nuclear facility doing one-third 
less of that dumping.
    So is that accurate? Did I get that right, that the way you 
are viewing this going forward is the way you, with the same 
criteria that you looked at in the past? It sounded that way to 
me.
    Mr. Lubinski. If I can clarify one of the statements that 
you made, and I believe Senator Markey made as well, with 
respect to the volume of water, the NRC does not regulate based 
on the volume of water. We regulate based on the dose to the 
members of the public as a result of the release. So, many 
things are taken into consideration, it is the volume of the 
water, the level of contamination of the water from radioactive 
material, the different ecological----
    Representative Keating. My time is limited, excuse any 
interruption. But this is what we do in Congress when we have 
to get some quick answers. So I apologize for that.
    But is the review of Cape Cod Bay a little different than 
other places? You know the map, with the arm and the bay and 
how that is all included in there. This is just me as a layman. 
There is a Woods Hole scientist that was particularly concerned 
with the fact that the construction, the topography there, that 
it is not a free flow into the ocean, that it is bounded in 
part by that.
    So when you are looking at these rules, did you 
particularly look at the construction of Cape Cod Bay itself, 
and the fact that you are not just dumping it straight into the 
ocean?
    Mr. Lubinski. We look at it from the dose standpoint, what 
the dose would be, and it does take into account how the 
distribution of the water would go into the bay. It looks at 
the volume, it looks at the concentration.
    Representative Keating. Could I see those studies, that you 
particularly looked at Cape Cod and did that? Do you have that 
available?
    Mr. Lubinski. I do not have information available with 
specific studies with Cape Cod.
    Representative Keating. Was it done? How many doses do 
people get?
    Mr. Lubinski. The licensees are required to demonstrate 
under their radiological and environmental monitoring program.
    Representative Keating. Here is the point I'm bringing. The 
licensees are required to do that. I think you should be 
required to do it. And that is where the weakness in this 
process occurs, frankly. That is something you should be 
looking at, not just, well, the licensees are required. If they 
miss something, and you miss something because of the 
unilateral way it is being done, then it is missed.
    Mr. Lubinski. We review those programs before they 
implement them. We also look at them through oversight 
programs.
    Representative Keating. I want to shift gears a bit, Mr. 
Chairman, just for a minute.
    I want to just take your experience in this regard and see 
what we can learn from it, what I can learn from it. You are 
involved, your agency was involved in the process that 
surrounded Vermont Yankee Power, correct?
    Mr. Lubinski. Excuse me, could you say that again? I didn't 
hear you.
    Representative Keating. The decommissioning around Vermont 
Yankee Power?
    Mr. Lubinski. Yes.
    Representative Keating. So in that instance, could you 
describe the process, that was trucked away. That is a 
situation where the radioactive material was trucked away. That 
received approval. Can you tell us how that is feasible and how 
that has worked and why that is an option, an alternative that 
you gave, you went along with the licensee, in dealing with 
that? Could you describe the feasibility and how that can work 
here?
    Mr. Lubinski. Again, there were multiple options for 
disposition of material during decommissioning.
    Representative Keating. That is not what I am asking about.
    Mr. Lubinski. And they could, at this point right now, a 
licensee could take volumes of material, I will say ship them 
away, it could be in trucks, it could be in tank cars on the 
railroads, taking them to sites. Licensees could use 
evaporation at the site to evaporate the water and dispose of 
the material.
    As long as the regulations are met from the standpoint of 
the public dose limits, and they meet our disposal 
requirements, they can do that.
    Representative Keating. I would term that a very viable 
alternative.
    Mr. Lubinski. It is one viable alternative.
    Representative Keating. But it is a viable alternative?
    Mr. Lubinski. It is a viable alternative.
    Representative Keating. And with Vermont Yankee, how is 
that going?
    Mr. Lubinski. I do not have information on why they made 
that decision. Part of that was a business decision they made 
on doing it that way versus other options. That was up to them. 
It is our job to make sure whatever they are doing is safe.
    Representative Keating. I am interrupting just to make a 
point. That was up to them. That is the whole point of this 
hearing.
    Mr. Lubinski. As long as they meet our regulatory 
standards, which they did. We will only allow Holtec to release 
material as long as they are meeting our standards.
    Representative Keating. I want to tell you this. The reason 
you are seeing so many community people here today, the reason 
we are here, we don't agree with, it is up to them. That is 
what this is all about today. This is what it has been about 
before. I am telling you this, it is going to be what it is 
about going forward.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. I know 
our time is gone. I thank you.
    Senator Markey. No, it is fine, and if you have additional 
questions, you can be recognized for that purpose.
    Again, I just want to continue with you, Mr. Lubinski, so 
that we can put some of these other critical issues that people 
really do care about here in Plymouth, but also across the 
country. Without a viable solution for the long term storage of 
nuclear waste, it is clear that spent fuel will remain in dry 
casks at independent spent fuel storage installations for 
longer than originally anticipated. Those casks, exposed to the 
elements for decades, could decay and potentially release 
additional radioactivity, jeopardizing workers and the 
environment.
    Director Lubinski, does the NRC require spent fuel storage 
site licensees to have formal plans in place for how it will 
deal with any dry casks that are damaged or leaking?
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you, Senator. With respect to the dry 
cask storage, as you mentioned, at an independent spent fuel 
storage installation, that is governed by our regulations. The 
certificate holders refer to them who design the casks, has 
their plans in place that they provide to us for review and 
approval. Once we approve those, the licensee at the site must 
meet those requirements.
    As part of aging management, we do require licensees to 
identify what we call aging management programs that will 
inspect, meaning the licensee will inspect the canisters for 
any potential damage. If it is identified, it is up to the 
licensee to repair or mitigate such damage moving forward, so 
that they can continue to ensure that it meets our regulatory 
standards.
    Senator Markey. How often are individual dry casks with 
radioactive material at the Pilgrim plant fuel storage 
installation site being monitored and inspected? How frequently 
does that happen?
    Mr. Lubinski. Inspections by the licensees, there are 
different types of inspections they do. For example, they do 
need to monitor to make sure that the vents around the 
canisters are kept open, so that they get adequate ventilation. 
That is done periodically, based on the conditions. Because 
again, it is a static site, so it would depend on if there is 
snow in the area, leaves blowing around, any debris, that would 
be the time they would implement that. Plus they have periodic 
times to do that.
    The aging management requirements would be part of the 
certificate of compliance. Our understanding is that the 
certificate of compliance that they are using at Holtec, or 
that Holtec is using at Pilgrim, we are reviewing their aging 
management program at this time. They have proposed that they 
would review one cask every 5 years to do a detailed inspection 
to determine if there is damage.
    If there were damage identified or any repairs needed, they 
would have to expand that review. But if there was no damage, 
it would be once every 5 years. We have not approved that yet. 
We are still in the process of reviewing that aging management 
program. Because it is a certificate of compliance, it requires 
rulemaking. And the proposed rule will be issued in August of 
this year with our final decision on that aging management 
program.
    Senator Markey. Well, I don't think that is going to be 
acceptable to the people here in Plymouth. Holtec is proposing 
to inspect one spent fuel canister every 5 years. That is it. 
Once every 5 years, to look at one canister to see if it is 
leaking. I don't think that the people in Plymouth are going to 
feel very confident that there isn't a leaking canister, that 
there isn't danger lurking in the community because the 
company, Holtec, is seeking to have the NRC give them 
permission not to inspect much more thoroughly, much more 
frequently, to ensure that this very dangerous material is not 
in fact leaking and exposing the community to that risk.
    I know I wouldn't trust checking one of them every 5 years. 
I know that the people here don't trust them, either. So Holtec 
I am sure is going to say, well, we are the expert, and you 
don't have to worry. But the people of Plymouth don't trust the 
experts anymore. They want to ensure that there is in fact an 
ongoing, careful, meticulous monitoring of these dry casks so 
that this dangerous radioactive material does not leak into the 
community.
    Finally, on the emergency planning zone issues, I am deeply 
troubled that the proposed decommissioning rule would 
essentially codify the process of regulating by exemption where 
the NRC just takes regulations off the plants as they become 
less applicable, rather than creating a new framework to 
specifically reflect the changing needs of a decommissioned 
nuclear rule.
    That means other communities could go through situations 
like the one we saw for Pilgrim, which was granted exemptions 
from key NRC regulations on seismic testing, cybersecurity, 
offsite emergency planning.
    We are in a period of great tension with the Russians right 
now. We are constantly being warned about cyberattacks that 
could occur in our country. We know that nuclear facilities 
would be near the top of the list of those kinds of facilities 
that could potentially be attacked.
    So the offsite emergency planning exemption means that a 
plant can cut its emergency preparedness procedures, including 
for public notification of problems on the site while spent 
nuclear fuel is still sitting in pools and before it is even 
put into dry cask storage. So before we even get the minimum 
level of safe storage, plant operators can already walk away 
from their responsibilities for the community's safety. FEMA's 
own recommendations urge communities to maintain radiological 
emergency planning capabilities until all fuel is in dry casks.
    Director Lubinski, if our first responders want to follow 
FEMA guidance and stay prepared for radiological emergencies, 
would the proposed decommissioning rule put the financial and 
training burdens for decommissioning solely on the communities 
and not on the company?
    Mr. Lubinski. The new proposed rule, if I can go back, the 
new proposed rule does include changes to emergency planning 
zones, as you said, when fuel is still in the spent fuel pool. 
But only after which time that we have determined that the 
likelihood of any type of accident that would result in an 
offsite dose above the Environmental Protection Agency's 
protective action guidelines would not be exceeded.
    So it is a graded, risk based approach based on that type 
of event being highly unlikely. Therefore, that was the basis 
for putting it into the proposed rule. And as we noted earlier, 
the proposed rule is out for comment, and we are actively 
seeking comments on that requirement.
    So from the standpoint of if it is approved, and if 
licensees go forward, there would not be a requirement of the 
licensee, and communities could if they chose to continue to 
implement such activities. But it would not be a requirement of 
the licensee.
    Senator Markey. Yes. So obviously, the communities are 
concerned by that. Because an exemption the NRC has allowed to 
Holtec in the transfer of the license allows Holtec to stop 
paying for emergency planning to area towns. For example, the 
Town of Marshfield is going to lose $450,000 a year. We 
actually have the director of emergency planning, Artie Shaw, 
and town manager, Michael Maresco here. We are going to accept 
their testimony later.
    But from my perspective, again, the proposed rule is penny 
wise for nuclear plants and operators, but pound foolish for 
communities which have already been largely ignored. And I urge 
the Commission to reconsider and strengthen it instead, just to 
make sure that in the event of an emergency, and it may 
determine that it is a low level of risk for the people who 
live here, their perception is going to be that any risk is one 
that they don't want to run, and they are going to need that 
in, as a result, a way of evacuating if necessary.
    So I would just give that to you as well, Mr. Lubinski, for 
your return back to Washington and the NRC, that emergency 
planning is absolutely essential.
    Let me turn again to Congressman Keating and ask if he has 
any additional questions.
    Representative Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    When it comes to the limits of the NRC, one of the things 
that is always a concern is the fact that so often you are 
getting notified afterwards. So the damage is already done. 
Then it may be brought to the NRC's attention that way.
    That whole concept of how this is done, as long as, for 
instance, the discharge in this instance is below the EPA and 
NRC limits, Holtec doesn't have to even alert you of that, is 
that correct?
    Mr. Lubinski. When you say it is done, and we get notified 
afterwards----
    Representative Keating. They are saying it is below the 
limits, they don't have to alert you.
    Mr. Lubinski. They do have to, before the fact, not after 
the fact, they do have to get prior approval of the exact 
methodology that they are going to use to ensure they are 
meeting the limits.
    Representative Keating. There is no oversight about what is 
getting discharged. They are saying, this is the method, this 
is the approval, but then they discharge. If it goes over 
afterwards, then they come back to you.
    Mr. Lubinski. Our approval of that process provides 
reasonable assurance that it will be below the limits. If it is 
above the limits, yes, it would be after the fact.
    Representative Keating. Yes.
    Mr. Lubinski. Our process of a prior approval----
    [Simultaneous conversations.]
    Representative Keating. They don't have to give you 
information about boron or heavy metals or everything in this 
mixture. There is a potential of mixture. We are just talking 
about one impact on the radioactive side. But there are other 
things of concern, and frankly, they are of great concern, and 
I am glad they are, with the Department of Environmental 
Protection that really, as well as at the State level. The EPA 
at the Federal level, Department of Environmental Protection at 
the other, because of these potential mixtures that are being 
introduced into the water.
