Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee approves code cleanup aligning state law with federal nuclear preemption amid objections over oversight
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 258 removes outdated Indiana code language that suggests state authority over radiological safety and nuclear construction, aligning state law with the Atomic Energy Act and Supreme Court precedent; supporters said it reduces regulatory confusion, opponents said it diminishes state oversight and public engagement; the committee advanced the bill 9-3.
Senator Cook told the committee that Senate Bill 258 is agency-language intended to eliminate outdated or preempted provisions in Indiana code that mistakenly suggest IDEM or the state can regulate radiological safety and nuclear-plant construction. "This bill removes outdated provisions in the Indiana code that mistakenly suggest IDEM can regulate nuclear plant construction, operation, and radiological safety," Sen. Cook said, citing the Atomic Energy Act and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Alex Goodnight, deputy legislative director for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and Bill Anthony, IDEM general counsel, provided technical assistance and said SB 258 would remove preempted language while preserving IDEM's existing air, water and land permitting authority. Goodnight said federal rules administered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission govern reactor licensing and radiological safety, and that the bill aligns state law with those federal processes.
Opponents — including the Hoosier Environmental Council, Citizens' Health and Consumer groups, and Indiana Conservation Voters — urged caution and opposed the bill, saying that removing language authorizing IDEM to call public hearings or otherwise signal state-level involvement risks reducing transparency and public engagement. "SB 258 does represent a substantial shift away from Indiana's existing safeguards without a clear replacement framework," Rebecca Toccolsti of Hoosier Environmental Council said.
Industry witnesses and utilities, including Brian Bergsma of Indiana Michigan Power and representatives of electric cooperatives, supported SB 258 as a technical cleanup that clarifies who has authority over radiological safety while preserving state roles over air, water, land and economic review. Bergsma emphasized ongoing local public hearings in his company's siting discussions and said federal processes also provide multiple opportunities for public comment.
Representative Pierce spoke against the bill, saying it goes further than necessary to resolve preemption issues and could force constituents to rely more on federal processes in Washington. The committee debated the balance between federal preemption of radiological safety and the state's interest in preserving avenues for public input on environmental permits.
The committee voted SB 258 out of committee by roll call, recorded as 9-3. Supporters said the bill clears confusing code language and preserves state environmental permitting processes; opponents asked for more careful, narrower drafting to retain state-level public-engagement mechanisms where legally permissible.
