Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuclear Permitting Cafra topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated exchanges as committee considers CAFRA changes for nuclear facilities; bill released
Summary
Opponents warned S3870 would ease rules on nuclear waste storage and transport, while proponents said on-site dry‑cask storage is safe and the bill removes an obsolete statutory barrier to future projects; the committee voted to release the bill.
Senate Bill 3870, which would modify certain CAFRA (coastal area facility review act) permit-review requirements as they apply to nuclear facilities, drew sharply divided testimony.
Doug O'Malley of Environment New Jersey opposed the bill, arguing that on‑site storage of nuclear waste is not a permanent solution and that allowing changed CAFRA language effectively advocates for nuclear expansion without solving long‑term waste disposal. "Nuclear waste is the Achilles heel of the industry," O'Malley said, and he urged attention to environmental and transportation risks.
Ray Cantor of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association and Sam Roland of the Foundation for American Innovation testified in favor, saying modern dry‑cask storage systems are widely used and that the current statutory wording creates a de facto moratorium on considering new nuclear projects. Roland argued regulators should be allowed to evaluate proposals against current science rather than being blocked by obsolete statutory language.
Luke Pavlov of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters testified in opposition, raising concerns about concentrating permit approval power in a single executive (DEP commissioner) and urging retention of existing safeguards for SEPRA permits in coastal areas. After discussion, the committee voted to release S3870; some members noted safety concerns and reserved final floor votes.