    So there are Clean Water Act concerns with that as well. 
But it is this type of reliance on the corporation itself, 
without that kind of oversight, unless, I just gave you 
examples, the damage is done, and then you are looking back at 
it. It is what you said before about the fact, well, when it 
come to the company, it is all up to them. Well, if it is all 
up to them, it would be profit and losses, not public safety 
and security. And that is the problem.
    I was hoping in these new rules there would be a greater 
avenue with the NRC to do that. It doesn't appear that is being 
done. We will have the opportunity in the next panel to deal 
with things that perhaps can be done at the EPA or at the State 
level with DEP.
    So I am finished with my questioning, Mr. Chairman, and I 
yield back.
    Senator Markey. I thank you, Congressman.
    I will finish up with you, Mr. Lubinski, and thank you for 
coming up for this hearing. The concerns which we have, 
obviously, I can summarize for you. I think we need that the 
NRC accept the fact that post-shutdown decommissioning activity 
reports should be approved by the NRC in order to ensure that 
there is support for community and stakeholder involvement, 
accuracy, and environmental review. But there should actually 
be a vote by the NRC accepting the report and not just 
accepting it and putting it into a filing cabinet.
    Second, that the NRC commit to coordinating with other 
agencies and assessing the water dumping issue. NOAA's National 
Marine Sanctuaries Office, EPA, Massachusetts Department of 
Environmental Policy, we need to have better coordination.
    And finally, maintaining requirements for emergency 
response and preparedness at least until all fuel is out of the 
spent fuel pool and put into dry casks. And that is not the 
case right now.
    So I wanted to summarize that for you, tell you what the 
concerns are going to be as we are moving forward to make sure 
that we get all of the answers and the protections which the 
community is expecting.
    We thank you again, Mr. Lubinski, for being here. We will 
be submitting questions in writing to you. We would ask for a 
timely response to those questions. And we thank you very much.
    Mr. Lubinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Representative Keating.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, sir.
    Now we will move to the second panel. We will be hearing 
from Dr. Kris Singh, the founder, president, and CEO of Holtec 
International, which he established in 1986 and has nurtured 
its steady rise into a multinational company with its business 
footprint in 18 countries on five continents.
    After that we are going to hear from Geoff Fettus, the 
senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council's 
Nuclear, Climate, and Clean Energy Program. Mr. Fettus both 
litigates and testifies before Congress for the NRDC, where he 
focuses primarily on issues relating to the beginning and end 
of the nuclear fuel cycle, including issues associated with 
uranium mining and the disposal of radioactive waste.
    Following Mr. Fettus, we will hear from Massachusetts State 
Senator Sue Moran, who represents Plymouth and Barnstable 
District. Senator Moran serves as the Senate Chair of the Joint 
Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure.
    We know that each of them has valuable testimony to provide 
to us because they have lived in and worked on these issues.
    We welcome you up, if you could please come up and sit 
behind your name cards, then we can begin this second panel.
    So we are all now in the advanced use of Zoom, and we 
understand how it can transform our lives, including public 
hearings on issues of great concern. And Dr. Singh is joining 
us in that fashion. We thank you so much for testifying here 
today.
    Whenever you are comfortable, Dr. Singh, please proceed 
with your statement.

                STATEMENT OF KRIS SINGH, PH.D., 
            PRESIDENT AND CEO, HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL

    Mr. Singh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Senator 
Markey, and the members of the government legislative branch 
for participating, to hold this meeting, this hearing.
    I personally appreciate the opportunity to provide accurate 
information to help people make their decisions. And I think a 
meeting like this, a hearing like this, is extremely valuable 
in that respect.
    Let me first categorically state that decommissioning is 
not our preferred business. We decommission because plants, 
after they are operated for a long period of time, they need to 
be decommissioned. They need to be decommissioned, and there 
has to be a renewal. We will build a new plant if the community 
so wants, or we will convert it into condominiums or what have 
you.
    It will be always, we always look to do it in the minimum 
time. Sixty years is permitted under Federal regulations, but 
we try to do it as fast as possible. Actually at the current 
time, Pilgrim is way ahead of this decommissioning schedule 
that we had initially proposed, thanks to the high quality of 
workers we have, most of them drawn from the local community, 
our management team, we are doing much better than what we had 
projected.
    I am also delighted to tell you that there have been no 
personal safety incidents. We have been an excellent steward of 
the environment, and I will talk about the water discharge very 
shortly. We have minimized those to people.
    Our performance at Pilgrim would rank at A+ if you look at 
all the metrics performance. And I don't intend to be defensive 
here, I just want to give you the facts. You can always compare 
them with the data across the world for the industry.
    Let me first address the issue of consultation before the 
ownership transferred. In the case of Pilgrim, there were 
extensive discussions with the State of Massachusetts. I even 
spoke to the Governor; I met with the Attorney General. There 
were many, many discussions with the two parties. It did not 
happen, the transfer of ownership did not happen in the dead of 
the night. As a matter of fact, we have serious financial 
obligations if we don't perform as contracted. The 
decommissioning work is contracted with us from Entergy.
    Pilgrim fuel has been taken out of the pool. Every fuel 
assembly is now out of the pool, Senator, and it is in dry 
storage. So the emergency plan that you said, it should not be 
terminated, should not be diminished, until the fuel is out of 
the pool, that has already occurred. By the way, it has 
occurred, it beat the world record this time. We transferred 
fuel faster than it had ever been done before out of the pool 
to the pad.
    Why do we consider it important? The health and safety. A 
fuel pool will obviously start as structurally robust; it is a 
robust structure, but not nearly as robust as a cask. A cask 
you can take a missile, hit it with, and you will not have a 
leak. Actually, Sandia analyzed that, how a cask will survive 
and prevent any release of contamination if it were hit by a 
crashing aircraft.
    So we wanted to make sure that the fuel got out of the pool 
as rapidly as possible, as safely as possible. And I am pleased 
to tell you that we have successfully done that for the people 
of Plymouth and vicinity.
    I should also tell you that San Onofre, 8 years ago, when 
they decided to add onsite storage capacity at San Onofre 
Southern Cal Edison, selected our below the ground storage 
technology because of the ungodly high earthquakes that they 
can experience. As you correctly mentioned, they have fault 
lines there that can create significant earthquakes.
    We have designed it for an earthquake level, and the 
facility operations, I would love to show it to you, the 
facility in operation, and it has been qualified and agreed to, 
both by California Public Service Commission and the NRC, that 
it will withstand earthquakes which have never been experienced 
in recorded history of this planet. That is how rugged and 
robust the cask system at San Onofre is that we installed in 
the 2014 to 2018 timeframe.
    Indian Point, likewise, I should just correct the record, 
Indian Point went through extensive negotiations and 
discussions with the State of New York representing the public 
and also local NGOs like River Keepers. They engaged with us; 
they wanted to know how we will do the work and what kind of 
responsibility we would undertake. We satisfied them all, only 
then they would do the deal with Entergy. So there may be a 
higher level of control, I don't know. I am sure we can 
conceive of other additional constraints in these transactions.
    But if you will look at the record of these plants, we did 
Oyster Creek, [indiscernible] Oyster Creek is further along 
than Pilgrim. We have done Pilgrim substantially, gotten all 
radioactive fissile material out of the plant into its 
[indiscernible] pad. As you said earlier, we have done these 
things. And Indian Point, by the way, is substantially on the 
way to decommissioning also, way, way ahead of schedule.
    So I think we have lived up to our commitments to the State 
governments, to other stakeholders, and frankly to ourselves. 
We have an obligation to perform decommissioning to the highest 
levels of standards of safety and environmental protection, 
preventing spread of contamination. We have never had any 
spread of contamination at any of our sites.
    And of course, the last, most important item, to provide a 
pathway to get fuel out of the plant, out of the State, to a 
more hospitable place. That is, we are unique in that respect. 
We have been working with the people in the State of New 
Mexico, southeast New Mexico, where fuel can be taken from 
Plymouth, fuel can be taken from all the plants in the country 
and aggregated at one consolidated interim storage facility, 
which was the stated wish of the Department of Energy from some 
10 years ago.
    We have done that. We expect to get the license from the 
NRC. It is not a regulatory problem. It is not a technical 
problem. It is a problem of political will. The Congress has to 
ask DOE and provide them with the funding so the fuel can be 
transported offsite. The technology is available. The 
technology that we are licensing with the NRC in New Mexico is 
so radiation efficient that you can hold a barbecue on top of 
that facility and not get radiation [indiscernible].
    So we have done technically what needs to be done. Now it 
is the time of our leadership, political leadership, people, 
folks as you, to take this step, to get the government to give 
us the way so we can get the fuel out to New Mexico. The idea 
of consent is the very language in the law, public consent. The 
people of southeastern New Mexico, in the community 80 percent 
are in favor of this facility there. All ducks are in a row.
    But if we don't do, you have the power, Senator, to ensure 
that this happens. We don't. We in the private industry, when 
we open our mouth, people think we are looking for profit.
    So how do we deal with the problem? Take a look at our 
record, please, and you will see that we have always had public 
interest first and foremost in our minds. We are spending money 
on decommissioning Pilgrim on a fast schedule so the facility 
becomes available for redeployment, and the township can get 
new tax revenue base. That is why we are doing it, that is the 
main benefit to the community. We get rid of all contamination 
from the site, and we are successfully doing it.
    But then this spent fuel will remain there unless we are 
given the permission and the means from the government to move 
it out of State. So I call upon you and all the other Senators 
to get together on this issue and show the national will to get 
the fuel out of places where it doesn't belong. The spent fuel 
should not be sitting in Plymouth for the next 60 or whatever 
years. Take it to a consolidated interim storage facility. 
There the air is dry, there is no marine air, the temperature 
is right for the fuel. It will live there, it can live there, 
it won't live there, but it can live there for a million years 
without springing a leak.
    We do the work. But we cannot, we can make all technically 
everything possible. But we don't control the levers of policy.
    So if you hear frustration in my voice, yes, the fuel 
doesn't have to be stranded. Fuel can be sent to a proper place 
where it will be safely stored below the ground for as long as 
necessary until a repository becomes available or the fuel is 
repurposed to produce more energy. I personally believe that 
the fuel has an enormous amount of energy that can be used 
later and produce clean electricity.
    But then if that is not the government policy down the 
road, we will build a repository. But it is there. It is there 
and safe. If you put fuel in New Mexico today, in southeast New 
Mexico, in 20 years you will see no evidence of corrosion. 
Because there is no actuating condition at the site to create 
corrosion. It is a perfect site. But that is about how far we 
can go.
    We are not going to sit for 60 years in decommissioning. We 
are going to have Pilgrim decommissioned in 12 to 15 years. It 
will be done. But the fuel, moving the fuel, sir, it is up to 
you and your colleagues.
    I will address the issue of water discharge. I just want to 
make sure everybody realizes it is not an operating plant. When 
Pilgrim was operating, there was a whole lot more discharge 
into the bay on a continuous basis.
    You asked a question about had anybody done the analysis. 
It so happens that Pilgrim plant had hired Holtec about 20 
years ago to do that particular evaluation. I am sure we have a 
report in our files that studied the situation in the bay. A 
concept I will leave with you before I will take questions and 
answers, in engineering, in science, the operative concept is 
factor of safety. You design it to a factor of safety always 
more than one. The extent of safety in a particular operation, 
the metric is the factor of safety.
    An airplane that we fly is designed with a factor of safety 
of two under the worst storm, postulated storm that we have to 
fly into which has a factor of safety of two, an aircraft. The 
water discharge has a limit from EPA and the NRC, and then 
there is the actual [indiscernible]. The observation at Pilgrim 
has shown that we have a factor of safety of 200, not 2, for 
radiation and discharge from the processed water in the plant. 
By definition, it is not contaminated water. It is processed 
water, and it does not meet the threshold of contamination.
    NRC standards, the factor of safety is 800. There is 
nothing, sir, that we live around, our houses, our office 
buildings, and all, of anywhere that kind of factors of safety 
designed to. So I would not say, I wouldn't call the water 
contaminated, and I would say just lumping it, because it is 
coming out of a nuclear plant it is a potential hazard to 
people is not based on science. And of all places, New England 
is the birthplace of science and technology in this country. 
