Utah House debates ban on class B and C low-level radioactive waste; lawmakers split over immediate ban or study

Representative Holdaway urged the Utah House to ban acceptance of class B and C low-level radioactive waste, framing the measure as a long-term stewardship decision the legislature must make now.

"There is no way that I can, in good conscience, burden our descendants with the responsibility and liability of monitoring nuclear waste that Utahns did not generate for centuries to come," Representative Holdaway said as he introduced House Bill 237, citing concerns that some class B and C materials can remain hazardous for "500 years." He told colleagues that the Division of Radiation Control recently granted a license and that the question before lawmakers was a policy decision whether to accept higher-level wastes from outside the state.

Supporters of a ban focused on public safety and public opinion. Representative Holdaway pointed to a 2001 Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter (cited in debate) and said many constituents oppose bringing hotter wastes into Utah. Representative Barris, an environmental engineer, acknowledged technical capabilities but said public sentiment favored prohibition: "It can be transported safely," Barris said, "but . . . my constituents would prefer not to have the B and C waste in our state." Representative Becker likewise urged caution about permitting higher-level wastes near population centers.

Opponents and cautious members said the issue involves existing regulatory steps, pending permits and possible constitutional limits on an outright state ban. Representative Noel argued the Radiation Control Board and the Department of Environmental Quality conducted a multi-year review, held public hearings and dismissed nine appeals, and that the applicant has not yet presented its full case to the legislature: "We have a regulatory process that was set up . . . If the people of Utah, as represented in this legislature, decide that they don't want low-level waste, let's get the facts on the table," he said.

Representative Peterson warned that an outright ban could raise Commerce Clause issues and urged members to consider narrow restrictions or severe limitations rather than an immediate, sweeping prohibition. Other members backed a substitute that would form a task force to study the policy, economic and public-safety trade-offs before final action.

Lawmakers considered several procedural options on the floor: motions to substitute, motions to amend, calls for the previous question and a proposed amendment to replace the word "waste" with the word "material" (a change opponents said would broaden the bill to affect medical and research sources such as cobalt-60). Debate included testimony about regulatory findings, appeals and the Division of Radiation Control's recent licensing action.

The House debated a first substitute and a motion to "circle" the bill for further work; members split on whether to act now or await further study. At the time the House recessed, floor action had produced multiple substitute and amendment motions and procedural votes but the transcript does not record a final passage or definitive defeat of the principal ban language. The matter was left pending at recess.

Next steps: The bill had multiple pending procedural motions after extensive floor debate. The transcript shows the House took no final, clearly recorded final passage of House Bill 237 before recess; further floor action, committee work or a formal roll-call outcome will determine the ultimate status of the measure.