Nuclear Waste Storage

When the 2025 General Session kicks off next week, the debate over nuclear waste storage is set to become a hot (dare we say radioactive?) topic. In preparation, we wanted to share the latest information about the current proposal to store the country’s nuclear waste in Wyoming — and why we plan to oppose it.

Wyoming has stood firm against nuclear waste storage for decades, and for many good reasons. We’re concerned about the current proposal because the consequences of transporting and storing high-level radioactive waste in Wyoming would be significant, multi-generational, and perhaps even permanent.

The draft bill, which has been received for introduction as House Bill 16 – Used nuclear fuel storage-amendments, could move quickly into the house Minerals Committee. If it does, we’ll need your voice to help stop it. So without further ado, let’s dive into the bill and our key reasons for opposing this effort to site nuclear waste in Wyoming.

• This bill has moved forward with remarkably little opportunity for public engagement for such a significant and consequential issue. Initial public review of the draft bill wasn’t available until less than two weeks before its first and only discussion in the October 2024 Minerals Committee meeting. Opening the door to invite nuclear waste to Wyoming should not be a legislative afterthought and last-minute committee sponsored bill. We believe this is a topic that should require many discussions and seek robust public participation similar to what we saw in the early 1990s.

• We need to be realistic that once nuclear waste is here temporarily, it will be here to stay. It has become clear to us based on the failings of federal policies, that a “temporary” facility would become a de facto permanent repository, as no legal, political, or financial mechanisms exist to ensure its removal. Despite decades of efforts from the federal government, the fact remains that there is still no permanent disposal solution for this waste. In fact, creating temporary storage for this waste in Wyoming could undermine the political will needed to pursue a safe permanent solution to this issue.

• The history of nuclear waste storage in our country is fraught with broken promises by our federal government to both states and tribes. When we consider a half-century of missed timelines, changing scientific guidelines, and disregard of state and tribal sovereignty that has plagued the full supply chain of nuclear energy from cradle to grave, we can find very few reasons to trust the federal government that it has the best interest of Wyoming and the Wind River Reservation in mind. In 1992, this was one of Gov. Sullivan’s key points when rejecting further study of a Department of Energy proposed monitored retrievable nuclear storage site in Wyoming. In a letter, he stated,

“I am absolutely unpersuaded that Wyoming can rely on the assurances we receive from the federal government. Even granting the personal integrity and sincerity of the individuals currently speaking for the federal government, there can be no guarantees or even assurances that the federal government’s attitudes or policies will be the same one, five, ten or 50 years from now.”

• A rush to designate Wyoming as the country’s nuclear waste storage capital could have both real and perceived consequences to other industries and the state’s broader economic diversification efforts. Numerous states have rejected advances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to store nuclear waste, citing concerns around their reputation and damage to other economic sectors. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbot raised concerns over a facility because of potential risks it could pose to the state’s oil and gas development in the Permian Basin. (The Nuclear Regulatory Commission permitted this over his objections anyway.) In other states such as Tennessee, New Mexico, and Nevada, studies have confirmed negative impacts to other economic sectors like agriculture, outdoor recreation, tourism, and resident property values. If Wyoming legislators want to take the title of being the country’s nuclear waste dump, we need to be clear-eyed about how this could negatively impact our reputation and other economic sectors.

• The risks of transporting and storing nuclear waste from around the country amount to an unprecedented, unnecessary national experiment. Nuclear waste is currently stored safely at reactor sites, where it is generated, as required by federal law. This would also be true for any nuclear facility built in Wyoming. This is the right place for this waste to remain until a permanent solution can be found. It does not make sense to transport and move this hazardous material twice across thousands of miles of interstate highways, city and county roads, and railways.

If you share our concerns, we could use your help. Tell your legislators that you oppose nuclear dumps in Wyoming, and sign up here to be notified with alerts as this bill moves through the legislature.

Looking for more information? Check out our nuclear waste storage fact sheet, and don’t hesitate to reach out to us for a conversation.

Image: ShinRyu Forgers | Wikimedia Commons CC

Some bad ideas refuse to die — and the recent legislative push to make Wyoming a temporary location for the nation’s high-level radioactive waste is definitely one of them.

Over the last three decades, the Wyoming Legislature has discussed rolling out the red carpet for nuclear waste several times. Now, that discussion promises to rear its head once again when the 2025 General Session begins in January.

Just as we have in the past, WOC opposes this latest proposal, which would make it easier to store high-level radioactive waste in Wyoming. It’s not a position we take lightly: As an independent, statewide organization, we understand the challenges associated with diversifying our economy and the need for solutions that address complex energy and environmental challenges, which are often at odds with one another.

As one of the most regulated materials known to humankind, inviting high-level nuclear waste to Wyoming would also invite an unprecedented level of federal oversight and regulation not seen before in Wyoming. For this reason and others discussed here, we strongly believe that inviting this waste to Wyoming would be a poor decision that could jeopardize our environment, communities, state sovereignty, and future hopes of broader economic diversification.

Wyoming has held the line against nuclear waste storage for decades. Before we get to the current proposal, let’s take a look at some highlights from Wyoming’s long and proud history of rejecting nuclear waste dumps.

• 1991: The U.S. Department of Energy proposes a “Monitored Retrievable Storage” nuclear waste facility in Wyoming. Gov. Mike Sullivan ended the project a year later, citing numerous concerns around transportation safety, the failures of the federal government as a trusted partner, and potential damage to other industries.
• 1994: A University of Wyoming poll shows that more than 80 percent of residents opposed nuclear waste storage in Wyoming.
• 1995: The Wyoming legislature passes laws regulating private and federal nuclear waste storage facilities. Importantly, they include safeguards to ensure Wyoming does not become a de facto permanent repository site.
• 1998: Gov. Jim Geringer shuts down a proposal for a private nuclear waste storage facility.
• 2010: The decades-long effort by the federal government to create a permanent nuclear disposal facility for high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain Nevada ended, mainly for political reasons.
• 2019: The Wyoming legislature’s Spent Fuel Rods Subcommittee studies the revenue opportunity for waste storage. Because of restrictions and limited funds provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, they abandon the effort.

The current attempt to bring nuclear waste to Wyoming comes from a bill sponsored by the Joint Minerals Committee that changes the definition of “high-level nuclear waste” to exclude “spent nuclear fuel.” This definition change would create a loophole to circumvent our existing laws that require extensive environmental protections and requirements for public comment and legislative approval for the storage of high-level radioactive waste.

Call it what you like — but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Legislators can change the definition of “high level nuclear waste,” but spent nuclear fuel is still high level nuclear waste, and “spent” does not equal safe. The definition change is out of sync with the definition held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, setting the stage for conflict with the federal agency created to regulate high-level radioactive waste — do we really want to invite more uncertainty in management, jeopardizing land, water, wildlife and communities?

If you share our concerns, we could use your help. Tell your legislators that you oppose nuclear dumps in Wyoming, and sign up here to be notified with alerts as this bill moves through the legislature.

Looking for more information? Check out our nuclear waste storage fact sheet. Finally, don’t hesitate to reach out to us for a conversation.