You have the best institutions. So I would think that you would 
subscribe to the notion of a factor of safety far more than 
other people would in other countries where science is not 
necessary that well developed.
    I will stop right there, and I will be glad to take 
questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Singh follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Dr. Singh.
    Now let's turn to the other witnesses, then we will come 
back to you, Dr. Singh.
    We will begin again with Geoff Fettus, who is Senior 
Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Nuclear, 
Climate, and Energy program.
    Welcome, sir.

 STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY H. FETTUS, SENIOR ATTORNEY FOR NUCLEAR, 
 CLIMATE, AND CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAMS, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 
                            COUNCIL

    Mr. Fettus. Thanks to all who have invited me here. Thank 
you, Senator Markey, Chair, the Ranking Members, Representative 
Keating, the other distinguished members in the room. We have 
already had a long morning, so I will be concise and quick so 
we can get to the questions.
    Unfortunately, decommissioning should be a straightforward, 
methodical, and not particularly controversial process. That is 
not where we are. The largest issues facing communities right 
now, and especially Plymouth right here as we have heard this 
morning, is the lack of a clear set of strong and protective 
guidelines that are implemented by a strong and clear 
regulator. Any final rule that is going to be done by the NRC, 
and thank you for extending the deadline, but that is the least 
you can do right now, is going to be in place for decades and 
affect the cleanup of communities and the associated work 
forces of more than 60 sites across the country.
    Whether the shutdown of reactors happens in the next 5 
years, 10 years, 20 years, it is going to happen. This rule is 
probably the last good effort to get it right.
    Many of the challenges that we have talked about this 
morning and that I have listened to here in Massachusetts could 
have been avoided with an improved set of regulatory 
requirements. Let's not revisit those harms and struggles on 
other communities as this process unfolds across the country.
    The proposed rule in its current form is inadequate. It 
should be withdrawn and reissued in much stronger form along 
the lines of what Senator Markey has outlined here today. But 
let me be precise about three key issues, or actually four now. 
I have added since the morning has gone on for a bit.
    No. 1, the NRC needs to require a decommissioning plan 
prior to the shutdown that allows for a full environmental 
review of the necessary cleanup and with the associated hearing 
rights that allows the agency to fully inhabit its role as a 
regulator. Honestly, just stepping away from my prepared 
remarks, it is an extraordinary abdication of regulatory 
oversight for the NRC.
    Let me be clear. They actually, it is just as you said, 
Senator, it is a postal clerk's job to accept what is called 
the PSDAR of the decommissioning plant. There is nothing that 
they can require from it, less, more, different. Every site, 
whether it is Zion in Illinois or Plymouth in Massachusetts or 
Diablo in a few years in California is going to have different 
needs.
    Industries, I am glad the Lobstermen are here today, I am 
glad the State Senator is here today. Every place is going to 
have its own idiosyncrasies and needs that have to be taken 
into account. Right now, the decommissioning plan that goes 
forward, the NRC literally has no regulatory role other than to 
mark that it received it. It is an extraordinary abdication and 
really unprecedented in NRC's view of the Federal Government, 
because we work across all kinds of issues, as both of you 
know.
    Next, it is crucial to require the industrial cleanup and 
decommissioning process take place as soon as practical after a 
reactor shuts down, and with the retention and distinct 
advantages of the skilled and existing work force. I am pleased 
that Dr. Singh is talking about doing so at the sites where 
Holtec is working. Using that existing labor work force is so 
important because they know where all the problems are, where 
there aren't problems, the idiosyncrasies of each plant. 
Waiting decades to move on that cleanup harms communities and 
the larger State interests while also losing the significant 
advantage of that work force.
    Finally, in our written statement that we have submitted 
for the record, we briefly discuss the constructive 
prescriptions that were laid out by NRC Commissioner Baran that 
would ensure the adequate funds and resources are available 
when necessary for the cleanup. One of the things that I want 
to stress is Commissioner Baran suggested departing from the 
generic surety formula, the generic financial assurance 
formula, so you can actually look at the community beforehand. 
By the way, this is also part of the hearing rights that should 
happen beforehand, that you can make sure that you are meeting 
all the needs of that community.
    Last thing I want to touch on because it got brought up 
here is the issue of nuclear waste, and the nuclear waste that 
will be here in Plymouth or that will be here on the south 
shore for years to come. Hopefully, we can move it.
    But I want to say something really positively, not just 
because I am sitting in front of him right now. But Senator 
Markey has introduced legislation that would actually take the 
first constructive step on nuclear waste in decades. Last fall, 
Senator Markey in the Senate, and Representative Keating, your 
colleague, Congressman Levin from California, who has SONGS in 
his district, they both introduced the Nuclear Waste Task Force 
that would actually get to the real questions left on the table 
by President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on Nuclear Waste. 
Specifically, the Nuclear Waste Task Force, and Representative 
Keating, I hope we can depend on your support for this bill, in 
getting it into law.
    What it would do is it would create a task force; it 
wouldn't change the law yet. But it would create a task force 
that would examine placing nuclear waste under bedrock 
environmental laws, removing the exemptions from the Atomic 
Energy Act. That sounds law reviewy and esoteric. It is not.
    What it would do is it would allow EPA and the States to 
set meaningful standards, that is if the task force recommends 
this. If other people think you want to keep trying to bribe 
Nevada, or actually let me be clear about something Dr. Singh 
said that I don't believe is entirely accurate, the State of 
New Mexico has not consented to receive a consolidated interim 
storage site in the Nation's nuclear waste. In fact, they have 
done precisely the opposite.
    I have, and I can submit for the record, a letter from the 
Governor of New Mexico that I believe would be not going out of 
bounds to say she ferociously objects to the receipt of the 
entire of the Nation's nuclear waste. I can also recommend you 
go talk to your colleagues from the New Mexico delegation about 
just this issue. New Mexico has not consented, nor has the 
entire region around southeast New Mexico. I can also submit 
for the record environmental justice groups that would like to 
probably weigh in on this matter.
    But in contrast to that, Senator Markey's Nuclear Waste 
Task Force would set up a process where we can hash out what 
consent really means. NRDC believes that bedrock environmental 
laws can allow for a process where a State can say no, or more 
importantly yes, but on what terms and how much.
    So much of this can be addressed. There is a way forward on 
nuclear waste. Senator Markey is actually trying to put us on 
that way forward, rather than just do the same stuff we have 
done over the past 60 years and failed repeatedly.
    With that, I would be happy to take questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fettus follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Fettus, very much.
    Now we will hear from Senator Moran.

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN L. MORAN, MASSACHUSETTS STATE SENATOR, 
                PLYMOUTH AND BARNSTABLE DISTRICT

    Ms. Moran. Thank you for this unprecedented, almost, field 
hearing, Chair Markey. I really appreciate your recognition of 
the gravamen of this moment for Plymouth.
    I want to thank Congressman Keating for being here, and 
thank Senator Warren, Committee members, members of both 
Plymouth Barnstable and the Cape delegations, the residents and 
the Town of Plymouth, who is represented well here today. Thank 
you all for coming to America's hometown, and the Patuxet 
Village of the Wampanoag Tribe.
    I also want to thank Senator Cyr and Rep Peake for their 
participation. He is the State Senator representing many of the 
communities that are impacted by the Holtec Pilgrim Power 
Plant.
    My colleagues, including the entire delegation of Cyr, 
O'Connor, Peake, Muratore, Fernandes, LaNatra, Cutler, Xiarhos, 
Diggs, Viera, and Whelan, and I have been working diligent 
fielding concerns from our constituents. I hope that our 
concerns will be incorporated into decommissioning practices to 
protect the long term health, safety, and economic success of 
the communities we serve.
    The way we handle the safe closing of this nuclear power 
plant will set a precedent for others throughout the country. 
We have a unique opportunity to examine the shortfalls of this 
situation and set guidelines and expectations for others to 
follow.
    As you know, the nuclear reactor at Pilgrim Nuclear Power 
Station shut down on May 31st, 2019. That August, Holtec 
acquired Pilgrim after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
approved the transfer of the plant's license. Shortly 
thereafter, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a lawsuit 
out of concern that funding deficits based on Holtec's 
decommissioning cost estimate proposal and insufficient funding 
in the Decommissioning Trust Fund would result in possible 
health, safety, environmental, and financial risks to the State 
and residents.
    More broadly, the public have ongoing concerns that range 
from sufficient funding for proper oversight and monitoring of 
the decommissioned facility, Pilgrim's exemption from emergency 
planning and preparedness requirements, safety and security 
issues of dry cask storage units, and most recently, alarming 
statements of Holtec's plan to dump 1 million gallons of 
radioactive water into Cape Cod Bay.
    Since the license transfer there has been a lack of 
transparency and opportunity for public input. This lack of 
communication and disregard for transparency and community 
involvement leads to a collective feeling of an imminent threat 
to residents. Unfortunately, there has been little reassurance. 
There is a serious incongruency in the oversight of 
decommissioned power plants, specifically in reference to the 
proposed dumping of radioactive material into Cape Cod Bay.
    Holtec is currently prohibited from discharging water from 
the site unless it receives an updated National Discharge 
Elimination System Permit. The updated permit would require EPA 
oversight of pollutants in the water. However, as defined by 
the Clean Water Act, the term pollutants does not include 
radioactive material, including radioactive waste.
    Therefore, unless there are additional pollutants to 
require a denial of the permit, EPA is powerless to intervene 
even if the levels of radioactive waste are toxic. Oversight 
may then fall to NRC, which sets radioactive water discharge 
limits four times higher than the EPA recommends.
    Neither of these limits speak directly to the impact of 
cumulative discharge and their impact on marine life in Cape 
Cod Bay. We have a situation then where one government agency 
is pointing to another and in some instances contradicting 
itself while the residents and advocates who are here today 
raise alarm.
    Any potential risk to the Bay is a risk to public health, 
the tourism industry, the commercial fishing industry, as you 
both have mentioned, both of which are represented here today.
    The risk is very real. I recently spoke with Robert Ward of 
Home Port-Plymouth. Mr. Ward has been fishing since he was 13 
years old. He learned the craft from his father. Mr. Ward is 
part of the South Shore fishing industry that generates $6 
million to $8 million in revenue annually and is part of the 
chain for a successful and environmentally responsible local 
economy. They stock local restaurants and purchase ropes and 
maintenance from hardware stores in town.
    Mr. Ward and others in the fishing industry guard the 
oceans to keep them whale safe and often make profit sacrifices 
to maintain aquatic ecosystems. Mr. Ward expressed very clearly 
to me that there is a fear that dumping radioactive discharge 
will create a negative perception of local industry, and this 
will harm an industry made of small businesses working on tight 
margins.
    Mr. Ward is absolutely right. We still have a serious lack 
of understanding of what is in the potential discharge, the 
manner of depositing into Cape Cod Bay, and who is responsible 
for mandating testing. And it should be independent testing.
    The concentration of any chemical can be altered depending 
on season, time that has gone by, amounts released, how the 
chemicals react in a different environment. That is the Woods 
Hole scientific information that was just mentioned; thank you, 
Congressman. In the course of failing to provide this 
information, Holtec has allowed fear to spread and compounded 
the economic impact of their announcement. Frankly, the 
announcement of dumping material into the Bay demonstrates a 
callous disregard for the health and livelihoods of our 
communities and significantly undermines public trust in 
Holtec's decisionmaking.
    There are few guardrails to protect our communities. This 
must change. In calls, e-mails, testimony, and rallies, our 
constituents are telling us loudly and clearly that they are 
fearful of what will happen now and for generations to come if 
we allow Holtec to discharge large volumes of radioactive waste 
into Cape Cod Bay without greater oversight and better 
safeguards. We have an obligation to listen and respond.
    Many of these subjects are further detailed in written 
testimony that was submitted by me and other members of the 
Massachusetts State Legislature representing the South Coast, 
Cape, and Islands, as well as directly by towns, including one 
I understand the selectmen have just submitted as well as the 
board of health previously.
    I look forward to answering any questions you may have and 
continuing to collaborate to ensure the safe closure of this 
facility. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Moran follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Senator Moran, very much. Thank 
you for your incredible leadership on these issues.
