Chair introduces bill to clear legislative approval for on‑site spent fuel storage; opponents warn of long‑term risks

Chair Gary Perry opened the hearing on House Bill 623, a measure that would provide legislative approval for the siting of spent nuclear fuel storage facilities produced by nuclear power generating facilities operating within Montana. Perry framed the bill as a preparatory step intended to show federal regulators and developers that Montana is ready to host nuclear generation and associated on‑site spent fuel storage.

Perry described small modular reactor technology and said the bill is intended to demonstrate the state’s willingness to handle spent fuel responsibly. He emphasized that the legislation, as drafted, limits stored spent fuel to fuel “produced in the state at a generating facility in the state.” “All I’m trying to do is make sure that we send the message that we’re ready to take care of our site,” Perry said.

Opponents included Stephanie Viel, secretary of the American Indian Movement of Montana, who said the bill raises long‑term cultural and health concerns for Indigenous communities and raised legal and trust‑responsibility issues. “I oppose House Bill 6 23 which would give legislative approval for siting radioactive nuclear waste storage facilities in Montana,” Viel said.

Nick Fitzmaurice, energy transition engineer for the Montana Environmental Information Center, testified that while the bill limits storage to Montana‑produced spent fuel, short‑term storage often becomes de facto long‑term storage in practice and that Montana may lack a permanent national depository. He also raised implementation questions about placing this facility type under the Major Facility Siting Act and whether DEQ has the in‑house expertise for federal intervention at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Proponents included construction and trade unions and individual witnesses who called the technology promising and said nuclear would create jobs and a firm source of carbon‑free power. Adam Haight, representing Laborers Local 1686 and the Montana Building and Construction Trades Council, cited job creation and economic opportunity. Danny Tenenbaum, a former legislator, testified in support, saying on‑site storage is a prerequisite for nuclear generation and that modern cask and storage designs are highly regulated.

DEQ public policy director Rebecca Harbage and DEQ major facility siting coordinator Craig Jones attended as informational witnesses and described the department’s role in a state recommendation and the ability to contract outside expertise paid by applicants when needed.

Committee discussion probed where any site would be located; Perry said studies have focused on the Colstrip/coal‑strip area and that the Department of Energy and Idaho National Laboratory work has examined possible sites. Members asked about security, safety and whether the bill would permit out‑of‑state shipments; witnesses and the sponsor reiterated the bill’s language limiting stored fuel to fuel produced within Montana.

Outcome: The committee adopted a technical amendment tying the measure to the Major Facility Siting Act; in a subsequent roll call the amended bill passed committee (recorded in the transcript). The committee directed follow‑up questions to DEQ and noted tribal concerns raised in testimony.