Waste hearing sparks criticism of senator

The public had its say Tuesday on the state's policy toward radioactive waste. When all was said and done, one public perception was that the Hazardous Waste Regulation and Tax Policy Task Force has become a cheerleader for the waste industry.

And critics say the task force has lost all credibility.

"It's obvious to the casual observer that (task force chairman) Sen. Curt Bramble is here to promote industry interests and pave the way for nuclear and toxic waste to be dumped in Utah," said Jason Groenewold, director of Families Against Incinerator Risk.

Indeed, grumbling could be heard throughout the audience as Bramble openly debated waste opponents, sometimes questioning the veracity of their testimony and demanding proof. But when industry officials testified, he was deferential, rarely challenging whether the answers were true.

"It hardly promotes balance and objectivity when he shoots arrows at the public and rolls out the red carpet for nuclear and hazardous waste industries," Groenewold added.

Bramble seemed impatient with the public testimony even before it started. When one woman suggested at the outset that a public hearing be held in the evening when people with daytime work commitments could attend, the room erupted in applause. Bramble testily retorted that the task force can't make everyone happy. Besides, he said, one evening meeting already had been held — in Tooele.

By Tuesday night, Bramble conceded an evening hearing was probably a good idea.

"Their opinions are important to me. Their opinions are valid," he insisted. "But it is appropriate (for the task force) to question whether it is an opinion and what the basis for that opinion is."

More than two dozen people testified at Tuesday's meeting, most of them waste opponents who were countered by a smattering of industry supporters and employees. To accommodate the numbers who wanted to be heard, Bramble actually extended the time slotted for public testimony.

But it was his treatment of those witnesses that got the attention of those thinking about speaking before the task force. Those who testified say the committee was rude and condescending. One lawmaker even questioned whether a witness' name was legal or not.

"It was outrageous," said Sue Courth, who took the day off work to testify. "I was so angry it made my speech that much easier."

When one man expressed concerns over the transportation of dangerous wastes, Bramble demanded proof that such transportation was dangerous. And then he repeated the demand several times.

"When someone says this is dangerous, based on their professional experience, it is appropriate to ask them clarifying questions about their testimony," Bramble said. "It did not appear to me to be anywhere near a cross-examination."

Comments