Thank you, Ben, for keeping us in the loop. It is certainly discouraging that rolled back EPA oversight has lately been a congressional success. Money truly is the root of most evils as I see it.
Thank you, Pam, I appreciate it! I do think that the recent evisceration of the EPA, particularly via recent US Supreme Court decisions, are deeply problematic and of grave concern for us all. I do think that in this instance, we are in a relatively singular position where that will be less of an immediate concern for us for two reasons:
The first is the Settlement Agreement Holtec signed with the MA AG's Office in 2020, in which they agree not to make Federal preemption arguments and agree to follow MA relevant laws and regulations. So, this keeps it in significant part at the level of MassDEP, rather than the US EPA.
The other thing is that notwithstanding certain recent decisions, existing US Supreme Court case law is clear that the Atomic Energy Act does not give the nuclear industry carte blanche to claim federal preemption to get around state laws that regulate the state's economy; these are still in force (decisions descending from _Pacific Gas and Electric Co. vs. State Conservation Resources Board_, 1983).
So, while I am not a lawyer, I feel cautious optimism regarding our position.
Good news, bad news. Thanks for letting us know the GREAT news that MA DEP has denied Holtec's plan for dumping radioactive and chemically contaminated wastewater into Cape Cod Bay. Of course, the bad news is that Holtec is force evaporating this same water through their vents, unmonitored, and raining down on people, their property and the Bay. Use an umbrella.
Thank you, Rosemary, both for your kind words and for all of your tireless work in this cause, as well as for the central point of your comment, which is that evaporation is still an issue of grave and continuing danger to all of us in this region. I do think the Final Determination makes our argument -- that evaporation is just as illegal as liquid discharge -- stronger.
The final determination from DEP from last week says: that "the proposed discharge is prohibited by Section 15 of the [Ocean Sanctuaries] Act and does not qualify for any exception to the Act under Section 16." (DEP Final Decision, 22).
Section 15(4) of the Act prohibits the "the dumping or discharge of commercial, municipal, domestic or industrial wastes" into an Ocean Sanctuary; the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act define "wastes" as “any unwanted, discarded, or environmentally harmful solid, liquid, or gaseous materials resulting from commercial, municipal, domestic, or industrial Activities….”
As demonstrated in litigation from approximately 2001, the prevailing winds at Pilgrim, for three out of four seasons, are from the west, blowing "gaseous materials resulting from ... industrial activities" into the air above Cape Cod Bay, into which these "gaseous" materials are necessarily deposited.
The Act does not prohibit liquid discharge and allow gaseous discharge; rather, it prohibits both.
Given that there are reasonable grounds to think this is a violation of the Act, I think we are moving to the AG's Office purview, rather than DEP's.
That, I think, is the area we have to pivot towards, and the Final Determination, in my view, will help us in that effort.
Thank you, Ben, for keeping us in the loop. It is certainly discouraging that rolled back EPA oversight has lately been a congressional success. Money truly is the root of most evils as I see it.
Thank you, Pam, I appreciate it! I do think that the recent evisceration of the EPA, particularly via recent US Supreme Court decisions, are deeply problematic and of grave concern for us all. I do think that in this instance, we are in a relatively singular position where that will be less of an immediate concern for us for two reasons:
The first is the Settlement Agreement Holtec signed with the MA AG's Office in 2020, in which they agree not to make Federal preemption arguments and agree to follow MA relevant laws and regulations. So, this keeps it in significant part at the level of MassDEP, rather than the US EPA.
The other thing is that notwithstanding certain recent decisions, existing US Supreme Court case law is clear that the Atomic Energy Act does not give the nuclear industry carte blanche to claim federal preemption to get around state laws that regulate the state's economy; these are still in force (decisions descending from _Pacific Gas and Electric Co. vs. State Conservation Resources Board_, 1983).
So, while I am not a lawyer, I feel cautious optimism regarding our position.
Good news, bad news. Thanks for letting us know the GREAT news that MA DEP has denied Holtec's plan for dumping radioactive and chemically contaminated wastewater into Cape Cod Bay. Of course, the bad news is that Holtec is force evaporating this same water through their vents, unmonitored, and raining down on people, their property and the Bay. Use an umbrella.
Thank you, Rosemary, both for your kind words and for all of your tireless work in this cause, as well as for the central point of your comment, which is that evaporation is still an issue of grave and continuing danger to all of us in this region. I do think the Final Determination makes our argument -- that evaporation is just as illegal as liquid discharge -- stronger.
The final determination from DEP from last week says: that "the proposed discharge is prohibited by Section 15 of the [Ocean Sanctuaries] Act and does not qualify for any exception to the Act under Section 16." (DEP Final Decision, 22).
Section 15(4) of the Act prohibits the "the dumping or discharge of commercial, municipal, domestic or industrial wastes" into an Ocean Sanctuary; the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act define "wastes" as “any unwanted, discarded, or environmentally harmful solid, liquid, or gaseous materials resulting from commercial, municipal, domestic, or industrial Activities….”
As demonstrated in litigation from approximately 2001, the prevailing winds at Pilgrim, for three out of four seasons, are from the west, blowing "gaseous materials resulting from ... industrial activities" into the air above Cape Cod Bay, into which these "gaseous" materials are necessarily deposited.
The Act does not prohibit liquid discharge and allow gaseous discharge; rather, it prohibits both.
Given that there are reasonable grounds to think this is a violation of the Act, I think we are moving to the AG's Office purview, rather than DEP's.
That, I think, is the area we have to pivot towards, and the Final Determination, in my view, will help us in that effort.