S.B. 135 Nuclear Reprocessing Amendments: transcript

Thank you, vice Chair Committee. It's good to be with all of you this morning. Thank you for hearing, uh, this bill. I give you a little background where this come from. This bill has been years in the making and with many of you, uh, as part of that, um, a few years ago, we spent a week at, uh, Pacific Northwest National Lab and another NDC with Senator Millner working on, um, learnings around this and what could eventually happen for states to have the opportunity to participate with under the NRC National Regulatory, um, commission of, um, with the, with the nuclear body. So, um, and it really evolved out of the energy working group, which some of you I know have been on, um, uh, made a trip to the Idaho National Lab to learn about, uh, all that they are doing. And it was, uh, really incredible to see on that. Um, came away from there, connected with a, a project that was working on reprocessing nuclear fuels, spent nuclear fuel. And, uh, the waste problem, this is the, some consider the worst environmental hazard in the country, is the nuclear waste, which sits right alongside of all of the current, uh, the turbines they're turning, uh, right at their plants. And that's the disposal. But what the, uh, industry is learning is that it's actually not all waste. Um, these rods are only three to 4% spent and can be reprocessed into fuel. The benefit of that is we could bring fuel reprocessing back to the United States, and no more be be dependent upon our adversaries, uh, and foreign countries. So between going to the White Mesa Mill, San Rafael lab, uh, Idaho National Lab, and all of those through our energy working group, we also had in the public in, um, the interim PUET committee presentation. And during last year's, uh, legislative session, uh, reports from industry who have now been approved, uh, nationally, um, with processing that on an industrial scale. And I just lead all that up to, uh, during week one, just a few weeks ago of our legislative session, the Department of Energy released, um, b basically opening up ability to begin working with the DOE for two or three regional hubs. That's where Utah and this work kind of meshes together as an opportunity. Um, I, I was with that re uh, reprocessing industry, one of the, uh, industry leaders, uh, out, and we drove through Millard County. This was the week before session, and they were not aware that Utah had salt caverns, but there's only two states in the nation that do have salt Caverns, Mississippi and Utah. And which two states are at the front seat of this opportunity? Mississippi and Utah. There are others in the running who would love this opportunity to have a regional, uh, reprocessing center regional hub bring in, um, great jobs to rural Utah, uh, to help with offset some of the many we've loft in, uh, coal mining industry. So, um, then the really, uh, co comprehensive collaboration comes from our agencies and, um, led in part by Director Davis of DEQ. So I'm gonna have him speak to the bill and, and what, what work they put into the language.

Mr. Chair, Tim Davis, executive director of the Department of Environmental Quality, uh, good morning again. Uh, and I'm sure, uh, so I'll, I'm just going to speak for DEQ at this point. Uh, I'm sure that the, uh, the Office of Energy Development, who we work really closely with on this, and we'll be working closely going forward, um, we'll have, they have a, as much or more to do with this legislation than, than we do. But the key to that is that we're all working together. And, uh, you know, with the, the, uh, the, the, as this, uh, legislation has evolved, it's, it's gone from reprocessing to, as the senator said, to more widely, uh, exploring, uh, the entire nuclear lifecycle, uh, which we as a state have, uh, in, in another piece of legislation that Representative Albrecht carried, uh, that, that you've already seen on the, the house, uh, house Bill 78, we're already moving in this direction. And, and our job is to make sure that, uh, in this legislation make sure that we're, we're studying how to do that. We're, we're laying the groundwork to be able to safely, uh, bring a nuclear lifecycle here. Uh, there are parts of that that we, uh, maybe able to do as a state where we could have, uh, agreement state status to do that. There are parts that'll still fall under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the, the key, I think, to the legislation is really diving into studying how do we do this? Where are the barriers? And how do we do it in a way that's still safe? How do we do it in a way that people in in Utah feel that it's being done safely? And, uh, and, but that, that planning is a key piece of it. And working across our different agencies in order to do that planning for the lifecycle, uh, the full nuclear lifecycle is, is critical as well. So, happy to answer any questions, but, um, I, I'm sure that, uh, MEA, uh, will have a lot more to add when, when she testifies as well.

So, yeah. Um, so just in wrapping up our presentation, um, uh, director Davis mentioned the key part, and that is the safety of our citizens. And with now, the way this has evolved and the research done in poor national labs throughout the country, um, here's how safe it is. You're, you'll be exposed to more radiation walking through Central Square than you would at one of these labs. So, um, and under the direction, um, leadership of our agencies, it's, uh, it's just amazing that, that we can do this and solve what some claim is the, the largest environmental issue of our age, and that's, uh, nuclear waste. And now we can turn that back into fuel all the way down to possibly 3% instead of 96% of that waste being active down to 3%. And that's where the salt caverns come in play. Putting that in a salt cavern where water has not moved for millions of years, um, it's, it's gone. And the, um, we can clean up the entire nation's fleet of nuclear spent fuel. With that concludes the presentation and take questions.

Thank you, vice chair. I actually have two questions. One is, um, when you speak of the Salt caverns, are you speaking of the ones at IPP, Uh, across the street from IPP?

Yes. Yes. Right there at that region. Okay.

Yeah, I figured as much. And then two, my second question is, what is the ongoing financial burden on taxpayers on this, if we take this on?

Yeah, so, uh, great question. I, uh, the, the cost right now, uh, these are just numbers that I've heard. The, the DOE budget proposed, uh, it's actually not a burden to the taxpayers. This is a boon just to build the site, uh, of the reprocessing hub is an investment of nine to $10 billion, and between the two or three regional hubs, the DOE over the time of this, um, of this new processing and fuel development plan to invest $50 billion. So add that up. And what it is, is, uh, a great benefit that Utah can have this market, and we'll be creating jobs and bringing funds to our state. Here's pipe dream. Okay. Uh, on funding, since you asked right now, just the interest on the nuclear waste, uh, just the interest on that is 1.8 billion annually. Let's say a state like Utah says we have sovereignty, and we'll take on that, uh, risk, which is very minimal. Now with all they've learned and can do. What if they, they said, you'll take that on, we'll give you a billion dollars annually. The reprocessors don't need it or want it. What would that do for Utah's education system? Just saying, um, so there, that's the opportunity financially. Mm-hmm.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that answer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm not sure the public is well enough versed on this to be in line with this. You know, we, we do represent many people, um, and they just would read much of this or hear the terms and, and, you know, be very concerned. Uh, and I'm no expert, that's for sure. But I came into this office quite a few years ago, and if you recall, that was the height of the envir care and the public's outrage at what was going on there. And I actually did tour that, and it was quite different than many people thought. It wasn't just an open waste, they were covered and so on. So, you know, when you get more information, that certainly makes a difference. But out of, um, uh, caution, I want to be sure that if I vote for this, that I'm voting for a study and not a plan that's ready to go into effect, but rather a study that the public would read about. And, you know, there'd be time for people to weigh in, because I haven't seen a lot of emails. I've had some on this, but a lot of people pay more attention to some issues than others. And I, I just out of a a sense of caution, I wanna be assured that this study is not something that'll be implemented right away. Is that a question? Yeah, I, I asked for assurance. Oh.

So yeah, that's, that's not a study representative. This is, um, this is a nuclear reprocessing and manuals, if you've read the bill, is, uh, setting the state up with the regulatory office and within, um, uh, our agencies to be able to handle this type. Well, they're not doing it tomorrow, but, um, yeah. And for instance, Millard County, um, they have set aside, it, it's, it sounds very small to this, uh, body probably, but $50,000 for their public engagement on nuclear reprocessing and, and introducing that concept, as you say, um, because it's not the li uranium that you are mining, you know, this is different. So, yeah. Uh, but I don't want to, uh, say it's, this bill is something that it's not, this is not a study that sets up the offices, so that could actually perform.

