Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances site‑evaluation process for major solid‑waste facilities, debates ‘human health’ language
Summary
The committee approved an amendment creating a site‑evaluation committee to weigh public benefits and adverse impacts for major solid‑waste facilities, added definitions referencing RSA 162‑h, and debated whether to use 'human health' or 'public health and safety' in the bill's purpose and evaluation criteria.
The Senate Finance Committee advanced a committee amendment that establishes a site‑evaluation process for major solid‑waste facilities and clarifies how public benefit will be evaluated against adverse impacts.
Senator Pearl (S9), sponsor of the committee amendment, told members the measure creates a process to evaluate local, regional and statewide benefits and burdens for landfill expansions and other major solid‑waste facilities and preserves Environmental Services (DES) as the agency that determines state capacity needs. "This bill establishes a procedure to evaluate local, regional, and statewide benefits and burdens of major solid waste facilities," Pearl said, summarizing the intent to include local voices while providing a regulatory pathway for the industry.
Committee discussion focused on the bill’s use of the phrase "human health" and whether the statute should instead adopt "public health and safety" for clarity. Senator Waters (S3) asked to add human health to the declaration of purpose, noting the term appears later in required information and in the committee’s evaluation criteria. Pearl said the amendment ties the definition of human health to existing language in RSA 162‑h and suggested using consistent statutory references: "we were trying to find a definition for it, which is why we leaned on the current definition that is within the ... site evaluation committee for the public utilities process."
The amendment also clarifies that members of the solid‑waste site‑evaluation committee should have credentials in environmental protection, environmental health or environmental science and gives DES authority to escalate enforcement to the committee if a certificate holder fails to remediate violations. Members debated adding an explicit public‑health member to ensure public‑health expertise is represented; Pearl said the compromise language was negotiated with the House and represented a path to consensus.
The committee read the amended language for the record and voted to advance the bill as amended; the chair announced "the ayes have it." The committee also decided not to place the bill on the consent calendar for floor action.
Ending: The committee approved the committee amendment as amended and voted the bill out of committee; floor handling will reflect the committee’s changes and members signaled further floor amendments may be offered.
