Breaking Down the House Minerals Committee Discussion on HB16 - Where Do We Go from Here?

by Wyoming Liberty Group

On 1/29/25, HB16 (Used nuclear fuel storage - amendments) had its first run in the House Minerals Committee meeting. This bill has had a questionable start for many. Wyoming's Regulatory Reduction Task Force resurrected the idea for Wyoming to serve as a nuclear storage state earlier this summer to generate money for the state. The Task Force then went to former Rep. Donald Burkhart (2024 Minerals Committee Chairman) to bring the suggestion to the Minerals Committee at their next interim meeting. Burkhart mentioned the idea, and the bill was presented to the committee at the final interim meeting in October. While several committee members asked questions suggesting they were not ready to tackle a topic of this magnitude, the committee passed the draft bill, and now HB 16 is making its way through the Wyoming legislative process.

The most important things to note at this stage are, first, the lack of public input and second, the short timeline this bill has been under consideration. However, a few people seem to have spent extra time preparing for this conversation. We learned that Senator Ed Cooper (R-Ten Sleep), who testified strongly in favor of nuclear waste storage, has had time to travel to France in December to tour their nuclear facilities. It was unclear if other lawmakers from Wyoming made that trip as well. What is clear is that nuclear ambitions are robust at the state and federal level.

Multiple statements were made by those presenting and testifying at the 1/29 meeting and should be addressed; here are a few thoughts. Rep. Lloyd Larsen (R-Fremont) said that spent nuclear fuel (SNF) "is not waste." Senator Cooper echoed this assertion. They base this on the fact that when these materials are removed from a nuclear reactor, they still have about 90% of their power potential remaining. If there was a proposal to purchase the out-of-state SNF so that it could be converted into electricity in a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor, Larsen's assertion would be valid. But there is no such proposal on the table. The only talk of reprocessing fuel involves SNF that is produced within Wyoming's borders. That is just trying to put lipstick on the pig of truth. These materials are, in fact, waste from the reactor part of the fuel cycle.

Have you ever heard the old saying one man's trash is another man's treasure? Well, that's precisely it. SNF might be a resource in a limited sense, but the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission treats it as trash; it's the material that can no longer generate electricity in a standard reactor. It doesn't go into a landfill in the traditional sense; it goes into a fuel pool to cool and then into dry cask storage, where it remains. These dry casks are the landfill. That waste or trash can become someone else's treasure, but it's not a treasure until it's reprocessed into a new purpose. Legally speaking, Wyoming would not even have the authority to use imported SNF fuel for reprocessing, if it gains that capacity in the coming decades. HB 16 notes "Any used nuclear fuel in storage at an installation shall remain the property of the generator of the used nuclear fuel or the civilian nuclear power reactor owner." So, let's not let an industry-created PR spin deflect from the truth.

Another glaring issue throughout the meeting was the "interim" and "temporary" debate. Rep. Larsen conveyed there was nothing to worry about as these materials would only be stored temporarily, noting "the federal government has been required to provide permanent storage." As we all know, the US has no long-term storage facility. The US is starting from scratch since Yucca Mountain failed because the citizens of Nevada have repeatedly said no. Knowing this fact, the US has turned to above-ground dry cask storage as the answer for the foreseeable future. There are roughly 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in "temporary" storage, spread across over 100 active and decommissioned nuclear sites. Those "temporary" holding spots have become permanent by default and will continue to do so.

That is, unless a state like Wyoming says, "Hey! Bring us all your waste." It's also important to remember that the US generates roughly 2,000 metric tons of new spent nuclear fuel waste annually, a number that is based on the current number of reactors producing waste. That number doesn't factor in how much additional waste will be created with all the new reactor projects happening or being planned around the country and the demand for new electricity AI databases will place on the situation. If that isn't enough, many of these projects are small modular reactors, which Stanford researchers say will create up to 30 times more waste than the traditional reactors that 2,000 number is based on. Some of that waste may not be eligible for long-term geological repository storage either. So yeah, we have a serious nuclear waste problem on our hands in this country.

The current project in Kemmerer, WY, is a type of small modular reactor. Chairman Scott Heiner (R-Green River) remarked that Rocky Mountain Power is toying with the notion of putting several more Kemmerer-style projects around the state. Let's consider that for a second. We could have the TerraPower demonstration project in Kemmerer, 5-6 additional similar facilities around the state, the country's nuclear storage facility in the middle of Wyoming, reactor manufacturing in the Casper area, and mining operations near Green River switching to nuclear power. How much SNF will Wyoming be generating and storing on its own? It's starting to feel like we're going from 0 to 100 with nuclear.

During the meeting, nuclear fuel reprocessing was mentioned frequently, seemingly intending to give committee members the illusion that these materials could briefly sit in Wyoming awaiting their day for reprocessing and then would be gone. There was a consistent reference to the fact that France reprocesses most of their spent fuel. The problem is the US doesn't do nuclear fuel reprocessing and won't anytime soon. Our country is rich in uranium. We should know, Wyoming is the leading producer. The nuclear industry knows mining uranium is far cheaper and easier than reprocessing. France has no economically viable uranium deposits, so reprocessing is their best choice. This fact remains: the US is in the position that these materials will have to sit in dry cask storage until a permanent repository can be established.

Now, let's say the US decided tomorrow that its priority is establishing a geological repository. How long would that take? Well, that's a tricky question. Let's look at the global stage. No country in the world has a fully operational, long-term geological repository for high-level nuclear waste, but several are in various stages of Development.

1. Finland – Onkalo Deep Geological Repository

- Finland is the furthest along with its Onkalo repository at the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant site.

- The facility is expected to start operations by the early 2030s.

- Waste will be buried in stable bedrock, encapsulated in copper canisters, and placed at a depth of 400–450 meters.

2. Sweden – Forsmark Geological Repository (Approved but Not Yet Built)

- In 2022, Sweden approved the construction of a deep geological repository in Forsmark.

- It will use copper canisters and clay barriers similar to Finland's Onkalo.

- The facility is expected to start operations in the early 2040s.

3. France – Cigéo Project (In Development)

- France plans to build Cigéo, a deep geological repository in Bure, eastern France.

- The project is not yet under construction, but authorities aim to begin operations around the 2030s.

*Food for thought – If France reprocesses so much spent nuclear fuel, as we heard in the committee meeting, why do they need a geological repository?

4. Canada – Nuclear Waste Management Organization (Site Selected)

-On 11/28/24, the NWMO announced that the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Township of Ignace in northwestern Ontario will host the repository.

-The site selection process began in 2010 and the project will now proceed to the regulatory decision-making phase, with construction anticipated to start in the mid-2030s and the repository expected to become operational in the early 2040s.

5. Switzerland – Nördlich Lägern Geological Repository (Proposed Site Selected in 2022)

- Switzerland selected Nördlich Lägern as the site for its future repository in 2022.

- It will store high-level waste in deep clay rock formations, but construction is still years away.

Why have no countries fully implemented a geological repository yet? There are several reasons, political and public oppositions. Some experts question the long-term integrity of containment methods, high costs, and delays with these facilities requiring decades to plan and billions of dollars to construct. Regulatory hurdles also play a role. If Wyoming considers storing nuclear waste, it must acknowledge that no country in the world has yet fully demonstrated the long-term safety of deep geological storage. Even nations with the most advanced plans, like Finland and Sweden, are still in the early stages. We must be wary of any claims that suggest nuclear waste storage is a solved issue. It's far from it.