The Issue — Utah's Expansion of Nuclear Energy
If you’ve listened to the news lately, you may have heard a lot about nuclear power. Nuclear energy is being touted as a “carbon-free,” “clean” power source, and many Utah lawmakers are going all in on it. Last year Governor Cox announced a $20 million investment in nuclear site prep as part of his Operation Gigawatt, and Senate President Stuart Adams has emphasized that he wants Utah to be “the nation’s nuclear hub.” Utah has sued the federal government to expedite nuclear permitting and cut oversight and regulatory safety review on the Last Energy micro reactor project. The following bills pave the way for the development of nuclear energy, the expansion of nuclear waste facilities, and the reclassification of nuclear waste. You can oppose them by filling this action alert out today!
The Threat of House Bill 249:
This bill sets the groundwork for nuclear energy production in Utah. Specifically, it establishes the Nuclear Energy Consortium and the Utah Energy Council, creates a process for designating “energy development zones”, and opens the Energy Development Investment Fund.
We oppose this bill because it creates a new council with the authority to spend taxpayer dollars, but whose members are appointed and therefore not directly accountable to the public.
- The bill fails to include representation from the tribal communities and downwinders who have historically disproportionately dealt with the negative consequences of radioactive exposure.
- H.B. 249 seems to direct a disproportionate amount of resources to nuclear energy research and development at the expense of deploying other types of energy.
- This bill does little to prioritize and address health, safety, and environmental concerns that come with increased energy production: especially from nuclear energy.
The Threat of House Bill 254:
H.B. 254 alters how high-level nuclear waste and low-level radioactive waste are defined within the state’s legal or regulatory framework by aligning their definitions directly with those in federal law (42 U.S.C. § 10101). This alignment could have implications for how radioactive waste is managed, stored, or transported within the state, particularly as federal and state definitions previously diverged.
We oppose this bill because we are worried that by adopting federal definitions, Utah will lose its ability to set more stringent or locally specific rules for radioactive waste coming into our state for disposal.
- We are seeing similar efforts in other states to align federal and state classifications for waste as a way to set the stage to accept nuclear waste for so-called temporary storage. Temporary storage is a misnomer however, because this would actually be semi-permanent storage at this point. The tax benefits for the state are not worth the health and environmental risks to communities.
- By adopting federal definitions, Utah may lose legal ground to challenge the introduction, transport, and disposal of certain waste types. Disputes about waste suitability for storage or transit could then default to federal jurisdiction.
The Threat of Senate Bill 216:
This bill introduces changes to how waste facilities renew or amend their licenses, and attempts to streamline procedures for expanding a facility to accommodate more Class A (low level radioactive) waste. This bill was run at the request of Energy Solutions, and also offers the additional carrot of a tax on facility expansion which would go back into the “Energy Research Fund;” a major focus of which is to develop nuclear energy. These modifications could impact regulatory oversight and procedural requirements for waste facilities operating within the state.
We oppose this bill because it both incentivizes and makes it easier to bring more radioactive waste to the state: thus increasing risks to public health and the environment.
- By facilitating the expansion of radioactive waste facilities and the volume of waste they can store, this bill heightens the risk of contamination to air, water, and soil in the event of accidents or leaks. Ultimately it poses a threat to public health, particularly in low-income or marginalized communities that may already be disproportionately affected by environmental hazards.
- The bill’s technical changes could reduce public participation and transparency in decision-making while weakening regulatory oversight and benefiting private industry.
Take Action!
Use this form to contact your Senators, the Lt. Governor, and the Governor. Urge them to oppose H.B. 249, H.B. 254, and S.B. 216. Your voice matters and can make a difference in this crucial fight to address Utah’s energy needs while keeping Utahns safe from toxic exposure!
- Spread the Word: Share this alert with friends, family, and your network. The more people are aware of these threats, the stronger our collective voice.
- Stay Informed: Follow HEAL Utah for updates and further actions you can take to protect our environment and community.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn