"A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations": Examining Holtec's Public Conduct in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Beyond
[Readers, thank you for your patience. I kept getting close to completing an article on Holtec, when news came of still further violations by the company. This article — and I really do apologize — is extremely long, nearly 40 pages in my word processor, and it doesn’t even touch issues like evaporation of wastewater. It is closer to a work of historical scholarship than to journalism. This is precisely because I believe that Holtec’s conduct is ripe for examination using the methods of academic history, especially since so much is in the public record. With all that said, please feel free — indeed, feel encouraged — to skim this extremely lengthy offering. I also apologize for any grammatical or spelling errors.
I wanted to note as well that as we approach the two-year anniversary of The Plymouth County Observer, I am likely going to have to make some changes, given changes in my own life, including a new job and family responsibilities; I will likely reduce this publication to a bimonthly, or potentially quarterly, production schedule (these are likelier to be longer pieces, as well; I hope that the total amount of writing will remain the same, just distributed differently. I can also revisit the subject of subscriptions if there are concerns there.)
Now that Plymouth has a functioning and vigorous local newspaper, my view is that a look into the deeper context of our local news, particularly with an eye towards history, is something that this publication can provide, but I will need to balance that with other responsibilities in my life.
All of which is to say — thank you so kindly for reading and for your support. It means a lot, and I hope you enjoy this article. The parts about Massachusetts are free to all; the parts about New Jersey are behind a paywall.
In addition, the Massachusetts Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel meets tonight, March 25th, 2024, at Town Hall in Plymouth. Thank you as always — Ben Cronin.]
“...I regard this contest as one to determine who shall rule this free country — the people through their governmental agents or a few ruthless and domineering men, whose wealth makes them peculiarly formidable, because they hide behind the breastworks of corporate organization.”
— President Theodore Roosevelt, “Address of President Roosevelt on the occasion of the laying of the corner stone of the Pilgrim Memorial Monument, Provincetown, Massachusetts, August 20, 1907.”1
(The Pilgrim Monument in Provincetown; credit —Wikimedia Commons user Ardfern, Oct. 2004, CCA-3.0 license.)
On August 20th, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke in Provincetown, the last town on Cape Cod, where Race Point forms one of the bounds-markers of Cape Cod Bay. Roosevelt had come to Provincetown to mark the dedication of the recently completed Pilgrim Monument, commemorating the landing of the Pilgrims in that sandy, sea-washed place; the tower is today a prominent landmark for all who reside around Cape Cod Bay, visible on clear days from Duxbury Beach and Manomet Point on the bay’s western shore. In his address on the occasion, President Roosevelt warned of the dangers of corporate plutocracy — of rule by money — in America.2
“There exists no more sordid and unlovely type of social development than a plutocracy, for there is a peculiar unwholesomeness in a social and governmental ideal where wealth by and of itself is held up as the greatest good,” said President Roosevelt.
“The materialism of such a view, whether it finds its expression in the life of a man who accumulates a vast fortune in ways that are repugnant to every instinct of generosity and of fair dealing, or whether it finds its expression in the vapidly useless and self-indulgent life of the inheritor of that fortune, is contemptible in the eyes of all men capable of a thrill of lofty feeling. Where the power of the law can be wisely used to prevent or to minimize the acquisition or business employment of such wealth and to make it pay by income or inheritance tax its proper share of the burden of government, I would invoke that power without a moment’s hesitation,” he said.3
For Roosevelt, the question was what kind of government we are to have in the United States — an aristocracy (meaning, in Greek, “rule by the few”) of money and corporate power; or a democracy (in Greek, “rule by the many”)?
(President Theodore Roosevelt laying the cornerstone of the Pilgrim Monument, Aug. 20th, 1907; via Wikimedia Commons.)
Though the trappings of aristocratic power have changed — it is no longer determined by feudal criteria like titles of nobility; rather, aristocracy in our time is predicated upon money— the substance of the struggle has retained a similarity with those in the past. And here again, something Theodore Roosevelt said at Provincetown, 117 years ago, is relevant:
“There is no objection in the minds of [the American] people to any man’s earning any amount of money if he does it honestly and fairly, if he gets it as the result of special skill and enterprise, as a reward of ample service actually rendered. But there is a growing determination that no man shall amass a great fortune by special privilege, by chicanery and wrongdoing, so far as it is in the power of legislation to prevent; and that a fortune, however amassed, shall not have a business use that is antisocial.”4
Which brings us to the subject of Holtec, the company which owns and is decommissioning the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth.
