A Temporary, but CRUCIAL, Win in Massachusetts

Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Science No Comments Tagged with , , , , ,

HOORAY! The Massachusetts State Senate Transportation and Utilities Committee released its version of the energy bill WITHOUT a loathsome and undemocratic nuclear protection repeal that was in the House version. Our opponents say by opposing the repeal, we’re trying to ban nuclear power. But while banning nuclear power would be a smart thing to do, there’s nothing in the relevant law (Chapter 503 of the 1982 Massachusetts laws) that bans nuclear power, as long as it meets the very reasonable conditions in the law (I list them a bit later).

We’ve been battling the repealers for more than a year and a half. Huge thanks to my own Senator Jo Comerford, along with next-district-over Senator Paul Mark in the Berkshires and Hilltowns and Julian Cyr on the Cape. The three of them led the effort to keep this horrible provision out of the bill.

Thanks also to Senator Michael Barrett of Lexington and Concord (yes, THAT Lexington and Concord—how appropriate as we are weeks away from the 250th anniversary of the birth of the US), who chaired the committee, wrote the bill, and as recently as a few weeks ago was still saying he supported the repeal. Being able to change your mind as you learn the facts is an important skill, and not all legislators or members of the Executive Branch have it.

And of course, big thanks to my dozen tireless colleagues in Commonwealth Coalition for Democracy and Safe Energy—and in the leadership and ranks of the many other organizations who joined this effort, among them the Sierra Club, Indivisible-MA, and Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility. And the dozen or so other orgs I don’t have space to name. But I WILL name Clamshell Alliance, which I represent on the coalition along with two other members. Clam has contacted every Massachusetts resident on its list.

The work is not done yet, though. This victory has to become permanent. We have to make sure the repeal is NOT added back in during conference committee, because the House version includes it. And if it does go forward with the repeal, we’ll need to blanket the legislature and let them know this has to be a deal breaker and MUST be amended out, or else they should vote no on the overall bill.

If you vote in Massachusetts, please convey to the members of the Conference Committee (AND to your own State Senator and Representative) that repealing 503 is unacceptable. Here are the committee members:

Contact all six of them—today!

Sen. Michael Barrett: 617-722-1572 / Mike.Barrett@masenate.gov (Room 312-B)
Sen. Cynthia Creem: 617-722-1639 / Cynthia.Creem@masenate.gov (Room 312-A)
Sen. Bruce Tarr: 617-722-1600 / Bruce.Tarr@masenate.gov (Room 308)
Rep. Mark Cusack: 617-722-2030 / Mark.Cusack@mahouse.gov (Room 43)
Rep. Bradley Jones: 617-722-2100 / Bradley.Jones@mahouse.gov (Room 124)
Rep. Aaron Michlewitz: 617-722-2990 / Aaron.M.Michlewitz@mahouse.gov (Room 243) 

The bill our opponents want to repeal was passed by 67% of voters in every county back in 1982. It requires a permanent waste storage facility, an emergency evacuation plan, and voter and legislative approval. Here are the relevant sections of the law (click here to read the entire law): 

Section 3. No new nuclear power plant shall be constructed or operated within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) construction and operation of the proposed nuclear power plant have been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that there exists an operating, federally-licensed facility for the timely and economical permanent disposal of high-level radioactive wastes generated by the proposed nuclear power plant;
(ii) that an adequate emergency preparedness plan for the proposed nuclear power plant has been developed, approved, and implemented by the Commonwealth;
(iii) that effective emission standards applicable to the proposed nuclear power plant have been promulgated by the Commonwealth to protect the public against health and safety hazards of radioactive air pollutants traceable to nuclear power plants within the Commonwealth;
(iv) that there exists a demonstrated, federally-approved technology or means for the timely and economical decommissioning, dismantling, and disposal of the proposed nuclear power plant; and
(v) that the proposed nuclear power plant offers the optimal means of meeting energy needs from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use planning, and avoiding potential social and economic dislocation.
 
Section 4. No facility for the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes shall be constructed or operated within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) construction and operation of the proposed waste facility have been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that the particular technology or means to be utilized at the proposed waste facility is superior to all other available technologies or means from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use ACTS, 1982. – Chap. 503. planning, and avoiding potential social and economic dislocation; and (ii) that the site of the proposed waste facility is superior to all other available sites from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use planning, and avoiding potential social and environmental dislocation.
 
Section 5. The Commonwealth shall not enter into any compact or agreement with any other state or states concerning the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) the compact or agreement has been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that construction and operation within the Commonwealth of any facility for the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes pursuant to the proposed compact or agreement shall be subject to the conditions of Section 4 of this Act; and
(ii) that the responsibilities and commitments of the Commonwealth under the proposed compact or agreement are no greater than those of any other party thereto.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail
About

A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.