The New Hampshire legislature is considering a bill intended to shut the door on disposal of nuclear waste in the state even while establishing three bodies to address the issue.
House Bill 704 would formalize the legislature’s opposition to building a facility for high-level radioactive waste in New Hampshire “and finds that the north-east is an unsafe and hydrogeologically and geologically inappropriate area in which to locate a site for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste.”
In 1986, a 78-square-mile plot near the town of Hillsborough was among the locations the U.S. Department of Energy considered for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste, according to the bill introduced by Rep. Robert Cushing (D). New Hampshire lawmakers quickly passed the 1986 High Level Radioactive Waste Act, which set state policy against such a facility. That law was eventually repealed in 2011.
In 1987, the U.S. Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the sole location to be considered for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel from U.S. commercial power reactors. While that project has made halting progress in subsequent decades, and remains unlicensed, there has been no serious move to find another location for the material.
Nonetheless, “It is the intent of this act to reaffirm New Hampshire’s unyielding opposition to any effort of the federal government to site a nuclear waste dump anywhere in the state, and to reenact the High-Level Radioactive Waste Act,” Cushing’s bill says. He did not respond by deadline for RadWaste Monitor to questions regarding the legislation.
Cushing’s bill, filed last month with five co-sponsors, is before the House Science, Technology, and Energy Committee. It is scheduled to be reported out of committee on March 14.
Similar legislation from Cushing died in the New Hampshire House of Representatives in 2016, according to the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism.
There is one nuclear power plant in New Hampshire: NextEra Energy Resources’ Seabrook facility. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in January delayed the anticipated issuance of a 20-year extension to the plant’s operating license, which expires in March 2030.
Cushing’s bill would create a nuclear waste policy advisory committee, a nuclear waste technical review council, and a spent nuclear fuel study commission.
The duties of the nine-person advisory committee starting by Jan. 1, 2020, would include recommending state policy on nuclear waste, including potential legislation.
The 14-person technical review council would advise the advisory committee and state on technical issues related to high-level waste operations within New Hampshire and implementation of any state waste program. It would conduct first evaluations of any applications for nuclear waste work in the state, either issuing a preliminary rejection or forwarding the application for further review by the state Office of Strategic Initiatives.
The 11-member spent fuel panel would, among several responsibilities, study the existing status of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in the state.
The Office of Strategic Initiatives, under the bill, would be the central point of contact with DOE or other federal agencies regarding storage or disposal of high-level waste in the state.
“The office, in consultation with the council and the committee, shall monitor activity by Congress and the federal government related to the long-term or temporary storage or permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste,” the legislation says. “The office, in consultation with the committee, may advise the New Hampshire congressional delegation of action which is necessary to protect the interests of the state and may work with the congressional delegations and the state governments of other affected northeastern states.”
Cushing would also establish a long list of requirements for any site selection for waste management in the state, including a statement of need, a cost estimate for the work, disclosure of ownership and financial interests in the facility, and an assessment of socioeconomic impacts of any plan. The Energy Department would be required to orally brief state officials at the end of each phase of site characterization.