Even though it is responsible for many significant public things (res publicae), such as the decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Holtec is a privately held company, and because it is not publicly traded, its inner workings and characteristics are particularly opaque. We do know that its founder and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Kris Singh, leads the company, and has done so since its inception in 1986. Dr. Singh earned his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania in 1972, and was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2013, according to Holtec’s website.5
Dr. Singh — described by the Holtec website as “[a]n intrepid entrepreneur and a socially conscious industrialist” — is also an emeritus member of the University of Pennsylvania’s Board of Trustees, and “chairs the KPS Foundation, a charitable Singh family foundation whose signature contribution to the advancement of science is the completion of the “Krishna P. Singh Center for Nanotechnology” at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in 2013. The KPS Foundation is also active in improving child literacy and public health in developing countries,” according to Holtec’s website.6
On the “Mission, Vision & Values” section of its website, Holtec, the company which owns and is decommissioning Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, states that it “is committed to being an ideal corporate citizen by maintaining an impeccable standard of business and professional conduct.”7
However, recent revelations of misconduct by Holtec across multiple states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Michigan — raise serious questions about the company’s claim that it aspires to act as “an ideal corporate citizen”; rather, what is revealed when Holtec’s conduct is examined across both the several states and the United States is a consistent pattern of disregard and defiance of the law.
Indeed, recently members of the local press have been asking this very question; for instance, Sabrina Shankman’s March 4th story in the Boston Globe notes that this “may be part of a bigger pattern.” Christine Legere, in a March 13th story in The Provincetown Independent, noted that this pattern extends beyond the Northeast to the State of Michigan, where Holtec owns the Palisades nuclear plant on Lake Michigan.8
Larger questions are also at issue here: first, there is the question of the power of private economic actors, and the ability of a democratic (with a lower-case “d”) and republican (with a lower-case “r”) government to restrain and bind these private economic oligarchs — in short, a question of aristocracy (“rule by the few”) vs. democracy (“rule by the many”).
Second, there is the question of who shall restrain these private economic actors, which, to paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, increasingly appear to view our governments as kind of junior partners in their own business endeavors: will it be the United States, through the Federal government? Will it be the several states, through their own governments? What role can and do our municipal governments play in restraining these barons of corporate power? Do any of our governments — whether in Washington, D.C., Boston, Trenton, Albany, Lansing, or beyond, have sufficient power and the unyielding determination to bind and restrain lawless economic aristocrats who believe that they — and not all of us — are the proper ones to decide the fate of our communities?
These are open questions, but one thing is certain: that the law does bind Holtec, just as it binds all of us, and if democratic and republican government — “government of, by, and for the people” — is to have any meaning whatsoever, then our governments will have to use the laws to restrain powerful corporations and private economic actors who threaten the common good, including, but not limited to, Holtec.
Let’s examine Holtec’s actions in greater detail.
NRC Issues Notice of Violation at Pilgrim Relating to Decommissioning Trust Fund
Let’s look first at the level of the Federal Government. In recent weeks, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the U.S. nuclear regulatory agency, issued notices of violations of the code of Federal regulations by Holtec in four states: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Michigan.