Hi, I'm Slosky, director of the Office of Energy Development, and I just wanna, um, start by thanking Senator Owens for his work on this and ensuring that we have the mechanisms in place to be able to thoughtfully explore safe nuclear development throughout the entire life lifecycle. And I want to assure the committee that part of what this entails is making sure we have those opportunities for public education, engagement and comment. The process of developing any of this is very, very robust, and this just sets the stage to allow us to be able to do that. Um, our office is working very closely with communities to make sure that they understand, and we'll be continuing to roll out those, um, those efforts to make sure that we're providing good information so people can make decisions for themselves about something that we believe is, is a safe, um, really important power resource for our future. So, um, we look forward to continuing to work with, um, Senator Owens and with this body and with the communities throughout the state to make sure that we're making good decisions on behalf of Utahans. So, thank you.

Yeah, I, I, I think it is, it is an analysis of understanding sort of what the lay of the land looks like. But I want to just say that this is all things that we're working to do efficiently in expeditiously, but we're not looking to do it in a way that is, that is too quick to make good decisions. And so for us, that's an ability to say we understand, um, the universe of things we need to look at and make recommendations for, and then keep continuing to go forward to refine the tools that we need to be successful in the state. Perfect.

And I'm happy to answer anybody's questions anytime. Feel free to call me.

Chair, and members of the committee. Senator Owens, I thank you for allowing me to be here to speak to this. I am speaking as myself. Please state Your name and who you represent. Oh, yes, sorry. My name is Nathan Hole. Um, I'm representing myself. I live in Davis County. Um, I often work in energy sectors and I work with a lot of energy problems and environmental impacts as well. The, um, there's been a lot and I, I just wanna, um, I really appreciate Director Davis's insights into this as well, and his commitments to safety. Um, the reality is that these facilities are incredibly expensive. They, while this fiscal note specifically is about $60,000, these facilities can cost, um, up to $20 billion by some estimates. And I honestly would be incredibly surprised if there did not end up being some sort of state subsidy in order to bring these facilities into here, even with the federal dollars that are promised. Um, 'cause as we have seen recently, those federal dollars and initiatives can change very rapidly. There are currently only three operating facilities of this type in the world, um, one in France, one in Japan, and one in Russia. Um, as far as I am aware, um, Japan and France are not currently our adversaries. And a lot of this may be cheaper to do with facilities that are already, um, they already have the experience, they already have, um, these mechanisms in place. And there was a facility in the UK that was operating up until 2018. The reason that facility is no longer operating is because it was not economically viable over the long term. And most of these facilities are kept in place because of the international contracts that they have. And the reality is that many other countries in, um, in the world are already phasing out a lot of their nuclear technology. And so it may not be economically viable for these, for these, for this facility to even sustain long term, um, in Utah or elsewhere in the country. Um, the biggest thing is that we just need to ensure transparency and safety for these projects. Um, as Senator Owens stated, this is not just a study, this is to, um, to kind of prepare that groundwork to, um, implement these facilities. And so I ask you to just consider these things, um, as we go and to continue asking these questions to ensure that, um, these, these move forward in safety and transparency. Thank you.