    Finally, we are going to hear from Mr. Seth Schofield, the 
Senior Appellate Counsel for the Energy and Environment Bureau 
of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, where he 
provides appellate advice and handles appeals in affirmative 
and defensive cases in Federal and State court. In that 
capacity, he covers a wide range of State and Federal 
administrative law, constitutional, environmental, energy, and 
nuclear power plant issues.
    So we have the State's expert here with us today. And we 
welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin.

 STATEMENT OF SETH SCHOFIELD, SENIOR APPELLATE COUNSEL, OFFICE 
            OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. Schofield. Senator Markey, Representative Keating, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for holding this important 
hearing and for the invitation to testify today.
    My name is Seth Schofield. I am the senior appellate 
counsel for the Energy and Environment Bureau in the 
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.
    The decommissioning of a nuclear power plant is complex and 
expensive. The decommissioning process also poses significant 
safety, environmental, and economic risks to States, 
municipalities, and local communities.
    Today, I will speak briefly about the Commonwealth's 
experience with the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, 
Massachusetts, and three fundamental flaws with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's proposed decommissioning rule. In 
short, the proposed rule does nothing to mitigate the risks 
associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants and 
totally disregards the substantial concerns consistently raised 
by States, the public, and NGOs.
    The Commonwealth has firsthand experience with 
decommissioning issues. We recently engaged in a lengthy and 
contentious process to better ensure that the Commonwealth and 
its residents would be protected from the risks associated with 
decommissioning the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. In the end, we 
secured a settlement agreement with Pilgrim's new owner, 
Holtec, to remedy shortcomings in the NRC's regulatory scheme 
and to create certainty about the application of important 
State law requirements.
    While we were successful, we received no help from the NRC. 
Instead, the NRC opposed our efforts and dismissed our 
concerns. The lengthy agreement covers numerous key issues, but 
today I will highlight three areas that are critically 
important to States: Financial assurance, site restoration 
standards, and State agency funding for emergency planning and 
oversight.
    First, the agreement includes a robust set of financial 
assurance requirements. Under the agreement, Holtec must 
maintain certain minimum trust fund balances to ensure, among 
other things, that the Pilgrim site is remediated and restored 
for unrestricted future use. If that fund dips below those 
minimum balances, Holtec must replenish the fund with 
recoveries it obtains from the U.S. Department of Energy.
    Second, the agreement requires Holtec to comply with the 
Commonwealth's radiological and non-radiological cleanup 
standards. For example, Holtec must comply with the 
Commonwealth's significantly stricter 10 millirem per year 
residual radioactivity standard and remediate non-radiological 
contamination to a level that will allow for unrestricted 
future use unless doing so is technically infeasible.
    Third, the agreement requires Holtec to make annual 
payments to two State agencies. Those payments are intended to 
ensure that both agencies have sufficient funds to continue to 
perform their important public health, safety, and emergency 
planning oversight responsibilities. Over time, the annual 
payments step down as risks decrease.
    Turning to the NRC's proposed rule, the draft rule does 
nothing to improve the process, for States, municipalities, or 
the public, or to address the significant risks associated with 
decommissioning nuclear power plants. Instead, the proposed 
rule makes the process easier for industry and the NRC itself. 
Today, I will highlight three ways in which the proposed rule 
falls far short.
    First, the rule proposes to maintain a hands off approach 
to decommissioning the Nation's aging nuclear power plants. As 
NRC Commissioner Baran stated, the proposed rule ``allows 
licensees to make virtually all of the major decisions'' 
without NRC approval or meaningful public input. That approach 
is foreign to other environmental cleanup laws in the United 
States such as the Superfund process under CERCLA.
    If the Commonwealth had been limited to that process, it 
never could have secured the critical agreement with Holtec 
that I described earlier. The Commonwealth's inroad was through 
a separate process, the license transfer process, that will not 
be available in all cases across the country.
    Second, the NRC has adopted a risky approach to 
decommissioning financial assurance. For example, the proposed 
rule does not address the NRC's routine practice of granting 
exemptions to licensees to use decommissioning trust funds for 
non-decommissioning purposes such as spent nuclear fuel costs.
    At Pilgrim, for example, the NRC authorized Holtec, a 
limited liability company with no other assets, to withdraw 
nearly half of Pilgrim's trust fund for spent fuel management 
costs without any associated reimbursement requirement. In 
effect, the NRC authorized Holtec to take millions in 
Massachusetts ratepayer money as private profit while depriving 
the trust fund of much needed money.
    And last, the rule proposes to reduce emergency 
preparedness requirements before all spent nuclear fuel is 
removed from the spent fuel pool and safely placed in dry cask 
storage. The NRC's rationale is based on the false premise that 
10 hours provides ``ample time'' for all plants in all 
scenarios to evacuate surrounding populations without the 
ordinary emergency preparedness requirements in place.
    This is a dangerous mistake, and for that reason, it is 
opposed by emergency planning professionals, FEMA, and States.
    I commend Chairman Markey and this Committee and its staff 
for taking on this important matter. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schofield follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Schofield, very much.
    Now we will turn to questions for our witnesses.
    I will begin with you, Dr. Singh. We are joined today by 
well respected labor leaders representing our building trades 
here in Massachusetts. I understand that there is a labor 
dispute currently at the facility here in Plymouth.
    I want you to guarantee that you are going to be meeting 
with all the following unions to discuss staffing at this site 
and decommissioning of the sites around the country. That is 
the Ironworkers, the Laborers, the Carpenters, the IBEW, and 
Operating Engineers. Will you meet with these unions to resolve 
this issue of staffing here at this plant?
    Mr. Singh. Yes, Senator, this is Kris Singh. We are 
committed to working with the unions. We have national 
agreements with most of them, and we work cooperatively with 
them to ensure worker health and safety and public health and 
safety. I assure you that the dialogue, if any union is not 
already in national agreement, we will continue to work with 
them to develop appropriate agreements. But we are committed to 
working with unions at all our sites.
    Senator Markey. It is critically important that we resolve 
these labor issues, these union issues. And I thank you for 
your commitment to doing that work.
    As we discussed earlier with Dr. Lubinski, we heard serious 
concerns about the impact that the release of the 1 million 
gallons of irradiated water could have on the region's fishing, 
tourism, and real estate industries, whose reputations and 
operations rely on Cape Cod Bay's reputation for clean and safe 
water. We definitely have an issue that is central to the 
community here. Senator Moran, have you heard concerns from 
your constituents about the risks that dumping this water might 
have on the local ecosystem and economy?
    Ms. Moran. Yes, I have. I think all the legislators here 
have heard concerns. In particular, the Emergency Planning Zone 
requirements, which are the essential protection and action 
plan to reduce radiation exposure, shelter, and evacuation 
strategies, the former fire chief right here in Plymouth, Ed 
Bradley, had to specifically demand and negotiate continued 
funding. And that funding is lacking in all of the contiguous 
communities, as well as the communities that had previously 
been funded.
    The result here is that there is a need to divert 
resources, taxes, time, and emergency preparedness. Because I 
think as all of the advocates have reminded us well, over many 
years, these are potential airborne and ocean transmissible 
concerns that could travel far and wide. So that is just one 
example, Senator. Thank you for the question.
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    Dr. Singh, has Holtec looked at the issues that Mr. Fettus 
just raised, that is the vigorous opposition of the State of 
New Mexico to the siting of this facility? You are holding out 
to the residents here in Massachusetts that hope should be how 
they view these issues, but what we are hearing from Mr. Fettus 
is that the likelihood of that occurring in the near term at 
least is very, very slight, given all of the political 
opposition that exists in New Mexico to house permanently all 
of the nuclear waste from Plymouth, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Singh. Senator, Holtec has spent $18 million of its own 
money to license, develop all the systems, to establish the 
facility in New Mexico. The Governor of New Mexico, the then-
Governor, wrote a letter to the DOE Secretary voicing strong 
support for the project in New Mexico. The local community, as 
I said earlier, stands 100 percent behind the project. There 
has been a change in government. The new Governor appears to 
have a different idea.
    But I think that as the public gets educated statewide, I 
don't think the State of New Mexico people at large are against 
the project. It is all political. And I think even people, 
regardless of their party affiliation, when they realize that 
this facility will emit no, no particulates, it has no 
environmental impact to speak of, it requires hardly any water, 
other than the water that people will consume at the site, it 
makes no demand on any resources, why would they not support it 
is beyond me.
    Senator Markey. Well, again, as Mr. Fettus----
    [Simultaneous conversations.]
    Mr. Singh. I just want you to know that I believe, I am a 
firm believer that ultimately reason and logic prevail, 
regardless of the political winds at a particular time. We 
started this project years ago. The Governor was in strong 
support, so was most of the political establishment, and the 
public has always been.
    Senator Markey. I am going to restate what Mr. Fettus says, 
which is that this Governor is ferociously objecting to the 
operations.
    Is that correct, Mr. Fettus?
    Mr. Singh. I respectfully disagree with that. If the 
Governor had really been so vociferously against it, then the 
[indiscernible] would have come to her, just like Texas then, 
the spent fuel facility in their State. New Mexico could have 
done that, too. But they did not.
    So I don't think that opposition is vociferous. I don't 
think that opposition is obdurate. I think that they are 
waiting to learn more, and then they will make their decision.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Fettus.
    Mr. Fettus. I would like to respond briefly. Thank you, 
Senator.
    A couple of things. One, the State of Texas, which has, as 
we all know probably in this room, a Republican Governor and a 
Republican dominated legislature, has also objected to hosting 
the Nation's consolidated interim fuel. There is a similar 
license afoot in Texas which has elicited Red State objection 
whereas New Mexico, which is now a Blue State with a Democratic 
Governor, has also significant objections.
    So I would suggest that objection remains bipartisan, just 
as it has in Nevada.
    One thing I would like to quickly address, if I can have 
your forbearance for a moment, is there is always this 
reductive language that it is just politics, and we have to get 
past the politics. Well, I really bristle at that, because 
politics is how we decide things by not having land wars in 
Europe. Politics is really important because it is how we 
decide our institutional questions of who gets to decide and on 
what terms. That is why we are here today, and that is why we 
so appreciate your doing this.
    Senator Markey. And I appreciate that, too, because this is 
my 45th year in Congress. I have served on the Nuclear 
Subcommittee for 45 years. No one has ever done this before in 
congressional history. So I remember back in the middle of the 
1980s when the National Academy of Sciences, for example, had a 
set of recommendations, but yet the decision was political, 
that they were going to stick the people in Nevada with the 
nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, even though it had an 
earthquake vault nearby, even though it had a river nearby. 
Obviously, the questions that were being raised are still the 
questions being raised today.
    I think that we should operate under the premise for today 
and for the foreseeable future that this spent fuel will be on 
location here. And as a result, what are we going to do about 
it? How are we going to handle this issue? It is 45 years that 
I have been dealing with the issue. My expectation is that it 
is going to continue for an indefinite period of time.
    So I would ask you, Dr. Singh, has Holtec ever conducted an 
economic and environmental analysis of the impacts of spent 
fuel pool discharges to the marine environment in Cape Cod Bay?
    Mr. Singh. Yes, I would, as I said earlier, we did study 
the effect of discharge in Cape Cod Bay under a contract with 
the utility at the time, Boston Edison.
    But I would like to answer the first part of your question, 
Senator, if I may have your forgiveness.
    Senator Markey. It was not a question. It was just an 
observation. The point that I am trying to make is that we 
should just deal with this as though it is a permanent problem.
    Mr. Singh. I see.
    Senator Markey. And put permanent solutions and protections 
for the people here in place, and maybe there is some day in 
the future, when the problem does get solved on a permanent 
basis in another State.
    But I prefer just to deal with it as something that is 
urgent, and now because I had my first meeting on the Pilgrim 
Plant in 1979. It is now 2022. While I would hope that it could 
be resolved, I just want to ask you the questions about 
resolving the issues today, Doctor. So why haven't the relevant 
marine sanctuary experts and local stakeholders seen the 
document? Why are they still in the dark?
    Mr. Singh. Let me answer the question fulsomely, Senator. 
But I would like to simply get in the record that I don't think 
our country should give up on an interim storage facility. Even 
Ukraine, threatened by Russia, has now a facility up and 
running. It is a pity that we cannot get in this country a 
storage facility together.
    And I should just add one sentence: You cannot, no one can 
point to a single environmental impact that this facility would 
have on the host community. It is all emotion, no logic. And 
whether it is bipartisan or single partisan, the point is, it 
should be logic based, it should be reason based. And why this 
country can't get together and establish a facility beats me. 