The NRC completed an inspection of Pilgrim on December 31st, 2023, according to a February 29th, 2024, letter sent by the NRC’s Anthony Dimitriadis, Chief of the Decommissioning, ISFSI, and Reactor Health Physics Branch of the Division of Radiological Safety and Security, to Holtec Decommissioning International President Kelly Trice.9
“Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC staff has determined that one Severity Level IV violation of NRC requirements occurred,” wrote Mr. Dimitriadis (Level IV is the lowest level of severity).10
“The violation involved Holtec’s failure to establish proper oversight and controls to ensure that expenditures from the decommissioning trust fund (DTF) at Pilgrim were only used for legitimate decommissioning purposes as required by 10 CFR 50.82. The violation is being cited in the Notice because the NRC determined that the necessary corrective actions are complex and will likely require a review and independent assessment by multiple NRC Offices. Therefore, the NRC is issuing a NOV and is requiring a response from Holtec Decommissioning International (HDI) that describes your actions to ensure that future expenditures from the DTF will meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82. In addition, as part of your corrective actions, you are required to describe the actions and timeline to restore the funds that were improperly removed from the DTF,” wrote Mr. Dimitriadis, of the NRC.11
Patrick O’Brien, Director of Government Affairs and Communication, said that the illegal expenditures were made in the spirit of Holtec’s professed ethos of community:
“We take our responsibility as watchful stewards of the trust fund very seriously. We are also deeply committed to our local communities we serve as part of the decommissioning process. It is in that spirit as a strong community partner that these charitable expenditures were made, as part of our regular community outreach and engagement activities. We take any violation very seriously and have already taken corrective actions to ensure the amount was restored to the trust fund, with interest, and that this issue does not recur with our future community and charitable contributions,” Mr. O’Brien said, in a March 6th email to the Plymouth County Observer.
An appropriate response to Mr. O’Brien was provided by both Diane Turco, Director of Cape Cod Downwinders, and by Rosemary Shields, of the League of Women Voters of the Cape Cod Area (both Mrs. Turco and Ms. Shields are colleagues of mine in the Save Our Bay coalition), when they described Holtec’s conduct with respect to the trust fund as “corruption masquerading as charity.”
A similar letter was sent by Mr. Dimitriadis of the NRC to Holtec’s President Kelly Trice on February 22nd, 2024, regarding the company’s Indian Point Energy Center, a shuttered nuclear plant in Buchanan, New York, in the Hudson Valley north of New York City. Holtec owns and is decommissioning Indian Point (indeed, it was Holtec’s plan to discharge Indian Point’s which sparked a popular resistance movement in the Hudson Valley that bears many similarities to the one in southeastern Massachusetts; this movement ultimately resulted in the enactment of legislation prohibiting dumping in the Hudson; an analogous role has been played in Massachusetts by the Commonwealth’s Ocean Sanctuaries Act, which is over fifty years old.)
As it did at Pilgrim in Plymouth, the NRC completed its inspection at Indian Point on December 31st, 2023. In the course of its inspection, “the NRC staff has determined that one Severity Level IV violation of NRC requirements occurred,” wrote Mr. Dimitriadis.12
“The violation involved Holtec’s failure to establish proper oversight and controls to ensure that expenditures from the decommissioning trust fund (DTF) at Indian Point were only used for legitimate decommissioning purposes as required by 10 CFR 50.82. The violation is being cited in the Notice because the NRC determined that the necessary corrective actions are complex and will likely require a review and independent assessment by multiple NRC Offices,” he said.13
“Therefore, the NRC is issuing a NOV and is requiring a response from, Holtec Decommissioning International (HDI) that describes your actions to ensure that future expenditures from the DTF will meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82. In addition, as part of your corrective actions, you are required to describe the actions and timeline to restore the funds that were improperly removed from the DTF,” wrote Mr. Dimitriadis.14
In Michigan, according to Christine Legere of the Provincetown Independent, Holtec misspent $57,000 of the decommissioning trust fund for Palisades Nuclear Plant, in Covert, in Van Buren County, in western Michigan, and was sent a warning by the NRC.15
At Oyster Creek nuclear plant, in Lacey, New Jersey, according to Amanda Oglesby of The Asbury Park Press, Holtec also had violations relating to finances for which it was sanctioned by the NRC, having misspent $62,000 in The Garden State.16
In sum, across four states, Holtec was cited for remarkably similar violations with respect to misspending decommissioning trust funds, which certainly belies any aspirations to ideal corporate citizenship.
Holtec’s Asbestos Violations in Massachusetts
Let’s now proceed to state-level sanctions, which also bring into question Holtec’s professions of ideal corporate citizenship.
In Massachusetts, the Office of Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (D) last month filed an action against Holtec, the owners of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, in Suffolk County Superior Court, relating to the company’s illegal handling and disposal of asbestos in the course of decommissioning the former nuclear plant, leading the New Jersey to settle with the Commonwealth within just days of the action’s filing.
(Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell; credit — Mass. Attorney General’s Office.)
“Asbestos is a significant threat to our residents’ health and environment, and those that fail to follow the law when it comes to the handling and disposal of it put everyone—workers, residents, and the public — at risk,” said Attorney General Campbell. “My office will continue to hold these bad actors accountable.”
