Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuclear Waste Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves substitute bill clarifying high-level nuclear waste definition and seeking local concurrence on siting
Summary
The House passed a substitute to House Bill 18 to move the legal definition of high-level nuclear waste into the regulatory section of code and to add language requiring consultation and concurrence (by local entities) for siting decisions; the measure passed the House 71-2 after floor debate on scope and applicability.
Salt Lake City — The Utah House on Feb. 22 adopted a substitute to House Bill 18 that relocates the statutory definition of "high-level nuclear waste" to the portion of code addressing regulation and clarifies the legislature's siting role for any such facilities. Lawmakers added an amendment to require consultation and concurrence (including, proponents said, county commission involvement) in the siting process.
The sponsor told the House the substitute bill does not expand the state's enforcement powers but restates the definition in a regulatory section where it can be applied to siting and oversight. Members questioned whether the bill would capture defense-related wastes or uranium mill tailings; the sponsor replied that the bill excludes uranium mill tailings and applies to material that meets the high-level nuclear waste definition.
A floor amendment adding "and concurrence" by the local county commission was offered after members said county leaders wanted explicit authority to weigh in. The House adopted the amendment, and sponsors said involving the legislature and local officials was intended to ensure broad state participation in decisions about transporting or siting high-level nuclear materials.
The House passed substitute HB 18 on a recorded vote of 71 affirmative and 2 negative votes and will transmit the bill to the Senate for further consideration.
Next steps: HB 18 moves to the Senate; any questions about federal preemption or NRC jurisdiction were raised on the floor and may be explored in subsequent committee review.
