What Wyoming can learn about nuclear waste from Texas

The idea of storing the nation’s highly radioactive nuclear waste in Wyoming may sound like an opportunity for jobs or revenue, but don’t be fooled. History and recent experience — especially from Texas — show us that dealing with the federal government on nuclear waste is a losing proposition. 

Broken promises and federal overreach 

For decades, the federal government has promised solutions for nuclear waste, and every single time, they’ve failed. They’ve missed deadlines, shifted their strategies, ignored state rights and left local communities holding the bag. 

Look at Texas: In 2020 Gov. Greg Abbott firmly opposed a plan to store the nation’s nuclear waste at a private company site there. He warned of the risks to Texas’ economy and security, calling the federal government’s efforts wrong. And he was right. The courts later struck down the project, finding that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not allow the agency to even license such private facilities far off-site from reactors. 

There’s no money for Wyoming anyway 

Supporters of bringing nuclear waste to Wyoming claim it’ll earn us money. But there’s no pot of gold at the end of this radioactive rainbow. Similar proposals in Texas and New Mexico promised billions, but they’ve gone nowhere — blocked by courts and hampered by federal laws. Even if the legal hurdles were cleared, those states’ facilities are a decade ahead of any Wyoming effort. Combined, those two sites will have more than enough storage capacity –– over 200,000 metric tons –– for current and future waste streams. There’s no need for a third Wyoming site. 

A flawed licensing process that tramples states’ rights 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission claimed at a Wyoming legislative meeting that it can safely site and license these types of storage facilities. But oops –– they made a big mistake in Texas, with a site right in the Permian Basin, threatening a vital hub of American oil and gas production. Local residents, county commissioners and even oil companies opposed the plan, citing risks of accidents, environmental contamination and transportation disasters. 

The Texas Legislature even passed a law prohibiting the facility, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission didn’t listen. They brazenly ignored Texas law and granted a license for the project, ignoring the very people who know the area best and who will live with the consequences. 

How can such a reputable-sounding agency get it so wrong? Because, frankly, they have no experience licensing large volume, away-from-reactor, private nuclear waste sites. The process they use,  called an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation license, has only been applied to infrastructure next to the reactors, containing little more than 1,000 metric tons at any one site. 

But the Texas scheme –– located thousands of miles from the source reactors — would accept 40,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste, in a first-of-its-kind massive cross-country transportation experiment. This flawed and untested process is another reason Wyoming should steer clear of this dangerous scheme. 

Permanent problems, not temporary solutions

Supporters of nuclear waste storage call these “temporary” facilities. But make no mistake, temporary quickly becomes permanent. Federal promises to build permanent storage, like Yucca Mountain in Nevada,  have gone nowhere in over 40 years. Once the waste comes to Wyoming, it’s likely here to stay. 

Stand up for Wyoming 

We need to stand up for Wyoming and reject House Bill 16, “Used nuclear fuel storage-amendments,” in the 2025 legislative session. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing pretending to be innocuous. What’s even more unbelievable is lawmakers’ trust in a federal government with a clear record of broken promises that bring no financial benefits and plenty of risks. Let’s learn from Texas’ fight and say no to being the nation’s nuclear dumping ground. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to protect our state and our way of life. 

Note: The state of Texas’ claims can be found in their litigation against the NRC here.