The 110 percent solution

2013-10-14T05:00:00Z The 110 percent solutionSTAR-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD Casper Star-Tribune Online
October 14, 2013 5:00 am  • 

It always sounds like a good idea in Wyoming to have the state in charge of a program, rather than the federal government. And Wyoming has long talked about going through the process to take over monitoring uranium mining and milling from the federal government.

The move is called ‘taking primacy” from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or becoming an “agreement state.”

The agreement gives the state the power, and the responsibility, of monitoring and permitting uranium production within its borders.

A majority of states actually already are agreement states

— 37 of them, in fact, although Wyoming leads the country in uranium production, producing twice what the second state [Nebraska] produces.

But some cold water has been thrown on the primacy idea from an expert commissioned by the Legislature to investigate how practical it would be to take over for the feds.

The researcher hired by the state Department of Environmental Quality to investigate the idea gave legislators a warning recently that the state would have to hire very well-paid regulators with the technical know-how to evaluated complicated uranium proposals.

“That’s a significant investment if uranium prices drop and Wyoming mines stop producing,” researcher Christopher Pugsley said.

In other words, the state would have to recruit and pay very well for employees whose workload may depend on the fickle uranium market, where demand can be swung by out-of-the-blue incidents such as the tidal wave that damaged Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant in 2011. While producers still see growing demand, renewed worries about the safety of nuclear power plants have lowered demand projections and throttled down uranium prices.

The same dive in uranium prices happened after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. After that accident, no new nuclear power plants were built in the U.S. for 30 years.

Why take primacy?

Rep. Dave Miller, R-Riverton, wanted the study when he became convinced that the federal government was too slow in handling permitting requests from Wyoming.

He felt that Wyoming had lost out on boom prices for uranium several years ago because of what he considered delays in the permitting.

From the federal point of view, it’s a matter of resources because, “The boom in applications started in 2007, the economy turned in 2008, and we are under budget constraints like every other agency,” said NRC spokesman Dave McIntyre.

He said that two full permits have been issued in Wyoming since 2007.

But now the legislators will have to look into their crystal ball and decide if they want to make the financial investment and take the five years it typically requires for states to draw up plans and get them approved by the NRC.

The state official tasked with getting answer for the Legislature was pretty direct in her recommendation.

Nancy Nuttbrock said, “The staffing requirements are significant … and the skill sets required with those staffing positions are not easily sought, retained or paid for.”

She outright told the legislators that it was her suggestion that they not draft any bills in 2014 to take over uranium regulation. And the expert who was at the meeting?

He said he agreed with Nuttbrock 110 percent.

Pugsley will give the Legislature his final report Dec. 1. It will present case studies of states with uranium regulations.

The staff and budgeting at the NRC will be included in the report to help legislators decide whether to go forward with the plan to take over regulation of uranium

But the preliminary finding was not ambiguous. It was discouraging in its description of the time needed to accomplish primacy and the costs, all in the face of an uncertain uranium market.

When the Legislature asks for an outside opinion, it would be wise to heed what is reported back, even if the news is bad.

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. thehousemouse
    Report Abuse
    thehousemouse - October 14, 2013 8:51 pm
    ill tell you this much, this is not something anyone should pay with, look at japan. need i say more. wind is not the answer either its a sustudized load of pig swollow. we are coal, gas, and oil. what is wrong with this? we have not been hit by the worst of the econony because we are energy. what are we not embracing this. or do we have the wrong people in charge? wyoming people are special, and our life styles are as well. we never take more then we need or sell our sould for big profits. or least that is the way it was for over 30 years ive been around here. But there is a new game in town., sell to thehighest bidder, these are the ones we must be dilligent about to stop. They like wyoming like fat chicks like chocolate, as along as a free ride runs, or theres plenty of it, were there. I say wyoming is not longer for sale. anyone feel this way?
  2. stickalose
    Report Abuse
    stickalose - October 14, 2013 3:14 pm
    Good for Ms.Nuttbrock for looking out for Wyomings' interests Most of the current crop of uranium producers are foreign owned, let the feds keep the responsibility for dealing with them. Methinks Mr. Miller is too close to the industry.
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Activate subscription button gif

Featured Businesses

Latest Offers