“Asbestos regulations are in place to protect the public and can neither be ignored nor taken lightly,” said Commissioner Bonnie Heiple of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).
“It is vital that companies and individuals properly identify and remove asbestos materials before beginning any renovation project. As these cases demonstrate, failure to follow the rules will result in significant penalties, as well as escalated cleanup and decontamination costs,” said Commissioner Heiple.
Patrick O’Brien, Holtec International’s Director of Government Affairs and Communications, described the violations as “unfortunate incidents.”
“We continue to focus on a safe, efficient decommissioning of Pilgrim Station. We meet regularly with Mass. DEP on our work containing asbestos and ensuring compliance with regulations. We maintain contracts with licensed site professionals and hygienists to ensure compliance. We work closely to identify and follow the process ahead of any remediation work and stop and report any material that is found unexpectedly during work evolutions. We look forward to continuing to make progress on the safe dismantlement of the facility. We have a settlement agreement with the AG regarding these unfortunate incidents and at no time was our work found to be at fault as part of this settlement,” said Mr. O’Brien, in a March 6th email to the Plymouth County Observer.
The complaint filed by the Attorney General’s Office last month relates to asbestos removal undertaken as part of the decommissioning activities at Pilgrim.
“During the decommissioning process of the former Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (“Pilgrim”) in Plymouth, Massachusetts (the “Site”) the Defendants, Holtec Pilgrim, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (collectively “Defendants” or “Holtec”), caused, suffered, allowed, or permitted removal and handling of asbestos-containing material (“ACM”) and asbestos-containing waste material (“ACWM”) without using proper handling practices and without properly securing the ACWM for safe storage, transport, and disposal, causing a condition of air pollution, and repeatedly risking harm to the Defendants’ employees, contractors, workers at the receiving facilities, and the environment,” wrote Assistant Attorney General John S. Craig of the Office of the Attorney General’s Environmental Protection Division, on behalf of Attorney General Campbell.17
“Specifically, Defendants failed to identify and remove all ACM [asbestos containing materials] before beginning work on two buildings on the Site, failed to notify the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the “Department”) prior to conducting abatement of ACM, failed to submit a request for an emergency waiver to clean up ACWM [asbestos containing waste material], bulked loaded and removed ACWM without submittal and approval of a Non-Traditional Asbestos Abatement Work Practice Application (“NTWP”), and illegally transported ACWM, in open-top dumpsters, to a metal recycling facility not approved to accept special waste,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Craig.18
The Attorney General’s Office argued that these actions by Holtec had violated the Massachusetts Clean Air Act (M.G.L. c. 111 §§142A-O) and its associated regulations (310 CMR §§ 7.00 et seq.); in addition, Assistant Attorney General Craig also pointed to Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution: “The people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose.”19
Asbestos is a dangerous substance, noted the Attorney General’s Office: “Asbestos is a hazardous material and known human carcinogen regulated both by the Department and the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards. There are multiple kinds of asbestos, including anthophyllite asbestos. Because of the serious health risks associated with exposure to asbestos, there is no safe exposure level. There is a high likelihood that asbestos fibers will be released into the air when asbestos material is broken or disturbed – for example, during demolition or renovation work,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Craig.20
According to the Attorney General’s complaint, the complaint relates to the handling of asbestos on a 32-foot high, fire water storage tank (FWST), known as Fire Water Storage Tank Beta (FWST B) with a capacity of 250,000 gallons, located in the northwestern portion of the Pilgrim site, and placed “ten (10) feet from the inner security fence, thirty (30) feet from the outer security fence, and one hundred (100) feet from the shorefront.”21 In addition, “the exterior of the FWST B was painted with asbestos-containing paint, comprised of up to 2.86% anthophyllite asbestos….”22
The site and the plant are owned by Holtec and consist of approximately 1,700 acres at 600 Rocky Hill Road in Plymouth. The site is bordered by forested land on its northern, western, and southern sides, and to its east, by Cape Cod Bay; to the northwest and south of Pilgrim, beyond the forested land, “lie residential areas made up of single-family homes.”23
According to the complaint, MassDEP discussed the department’s requirements with respect to asbestos removal on multiple occasions with Holtec, including on-site meetings on February 23rd, 2021, and March 25th, 2021, as well as a virtual meeting on April 8th, 2021.24
It’s worth looking at what Holtec said about asbestos during this period. That’s why it is so fortunate, and why I am personally very grateful, that Dr. Jo-Anne Wilson-Keenan, a resident of Dennis and a member of the Save Our Bay coalition (of which I am also a member), made a transcript of remarks on the subject made at the March 29th, 2021, meeting of the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel (NDCAP), which took place virtually via Zoom.
