[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]