Hello. And good morning. Um, can you all hear me okay? Yes. Fantastic. Um, good morning representatives. My name is Carmen Valdez. I'm a senior policy associate for Heal Utah. We thank you for all the work you've put in, in building Utah's energy, past, present, and future. Um, but we're here to ask to slow down on nuclear reprocessing in the state until we see better economic and public health protections. There is a lot of hope for nuclear energy, and we see that as part of our above, uh, all of the above approach. But we need to make sure that as a state, we're doing this right and we appreciate DEQs commitment to environmental protection. I'm not here to raise fear. I'm here because we're hearing from your constituents about data centers, energy projects, ports, and many other projects where they feel their local decision makers aren't willing to listen or work with them. Projects like this Bill proposes last year with Utah star and den nuclear energy. We, the public, were promised that our state would have a thoughtful approach with ample engagement for what is a costly and risky pursuit. Instead, we've seen Utah's foot on the gas moving full speed ahead in an industry that has not proven itself with projects like commercial scale, small modular reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing in the country, making Utah's taxpayers and rate payers the Guinea pigs for projects with consistent cost. Sofa runs, longtime lines and real health risks from experts around the world. We know nuclear processing does not solve the waste problem. It creates additional highly radioactive and toxic waste streams that must be stored, transported, and managed for generations. International experience shows that less than 5% of spent fuel is actually reusable, meaning most radioactive waste to still be dealt with. Additionally, a recent study of the out of the Harvard School of Public Health found that in Massachusetts, residential proximity to nuclear power plants were associated with significant increased cancer incidents with the push for nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses in this bill, it then expands beyond fuel recycling to the fuel nuclear life chain, including nuclear fuel reprocessing, fabrication, uranium conversion, and co-located industrial uses like data centers, which really only employ a few dozen to maybe a few hundred people after construction is done. These projects are extremely expensive, and the bill will allow for taxpayer dollars as grants to go the private industries without guarantee results, which is more than just a study. These projects are not the economic growth and enhance American e energy Independence at claims. While this bill does not have a fiscal note, that sets of precedence and these projects opt decades of public subsidies and ongoing public government support with taxpayers and rate payers left carrying the risk. If projects fail or stall, Utah needs energy for today, tomorrow, and our future. But we must pursue it thoughtfully and with rate payers and taxpayers in mind, investing in proven lower costs and cleaner solutions without creating long-term radioactive risks for the health, safety and financial security of Utahans. We'll urge you to amend this bill to include additional public and environmental health protections specific to Utah to help con help constituents feel safer surrounding all facilities, and for this to be part of the consideration, the analysis, or send this to interim for more consideration. We thank you for your time today.

Thank you. Uh, I would make a motion that we pass out with a favorable recommendation, SB 1 35 second sub, uh, nuclear reprocessing amendments. And then I'd like to speak to that motion.

Thank you. Uh, currently in the United States, you know, we have, we, we have a plentiful supply of uranium, which gets mined and some of us have been over to the white mesa processing mill, where they process that down to the yellow cake, the the yellow uranium powder, which then has to be shipped away to be enriched and turned into fuel. Well after it goes from, from the yellow powder to go get processed, the federal government takes, takes ownership of that, of that uranium, then they en enrich it. They, uh, whatever land lease it to the, uh, utilities to use it, and they're generating stations. And then the federal government after that is also obligated to take possession of it back, and they're the only ones authorized to transport it to whatever long-term storage there is. Now, currently, as was described earlier, the federal government has not, has not taken back any of this, spent uranium fuel. They've left it in big swimming pools on site next to the generators. And so, um, that, that's where those are currently living. Now, when we talked about reprocessing, the United States invented the technology of nuclear power and reprocessing the fuel, because you only use a small percentage of the energy in the fuel when you, when you use it the first time. You can reprocess that and reuse it multiple times, um, before then trying to store what's left. And so there's, if you go into the details, there's seven different pieces that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission controls in this whole lifecycle of uranium. And what we're doing here is the state of Utah, by standing up this new Utah Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be, the federal government will be delegating those authorities to the state of Utah. And we'll be doing that locally. And so that we can take control of that fuel here in the, in the state, you can argue that yes, we have plentiful coal. We could, we could generate electricity, uh, almost indefinitely with the coal that we have, but we can't stand the swings in administrations every four years as, as an industry. But if, if the governments have decided that we can't have CO2, but we can have nuclear, then we need to get back in that business. And we need to remind everybody that the Simpsons is not the best resource on the reality of nuclear power. I know people younger than myself, which is almost everyone. Uh, the only thing they know about nuclear is what they saw on the Simpsons, but that's not the reality of, of life. So anyway, I'm sorry that got long. I didn't mean to give a long lecture, but that was a short lecture. I will attest to that. That was the short version.