And people in overseas, other countries, wonder what is going 
on in America.
    Senator Markey. And again, people are responding 
emotionally because they feel they don't have all the 
information they need. They feel there is a process that has 
been truncated, that all of the questions that they are asking 
because of their own families' health and safety have not been 
answered.
    That is what Mr. Schofield and that is what Mr. Fettus are 
talking about here today. That is what Congressman Keating and 
I have been asking about, why can't there be a more thorough, 
inclusive process that answers in a timely fashion but in a way 
that does not leave a cloud over the answers that are finally 
given to the public. Because they sit out there saying, I don't 
think my family is being protected.
    So from again, in terms of my question, not having the 
relevant marine sanctuary experts and local stakeholders see 
the documents is something that obviously, because of the whole 
history of nuclear power in our country just in their minds 
raises questions about whether or not they are getting the 
truth, whether they are actually getting all the answers which 
they want.
    So that is why this process is so important. That is why I 
am here having this hearing so that they can get the answers. 
And if they don't get the answers today, that they get the 
answers before there is any dumping of radioactive water into 
Cape Cod Bay. They deserve all of the answers to have been 
answered thoroughly.
    So do you understand why the public has questions about 
Holtec? Can you understand why that is the case, Mr. Singh?
    Mr. Singh. I suppose I understand, Senator. But let me 
answer your question directly first. In the work Holtec has 
done roughly 20 years ago on water dispersion in the Cape Cod 
Bay, I think the file is still available, and I will share it 
with any expert that you nominate to look at it. We have done 
studies on how water diffuses in the Bay over 20 years ago.
    The reason it does not raise concern amongst people who are 
knowledgeable on the subject matter is as I said before, the 
level of radioactivity is a factor of 800, more than 800 less 
than what NRC considers admissible. It is below a factor of 200 
below what EPA considers acceptable from nuclear plant 
operations.
    It is difficult to stir your engineers and scientists, 
whether it is a marine biologist or whatever, to look at the 
data and say that [indiscernible]. But of course, in the media, 
this gets front page as a concern, yes, I think that the image 
of the community calling the water, which is processed water, 
contaminated water, if it is said over and over again, it 
becomes contaminated water in the minds of the people.
    So I don't know what we do, because of these challenges, we 
basically stopped, we said, OK, we will let the water just sit 
there, and when we all become science focused, science based, 
then we will discharge it.
    There is of course an alternative. We can ship the water to 
someplace else where it can be discharged.
    But let me ask you this. The amount of water in the world 
is finite. It is not changing. Taken from one place to another 
doesn't solve the problem, it really doesn't. We have got to 
make sure the water is clean and meets the limit in the first 
place. As I said, it meets not by a factor of 2 or 10, by a 
factor of hundreds. It is not contaminated water. But we would 
not discharge it until we have consent from our stakeholders. 
We would not discharge it because we do not want to upset 
anyone.
    If you will let me close with one comment. In a closing 
plant, the amount of interaction with the bay is a minute 
fraction of that which was occurring when the plant was 
running, when it was operating. We were discharging water, of 
course, in the bay when the plant was operating. And look at 
the quantities. Today it is a dead plant. But it hardly has any 
discharge.
    Yet the community welcomed it, supported it. There was no 
talk of contaminated water in the bay back then when the plant 
was running. So I really don't get it. Perhaps folks can 
enlighten me why today there is a new concern about water that 
is orders of magnitude below level what could be called 
contaminated.
    Senator Markey. So I think for everyone here today you have 
just said something very important to them, which is that you 
said, you will not discharge the water unless you have the 
consent of the stakeholders. Is that what you just said, 
Doctor?
    Mr. Singh. Yes, I said the stakeholders, and then the 
State, you know, the State, the NRC, the people who we have, we 
routinely, with EPA, we consult with to do anything. Because 
this item has become one of political, taken a political 
dimension, no, we will not discharge without getting----
    Senator Markey. So when you say stakeholders, do you mean 
the State of Massachusetts, the Attorney General's Office?
    Mr. Singh. Yes, your office, Senator. Yes.
    Senator Markey. And my office?
    Mr. Singh. Any organization, any organized group.
    Senator Markey. And the people of Plymouth?
    Mr. Singh. We will consult. We participate in NDCAP 
meetings, as you know, routinely. We try to be as transparent 
as possible. I really don't understand why people say we keep 
information. We put information on our Web site, we publish it 
routinely, we publish bulletins. You can go on our Web site and 
see questions and answers to the decommissioning issues. We are 
not a closed company.
    The people who work for us are residents, they are your 
neighbors in Plymouth and surrounding towns. We don't have 
people from out of State, that many of them, only a few. It is 
local people who are doing it, using our methods and 
processing. The work force is not alien to your community.
    I really don't know how, please tell us, how we can improve 
communications. We are all ears. We want to be the very best 
neighbor.
    Senator Markey. Well, you can hear from the State of 
Massachusetts, from the Attorney General's Office, how 
concerned they have been about the process, about the need for 
them to actively intervene in order to get answers. So that 
leads to a suspicion that something is being hidden, that the 
information is not being fully transmitted.
    I understand that Holtec is looking at other alternatives 
beyond dumping the water, including evaporation or trucking. 
But has the company considered storing the radioactive water 
onsite, giving the radioactive isotopes and the water time to 
decay before the water is disposed of?
    Mr. Singh. Yes, there are pros and cons. In any decision 
you make there are pros and cons. We ship it from the site, we 
are going to burn diesel fuel. That is an emission in the 
environment. It will go to another place, but there is a clear, 
definite negative that should not be overlooked.
    If we let it sit, which we will, if that is what the 
stakeholders tell us, don't discharge water; I don't like the 
term dump, because it is not a dump, it is discharging it to 
the bay with, under prescribed conditions in a controlled way. 
But if the decision is to leave the facility standing and leave 
the water there, we will do that.
    But our goal, we think the best thing for the community, 
for the State of Massachusetts, is to get all contamination out 
of there and reclaim the place so it can be repurposed, it can 
be redeveloped. That is what we thought would be most agreeable 
to the local community. But if they want to keep the water 
there, we will keep the water there.
    Senator Markey. So the NRC and Holtec contend that the 
proposal to dump the 1 million gallons of radioactive water 
into Cape Cod Bay is safe. I know that the communities would 
feel a lot safer if an independent body with fisheries 
expertise was able to confirm that the types of radionuclides 
in the water and their concentrations were in fact safe for our 
region's fish and shellfish.
    Dr. Singh, once the spent fuel pool water is ready to be 
sampled, will Holtec commit to, one, having an independent body 
with fisheries expertise, such as, and you talked about this 
incredible expertise that we have in Massachusetts in science, 
we have the No. 1 location in the entire world, and it is here 
on Cape Cod, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, would 
you agree to have them test and evaluate the sample, and to 
agree not to release the 1 million gallons of radioactive water 
into the bay unless it is confirmed safe for our region's 
fisheries by Woods Hole Oceanographic?
    Mr. Singh. Yes, Senator; the answer is yes. Beyond then, if 
you have any other expert or scientific organization, not a 
political organization, yes, we will share with them any 
information we have. We will give them access to the data at 
the plant to help comfort the community. Because there has been 
so much now material in the media that a non-problem in my 
personal opinion has become a big problem. So we have to, I 
think your suggestion to have experts review and study is a 
great suggestion. And we will support it wholeheartedly.
    Senator Markey. OK. I think it is very important that Woods 
Hole Oceanographic Institute be a part of this process. They 
have the most knowledge about this body of water of any 
institution in the world. And they are right here. So we will 
be taking you at your word and having them be included in this 
process.
    Let me turn and now recognize Congressman Keating.
    Representative Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
all our witnesses.
    I will say at the outset that it is just a common refrain 
these days to blame the media, and to say, well, this is the 
media. I just want to, for Dr. Singh's purposes, tell you that 
everyone in our office--I am not part of the media, Senator 
Moran is not part of the media, the Attorney General's Office 
is not part of the media, Senator Markey's office is not part 
of the media.
    And the groups here who came together are not part of the 
media, the local officials, the lobstering community, the 
fishing community, aquaculture community, the tourism 
community. They are not part of the media. These are real 
concerns. It is not manufactured by the media. It is real. I 
want to say that at the outset.
    I want to agree with Senator Moran, too, that our office 
has had many of the same concerns, and shared those concerns 
among her office and the group of State legislators and local 
officials, our colleagues in State government who are here. I 
am thankful for their presence here today.
    I also want to emphasize, too, that the people who are 
working during this decommissioning, it is not simply a labor 
issue. It is a safety issue. And those people are necessary for 
this to be done safely and securely. I urge you not just to 
discuss with them but to resolve any differences that might be 
there.
    In terms of Mr. Fettus, just for the record, I am a co-
sponsor of the Nuclear Waste Task Force bill, just to clear 
that up as well.
    Now, I want to deal with a pretty important issue during 
this process, and that is one that Holtec has promised that the 
people in this community, our elected officials, promised a 
transparent process. And thus far, that is still, generously 
speaking, a work in progress in that regard. I recall back in 
November at a meeting of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel that Holtec 
repeated several times that the company has not made any 
definitive plan to dispose of spent fuel pool liquid.
    However, just weeks later, when our office contacted the 
NRC, we learned that Holtec had disclosed to them that it was 
planning to discharge, or dump, call it what you will, into the 
bay in the first quarter of October of this year. And that 
raises issues, and my concern is ongoing regarding transparency 
in that regard.
    Dr. Singh, January 22nd of this year, Holtec issued a 
public letter responding to our community concerns about the 
discharge of spent fuel, the spent fuel coolant pool into Cape 
Cod Bay. In that letter your company expressed that they had no 
need to seek additional regulatory clearance from the NRC or 
any other agency to release the contents of the spent fuel 
coolant pool.
    On March 14th of this year, the Environmental Protection 
Agency sent a response to that letter, outlining their concerns 
with the discharge of fluid from the spent fuel cooling pool, 
which states unequivocally that your company must seek 
clearance, must, from the EPA for any discharge into Cape Cod 
Bay from the spent fuel coolant pool.
    Has your company responded to the EPA's letter?
    Mr. Singh. Congressman Keating, I don't have personal 
knowledge whether we have answered or not.
    Representative Keating. You are the CEO.
    [Simultaneous conversations.]
    Mr. Singh. Let me answer your question. I will get that 
information for you. The bigger question that you said is that 
we have, we are not communicating with your office and other 
major stakeholders in the process. I will rectify that problem 
immediately. There is no agenda here to hold back any 
information. We will fix that. We will fix that.
    Representative Keating. If I may, Doctor, if I may, I just 
was struck by your comment just a few moments ago that you 
communicate routinely with the EPA and other groups. If they 
sent you that request almost 2 months ago, and I will give you 
the answer to my question, I just wanted to confirm if anything 
happened in the interim, but the answer is no. You have not 
responded to EPA on this.
    Mr. Singh. And if we have not, we will provide a response. 
But let me address----
    Representative Keating. No, I am asking the questions, 
because time is precious and I apologize----
    Mr. Singh. I can give you the answer.
    [Simultaneous conversations.]
    Mr. Singh. If I don't give you the answer, you will have 
the misconception.
    Representative Keating. You just gave me the answer to my 
question.
    Mr. Singh. I am trying to tell you, unless the water is 
contaminated, and it exceeds EPA limits, or NRC's limits, 
typically if our process does not require notifying them, then 
we would not. Now, being that it has become a high profile 
item, we will start notifying everybody. You tell us who, and 
we will notify everybody.
    Representative Keating. You are going back to my initial 
question.
    [Simultaneous conversations.]
    Representative Keating. Your premise is wrong. You are 
saying until it becomes a high profile item you don't----
    Mr. Singh. [Indiscernible.]
    Representative Keating. They are requesting from you that 
information. And who decides if it is a high priority item?
    Mr. Singh. Please.
    Representative Keating. I don't want to be contentious 
anymore.
    Mr. Singh. Hold on----
    Representative Keating. I want to get to some points.
    Mr. Singh [continuing]. The industry, telling you how it 
works. If there are laws, we follow the laws.
    Representative Keating. I know how your industry works, 
sir. That is the issue here.
