MADEP Tentatively Denies Dumping Request

---

An Overview of the Massachusetts Legislative Session

The Massachusetts state legislature sits in a biennial session, meaning it spans two calendar years. The session begins on the first Wednesday in January of odd-numbered years. All formal business of the first year of the session must be concluded by the third Wednesday in November of that year. The legislature then sits in an informal session until the first Wednesday of January of the second year (even numbered years). The legislature then continues formal sittings until the last day of July of the second year, and finishes the remainder of the session in an informal sitting.

Any matter pending before the legislature at the end of the first year of its biennial session will carry over into the second legislative year in the same legislative status as it was at the conclusion of the first legislative year. Any legislation not acted upon by the end of the second legislative year is terminated, and must begin the process anew. That means any bill not acted upon by the end of 2022 is essentially dead. Moreover, the chance of enacting legislation after the close of the formal legislative session is very slim. The state House and Senate may take votes during the informal session, but those are generally on uncontroversial matters. That is because they must be unanimous for a proposal to pass.

Proposed Legislation Relating to Holtec

    A.  Legislation to Prevent Release of Radioactive Water Vetoed by Governor

Joint bills were filed in the House and Senate, and a rider was added to a separate Senate economic development bill which would have prevented, or at least delayed, any potential release of radioactive water by Holtec into Plymouth Bay.  No action was taken on the joint bills seeking to prevent such release, so Sen. Susan Moran filed an amendment to the Senate version of the economic development bill which would have delayed any release of radioactive water for at least two years.  That bill was originally delayed after Gov. Charlie Baker announced a revenue surplus for the year was expected to trigger a 1986 law that would return up to $3 billion to taxpayers. 

After the State budget was finalized, Sen. Moran refiled the amendment [the full text of the refiled amendment is in the section below]. This time it was adopted by both the House and Senate, and included in the joint Economic Development bill, H5374, which was sent to the governor for signature.  However, the governor vetoed the section of the bill containing the amendment.

     B.  Legislation to Permit Plymouth to Tax Spent Nuclear Fuel

The Town of Plymouth, through its state congressional delegation, filed a Home Rule Petition seeking to tax or enter into a Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) agreement with Holtec on its real property and spent nuclear fuel housed in Plymouth.

The bill, H.4768, was filed by representatives Matt Muratore and Kathy LaNatra, and senator Sue Moran in May of 2022. Thereafter, the chair of the Select Board, Betty Cavacco, was contacted by our delegation and informed that the legislature wanted the Town to amend its petition to withdraw its request to be allowed to tax the spent nuclear fuel, meaning the Town could do nothing unless Holtec agreed. Ms. Cavacco, on behalf of the Town declined to change its petition.

The bill received a favorable report and its first reading in the Revenue Committee. This is the first of three mandatory readings in each branch of the legislature, formally referred to as the General Court. This reading is the account of the Committee Report delivered by the Clerk of the House or Senate. Once a bill receives a favorable report from a committee, it is usually sent to the Committee on Steering and Policy or, if it involves state finances, to the Ways and Means Committee first.

In this case, the bill was referred to the Steering, Policy and Scheduling Committee. There the bill received a second reading, meaning that it was released from committee and placed in the Orders of the Day, at which time it is presented on the floor of the chamber and opened for debate and proposed amendments.  The bill received a further favorable vote and was sent to the Committee on Bills to be reviewed for legal technicalities and proper citations. 

The Committee on Bills referred the bill for a Third Reading, meaning that it was sent to the chamber where it is read for the third and final time, after which it is again debated, amendments are proposed, and a vote taken. But despite being referred for a third reading, it was not taken up by the House before the end of the legislative session, July 31, 2022.

This was not the first time such a bill has died in the State Legislature. During the 2015-2016 legislative session, State Senator Daniel Wolf, representing the Cape and the Islands, presented S.1797, An Act Establishing a Fee on the Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Pools. That bill was referred to the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee, which reported favorably and then referred it to the Senate Rules Committee. Efforts to pass that legislation ended when no action was taken by January 3, 2017.

Notably, while Massachusetts has failed to enact such legislation, New York has succeeded. On December 30, 2020, New York’s governor signed legislation effective January 1, 2021, which treats “spent fuel pools and dry cask storage systems in which nuclear fuel is stored and is pending further or final disposal from a nuclear power station following the permanent cession of power operations of such station” as real property subject to assessment and taxation under New York’s Real Property Tax Law.

Much of this is due to the failure of the federal government to come up with an approved disposal site per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. That law designated Yucca Mountain as the nation’s sole, permanent repository for commercial spent fuel and required the government to begin disposing of commercial spent fuel by January 1998 (but not the radioactive water from the pools those rods sit in, which can be disposed of elsewhere).  However, the Obama administration sought to terminate the Yucca Mountain project, and Congress has not appropriated the funds needed to complete the licensing process and construct the facility. As a result, nuclear plants have been storing their spent fuel in pools and dry casks at the site of their facilities.  

In fact, because the federal government has failed to meet its obligations, plant owners have sued the government and have been recovering costs caused by the government’s breach. Some 78 breach of contract claims were filed against the Department of Energy (DOE) as of 2012, resulting in over $2 billion in damage awards and settlements. In 2010 alone, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims awarded nuclear utilities approximately $507 million in contract damages.  By DOE estimates, damages for partial breach of contract claims measured close to $20.8 billion as of 2020, with an additional $500 million in additional legal damages per year after that.  Boston Edison, Entergy, and Holtec have all brought claims against the DOE, which has resulted in over 20 years of litigation which is still ongoing (only Entergy has settled its claims), meaning Holtec can still receive even more money from the Federal Government for the costs associated with the continued storage of the spent nuclear fuel rods.

Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chair of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate and Nuclear Safety, announced that the subcommittee will hold a field hearing on Friday, May 6, 2022, in Plymouth.  The subcommittee will discuss policies regarding the decommissioning process for nuclear plants such as the Pilgrim Nuclear Station, including nuclear safety and security issues and state, local, and community stakeholder engagement.  The hearing will take place at Plymouth Town Hall in the 1820 Courtroom.  Additional details on the hearing, including witnesses and livestream information, will be announced in the coming weeks.

Four members of Massachusetts' congressional delegation (Senators Warren and Markey and Representatives Keating and Moulton) have signed a letter opposing the discharge.  

Our State representatives have sponsored two bills currently pending in the State legislature that would prohibit such discharges; H4444 (Reps. Cutler and LaNatra) and S2791 (Sen. Moran).  

A number of Town (South Shore and Cape) and State representatives appeared at a rally on April 9, 2022, to speak in opposition to any release into Cape Cod Bay.  The rally was organized by those whole livelihoods depend on the health of Cape Cod Bay.