Thank you. Thank you, representative. I've had the long version as well, and it's great. Uh, it's very enlightening what, um, your chair understands in this, in this field. Um, and I respond and, and summarize thanking the agencies and the leadership of, of our governor. And the three, um, the, he had the nuclear conference and brought in other state governors, and he's leading out, uh, with this, with his thoughts for the past three, four years. Our number one priority in this committee and in our legislature's been energy. And, uh, this work has, is about responding to that and trying as, as was stated to set up this, uh, office. Um, I'm so proud of our agencies and the work that they've done to help bring this bill to what it is. And, um, great minds are, have come together. So I to encourage your support. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll wa All right.

Um, this bill, I have a substitute that I would like to move and adopt if we could, and I can make that motion if that's Yeah, That'd be fine. I'd, I'd move that we delete title and Body Senate Bill 1 35 and replace it with, uh, Senate Bill 1 35. First substitute.

Okay. This bill, um, gives some authority to, uh, to the Office of Energy Development and, uh, then make some, a few requirements of, uh, of this, uh, agency. It authorizes Office of Energy Development to coordinate with public and private entities regarding nuclear fuel recycling facility development within the state authorizes Office of Energy Development to serve as a liaison between private entities, local communities regarding nuclear fuel reprocessing development, and also to provide strategic guidance and con, uh, conduct and conduct preliminary assessments for nuclear fuel recycling Facility development. It has a few requirements, uh, that they just add to a portion to their o uh, their annual, uh, report. Uh, they add to the nuclear fuel recycling coordination activities as part of the office's existing annual report and to the, uh, Utah Energy Council to report on nuclear fuel recycling recommendations as part of their council's existing report. So what it does, there's, uh, as we are all aware with, uh, energy demands and current energy, uh, production and needs to move to cleaner and want to, uh, clean cleanest fuels possible, there's opportunities ahead of us that, uh, involve that involving, uh, happening right here is our neighbors with the Idaho National Lab, and we've heard presentations from entities like Curio Energy, who have perfected the ability to extract more, uh, recycle nuclear fuel and, and re um, used 96% of the life that is still within that fuel. Now they can, um, extract use for that and then be able to provide that the fuel back out to the 80 operating nuclear sites within the country. And Utah, it's an opportunity possibly to be one of the regional hubs. So that's the purpose of this bill and, uh, sets up the regulatory, uh, process so that when and if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants that authority to the state, we can move forward. So with that, Mr. Chair, I would be open to any questions,

Hi, Emmy Slosky, director Of the office. Pull that mic up so she's got people Listen now here. Okay. There you go. Alright. Emmy Slosky, director of the Office of Energy Development. And I just wanna start by thanking Senator Owens for his tireless work in this space to provide a path forward for us to thoughtfully explore ways that we can take advantage of the opportunities that this type of activity will provide, not just for, um, the jobs or for the energy generation, but also for workforce development for, um, the benefit of our communities in the long run. And I'm grateful for his work and for the work of the, this body and look forward to continuing to work on these together. And while you're there. So, and this isn't something new technology. This has been going on in France and other countries for quite a few years. Correct. And there's innovation in the technology and the ways that it's going, but we are committed to partnering to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with industry to make sure that safety is always our first priority and making sure that it's the right thing to do for our state. So, yep.

Mi Mr. Chair members of the committee, good to see you. Tim Davis, executive Director of the Department of Environmental Quality. Um, I just wanted to thank the sponsor for, uh, his leadership, but also just to let you know that the department's, uh, supportive of this. And we will work with the Office of Energy Development to make sure that, um, as it moves forward, we can do it quickly and safely and, um, and work with the legislature on it. So, thank you.

