Senate hearing on new landfill moratorium, incineration study and site‑specific setback rules draws broad testimony

Senate Bill 226 would suspend acceptance of new landfill permit applications for a specified moratorium period and establish a committee to study the feasibility of large‑scale solid‑waste incineration and other alternatives. Senator Jonah O’Ryan Wheeler and Senator David Roche (Senate District 1) framed the bill as a pause to modernize siting rules and evaluate incineration and other disposal options.

Senator Roche told the committee the state needs to reassess landfill siting standards, wetlands setbacks and hydrogeologic protections and that the bill provides time for a careful evaluation. “The people of the North Country do not want to see a landfill on their pristine environment,” he said, stressing concerns about groundwater and surface‑water impacts.

Proponents — including municipal representatives and citizen groups such as North Country Alliance for Balanced Change — argued there is enough statewide capacity in existing landfills to cover a runway of several years and that proposed moratorium timing (the bill includes a multi‑year pause) would create breathing room to adopt more protective, science‑based siting standards. Speakers flagged PFAS and other leachate concerns and urged stronger, site‑specific evaluations of groundwater conductivity and plume travel time.

Opponents including business groups (Business & Industry Association) and industry representatives warned a long moratorium would delay legally permitted expansions and could raise disposal costs by forcing more out‑of‑state shipments. The business representative noted new DES landfill rules were readopted in December 2024 and urged the committee not to undercut the recently updated regulatory process.

Mike Wimsatt, director of the DES waste management division, testified the agency takes no position but raised technical drafting concerns: if applications are accepted but the agency is prohibited from reviewing them, administrative timelines in the Administrative Procedures Act could trigger an unintended deemed‑approved result; DES recommended clarifying language so applications are not deemed approved by inaction. Wimsatt also cautioned that prohibiting completeness reviews could produce multi‑year delays beyond the moratorium’s end because the agency would not be able to confirm application completeness while the moratorium was in effect.

Waste‑management operators and county officials described the largest landfill’s permitted capacity and said the facility has plans for expansion and depletion schedules intended to preserve in‑state disposal capacity. Witnesses said the largest facility accepted around 53–55% of New Hampshire municipal waste in recent years. Waste‑management and landfill operators said requiring a single maximum seepage velocity test site could unfairly disqualify otherwise suitable sites; they urged use of representative sampling and engineering options.

Senate Bill 227 would set statutory metrics for hydraulic conductivity and require subsurface investigations to determine whether a release could reach a surface water before it could be detected and remediated. Supporters said the statute should require conservative, science‑based setbacks (a five‑year travel time or a 3,000‑foot default radius was discussed in committee history) and clarified monitoring and testing protocols. Opponents said the proposed criteria could eliminate much of the state from consideration and urged more nuanced, site‑specific engineering approaches.

Both bills generated extensive public comment. Department staff and industry representatives urged careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences and to clarify how expansions of existing, permitted facilities would be treated. The committee closed the hearings with discussion of next steps and no recorded votes.