Sen. Markey's congressional hearing on nuclear decommissioning in Plymouth gets commitment

David R. Smith
wickedlocal.com

PLYMOUTH - State and federal elected officials don’t want to see a million gallons of water from the shuttered Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth “dumped,” as they call it, into Cape Cod Bay, but dumping is what they said should be done with rule changes proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that critics say only lessens oversight of the companies overseeing the decommissioning of plants like Pilgrim. 

Both of those issues prompted Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, to make the almost unheard of move to host a field congressional subcommittee hearing that took place over the course of nearly four hours at Plymouth Town Hall Friday, May 6.  

“We find ourselves here today with an agency that has consistently prioritized industry profits over public protections,” Markey said. “Our communities deserve to have their concerns accounted for.” 

U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, left, and U.S. Sen.r Ed Markey listen to testimony from John Lubinski, director, Office of Nuclear Material and Safety Safeguards for the NRC in Plymouth Town Hall on Friday morning, where Markey conducted a field hearing on issues facing communities with decommissioning nuclear plants. Steve Heaslip/Cape Cod Times

Markey is chairperson of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate and Nuclear Safety. He was joined in his questioning of participants by U.S. Rep. William Keating, D-9th.  

The hearing comes just a few days before a public meeting with representatives of the NRC scheduled for 6 p.m. Monday, May 9, at the 1620 Hotel in Plymouth to discuss the potential amended regulations. 

More:NRC public meeting in Plymouth, protest rally prior, rescheduled; Sen. Markey forum May 6

More:Testimony presented on Moran bill to prevent release of radioactive material into water

Keating and Markey did not receive an assurance from Holtec CEO Kris Singh, whose company is overseeing the decommissioning following the plant’s closure and subsequent sale from Entergy in 2019, that the water being stored in the defunct spent fuel pool would not be either trucked off site or evaporated, as opponents to the water release hope will be the case. They did receive confirmation that Holtec would both make its own testing data on the water available to other interested agencies while also agreeing to allow the Wood’s Hole Oceanographic Institute to conduct an independent review to see what radiological and other elements remain in the water after being treated, and what impact, if any, that would have on both marine life and people who consume some of it. 

In an informational handout from Holtec, though, the company said the situation regarding the water may not be an either/or decision.

"As we progress through decommissioning, Pilgrim Station has three available options, all of which will most likely be necessary," one sentence in the factsheet read. It also noted that 680,000 gallons have already been evaporated over the past few years. 

"At this stage of decommissioning, the plant would need to use electricity in great quantities" to continue large-scale evaporation efforts, it stated.

The hearing begins

The hearing began its first part with John Lubinski, the NRC’s director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in Washington, D.C.

He bore the brunt of the senator and congressman’s feelings towards the NRC in general and its proposed amendments in particular. 

The NRC said the proposed amendments seek to address concerns specific to plants undergoing, or planning to undergo, the decommissioning process. 

“These (current) regulations do not have separate requirements appropriate for the significantly lower safety hazards associated with a permanently shut down and defueled reactor undergoing decommissioning,” the NRC stated in its March publication of the proposed changes in the “Federal Register.”   

Because of that, the NRC said, it has allowed incremental changes to various requirements, including emergency preparedness, through exemptions and license amendments.  

The proposed changes would reduce the need for those exemptions and amendments, streamlining the decommissioning process for both the agency and plant owners. 

That’s great for the NRC and companies such as Holtec, Markey said, but it does little to benefit the public. 

“I did not convene this simply to pass blame and point fingers,” he said. “I’m hoping this hearing will serve as an opportunity to see what steps we can take to create opportunities for public engagement. 

The formal public comment period for the proposal has been extended from May 17 to Aug. 30.  

Markey and Keating each criticized the role the NRC plays in license termination agreements and the post-shut down decommissioning plans put forth by companies such as Holtec. The plans are reviewed by the agency, which can offer input, but it is not required to formally approve any such plans from the outset. 

“It’s like a glorified filing cabinet,” Markey said. “It’s like the NRC just checks to make sure all the necessary steps are in the report without having to approve the report.” 

Lubinski defended his agency by noting public hearings are required throughout various stages regarding that and license termination plans. He also noted the agency maintains a presence at the sites 

“We have not identified any issues that would lead us to believe we need to put more stringent issues in place.” he said. “We believe the current requirements are sufficient to protect public health and safety.” 

More:Save Our Bay rally in Plymouth prior to hearing on nuclear plant decommissioning processes

More:Bills to ban water discharge at Pilgrim Station advance, BOH passes resolution in support

The hearing continues

Following Lubinski’s testimony, state Sen. Susan Moran, D-Falmouth,  was joined at the table for the second part of the hearing by Seth Schofield, senior appellate counsel from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office, Geoffrey Fettus, senior attorney for the Nuclear, Climate, and Clean Energy Program, Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. and Singh, who participated remotely from Florida. 

"The way we handle the safe decommissioning of this nuclear power plant will set a precedent for others throughout the country," Moran said in her testimony. "There are few guardrails to protect our community. That must change."

Singh told the committee the Holtec parent company, and not just the limited liability companies created to handle various aspects of Pilgrim’s decommissioning, would stand behind the LLCs’ financial obligations in the event of any difficulties or issues. 

Schofield noted the AG’s office negotiated financial assurance with Holtec regarding the use and potential reimbursement of the state’s decommissioning trust fund, along with more stringent environmental standards than the company would otherwise have had to follow, was only done because the decommissioning involved a license transfer from previous owner Entergy to Holtec.  

He and others testifying agreed any new rules, which have not been updated in 25 years, should be codified in the NRC regulations to save states the legal and financial drain of having to negotiate their own terms when a company looks to decommission a plant. 

They also took issue with the NRC allowing companies to reduce the emergency planning zones around the plant before the spent fuel has all been safely stored.  

Singh said while the company has up to 60 years to fully decommission the plant, it is already far along in the process. 

“Pilgrim is way ahead of this decommissioning schedule we had initially proposed,” Singh said. 

Fettus said the NRC’s current role in ensuring safe and cost-effective decommissioning has left much to be desired and the proposed rules changes are not adequate, 

“It’s an extraordinary abrogation of regulatory oversight,” he said. “It should be withdrawn and reissued in much stronger terms.” 

Schofield agreed the proposed regulations do not address the risks of decommissioning power plants,  

He said the settlement Holtec reached with the state following several objections to its plans was a difficult process, although it was successful in the end. 

“We received no help from the NRC,” he said. “They dismissed our efforts.” 

Singh had said several times the water, once treated, would no longer be contaminated according to any existing standards, and he said fear over releasing the water in the bay has no basis in scientific reality. 

“It’s all emotion, no logic,” he said. 

Still, he added what sounded like a commitment from the company not to discharge the water.  

“We will not discharge it until we have consent from our stakeholders,” which includes local and national officials and agencies, he said, adding that shipping the water would still require treating it first. 

When Keating said he was glad to hear Holtec’s decision, Singh was quick to correct him. 

“I'm not used to verbal acrobatics,” Singh said, adding some asserted the company would discharge contaminated water into the bay, which it wouldn’t be after it was treated. 

In the end, Markey returned to his criticism of the NRC, which has allowed Holtec’s action to remain both legal and well within existing guidelines. 

“The role of the NRC is to keep a very close eye on all of these issues,“ Markey said. “In our experience, they are not.”