Legislature Will Consider Potential To Store High-Level Nuclear Waste In Wyoming

A legislative committee advanced a bill this week that, if passed, would move toward allowing storing high-level nuclear waste in Wyoming. Opponents say it’s a disaster waiting to happen, while supporters say it’s “close-minded” not to consider.

LW
Leo Wolfson

October 10, 20247 min read

Radioactive waste Getty Images 53180578 10 10 24
(Jeff T. Green, Getty Images)

A door may soon open for Wyoming to become a site for storing nuclear waste if a bill advanced by the Legislature this week passes.

The Legislature’s Joint Minerals, Business, and Economic Development Committee passed draft legislation Tuesday that would lay the groundwork for changing Wyoming’s laws to allow outside groups to use the state for temporary storage of high-level radioactive fuel waste created by nuclear power plants.

The legislation passed on an 8-5 vote and advances to the 2025 legislative session as a bill sponsored by the committee.

State law now allows used nuclear fuel to be kept by and at advanced nuclear facilities in Wyoming where it is produced, as long as those facilities meet federal requirements. There are no operating nuclear reactors in Wyoming, but in June, TerraPower broke ground on a natrium reactor in Kemmerer.

Committee Co-Chair state Rep. Don Burkhart, R-Rawlins, spoke in favor of the bill, arguing that it will bring Wyoming in alignment with federal regulation.

Burkhart has supported bringing nuclear waste to Wyoming in the past, mentioning the economic benefits it could bring to the state.

A few people from the public spoke in opposition to the bill, mentioning the environmental risks that come from transporting and storing nuclear waste, a product that can take up to 10,000 years to decay.

There are new developments in the reuse of spent nuclear fuel and several bills are now making their way through Congress that would allow for its reprocessing.

What It Does

The legislation falls short of approving temporary storage in Wyoming, but provides more clarity for how Wyoming could consider storing nuclear waste if it wants to, which would technically only be allowed to be temporary.

Wyoming laws now conflict with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations on nuclear storage, but the proposed bill would bring the state in alignment with NRC rules and could save the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality time with duplicate work. It also clarifies procedures for the legal storage of nuclear waste.

It removes the regulation of Wyoming nuclear storage from the Industrial Siting Act, a state law addressing large industrial development.

The Arguments

Lander resident Stephanie Kessler was one of the people against the proposed bill.

“With all due respect, the federal government can get it wrong,” she said. “Especially when it comes to nuclear waste.”

Sen. Ed Cooper, R-Thermopolis, mentioned how the NRC spends a significant amount of time considering the environmental impacts for every nuclear permit it approves. He believes opposing all nuclear storage in Wyoming is “close-minded.”

“We need to keep an open mind and consider our options and really look to the future with this stuff,” he said.

The Texas Legislature passed a law in 2021 prohibiting the construction of a nuclear waste storage facility and the issuance of permits for the facility located near the oil-production dense Permian Basin. Despite that, the NRC still issued a license for the facility.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced it will hear a case fighting the issuance of this permit.

“This is a cautionary tale that the federal government will do what it wants to force this way on states,” Kessler said.

Former House Speaker and Senate President Eli Bebout disagreed, saying that Wyoming has much more available land than Texas and the bill has merit because of the economic benefits the storage could bring to the state.

“I think we’re a very, very progressive state that looks at different opportunities and, my goodness, the opportunity something like this might bring to our state, to our country is overwhelming,” he said.

Speaking to Cowboy State Daily on Thursday, Bebout said concerns about the safety of storing nuclear waste are unmerited.

“The real issue is with the image,” Bebout said. “We should be looking to be a leader in nuclear power for the good of the state and country.”

Gov. Mark Gordon has also expressed openness in the past to allowing a nuclear waste storage facility in Wyoming.

Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, was one of the five members of the committee to vote against the legislation. Although he supports most uses of nuclear power, becoming a storage hub for America’s used nuclear fuel is not Rothfuss’ idea of diversifying Wyoming’s economy.

“I think it puts Wyoming in an awkward position of accepting everyone’s nuclear garbage,” he told Cowboy State Daily.

Temporary?

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada is the only location tentatively approved for permanent storage of nuclear waste, although funding has been stripped from that project.

Wyoming Outdoor Council Executive Director Carl Fisher and others said during the committee meeting that the idea of storing nuclear waste in Wyoming only being temporary is a misnomer as there is nowhere to put used nuclear fuel in permanent storage in America.

“Why does Wyoming want to shoulder the burdens and the liability of transporting radioactive waste through numerous Wyoming communities?” he questioned. “It does feel a bit like a race to the bottom for something nobody really wants.”

Long History

Dealing with high level radioactive waste is not a new discussion in Wyoming.

Bebout mounted his own efforts to bring a used nuclear fuel facility to Wyoming in the early 1990s that would have been located near the center of the state in Shoshoni.

After public pressure in 1992, Gov. Mike Sullivan vetoed a measure that would have legalized storing nuclear waste in Wyoming.

Three years later, the Legislature changed the laws to allow storage of spent nuclear fuel waste from Wyoming nuclear power plants, while still prohibiting the building of a commercial high-level radioactive waste facility, unless the federal government establishes a permanent storage facility, which has yet to happen.

In 1998, a private company wanted to build a nuclear storage facility in Wyoming, but then-Gov. Jim Geringer refused to allow a preliminary feasibility study, ending the proposal.

Blades To Rods?

Fisher argued that storing nuclear waste in Wyoming will create a bad legacy for the Cowboy State. He believes the legislation rolls back current policies that prevent nuclear waste from being accepted in Wyoming and is alarmed with developments he sees as making Wyoming more friendly to nuclear storage.

“If we don’t have a plan for what’s one of the most harmful products on Earth, is it really responsible to generate it?” he questioned.

This drew Rep. Scott Heiner, R-Green River, to question if the Outdoor Council is against nuclear energy as a whole. Fisher said it is not, but the group is concerned about a lack of viable permanent storage options for nuclear waste.

Heiner wouldn’t relent, then asking Fisher how the Outdoor Council feels about the waste produced by retired wind turbines. Kessler said comparing slow-decaying nuclear rods to turbine blades is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Cooper also criticized Fisher’s argument, saying the purpose of the legislation is to clear up ambiguity in the law so that conversations about nuclear storage can better take place. He and Bebout see nuclear energy as an important part of Wyoming’s energy future given the worldwide movement toward low-carbon energy in recent decades.

Fisher also believes there’s been a lack of public engagement on the issue as the draft bill did not surface until about two weeks prior to Tuesday’s meeting.

“We just question why the rush on a singular committee issue on a bill that has such far-reaching impacts for the state,” he said.

The legislation gives 30 days of public comment for any proposed storage projects. It also creates an up to $10,000 a day fine for violation.

“It’s a unique material that needs to be addressed adequately,” Burkhart said.

The proposed bill would also change the law to clarify that used or spent nuclear fuel isn’t standard waste and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Similarly, it clarifies that “high-level radioactive waste” does not include spent nuclear fuel. But according to the NRC, high-level radioactive waste includes both spent and used nuclear fuel.

Leo Wolfson can be reached at leo@cowboystatedaily.com.

Authors

LW

Leo Wolfson

Politics and Government Reporter