I would You want me to sum first?

Uh, I just, I do wanna, um, reciprocate the work that we have with our experts, and we're lucky to have the experts that we have in Utah with Director Davis and, uh, Faulkner Koski, uh, KY because they've been able to have significant input on this and how it would affect their agencies so that the safety and wellbeing of our citizens is number one. One other point too, um, chair and committee is that Utah is one of two states that, Oh, uh, excuse me. We do have somebody on line. Oh, Okay.

Yes, I am. Thank you so much, Senator Ipson. And, um, sorry for that. Um, quick intrusion, uh, had the hand raised, wasn't sure if it was working technology. Right. Both a blessing and curse. So appreciate your time today, um, and coming back to me today. I greatly appreciate that time. Um, as mentioned, my name is Carmen Valdez and I'm a senior policy associate for the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah or Hill, Utah. We first wanna thank our state leaders in looking towards our energy future, including all our regulators, our communities. Um, but we do want to, um, urge caution in voting and support of HB or SB 1 35. We are concerned about this bill and stand in opposition because nuclear fuel reprocessing is a costly risk risky endeavor that can negatively impact Utah taxpayers and rate payers and put communities at risk. The nuclear industry has a long history of overpromising and under-delivering with projects, often facing delays unrelated to permitting, cost overruns and cancellations that leave states and communities with stranded investments and unrealized job creation. Nuclear reprocessing, despite, despite being marked as recycling, does not solve the nuclear waste problem and instead creates additional highly radioactive and toxic waste streams that must be managed for generations just like the spent nuclear fuel today, nuclear fuel processing is among the most expensive and complex parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, requiring decades long timelines, substantial public subsidies and ongoing government support with financial risk frequently shifted to taxpayers and rate payers. Adding nuclear fuel processing to the fuel chain will only increase the cost of nuclear energy already one of our most expensive energy sources international experience, as mentioned earlier with Francis Fuel reprocessing program, shows how repeated delays in escalating costs for high level waste disposal can turn nuclear fuel reprocessing into a long-term financial burden for governments through taxpayer funding and rate payers. Since their program requires heavy government subsidies to even operate. At the same time, facilities that handle highly radioactive materials post serious public health and international safety risks from accidents, targeted attacks from international adversaries and contamination of our environment. People historically, the US has not pursued reprocessing because of the high costs and the security proliferation risks very relevant in our current era of global conflict. State investments should prioritize proven faster and lower cost clean energy solutions such as geothermal, solar, paired with local job incentives and battery storage and energy efficiency that reduce emissions without creating new radioactive risks we haven't yet dealt with. We urge you to move forward cautiously and oppose this financial risky gamble with nuclear fueler processing and encourage you, Todd, to slow down and prioritize safer alternatives available. Thank you again so much for your time today.

Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chair. And I, I appreciate, um, uh, her for coming on and, and sharing that. Um, uh, not, not that we wouldn't expect to, to hear that message because that's the, the fear mongering that we, we've Heard that for 50 years. That's what I'm saying. Yep. Um, thank you. That's my sum is that, um, it's time to go forward. And I I can tell you from a 45 year, uh, guy who worked in the nuclear field, uh, David Bland, one of the best, was here in Utah a few weeks ago. You'll get more radiation and central station than exposure than you would standing at one of these sites. Now that's how, that's how good this processing is. And you'll also notice that there's the, she mentioned the financial risk. There's a zero fiscal note, so none of this to the state, none of this happens on the state unless that regulatory burden is brought to this date. And then that'll have to come with some financing then and from federal support. So, uh, this just sets up a process that Utah could be open to the idea of partnering and I think it's well past time for going forward. So that'd be my sum. Thank You.

A motion? I would, with that, I would make a motion that we favorably recommend Senate Bill 1 35 first substitute.