At that meeting, Patrick O’Brien, Director of Government Affairs and Communications at Holtec International, said that Holtec would be engaged in asbestos abatement on the site that spring:
“[E]xterior storage tank demolitions will begin. That’s what this lovely, lovely picture to the right is [ed. – of the slide from which Mr. O’Brien was presenting]--the inside of the Fire Water Storage Tank that we’re planning to take down this month. In addition, we’ll take down a demineralizer tank this month and then additionally later in the second quarter, we will provide the condensate storage tank, two of two, will come down. [We’ll] continue our work inside the condenser bay, do an internal demolition that will continue throughout the quarter. Our old access control building has been surveyed and emptied out completely. We did move the workforce over to this building the ESB. We’ll be doing a small amount of asbestos abatement in April. Then we will be doing the demolition pending permits. In addition, the old executive building--a survey and empty out a complete empty there. We’ve done the engineering structural analysis. I think many of you know that building is adjacent to the turbine building. So, we’ll be doing some asbestos abatement there in April, as well as demolition later in this quarter, pending any permits,” said Mr. O’Brien.25
(Slide from Holtec’s presentation, presented by Patrick O’Brien, at the March 29th, 2021 NDCAP meeting.; with my thanks to Dr. Wilson-Keenan for her careful and painstaking transcription of this meeting. Credit — PACTV.org.)
An individual, who cannot be identified from the available recording of the meeting because Mr. O’Brien’s slide is shared to the entire screen, asked Mr. O’Brien: “Patrick, before we move on, I’m just curious about the permit approvals. Are these all town permits from Plymouth or are there others?”
Mr. O’Brien replied: “There is state on the asbestos stuff, I believe. If that’s not done, it’s in progress. DJ, you may know off-hand. I know we had members of his team on-site last week to look at some of the work. But I believe those might be in hand. The ones I’m speaking of the demolition are the town permits.”26
In addition, at that same meeting, the Department of Environmental Protection’s David Johnston made clear that the state had rigorous expectations in terms of asbestos abatement:
“We’ve also incorporated every two weeks some folks of the Bureau of Air and Waste that work for Seth Pickering. Which is why he is joining us recently. And the work they’re doing has to do with demolition — demolition work and asbestos abatement. So, we have a plan of the buildings they hope to take down in this year, and we visit every two weeks to go over the process for doing that and that involves a couple of different tracks. Firstly, it involves demolition notification of the town and the state, and then as a precondition — or sort of condition of the demolition notification of the state —is that they do an asbestos survey. And we’ve talked a lot about those in these meetings, and then based on the asbestos survey, if there’s asbestos that needs to be abated as part of the demolition. There’s a separate notification for that. And then, if there is a level of abatement that is somewhat atypical or can’t really meet the presumptive approval methodologies — what we call a typical abatement process, the[n] we do a non-traditional work plan, and that’s a permit,” said Mr. Johnston.27
“So for all those demolitions there’s, you know, at least one notification in the state—often two notifications in the state if there’s asbestos,” he added.28
At that meeting, Holtec was both adequately and publicly warned, and made a public promise to the people of this Commonwealth, to engage in adequate and lawfully required abatement of asbestos at Pilgrim in the spring of 2021, as both Mr. O’Brien’s statements at the March 29th, 2021, NDCAP Meeting, and the slide shown by Mr. O’Brien at that meeting and pictured above, indicate.
But that is not what happened.
