North Dakota Lawmakers to Consider Exception to Nuclear Waste Storage Ban

State law prohibits any long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste, such as the byproducts of a nuclear power plant. But an executive with Nucleon Energy, the consultant hired by a legislative committee to study the topic, warned the broad ban could stop developers from even considering the construction of a nuclear reactor in the state.

“That’s a stop sign,” said Will Bridge, Nucleon’s chief operating officer. There is no long-term storage site for high-level radioactive waste in the United States. The federal government’s attempts to establish a permanent solution have stalled. Nuclear power plants typically keep the waste in temporary on-site containers with multiple safeguards. That would not be possible under North Dakota law as it is written.

Bridge is recommending an exception be added, modeled after a similar law change passed in Wyoming, that would enable the temporary on-site storage.

“We need to fix the stop sign under the disposal,” said Sen. Dale Patten, R-Watford City, chair of the interim Advanced Nuclear Energy committee studying the feasibility of nuclear power in the state.

A member of the public told lawmakers it is unnecessary to take any action until the long-term storage issue is resolved.

“There is no reason to pursue nuclear energy in North Dakota given the prohibitive production costs, our state’s existing energy abundance and the lack of a federal plan for permanent waste disposal,” said Mirek Petrovic, a Pierce County resident who farms 10 miles from where the U.S. Department of Energy proposed in 2016 exploratory drilling to test for nuclear waste storage potential.

Petrovic, who serves on the state’s High Level Radioactive Waste Advisory Council, said it would be “reckless to open our state” to the risks of radioactive waste storage without a permanent solution from the federal government. He cited a 60-year backlog of waste from existing nuclear power plants that is awaiting disposal.

Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, R-Minot, predicted federal government policy may end up driving nuclear development regardless of whether states have adequately prepared for it.

“The fact that we change our state law does not mean that it happens, it just means that we’re one step down the road for decision making,” Hogue said. Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, cautioned against amending the prohibition on radioactive waste storage until the public has a better understanding of the topic. “That to me says a decision has been made, and I don’t think our citizens have the background information that we have,” Mathern said. “It’s important as we proceed in this day and age, when there’s a lot of controversy, a lot of long-term big projects, to pass this information on to our citizens.” Bridge also suggested several other clarifications to state law the Legislature may want to consider making but are not urgent. These include clarifying how the tax code would apply to nuclear power and clearly delineating the role of agencies in the permitting and regulatory processes.

“The state is in a great starting spot,” Bridge said. “There’s a strong foundation in place with existing agencies and institutions and permitting authorities for an advanced nuclear project in North Dakota.”

Community engagement:

One of the most important considerations for a developer of a nuclear energy project is whether the host community is willing to support it.

Bridge said testing the waters of community acceptance is often among the first steps of the development process in the industry. Learning a community is opposed to a nearby nuclear power project and looking elsewhere for a site can save a company tens of millions of dollars in sunk costs if the project is defeated later in the development process.

Some lawmakers noted North Dakota is watching what happens when an industry attempts to move into a community without laying the foundation ahead of time.

“We’ve had a lot of trouble getting data centers located in the state,” said Rep. Dick Anderson, R-Willow City. “I know we need them. Who’s going to educate the public on nuclear energy? Because I don’t think we did a very good job of it on data centers, and that’s why we’re having all these problems.”

Patten said the growth of the state’s economy relies on the promise of large-scale industrial projects that may be developed in the state, and that requires buy-in from local communities.

“We have examples in recent history where that community acceptance failed dramatically,” Patten said. “The ability to effectively engage with the community and gain their acceptance of the project and their understanding is going to be dependent on, I believe, transparent and unbiased information.”

Mathern proposed a bill draft that would appropriate $80,000 to North Dakota State University Extension to conduct 12 engagement and discussion sessions across the state to better inform the public of the pros and cons of nuclear power as an industry.

“It would be required to provide information that’s unbiased and not taking a position,” Mathern said. “I would hope our next step is to share all of what we’ve learned with our citizens, so we can make good decisions going forward in the next few legislative sessions.”

The committee plans to discuss and vote on bill drafts during its final meeting in August.