And now you wanna move to, is that, Uh, go to the resolution if I could.

Senator Senator Owens. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, o Fellow Utahans and President. We stand at a, a unique time in history with the past number of years. The number one priority that we've had as a body, uh, under leadership has been energy. And, uh, just last week, the United States Department of Energy put out an RFI to, uh, a number of states who would consider having a regional hub to begin, um, addressing the nuclear waste issues that we've had around the country. And, uh, come to, you know, find out through recent research and lots of testing, now we are able to take the, it's actually spent, slightly spent nuclear fuel and can reprocess that, uh, into usable commodity. And during that process, we can bring out medical isotopes. Uh, we don't even know what is all possible in the medical world to address with that. So this is, uh, uh, addressing the priority of bringing, uh, clean, robust energy which we need in the state. And, uh, with the ability to reprocess the fuel, now it would take the National Regulatory Commission of Nuclear Energy would have to, um, allow the states to have this opportunity. And what this does, the s bill sets up a framework so that, uh, Utah could be considered, uh, of having one of those regional hubs. And that's what, uh, Senate Bill 1 35 does. With that pre Mr. President, I'd be open to questions.

Okay. I'll, uh, leave summation and call to question

Thank you. Do you wanna pl explain the changes?

Yes. This, uh, clarifies that, that it gives the Office of Energy Development, uh, that office will then to coordinate with the new, um, nuclear Energy Consortium and authorizes them to pursue Lifecycle Inno Innovation Campus, um, on which we could put this facility.

Thank you President. Uh, this bill accomplishes that's in framework and a regulatory framework, the things that, uh, Senator Hinkins bill talked about as a, a resolution that Utah is ready to pursue, uh, this clean, powerful energy source with the technology that is now available. Um, this, this sets up that an office within the Office of Energy Development and, uh, to work with the, uh, the nuclear Consortium built there, we have, uh, the positions in place and this puts that framework in place for the office to proceed. Should the federal guidelines from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allow. With that, I'd be open to questions.

of the president. Madam Reading Clerk Second substitute Senate bill 1 35 Nuclear Reprocessing Amendments by Senator Owens. This bill was served Public Utilities and Energy with a vote of 6 2 4. The House sponsors Representative Ber Representative Rech.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this bill expands Utah's Energy Development framework by authorizing OED, the Office of Energy Development and the Utah Energy Council to coordinate, assess, and report on the nuclear fuel recycling facility development in the state. Uh, there's only two states in the country, Mississippi and Utah, that are blessed with the geography of Salt Caverns, which is a sa safe place to store nuclear waste. Much of this waste is still viable for clean and effective energy production. The bill establishes a clear framework for nuclear fuel recycling positioning, uh, Utah to evaluate and attract nuclear technologies. It authorizes OED with, uh, to coordinate with private companies, federal agencies, and local communities on potential development. Uh, directs the, uh, Utah Energy Council to provide strategic guidance and preliminary assessments for nuclear recycling opportunities. Uh, creates a new statutory part defining roles, responsibilities, and evaluation processes for nuclear recycling. Uh, it helps Utah evaluate economic benefits, infrastructure needs, and regulatory considerations before any project moves forward. The bill does not authorize construction of a nuclear recycling facility. It does not select sites commit state funds or initiate federal licensing, and it does not change safety, environmental or regulatory standards. With that Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Al waive summation has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that the following bills be lifted from rules and assigned to the following committees, uh, to economic development and Workforce Services Committee. First substitute Senate bill 1 93 to the Education Committee, second substitute Senate bill 2 67 and first substitute Senate Bill 3 22 and a Health and Human Services Committee for substitute Senate Bill 1 74.

I would, um, these bills were assigned and on the rules report yesterday. However, the Senate was a little delayed in getting us the bills. They weren't read into the house until this morning. So we just wanna make sure that we formalize those assignments, those committees.