Body
Wyoming communities are pressing for time to assess nuclear energy and the question of where spent fuel and other radioactive materials should be stored as federal efforts to accelerate nuclear development run ahead of local deliberation.
The federal push comes as Wyoming already has one nuclear power plant under construction and lawmakers have opened a pathway for spent nuclear fuel storage in the state. The debate has intensified because the storage discussion is tied to new reactor proposals, potential manufacturing and deployment plans for small nuclear units, and the pace of regulatory change.
Big Wind Carpenter, a member of the Northern Arapaho tribe who serves as tribal engagement coordinator for the Lander-based Wyoming Outdoor Council, took part in a nuclear energy forum hosted by the University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources, Ruckelshaus Institute and the Wyoming Energy Authority. Carpenter said communities need to weigh both risk and potential benefit before expanding what the industry is allowed to do in their backyards, noting, “There’s all this risk, and we’re trying to make sure that those risks are minimized,” and adding, “What is the benefit for the community? I think those are good discussions to start to happen.”
Carpenter and others pointed to the speed at which earlier decisions played out in Kemmerer. From TerraPower’s announcement of site selection in November 2021 to lawmakers amending Wyoming’s waste storage ban a few months later in 2022, discussion moved quickly; since then, additional legislative attempts to further amend or end the ban have failed amid disagreement that has divided some communities.
The controversy has echoed in state-level political battles as well. Radiant Industries withdrew a proposed nuclear microreactor manufacturing facility from Natrona County in November after a contentious year of seeking assurances about whether Wyoming might loosen its waste storage ban, and Gov. Mark Gordon later characterized opponents, including the far-right Freedom Caucus, as “ Club No,” describing “a new culture of no matter who began or who commenced it, we’re against it.”
Researchers and federal watchdogs say community acceptance for a centralized waste repository has historically taken far longer than policy timelines often allow. Jennifer Richter, an associate professor at Arizona State University’s School for the Future of Innovation in Society, said in the forum discussion that the process can’t be rushed and that the federal government has tried for more than 40 years to get buy-in for a central U.S. repository “and that has not gone particularly well.” She said the country’s difficulty in reaching comfort with waste storage reflects a “much longer and more complicated history with nuclear,” including contamination tied to past lax regulations and the boom-and-bust pattern of uranium mining that left behind “ghost towns,” which has contributed to skepticism.
Christine King, director of the Idaho National Laboratory’s Gateway for Accelerated Innovation program, said advanced reactor technologies are based on components and safety concepts that have been tested in research settings and that cooling systems and alternative fuel designs are intended to add safety layers. She described that in her role, “We’ve tested over 52 experimental reactors over the years at INL,” and added that systems such as liquid sodium cooling and fuel types including TRISO, which encases enriched uranium, are designed to add layers of safety.
Even so, King said communities should not expect federal regulators or technology developers to decide how nuclear power should fit local life. “It’s not up to anybody to tell you whether nuclear power or how much or how little is right for Wyoming,” she said, and warned that decisions create long-term relationships. “These are 100-year relationships you’re going to have with these projects,” she said.
The forum also addressed regulatory pressure to move faster. Tison Campbell, a partner at industry market analysis company K&L Gates who previously worked at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for more than 19 years, said the Trump administration has ordered a major overhaul aimed largely at speeding up permitting and that “That’s in process right now,” adding that “Only a few of those proposed rules (changes) have been issued” and that more were expected for public comment periods before any finalization.
Wyoming’s uranium sector adds another layer to the debate over trust and oversight. State officials have pointed to staffing and regulatory authority for mining expansion, with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality saying it has the institutional knowledge to handle growth. Land Quality Administrator Brandi O’Brien said her agency and its permittees go above federal standards, including Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation of milling facilities that distill raw uranium ore to uranium oxide, known as “yellowcake,” and she said the department assumed primacy of that federal oversight in 2018.
But at least one resident said past experience makes compliance assurances less persuasive in practice. Maria Katherman, a Converse County resident, alleged that a wastewater pond at the Smith Ranch-Highland uranium facility was leaking and not up to standards and that, she said, the company avoided fixing it despite state regulators being made aware. O’Brien acknowledged the problem and said her office “also did inherit sites that (were previously) licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” explaining that the sites had been under different regulatory requirements at the time. Katherman responded that she was unconvinced, saying, “If our industry is going to expand,” and then adding, “and you talk about, ‘How can we convince the public?’ Well, in Converse County, I’m the public, and no amount of regulations on paper are going to convince me.”
For state and tribal engagement efforts, the forum’s through-line was that long-term decisions about nuclear energy and waste involve more than technology readiness or regulatory schedules. Participants framed the next steps as discussions aimed at community education and empowerment—so that people can decide whether the industry belongs in their communities and under what conditions.