Instead, Holtec’s conduct with respect to asbestos that commenced in the spring of 2021, and continued through the autumn of 2023, constituted a litany of failures. On May 13th, 2021, according to the AGO’s complaint, Holtec informed MassDEP “that demolition had begun on the FWST B.” [Fire Water Storage Tank Beta–Ed.]29
According to the complaint, Holtec “demolished the FWST B beginning on or about May 10, 2021.” (Complaint, 33.) In addition, Assistant Attorney General Craig wrote that “Defendants failed to employ or engage an asbestos inspector to thoroughly inspect the FWST B, or those parts thereof where the demolition or renovation occurred, to identify the presence, location, amount, and condition any ACM [asbestos-containing material] or SACM [suspected asbestos-containing material] and to prepare a written asbestos survey report.” In addition, Holtec “failed to file an asbestos notification form with the Department [of Environmental Protection] at least ten (10) days prior to causing, suffering, or allowing the demolition of the FWST B.”30 In short, it “failed to obtain Department authorization prior to causing, suffering, or allowing the demolition of the FWST B.”31
Holtec also “failed to isolate and seal the FWST B work area” before demolishing the structure. Nor did the company “sample or test the FWST B Paint, for the present of asbestos” before commencing demolition.32
Given the concern expressed by physicians and scholars of public health over evaporation at Pilgrim, it is significant, and deeply concerning, that Holtec “failed to use a high efficiency particulate air (“HEPA”) filtered work area ventilation system (“HEPA filter system”) during the demolition of the FWST B”, and “failed to ensure that all exhaust air from the demolition activities was HEPA-filtered before being discharged outside of the FWST B work area.”33
Holtec, according to the complaint, “failed to clean all visible debris found with the FWST B [Fire Water Storage Tank - Beta] work area until there was no visible debris,” and “during the demolition, Defendants scattered ACWM [asbestos-containing waste material] debris in and around the FWST B demolition area, including the ground surface where the FWST B demolition occurred, the area between the Site’s inner perimeter security fence and the Site’s outer perimeter security fence, immediately adjacent to a stormwater catch basin , the reported forklift travel routes through an on-site warehouse, and the reported truck route from the FWST B area to the exit gates.”34
Keeping asbestos wet can reduce its transmission as dust35
However, Holtec did not do that. Instead, the corporation “failed to keep ACM [asbestos-containing material] and ACWM [asbestos-containing waste material] adequately wet until and after it was containerized”, and “stored dry, un-containerized ACM paint chip debris from the FWST B demolition in ripped trash bags placed in open top waste bins and on the ground inside a two-story warehouse (the “Butler Building”).” Nor did Holtec label the contaminated paint-chips as a hazardous material.36
Holtec additionally “stored ACM scrap metal debris painted with the FWST B Paint in an unlined Spiegel dumpster located in the demolition work area in and around the FWST B,” according to the complaint.37
Holtec’s arrant disregard for its own workers is evidenced by the fact that “Defendants’ employees were present along the reported forklift travel routes where Defendants transported ACM paint chip debris from the FWST B demolition in open and unsecure bags and scattered them on the ground.”38
According to the complaint, the corporation’s lack of concern with its workers extended to the public, as evidenced by the manner in which Holtec transported the material in question; it “placed unconfined ACWM into open top waste trailers (known as “bulk loading”)” and “on May 13, [Holtec] delivered two, twenty (20) yard, open top waste trailers, containing ACWM scrap metal debris generated during the demolition of FWST B to Middleborough Recycling Facility,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Craig.. On May 18th, 2021, two further twenty yard loads were sent to Middleborough Recycling Facility, located at 128 Bedford Street (Rt. 18) in Middleborough.39
Nor did Holtec send the waste material to a legally authorized landfill (Complaint, 58); rather, it was sent to Middleborough Recycling Facility, which “is not approved to accept special waste.”40
From the Middleborough Recycling Facility, the waste was transported on May 19th, 2021 to Schnitzer Steel, recently rebranded as Radius Recycling,41 a scrap metal business located at 69 Rover Street in Everett.42
Assistant Attorney General Craig summarized Holtec’s activities in the spring of 2021 with respect to asbestos: “Defendants caused, suffered, allowed, or permitted asbestos abatement activity at the Site when they demolished the FWST B, handled and removed the resulting ACM and ACWM, stored the ACM and ACWM inside the Butler Building, and rasported the ACM and ACWM to the Middleborough Recycling Facility and risked the health of people at and around the work location and increased the likelihood that asbestos fibers were released into the air.”43
Holtec, on its website, has stated its commitment to environmental justice. “Environmental Justice is an integral part of Holtec’s corporate mission and corporate governance infrastructure. The principles of our commitment to environmental justice apply to the welfare of Holtec’s associates, its contractors and to the communities that may be impacted by a Holtec project, as spelled out in the following seven articles of the company’s Environmental Justice mission,” states the website.