    I want to do this. I gave you the answer to that question, 
I am so pleased, and thank you very much for your cooperation 
in responding to the EPA's letter. We have been in touch with 
them. There are concerns. They have concerns, and they 
certainly are in a position to vent those concerns and to get 
answers. It is something that the NRC seems limited or 
unwilling to do in this regard, so I am anxious to get the 
response from that.
    I have another question, if I could.
    Mr. Singh. Consider it done.
    Representative Keating. Thank you. I like that.
    So let's see if we can continue with this. Could you just 
give us, as the CEO and President, the estimated cost that 
would be entailed to transporting those wastes, those 
radioactive materials, from Plymouth by truck, similar to the 
way it was done with Vermont Yankee?
    Mr. Singh. I don't know where Yankee shipped it.
    Representative Keating. Could you just share with us your 
estimate for what that cost would be if you are considering 
viable alternatives?
    Mr. Singh. We will get you the cost. We will get you the 
cost. But please understand, to us, that is a poor solution. 
Burning diesel fuel to take water from Place A to Place B is 
[indiscernible].
    Representative Keating. Sir, by the way, do you have 
electric vehicles? Are all the vehicles you have in your 
company electric, by the way?
    Mr. Singh. Some are, not all.
    Representative Keating. I am glad some are. Well, we are 
concerned about that with diesel fuel. Be concerned about that.
    Mr. Singh. Tanks of electric vehicles don't have 
environmental baggage. Needs to do some more learning.
    Representative Keating. OK. So if you could, you haven't 
even estimated what the cost of that alternative would be. So 
that makes me question how viable or how serious you are about 
looking at these alternatives. Can you understand how I would 
have that concern?
    Mr. Singh. Congressman, you can entertain----
    Representative Keating. I am not entertaining.
    Mr. Singh [continuing]. Your illusions. We have, we have 
followed the law, we do not ever allow anyone to break the law. 
And we are transparent.
    Now, trucking on the face of it is a poor solution in our 
opinion. But if you think we should give you the cost, that 
will help enlighten this, we will do that. Also, we can locally 
evaporate the water using electric heaters. That will 
environmentally damage as well. And do all that when the water 
purity level is so high--you may or may not know, Admiral 
Rickover who ran the submarine fleet in the U.S. for a long, 
long time, he was challenged on this issue. He brought a glass 
of water to one of the hearings in Congress and drank it, the 
processed water. That is how good it is.
    So it is, any item can be made into a major deal. But in my 
opinion, it is not a big deal, and the scientists that the 
Senator has proposed should look at the data. I am sure they 
will corroborate our position.
    Representative Keating. Well, there is a room full of 
people here who aren't drinking the water on that answer. It is 
much more complex than that, and that is why the EPA is 
concerned about that, and why it is important to find out if 
this mixture--is there anything amusing I am saying, sir? The 
mixtures that are there, there are concerns, boron and other 
heavy metal mixtures. These things should be done in the 
introductory level, not afterwards. And we should have answers 
to those things as well as answers to the viable alternatives 
that exist as well.
    We hope we can continue, perhaps, with these questions. At 
this juncture I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    Let me turn to you, Mr. Schofield. You mentioned in your 
testimony that you worked on a settlement that was released in 
June 2020 between the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office 
and Holtec which secured critical environmental, public safety, 
financial protections for Massachusetts residents. And I thank 
you for your work in defending the interests of Massachusetts 
residents from potential corporate malfeasance, as well as from 
neglect of Federal agencies.
    Mr. Schofield, if Massachusetts did not file suit against 
Holtec and the NRC's move to transfer the license for Pilgrim 
from Entergy to Holtec, would the State of Massachusetts have 
been able to weigh in at all on the decommissioning process?
    Mr. Schofield. The Commonwealth would not have been able to 
weigh in in a meaningful way. We could of course submit written 
comments on the PSDAR. But as we have heard today, that is 
really an illusory process. It is not meaningful. The NRC 
doesn't approve it. There is no opportunity to challenge that 
document.
    It is frankly hard to even understand what the plan is from 
the PSDAR because of the lack of detail in the plan. And those 
plans are based, in addition, on insufficient knowledge going 
in.
    Senator Markey. Just so that people can understand, if 
Entergy, the owner of the plant, had kept ownership and had 
begun the decommissioning, the State of Massachusetts would not 
have been able to intervene. It is only because they are 
transferring the license from Entergy over to Holtec that gave 
you a legal avenue, angle to get into this discussion. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Schofield. That is correct.
    Senator Markey. So if there is a decommissioning that is 
going to be going on around the country, let's just say 
Seabrook, where the company keeps ownership of that plant, 
there is no avenue in for New Hampshire or Massachusetts in 
terms of how that decommissioning is being conducted. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Schofield. I don't want to concede----
    Senator Markey. I appreciate that. I think it would be 
difficult, it would be very difficult. Thank you.
    Mr. Schofield, what issues were you able to push Holtec to 
discuss and commit through the settlement that the NRC's 
rulemaking and agency process failed to ensure was included in 
the Pilgrim decommissioning plan?
    Mr. Schofield. I think I would like to highlight one today, 
and that is the financial assurance component of the settlement 
agreement. I won't go into all of those details today, it is 
technical, long, there are multiple layers.
    But I think the most significant piece of the settlement, 
at least from the Commonwealth's perspective in terms of 
ensuring sufficient funds going forward, both for restoration 
of the plant and also for managing the spent fuel onsite, were 
the establishment of these minimum balances that Holtec must 
maintain in the trust fund. The NRC doesn't have a requirement 
like that.
    We have now set in our agreement a minimum fund which is 
based on input we received from our consultants that that would 
be a minimum amount necessary to allow the project to go 
forward if they started to run out.
    Senator Markey. So again, you are saying the NRC does not 
have a minimum balance which the company has to keep in order 
to make sure that the project is successfully completed. But 
because of your intervention here in Massachusetts, we are 
setting a precedent. There is a minimum balance, and that the 
funding is there, and that it is guaranteed, so that the State, 
the residents in proximity of the plant, are not left, with the 
ability to be guaranteed that the process of decommissioning 
comes to a successful conclusion. The funding will be there in 
Massachusetts. But it is not going to be there in the rest of 
the country, because the NRC does not require that in the rest 
of the country.
    Mr. Schofield. It is a much higher risk that they will run 
into issues. And what we have seen over and over again is that 
the costs of decommissioning power plants significantly exceed 
the NRC's site specific cost estimate for these plants. So 
that, going into this process, made us extremely concerned and 
hyper-focused on this issue.
    The other piece of this that I think is important to note 
is the exemption process for using spent fuel, the 
decommissioning trust fund money, for spent fuel costs. Of 
course, it is very important to have money to pay for the 
management of the spent fuel onsite. But the NRC is granting 
exemptions to use decommissioning trust funds, funds that its 
rules categorically prohibit from being used for spent fuel 
costs, for spent fuel management costs, which are then 
recoverable in subsequent lawsuits by the licensees from the 
DOE.
    Senator Markey. OK, so if I may, because I just want to put 
this out there so that everyone can understand the great job 
you did, the Attorney General did, in setting this precedent. 
Because when Holtec bought Pilgrim from Entergy, it bought a 
billion dollar decommissioning trust fund that ratepayers had 
been paying for decades. The people in this room had been 
paying for decades into that trust fund to create that billion 
dollars. And the settlement agreement between your office and 
Holtec stipulates that the decommissioning trust fund must be 
at least worth $193 million once the site is ready for partial 
release.
    Mr. Schofield, what happens if the trust fund runs out of 
money and neither Holtec Decommissioning International, Mr. 
Singh, its subsidiaries, nor its parent company have the funds 
to meet those financial thresholds, and they declare 
bankruptcy? Who is left to foot the bill for the rest of the 
plant cleanup process?
    Mr. Schofield. The Commonwealth's fear has always been that 
it would be left to the States to pick up the tab and ensure 
the sites are cleaned up.
    Senator Markey. Would you pursue legal action then against 
the company if that happened?
    Mr. Schofield. Of course we would pursue that action. But 
in my past, I did much more of this. As an enforcement attorney 
I have experience trying to pursue companies that have no 
assets, no property, or are in bankruptcy. It is extremely 
difficult.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Schofield, on the flip side, what 
protections are there to ensure that Holtec doesn't cut corners 
to do the lowest cost decommissioning possible in order to take 
home as much as possible all the ratepayers' billion dollar 
trust fund?
    Mr. Schofield. There are a few different things. One, we 
established a framework in the settlement agreement that we 
believe will help mitigate the risk of that, first by 
establishing clear guidelines as to what the compliance 
standards are for the site, and importantly, those compliance 
standards are to allow for unrestricted future use of the site 
based on compliance with more restrictive State law standards.
    We also have, our State agencies are heavily involved, are 
partners in this process. And they are doing frequent 
inspections of the site. I know Dr. Singh indicated that the 
company should be given an A+ and they wouldn't do anything to 
violate the law, but there actually have been some violations 
of State law in the process so far. They have not been major 
issues, but there have been some asbestos issues. There was a 
water discharge issue and a wastewater issue as well.
    So there are issues, but fortunately we have a great team 
with our State partners, and they are out there monitoring and 
making sure that to the best of their ability that the public 
is protected and that the laws are complied with.
    Senator Markey. OK. Good. You are depending on the 
monitoring that you are going to be doing. That is why I feel 
good here, because we are depending upon your great work and 
the State's great work to keep a financial eye on the plant.
    So where is the NRC on this issue of financial 
responsibility and protecting the ratepayers? And if that 
doesn't actually turn out to be sufficient, the taxpayers of 
Massachusetts who would ultimately have to be the guarantor of 
the safety here at the plant.
    Mr. Schofield. I am sorry, Senator, I missed the question.
    Senator Markey. What is the role of the NRC?
    Mr. Schofield. The role of the NRC should be----
    Senator Markey. Should be.
    Mr. Schofield [continuing]. To keep a close eye on all of 
these matters.
    Senator Markey. And how good of a job does it do?
    Mr. Schofield. It has been our experience that they are 
not.
    Senator Markey. They are not.
    Mr. Schofield. To the point where we, the Attorney 
General's Office, for example, has continued to retain an 
expert on hand, even after the completion of settlement, so 
that we have additional financial expertise for monitoring the 
expenses that are going on at the project, to see if--ahead of 
time, we are trying to see, before the car hits the wall, we 
want to know that we are getting close to it. So we are 
watching that very closely, so that we can try to get ahead of 
it.
    Senator Markey. OK, so the proposed decommissioning rule 
doesn't allow the decommissioning trust fund to be used for 
spent fuel management, despite the initial argument from NRC 
staff that it should. But it does still allow plants to 
petition for an exemption and use the trust fund for spent fuel 
management, which Holtec has already done. If operators get 
this exemption, they can use the trust fund to manage spent 
fuel, get reimbursed for that management from DOE, and walk 
away with the money.
    Mr. Fettus, can you follow up here? Do you agree that these 
exemptions are dangerous and allow for money to be siphoned off 
from ratepayer funded trust funds and into company coffers?
    Mr. Fettus. You described it accurately, Senator. It is a 
problem, and there is a prescription in Commissioner Baran's 
dissenting vote on the draft rule that could address a lot of 
your concerns. If the NRC withdraws its rule and follows that 
prescription, many of your concerns and the concerns of the 
folks here in Plymouth can be alleviated.
    Senator Markey. Great.
    Dr. Singh, is Holtec planning to sue the Department of 
Energy for spent fuel management reimbursement, even if it uses 
the decommissioning trust fund for spent fuel management?
    Mr. Singh. You know, there is a misconception here. I think 
your discussion is going on the wrong track. Forgive me for 
saying this.
    The NRC does have a decommissioning cost estimate 
requirement. At the end of each year, we provide to the NRC 
which gives all accomplishments that have occurred already and 
what remains and the estimate to finish the work. And NRC makes 
an independent evaluation whether the funds are adequate. And 
if the funds were not adequate, then we are required to put 
money from our company's fund, general funds, into the 
decommissioning fund.
    As a matter of fact, because the market value has come down 
recently as we all know, we are doing the settlement on 
Palisades in less than 60 days, there is a likelihood that we 
will have to add to the fund $20 million or more dollars to 
bring it up to NRC requirements.
    So there is a process there. The State of Massachusetts is 
being more proactive and has placed additional requirements. 
And we agreed to it. We are, by the way, we are not a limited 
liability company with no assets. We, our assets are north of 
$4 billion.
