NDCAP Meets in Plymouth
Holtec's Appeal of MassDEP's Final Determination, and Motions to Intervene in the Appeal Process; Holtec Will Apply for Permission to Discharge via its Dec. 31st Permit Renewals
(PLYMOUTH) — The Massachusetts Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel (NDCAP) met last night at Plymouth Town Hall, where panelists and members of the public heard updates on the decommissioning process at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, including the status of Holtec’s appeal of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP’s) July 18th Final Determination denying Holtec’s application to modify its surface water discharge permit to allow the discharge of what is now more than 900,000 gallons of chemically and radioactively contaminated wastewater into Cape Cod Bay.
(Looking seaward from Plymouth Town Hall; credit — Ben Cronin.)
On August 16th, Holtec appealed the July 18th Final Determination by MassDEP. This appeal will be heard, at least initially, within DEP, by a Presiding Officer in the Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution (OADR). After inquiries from interested individuals, including myself, the OADR issued a scheduling order on September 5th, laying out the timeline of the appeals process. Motions to intervene or participate were due by last Thursday, September 19th.
As was confirmed at tonight’s NDCAP meeting, there were seven motions to intervene filed last week: one from Mary Lampert, of Duxbury, who sits on NDCAP; one from James Lampert, of Duxbury, who serves as the Chair of NDCAP; one from the Town of Plymouth; one from Jo-Anne Wilson-Keenan and John Wilson, of Dennis; one from the Town of Barnstable; one from the Association to Preserve Cape Cod; and I also filed a motion to intervene. [Note: Mr. and Mrs. Lampert are my friends and colleagues from the Town of Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee; Mrs. Lampert, Dr. Wilson-Keenan, and Mr. Keenan are friend and colleagues from the grassroots Save Our Bay coalition which has arisen in opposition to dumping.]
In addition, at last night’s meeting, Holtec revealed that it plans to file by Dec. 31st, 2024 for renewal of its existing NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and its Massachusetts Surface Water Discharge permit, issued by MassDEP. In response to a question from panel member Andrew Gottlieb, of Mashpee, who is executive director of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) and a former Mashpee Selectman, Holtec’s Senior Compliance Manager David Noyes confirmed that Holtec will come back for another bite at the apple, seeking another opportunity to change its permits to allow discharge of 900,000-plus gallons of industrial wastewater into Cape Cod Bay.
(Holtec’s senior compliance manager David Noyes addresses the panel. Credit — Ben Cronin.)
The problem with this, in my view, is the same problem which has beset Holtec’s present attempts: its proposed discharge is facially illegal. It would violate, inter alia, the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act, the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act, and other state statutes and regulations, while standing counter to a vast weight of precedent stretching back to Magna Carta.
A further interesting development came in the form of one individual who spoke at public comment.
This individual, a white man who has stated in the past that he was in the Navy and whom I would estimate to be in his mid-20s, has spoken multiple times at past public comment, often in quite profane and insulting terms, and given at least three different names: he has described himself as “Ky Jackson” (he paused for a long time on this one before giving his last name; usually people know their own surname fairly readily, so I remarked this); as “Andrew Jackson” (on which more below); and, tonight, as “Andrew Jacobs.” When a friend of mine spoke to this individual at a prior meeting, he gave his name as “Kyle.” He has consistently expressed extreme pro-Holtec and pro-nuclear views.
When NDCAP Chair James Lampert noted that this individual had given at least one different name to the panel in the past, the individual became argumentative, addressing Mr. Lampert:
“Jimmy boy, I’m under no obligation to give you my name.” (This raises the question: if this individual is so confident in his views, why won’t he freely state them under his actual name?)
“And so you haven't,” replied Mr. Lampert.
(The individual who has given his name, variously, as “Ky Jackson”/“Andrew Jackson”/ “Andrew Jacobs”; credit — The Local Seen.)
At the July NDCAP meeting, this individual left the meeting alongside Vice Chair Mary Gatslick, who, before her retirement, worked at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station for nearly three decades. Their manner was familiar, and I and another witness heard him ask her if she wanted to get a beer.
According to Whitepages.com, there is a Kyle M. Gatslick who lives in Plymouth, is in his 20s, and is related to Mary Gatslick. I would also note that publicly available photographs of Kyle Gatslick, which I will not reproduce here for concerns around copyright and privacy, appear to me to show the same individual who has spoken under the names Ky Jackson/Andrew Jackson/Andrew Jacobs.
I emailed Vice Chair Gatslick after tonight’s meeting seeing if she would confirm if she was related to the individual in question. She has not immediately replied; I will update this story with her response, if any.
I sent Kyle Gatslick a message on Facebook asking if he is the individual who has identified himself as Ky Jackson/Andrew Jackson/Andrew Jacobs. He has not immediately replied; I will update this story with is response, if any.
I would point out that both the Chair and the Vice Chair of a public body have a certain duty in terms of both the letter and the spirit of the Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules of Order is eloquent upon the subject of the necessity of parliamentary law, or rules of procedure:
“The object of Rules of Order is to assist an assembly to accomplish in the best possible manner the work for which it was designed. To do this it is necessary to restrain the individual somewhat, as the right of an individual, in any community, to do what he pleases, is incompatible with the interests of the whole. Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty.”1
I remain perplexed why anyone would give a false name at public comment; and I remain further perplexed as to why a panel member would not correct the record if she knew that an individual was giving a false name to the body of which she is a member. I am hopeful that answers from Mrs. Gatslick and Mr. Gatslick will help clarify the situation.
I finally cannot help but make a comment on the fact that this individual once identified himself as “Andrew Jackson.” I spent a great deal of time thinking about Andrew Jackson about fifteen years ago, and I’m reminded of what the German philosopher Hegel once said: that history occurs twice — first as tragedy, and then as farce.
I think when we look at the actual Andrew Jackson, we can see in many respects a tragic figure — one who was, at once the most democratic and egalitarian President to that point in time, and at the same time one who was an advocate, here in the United States, of what can only be called ethnic cleansing (I speak, of course, of the Trail of Tears). Jackson’s tragedy was also personal: he was an impoverished orphan and a child soldier in the Revolutionary War, for whom brutality became a way of life; these circumstances, I think, help to explain him and his character, which contained all the contradictions of the American experience.
What is farcical, though, is in this situation to suggest that Andrew Jackson would have one iota of sympathy with Holtec’s position. Jackson, recall, was an uncompromising foe of concentrated economic power — and what is Holtec, if not concentrated economic power?
Jackson, too, was a product of the expansion of the electoral franchise, and the expansion (albeit still limited to white men) of the right to democratic participation in one’s own government. Again, let me suggest here that Jackson’s sympathies would lie entirely with those opposing Holtec. After all, every Town on Cape Cod, as well as Duxbury and Scituate, have either passed Town Meeting articles or ballot questions opposing Holtec’s proposed discharge, often by margins of 80-plus percent. Against this massive display of democratic will, Holtec can muster — well, certainly not Andrew Jackson.
For better or for worse, I think it’s clear, given his record, and given the facts of our present situation, which side Andrew Jackson would be on in the present controversy — and it isn’t Holtec’s.
The next NDCAP Meeting will be held on November 25th, at Plymouth Town Hall.
http://www.rulesonline.com/rror--03.htm