House passes bill limiting local municipal services for proposed high‑level nuclear waste sites

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on Feb. 28 approved Second Substitute Senate Bill 81, a measure that bars counties and municipalities from entering contracts or otherwise providing municipal‑type services to a proposed high‑level nuclear waste storage site and establishes a state licensing framework aimed at limiting externalized costs.

Sponsor Representative Verkhart told colleagues the bill takes ‘‘three actions’’: it states Utah will not accept this material, challenges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing authority if necessary, and creates a licensing process to prevent a private operator from shifting long‑term costs onto Utah taxpayers. Verkhart said the measure targets roughly ‘‘890 acres, that’s a little more than a mile square’’ and that the state was refusing to be relied on by prospective licensees for municipal services. ‘‘This is material that is the most deadly stuff on earth,’’ Verkhart said during final summation.

The sponsor and supporters said the bill is intended to block attempts to establish a long‑term storage facility by ensuring any operator must provide its own police, fire, emergency and utility services rather than relying on county or city commitments during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing process. The sponsor explained the bill does not bar emergency responders from aiding people in immediate danger, citing Good Samaritan protections: ‘‘If someone is suffering, if someone is dying and we have an ambulance there, by all means, we will save that person,’’ the sponsor said.

Opponents urged caution on several grounds. Representative Anderson argued the legal restrictions could hinder tribal economic development and sovereignty, noting the Goshute community had proposed a commercial arrangement and could be deprived of the ability to contract for services and electricity. Others raised questions about whether federal preemption or tribal sovereignty could limit state authority; the sponsor said the measure targets a lessee operating on tribal land rather than a tribal enterprise and that federal projects would remain subject to federal supremacy.

Members also discussed the bill’s interaction with appropriations and economic‑development funds. Supporters noted a separate appropriation (previously discussed as $1.1 million in the appropriations bill) could be used to oppose siting and to support economic development on affected tribal lands, and encouraged legislative housekeeping to avoid double funding.

Amendment No. 2 — which added a carve‑out exempting nonprofit trade associations from penalties that would otherwise attach to member companies — was moved on the floor, discussed, and adopted. After a motion to cut off debate succeeded, the House recorded 60 yes votes and 12 no votes and passed the bill to the Senate for further consideration.

Next steps: The bill will be transmitted to the Senate; if enacted, local governments would be barred from contracting to provide municipal services to an identified site unless federal law or other controlling authority intervenes.