    So we are not a weak counterparty. And we have been 
profitable in every year of our existence for the past 36 
years. So there is no risk of the company going bankrupt and 
not finishing the job. We are finishing the job ahead of 
schedule, as I told you earlier.
    Senator Markey. What I have found over the years, Dr. 
Singh, is that you may be making personal commitments right 
now, and don't worry about it. But if you are gone, and 
somebody else takes over, and they have gone to a business 
school with a pretty simple three point plan about how to max 
out for your company, they are not bound by anything you are 
saying right now.
    So the reason we need rules, the reason we need protections 
in place that are guaranteed is not your 36 year track record, 
but rather what is going to happen 36 years from now, what are 
the guarantees.
    So Mr. Schofield and Mr. Fettus, do you want to talk about 
that? Dr. Singh said we are on the wrong track with this whole 
conversation. Do you agree with him?
    Mr. Schofield. I don't agree with him. It was interesting 
what he just said, because what I think he was saying was that 
the parent organization, what he was saying today was agreeing 
that they would take responsibility for any future shortfalls.
    So that is very interesting and very helpful, if that is 
accurate. Because the structure is that Holtec International, 
the parent entity, they do have a lot of finances.
    But they are not the licensee at the site. They are not 
legally responsible for what happens at the site. The entities 
that are legally responsible for what happens at the site are 
two LLCs. They are the licensees. And the only asset those 
licensees have is the trust fund.
    Hence, that is a big source of our risk. This is the first 
time I have heard from Dr. Singh about a commitment from the 
parent company to essentially guarantee the work of the LLCs. 
So I appreciate that commitment.
    Mr. Singh. I will reiterate, I will reiterate, that Holtec 
International will stand behind the commitments made by its 
operating subsidiaries. The damage to us reputationally would 
be enormous if we walked away from a project without finishing. 
It is just not money. Our company has enormous goodwill and 
value, reputational worth in the world marketplace. We cannot 
afford to, for one project maybe costing us a hundred million 
dollars, we will not walk away. Absolutely not.
    I don't think any future CEO of the company would either. 
This company has an enormous value as an enterprise that is 
trusted around the world. We did Chernobyl, you may or may not 
know. We did Chernobyl Nuclear Plant. And that was considered 
an impossible job. And we finished it. We turned the key over 
to the Ukrainian government.
    We have too much to lose to fail at any site and not 
complete the process. We understand that.
    Senator Markey. If you get reimbursed for the cost of spent 
fuel management, will you commit right now to ensuring that 
this money is returned to the trust fund and used to support 
cleanup of the site?
    Mr. Singh. You know, cleanup of the site is an undivided 
responsibility of Holtec. How the books are done I can't tell 
you. But the decommissioning cost estimate, if the cleanup and 
fuel costs were in there, and I can't tell you if they were on 
the books in that level of detail, then it will be returned to 
the decommissioning trust fund. If it is already factored, then 
it won't be.
    But at the end of the day, each activity has an associated 
cost, and we must, our accounting people, they keep track of 
progress of the project against the accomplishments made. We 
are under Federal law required to report it to the U.S. 
Government, to the NRC.
    So if we are overrunning the charges, and we are above the 
estimate, then yes, I think NRC would ask us to put more money 
in the fund. And that is the club they have, and I am glad they 
have the controls. Because it is necessary. It is necessary 
that the people, the community, are protected. I believe the 
rules are in place to protect.
    You can always make it more strict, like Massachusetts has 
done, by requiring us to have I think $193 million, as you 
said, and the money must be in the account until we get through 
the year to a certain point in completion of decommissioning. 
We accepted it because it is a non-issue for us. This company 
will never, never fail to fulfill its contractual obligation. 
That is a commitment from me, and I am the founder. No matter 
what happens down the road, we will not ever breach our 
obligation to the counterparties, in this case the State of 
Massachusetts, and any other entity.
    Senator Markey. And that is very important, because 
obviously, you have created multiple limited liability 
companies, subsidiaries that are each responsible for different 
plants. And the only asset is the taxpayers' account. So it is 
very important that we have an understanding that the parent 
company will accept full responsibility.
    I don't know, Mr. Schofield, if there is some way we can 
formalize that. But I think it would be important. As much as I 
do believe in the sanctity of Senate hearings, to have a legal 
document that accompanies the verbal assurances from Mr. Singh 
I think will be very important for the people of Plymouth to 
hear.
    Mr. Singh. If it doesn't [indiscernible] we will provide 
the guarantee.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. That is a very important 
statement for you to make.
    I see Mr. Fettus would like to add something.
    Mr. Fettus. The NRC can take a much more firm and clear 
step by allowing the decommissioning trust fund assets, if they 
are going to be used for spent fuel management, to only do so 
if there is a projected surplus. And with whatever is used, 
must be returned into [indiscernible].
    [Technical issue.]
    Mr. Fettus. I would memorialize this forthwith; good luck, 
Seth. And if decommissioning, and the NRC can make a very 
positive and constructive step in a new draft rule that would 
allow decommissioning trust funds, if they are to be used for 
spent fuel management, only if there is a projected surplus. 
And whenever and whatever is used is returned to the fund 
within an allotted time.
    That would clarify the rules that would put in place and 
alleviate the concerns that Senator Markey is making so clear 
today.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Schofield.
    Mr. Schofield. I would like to add one thing. I think what 
Mr. Fettus just described is, it is an extremely simple fix. 
That really would fix this issue, if the NRC is going to grant 
an exemption, or if they are going to promulgate a rule that 
allows decommissioning trust funds to be used for spent fuel 
management costs, if there is a surplus, as Mr. Fettus said, 
that they simply require the recoveries to be returned to the 
trust fund and not put into the pockets of the private company.
    Those are ratepayer funds that were put there to clean up 
the power plant. They should not be, they should not be able to 
divert the money in that way.
    Senator Markey. Please, Mr. Singh.
    Mr. Singh. I would like to make a comment, please.
    We forget, we as a company go take the risks. Not no one 
else stepped up to decommission Pilgrim. Entergy executed a bid 
tender, and at the end of the day we were the only ones left 
standing to take on the liabilities and do it. When we do it, 
our liability is to finish the job for the money. And if we run 
into any problems, we don't have Uncle Sam to help us. We have 
to do it with our own resources.
    And yes, if the fuel project is done, we submit it to DOE, 
we expect DOE to pay for it. That fund is available to us for 
running our business. It is, if we run over, the same business, 
same parent that I told you earlier, provides the money to the 
fund to finish it. So it is a logical, simple way. If you say, 
tell companies if you have a profit, give it to me, and if you 
have a loss, sorry, Charlie, it is your problem, it won't work. 
That is not American way.
    So right now, the way it is set up makes perfect sense. No 
one has defaulted in doing decommissioning projects. We have 
done so many of them, as John Lubinski told you. No one. So why 
fix something that isn't broken?
    Senator Markey. I think we are ready for Mr. Schofield and 
Mr. Fettus to figure out how to formalize this and set a 
precedent that the NRC will be following. I think that is going 
to be a big change that we can move forward with and say to the 
NRC, this is where we should be.
    Mr. Schofield, I see you leaning in to say something.
    Mr. Schofield. I think in terms of the DOE recoveries, it 
makes total sense. It is what we have memorialized in our 
settlement agreement, essentially, is that if they do hit those 
minimum balances, they have to reimburse the fund with the 
recoveries from DOE.
    So we actually struck somewhat of a middle ground in 
negotiations where they don't have to put all the recoveries 
back in, which is our preferred outcome. But they do have to 
put them back in if they dip below the minimum.
    Senator Markey. It makes total sense, but we are talking 
about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That is why we have to 
make sure that we put common sense into the regulatory 
framework in order to protect the ratepayers, but also the 
safety and well being of the citizens of Plymouth.
    I will turn it back over to Congressman Keating. I will 
say, Dr. Singh, I appreciate your committing to let Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institute make a recommendation on whether or not 
the water is safe. Because I appreciate the understanding that 
public safety should be backed up by public science. That is in 
fact Woods Hole Oceanographic in terms of this community. I 
appreciate the movement that you had made in guaranteeing that 
this financial commitment is absolutely legally solid.
    Let me turn and recognize Congressman Keating.
    Representative Keating. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    The hour is getting late. I think in terms of refocusing on 
the very important part of this, I would like to give Mr. 
Fettus the opportunity. You said something earlier that was 
very important, almost ominous, when you said that this rule is 
really the last good chance to get it right.
    In terms of that, could you amplify on what it is so 
important and why timing-wise this is, in your words, the last 
good chance to get it right? Because the other side of that is, 
we will never get it right unless we do it this way, too. So if 
you could, and that will be my closing question, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fettus. Thank you for the question, Congressman. You 
are deeply familiar with your years of work with how long it 
takes to get something serious done in Washington, DC, that 
will have impact around the country. The NRC has last revisited 
this I think in 1996; Seth, is that about right?
    Mr. Schofield. Yes, 1996.
    Mr. Fettus. In 1996. It is 2022. That bookends my entire 
adult professional career. I think it likely that something of 
this magnitude will take another set of years, if anything, to 
come up. And during that timeframe, we may have the retirement 
of a few reactors, we may have the retirement of dozens, who 
knows. There is a whole host of questions that go to economics, 
markets, safety, and a whole bunch of other things that will 
play into that. And I don't have a crystal ball, and neither do 
you.
    But we have an opportunity with the draft rule after many 
years of work to get it right, and do it right now, and set the 
ground rules going forward for dozens of sites around the 
country. What Seth described, what Massachusetts had to do to 
protect the Commonwealth, was just extraordinary. And the fact 
that they had one avenue in to get traction legally, I speak as 
a litigating attorney, I do this, but I also litigate in 
courts. What they did should be lauded, and it also shouldn't 
have to have been done. And it was.
    We have a chance to rectify that now. Unfortunately, the 
draft rule doesn't do that. I think it would be a terrible loss 
with how complicated and serious the questions are. When you 
run a congressional office, your staff drinks from a fire hose. 
Dozens of issues every day dealing with everything from the 
quietest issues in your constituencies to the biggest issues of 
national importance and everything in between.
    When you have a chance to do these big things, like a rule 
that sets the rules of the road for 60+ sites around the 
country in a billion dollar industry with a waste that lasts 
for a million years, we should do it right. And this is that 
opportunity. Let's not miss it.
    So if it takes a few more months to withdraw the rule and 
reissue one that is a heck of a lot better, let's do that.
    Senator Markey. I thank you for that, Mr. Fettus, and I am 
going to be organizing, obviously, my Senate colleagues to send 
that message to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that that is 
how the new rule should be drafted. This hearing has been 
extremely helpful in establishing what is necessary to happen.
    Dr. Singh, back in 1986, I was the Chairman in the House of 
Representatives over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nunzio 
Palladino, long before your time, was the chairman of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And we were at the end of a long 
hearing. And I love long nuclear safety hearings, by the way. I 
have done hundreds of them.
    So at the end of the hearing, Doctor, I said to the 
chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, what are the 
least safe nuclear power plants in the United States? He looked 
at me, and he said, well, of course, Pilgrim in Massachusetts 
is at the top of the list. That was a big moment up here in 
Massachusetts. It led to a complete revision of how everyone 
viewed how safe this plant was, and Seabrook was. But this 
plant then underwent a complete overhaul, change of management 
and oversight.
    That is really why we are having this hearing, Dr. Singh. 
It is to just have the public discussion, ask the questions 
that the public have posed, and make sure they get the answers. 
But also to make sure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes 
the actions that are necessary.
    So if I may, the NRC granted an exemption to Pilgrim from 
emergency preparedness and planning requirements in September 
2019, before all Pilgrim's spent fuel was even moved into dry 
cask storage. Some of the communities around here made 
agreements, lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in emergency 
planning and preparedness support, and also Pilgrim no longer 
had to maintain emergency response capabilities or procedures 
for public notification.
    Dr. Singh, did that exemption allow Holtec to stop 
providing funds for radiological emergency training for local 
first responders?
    Mr. Singh. Well, the emergency training, we have Holtec 
Safety International, Security International, they do all that 
for us. The emergency planning, emergency response, this is 
very heavily regulated by the NRC. And we follow the 
regulations.
    Our entire structure working with the NRC is based on they 
set the regulation, and we follow them. Wherever possible, we 
try to exceed what the government requires.