The actions described in the complaint stand directly counter in particular to the second article of Holtec’s Environmental Justice mission, which reads “Integrate environmental justice considerations in Holtec’s project plans so as to meet the laws, regulations, and policies that protect public health, safety, and the environment,” the sixth article, which reads “Secure input from disadvantaged communities in the affected areas around a project facility to identify and address environmental justice issues,” and the seventh article, which reads “Maintain effective outreach to disadvantaged communities to enable meaningful participation by the affected citizens.”44
These are worthy ideals; it is unfortunate Holtec did not see fit to even attempt to realize these ideals, instead choosing a course of reckless carelessness that stands entirely counter to the fine sentiments pronounced by the corporation’s “Environmental Justice mission”.45
The scrap metal facility where Holtec sent the material in question is located in an industrial part of the City of Everett, on the shores of the Mystic River. Notably, given Holtec’s professions above, it’s significant that the Schnitzer Steel/Radius Recycling facility is surrounded on all sides by environmental justice neighborhoods:
(Schnitzer Steel/Radius Recycling, in Everett, and surrounding Environmental Justice Populations. Credit — Mass.gov.)
Similar failures characterized Holtec’s conduct with respect to asbestos during the demolition of both the Operations and Maintenance Warehouse (O&M Warehouse) and the Reactor Building, according to the complaint from the Attorney General’s Office, which took place in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
The demolition and clean-up of the Operations and Maintenance Warehouse took place on January 26th and January 27th, 2022.46
Holtec “caused, suffered, allowed, or permitted asbestos abatement at the Site when they demolished the O&M Warehouse, and removed, handled, and disposed of ACWM debris from the demolition which risked the health of people at and around the work location and increased the likelihood that asbestos fibers were released into the air.”47
The complaint also alleges that Holtec violated Massachusetts laws and regulations with respect to asbestos-handling on September 20th, 2023, when it “conducted repair work on a leaky pipe and gasket in the 17 HPCI Area of the Reactor Building.” Because the company “failed to conduct an asbestos survey of the pipe and gasket prior to conducting the repair work,” they were evidently not aware that “the gasket on the pipe contained 40% Chrysotile asbestos.”48 This, too, violated Massachusetts laws and regulations, the complaint alleges.
Holtec elected to quickly settle the action brought against it by the Commonwealth. On February 21st, attorneys for both the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and Holtec signed a consent judgment settling the case, which was approved by Suffolk Superior Court Justice Christopher P. Belezos on February 26th.
Critically, both parties agreed that “The Complaint alleges facts, which, if proven, would constitute good and sufficient grounds for the relief set forth in this Consent Judgment.”49
“Defendants [i.e., Holtec – Ed.] shall pay to the Commonwealth a civil penalty pursuant to the Air Act of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) within thirty (30) days of entry of this Consent Judgment,” the document states.50
Moreover, in a clause that seems particularly relevant given Holtec’s recent violations with respect to the spending of decommissioning trust funds, the parties to the consent judgment agree that the “Defendants [i.e., Holtec – Ed.] shall pay the above-described civil penalty payment with funds from HDI’s General Overhead Account and not from Pilgrim’s Decommissioning Trust Fund.” In addition, Holtec agreed that it “shall not seek reimbursement for the above-described civil penalty payment from Pilgrim's Decommissioning Trust Fund.”51
Taken together, the complaint and the consent judgment confirm the skepticism with which Holtec has been greeted in this region. In the matter of asbestos disposal at Pilgrim, it has been the antithesis of an “ideal corporate citizen”.
Holtec’s Misrepresentations to the State of New Jersey: Angel Investor Tax Credits
Holtec’s pattern of disregard and contempt for the law have also come to the fore in its home state, where it has found itself the subject of multiple actions by the State of New Jersey — belying its professed aspiration to be an “ideal corporate citizen.” For the purposes of this article, we will look at an action against Holtec by the Office of New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (D), regarding Holtec lying to the State of New Jersey in order to obtain $500,000 in tax credits.