Utah Senate rejects bill that would have eased approval for Laidlaw to compete with EnviroCare

Senators on Feb. 17 rejected Senate Bill 144, a proposal that would have changed the order of approvals for a small set of preexisting hazardous‑waste sites and, in practice, allowed Laidlaw to enter the low‑level radioactive waste market alongside EnviroCare in Tooele County.

Senator Blackham, sponsor of the procedural motion to bring the bill forward, said the change applies only to a handful of preapproved sites and would not eliminate technical review by the Department of Environmental Quality or local zoning requirements. He framed the bill as a question of market competition and noted the proposal raises the per‑ton fee from $2.50 to $7.50; he said Tooele County currently receives about $4 million annually from existing receipts and that most of the nation—s bulk low‑level waste already comes to Utah.

Opponents called for preserving legislative and gubernatorial oversight. Senator Mantis urged colleagues to reject what he described as "a hand‑tailored statute for one company," said local officials and planning commissions opposed the measure, and read a letter seeking an attorney‑general investigation into lobbying tactics, including an allegation that key individuals were offered equity positions contingent on passage of the bill. Senator Maine cited earlier regulatory lapses and said having two facilities could provide mutual oversight. Senator Evans and others warned the proposal risked turning the state into a dumping ground if oversight were relaxed.

Senators disagreed about the likely volume of additional waste and the appropriate fee level. Sponsor Blackham and supporters argued a negligible increase in volume was likely because roughly 93% of bulk class‑A waste already goes to Utah, while critics said no reliable data prove the claim and emphasized local opposition in Tooele County.

After extended debate and several members raising questions about community input and long‑term stewardship, the Senate voted; the clerk announced the bill had 11 yes votes and 18 no votes and the measure failed on the floor.

The floor record shows the debate focused on three central issues: whether the bill improperly narrows legislative and gubernatorial oversight, whether the state should encourage competition that might shift local economic benefits, and whether lobbying practices around the measure merited investigation. The sponsor said technical DEQ review and local zoning remained required, and that the bill applied only to existing preapproved sites and not to future permit requests.

With SB 144 defeated, the Senate continued its calendar and assigned other bills to committee for further consideration.