    As far as money going to local communities, it is all in 
our budget, based on how we plan to do the work. It comes under 
decommissioning budget. And if there is money for the 
communities allocated, that would have been paid.
    But it is all based on the project plan, when each activity 
occurs, when a particular milestone occurs, then a particular 
expense disappears. This is all detailed accounting. I cannot 
tell you what we were paying then and what we are paying now, 
if we are paying at all. It is all based on the safety 
regulations that the NRC has in place, and we follow them, 
including making payments to the communities.
    I can't tell you any more than that, because I really don't 
know.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Schofield, does creating or authorizing 
emergency planning exemptions while nuclear waste is still 
cooling in the pool create an unfunded mandate for communities 
when the risk and response requirements haven't changed, and 
the communities near the plants, since the fuel is still 
cooling?
    Mr. Schofield. [Indiscernible] and so is your 
characterization, Senator. I think your characterization was 
perfect. That is how we view this situation as well.
    The NRC's position is that it can eliminate the emergency 
planning requirements that are in place to make sure that 
communities are prepared for an emergency, and then expect them 
to be able to perform without them being in place. It doesn't 
work that way.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. I agree with you. It does not, 
and it is obvious. So we just have to make sure the NRC 
reflects that in their rulemaking.
    Mr. Fettus, we heard from Director Lubinski a little bit 
more about what the proposed decommissioning rule would do and 
what it would fail to do to protect the public involvement in 
the planning process around nuclear decommissioning. Nuclear 
plant operators have to submit a plan for the decommissioning 
activities. But under the current rule and the proposed new 
one, the NRC doesn't verify the substance of those plans, 
approve those plans, or give the public a chance to weigh in.
    Mr. Fettus, would you agree that the proposed rule cuts out 
community engagement from the decommissioning process?
    Mr. Fettus. Yes.
    Senator Markey. Senator Moran, would you agree that the 
NRC's decommissioning process would have felt more legitimate 
to elected officials, community leaders, and concerned 
residents if they were able to comment and receive a response 
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the beginning of the 
process?
    Ms. Moran. Very much so. And I agree, and I beseech the NRC 
to not make this a rubber stamp process, to not listen to the 
community and file it away like the books behind you in this 
old courtroom, Senator.
    In addition to the new proposed rules, let's use this 
process to hear from the community and to make effective rule 
changes that will make a better process going forward and not 
have frankly corporate arrogance dismiss community concerns as 
overwrought.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. I agree with you, Senator.
    Mr. Schofield, how would you compare the NRC's process 
around planning decommissioning activities to the activities 
that other agencies undertake for cleanup projects, like EPA 
and Superfund process, et cetera?
    Mr. Schofield. Remarkable. It is really an apples and 
oranges comparison. For those of you in the room who are 
familiar with the cleanup process under the Superfund statute, 
these are major contaminated properties, industrial sites 
across the country listed on the National Priority List. EPA 
oversees that process.
    The differences between the EPA process under CERCLA and 
the process that the NRC has engaged in under, not engaged in, 
under its rules, they are two different worlds. EPA is directly 
involved in every decision about the cleanup of those 
properties, whereas the NRC has a completely hands off 
approach.
    Senator Markey. I know why Superfund is different. I was on 
the Committee in 1980 and 1981 when we drafted Superfund. So I 
know. The NRC got its authorization just 2 years before I got 
elected to Congress. So we are going to try to rectify that 
level of full accountability.
    Mr. Fettus, if the NRC could make one change to its 
proposed decommissioning rule to better involve communities and 
integrate their comments into the process, what would it be?
    Mr. Fettus. The ability to approve, disapprove, alter, 
modify, or change the decommissioning plan, have hearing rights 
associated with it, and supplemental NEPA review, period. That 
would change everything.
    Senator Markey. Bringing people in from the get go is the 
whole key to building the confidence in the entire set of 
decisions that are going to be made for every single nuclear 
power plant in America. My father always said to me, Eddie, try 
to start out where you are going to be forced to wind up 
anyway. Because it is prettier that way.
    That is all we are really saying here. Let's put a process 
in place that doesn't necessarily elicit this level of public 
skepticism because it has been transparent, that we don't need 
an attorney general to intervene to get these questions 
answered.
    Just one final question for you, Dr. Singh, and then what I 
am going to do is ask each of you to give us your final 1 
minute, what you want us to remember from this hearing. Dr. 
Singh, would you commit to meeting with the Town of Plymouth to 
negotiate a payment in lieu of taxes agreement to compensate 
for lost revenue for the town?
    Mr. Singh. Unfortunately, I cannot answer the question, 
because I really don't know what the state of agreement is. We 
are, we always work with local townships everywhere. We try to 
maintain a cordial, mutually supportive relationship. We want 
to be a good neighbor to the township to do the plant.
    I would ask our president of HDI to engage with them if 
there is no settlement yet, to do it in the spirit of goodwill. 
And I should tell you that, for example, keeping the water in 
the plant, it can be, I said that we will listen to the 
stakeholders. And we will.
    But there is a downside. The downside is that the 
facilities would not be dismantled as soon as we could 
dismantle them if we could discharge the water. If that is OK, 
we will leave it stand. After all, we have 60 years to finish.
    There is no such thing as free lunch in life, as you know. 
You make a decision, it has consequences. Like I heard, they 
want, there is a proposal here to put in communities in 
consultation and approval process in decommissioning plan. 
Well, if you do that, the result would be that nothing will get 
decommissioned in anywhere less than 60 years. People would not 
want to bother with the business. After all, I have a choice 
not to decommission.
    So let's make sure that the laws are reasonable, they serve 
the ultimate goal of protecting public health and safety, and 
not go overboard where companies, right now there is a scarcity 
of companies who want to decommission. There are not that many 
companies that [indiscernible] will step up and do it. If you 
make rules more onerous, and we put more processes in place 
that basically make the decommissioning more expensive, it is 
going to have the effect of these plants hanging around a long 
time. That I don't think we want.
    We want to, our goal, we are really focused on making sure 
that the township gets an excellent tax base. Because we get 
the plants decommissioned as rapidly as possible, as safely as 
possible, of course. As long as we all understand that is our 
shared goal, we will do fine.
    Senator Markey. So we will let that be your closing 
statement, Dr. Singh.
    We will give you, Senator Moran, a closing 1 minute. Then 
we will to Mr. Fettus, and we will let Mr. Schofield have the 
final word.
    Ms. Moran. Thank you, Senator Markey, and to the Committee.
    The takeaway here is I heard Holtec say they will not dump 
into Cape Cod Bay. I think we take that and confirm it and 
write it up and take him at his word. We have it right here 
today. That has been the benefit of this field hearing. Thank 
you very much for that.
    In the meantime, I think the communities have to be 
supported in terms of emergency funding. Those are the two 
issues, and my request for the takeaway here today. This has 
been incredibly productive.
    Senator Markey. Beautiful.
    Mr. Fettus.
    Mr. Fettus. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to be here. 
My takeaways from this hearing are, the entirety of this 
hearing record, especially the verbal interchange, should be 
put into the NRC's rule record, or the administrative record 
for the draft rule. Because it will provide clarity on the need 
for meaningful agency oversight, the need for meaningful agency 
oversight on ensuring that financial resources are there, 
emergency planning resources are there, and the clarity of 
where problems can be avoided for the future.
    On the issue of nuclear waste, I really want to stress to 
the people of Plymouth at the hearing today that your 
delegation, especially with Senator Markey's Nuclear Waste Task 
Force bill, is actually doing something more constructive and 
thoughtful than has been done in decades in Washington, DC, by 
actually trying to get to figuring out how we get consent and 
can go forward with getting to nuclear waste repositories, 
rather than simply trying to bully a State into taking the 
entirety of the Nation's nuclear waste. It is never going to 
work, let's do something thoughtful and constructive.
    Thank you.
    Senator Markey. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Schofield.
    Mr. Schofield. Thank you, Senator Markey and Representative 
Keating, again for inviting me here today, and for holding this 
incredibly important hearing. I would just very quickly say 
that I think the NRC should withdraw the rule and issue a new 
draft rule that is consistent with the views Commissioner Baran 
expressed in his dissent and consistent with those that States 
have consistently expressed to the NRC for years.
    Thank you.
    Senator Markey. I thank you, and I thank each of you for 
your testimony, and we will be bringing that message back to 
Washington, DC.
    Let me recognize Congressman Keating.
    Representative Keating. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for having this hearing. There is much that came from it. 
Importantly, I hope looking at the rule again from the national 
perspective that is there.
    I want to thank Holtec for the commitment to move 
expeditiously in responding to the EPA. I want to thank them, 
too, for getting an estimate of what the trucking alternative 
would be and committing to that.
    Most importantly, and I can only speak for myself, I am 
coming away from this hearing, Mr. Chairman, saying there will 
not be a million gallons of radioactive water dropped in Cape 
Cod. I think we can with a commitment that one of the 
alternatives and vaporization, if we want that instead of 
dumping it there, it is OK. So as far as I am concerned, we are 
not dumping any water, any radioactive water in Cape Cod. I 
want to thank Mr. Singh for his commitment to doing that.
    Senator Markey. I am going to give you, Mr. Singh, I will 
give you one final concluding statement, if you would like to 
make one.
    Mr. Singh. Thank you, Senator. I truly appreciate it.
    Look, I am not used to verbal acrobatics.
    Senator Markey. Excuse me?
    Mr. Singh. I said, I am not used to verbal acrobatics. I 
said we will not dump the contaminated water anywhere. I also 
said that the water is not contaminated by its definition.
    [Simultaneous conversations.]
    Mr. Singh. We will not discharge any water in the Cape Cod 
Bay unless we have major stakeholder concurrence. We will not 
do that.
    I also said that that will mean that the dismantling of the 
facility may be delayed. And there are always pros and cons. 
And if the learned opinion, the scientific opinion that, 
Senator, you have so kindly agreed to organize, offered to 
organize, if that holds that indeed the water is contaminated, 
and there should be a restriction on the discharge, then I 
presume you can be sure we will not discharge it.
    But if the opinion is otherwise, I hope that the community, 
the stakeholders will reconsider so we do the right thing for 
them, not go by empirical concerns that all may not 
[indiscernible].
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Dr. Singh.
    While there is no denying that our community has had to 
deal with several contentious issues with regard to Holtec 
during Pilgrim's decommissioning process, I can acknowledge 
that they never before fully decommissioned a nuclear power 
plant. And it is possible these problems may be more of a 
reflection of its inexperience and not arrogance, that they 
don't know what they are doing.
    Sadly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no such 
defense. The Commission's proposed decommissioning rule shows 
it to be a captured agency. Without improvements, I fear that 
this shows thus far no interest in engaging the public, which 
would provide even a semblance of accountability.
    Without a stronger regulator, I fear that the only thing 
that will be emptier than the decommissioning trust fund will 
be the public's trust in our government. We need to ensure that 
we have a new rule that we put on the books that has full 
public participation, full accountability for the companies 
that are given the responsibility for decommissioning these 
plants, and that it be transparent in that we do this during 
the Biden era at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    That is the least that we owe to a city, a town, like 
Plymouth that was the pioneer in allowing for a nuclear power 
to be constructed in its community. A lot of promises were 
made, and those promises must be kept. It was told that it was 
cheap, that it was safe, that it would not pose any risks 
whatsoever to the community. We have to make sure that all of 
those promises are kept. We are looking back now 50 years. And 
we don't want these promises to be unfulfilled for another 50.
    That is why we had this hearing here today. And that is why 
we are going to stay on this case. Because this is where it all 
begins, this decommissioning, this set of rules at the NRC, is 
right now considering.
    Before we adjourn, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
submit for the record a variety of materials including letters 
and testimony from stakeholders and other materials that relate 
to today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The referenced information is included earlier in this 
hearing record.]
    Senator Markey. Senators will be allowed to submit written 
questions for the record through the close of business on 
Friday, May 20th. We will compile those questions, send them to 
our witnesses, who we will ask to reply by Friday, June 3rd.
    We have just had, I think, an historic hearing. I am 
grateful for the discussion, I am grateful for the commitments 
that we have received today. We need a restoration of trust, so 
that we improve the rule and improve community engagement. That 
is the minimum that we need in order to move forward with 
confidence for the public trust in our country.
    We thank each and every one of you for being here today.
    I thank Congressman Keating for all of his great work on 
this issue.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            [all]