“They’ve Been Downwind Before”

"They've Been Downwind Before"

Utah Is Once Again Being Asked to Sacrifice for Nuclear Development

The truth About Small Nuclear Reactors and Their Impact on the Health of Utah

On February 15th, the U.S. military transported a Small Nuclear Test Reactor (SNR) to Utah’s Hill Airforce base by Layton. This SMR is set to begin testing on July 4th, 2026. The installation of a test is a big step towards Utah’s development to favor nuclear energy as a new source of power for residents despite the extreme risks it will subject Utahns to.

 

In a March 2026 investigation, ProPublica reported that the Trump administration is rapidly weakening nuclear safety rules while fast-tracking new reactor development. The article highlights a meeting where federal officials dismissed risks to Utah communities, with one remarking, “they are testing in Utah… I don’t know, like 70 people live there,” followed by another saying, “they’ve been downwind before.”

These comments underscore growing concerns that federal decision-makers are treating Utah as expendable while reducing oversight meant to protect public health and safety.

 

Later in the month, Utah announced its proposed nuclear lifecycle innovation campus on March 27, 2026, with state leaders identifying a location in Tooele County as the potential site. While officials emphasize the location is remote, the site is still relatively close to the Great Salt Lake and the broader Wasatch Front region, raising concerns about air patterns, water resources, and ecological impacts. 

The proposed campus could include uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication, recycling of spent nuclear fuel, and waste management facilities,  meaning the project would bring multiple stages of the nuclear fuel cycle to one region. Advocates and community members have raised concerns that placing so much of the nuclear fuel cycle near the Great Salt Lake watershed and regional population centers could create long-term environmental and public health risks if contamination or accidents were to occur.

“If you’re serious about saving the Great Salt Lake, we have to be serious about how we produce energy. Technologies that use less water directly support the long-term health of the lake.” - Utah Gov. Spencer Cox

Alongside advocates, downwinders, and impacted communities, HEAL Utah is deeply concerned about the Governor’s expressed sentiments tying nuclear energy to the health of the Great Salt Lake, which seems to ignore the potential harms of the nuclear fuel cycle on the watershed responsible for the health of this delicate ecosystem.

 

Utah’s embrace of nuclear energy also featured prominently in the 2026 Utah State Legislative session. At least 10 focused on propping up the industry by using taxpayer dollars. These bills included funding for nuclear research, workforce development, tax incentives, and regulatory support designed to accelerate new reactor development in the state. 

 

While these policies were framed as economic development and energy innovation, they collectively represent a significant public investment in an industry that still carries long-term financial, environmental, and public health risks. Many of these decisions were made with limited public awareness, despite the scale of the commitment and the potential impacts on Utah communities.

Pictured: Utah’s red rock wilderness has a long history of uranium mining, radioactive exposure, and communities impacted by fallout from nuclear bomb tests.

Summarizing Utah's Nuclear Bills in 2026

While nuclear power is advertised to be the answer for cheap, clean energy production, the costs, long times, and risks to environmental and public health it brings to the state cannot be ignored. 

 

Utah’s embrace of nuclear energy is perhaps best visualized by the sheer number of bills related to nuclear passed during the 2026 legislative session. What follows is a summary of each of the nuclear bills tracked by HEAL Utah’s policy experts in recent months.

This resolution declares Utah’s support for the advanced nuclear manufacturing industry. HEAL opposed this resolution because nuclear manufacturing poses significant economic risks to communities, are unproven at commercial scale, and rely on long-term public subsidies.

  • HEAL Stance: OPPOSE
  • This resolution PASSED

This bill focused on developing the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Office through the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control and the state’s pursuit of expanded NRC Agreement State status. The substitute moved this bill from “watching” to “opposed” for HEAL because it contained an exemption to allow certain high-level nuclear waste storage in Utah without triggering Utah’s stricter high-level waste siting restrictions, as long as it is licensed by the state. HEAL is very concerned about decreasing federal limits on radiation protection, and its impact on our environment and communities.

  • HEAL Stance: OPPOSE
  • This bill PASSED

This bill expanded the Utah Energy Council and created the Utah Energy Infrastructure Service District, a special district governed by the council that can finance, own, and manage energy infrastructure projects, such as nuclear power plants, transmission, and storage facilities, within designated energy development zones using revenue bonds and operating contracts. HEAL watched this bill concerned about using taxpayer dollars for nuclear energy projects and also asked to see amendments made to expand the Council even further to include a public health expert, an environmental health expert, and an impacted community member.

  • HEAL Stance: WATCHING
  • This bill PASSED

This bill modifies public funding accounts and fundings, and creates a new state Energy Development Infrastructure Fund that provides public loans for infrastructure supporting nuclear power generation and transmission. HEAL opposed this bill because it directs taxpayer dollars towards a costly and risky private industry. 

  • HEAL Stance: OPPOSE
  • This bill PASSED

This resolution expresses support for Utah to pursue expanded Agreement State status with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for additional elements of permitting and oversight within the nuclear fuel cycle. HEAL Utah opposed this resolution because it poses significant economic, health, and environmental risks given the unresolved waste disposal challenges that accompany nuclear development. 

  • HEAL Stance: OPPOSE
  • This resolution PASSED

This resolution would have urged the U.S. government not to resume explosive nuclear weapons testing. HEAL supported this resolution because it recognizes the lasting harm caused by nuclear weapons testing to Utah’s communities and that resumption of testing is unnecessary.

  • HEAL Stance: SUPPORT
  • This resolution FAILED

This resolution expresses support for formalizing an agreement between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Utah to streamline the permitting process for oil, gas, and mining operations on BLM land. HEAL opposed this bill because of our concern that it affirms Utah’s intention to speed up the oil and gas permitting process without ensuring proper environmental protections and opportunities for public engagement.

  • HEAL Stance: OPPOSE
  • This resolution PASSED

This bill authorizes the Office of Energy Development to coordinate nuclear fuel reprocessing and a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus with all parts of the nuclear fuel chain. HEAL opposed this bill because the entire nuclear nuclear chain is extremely costly, requires decades of government support, and creates high risks of radioactive exposure.

  • HEAL Stance: OPPOSE
  • This bill PASSED

S.B. 234 removes Utah’s authority to adopt stronger or more protective environmental and health standards than federal law, even when local conditions or public health concerns warrant stricter protections. HEAL opposed this bill because it limits Utah’s ability to protect communities from environmental public health threats at a time when federal regulations are being cut left and right.

  • HEAL Stance: OPPOSE
  • This bill PASSED

This bill creates a state council and facilitates faster permitting of critical mineral mining operations by the Department of Environmental Quality and the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining and the creation of the Minerals for Industrial, National, and Economic Security Center. This bill was substituted with changes to the severance taxes and decreasing funding for ozone research in the Uinta Basin. HEAL opposed this bill due to concern that faster permitting usually means that public engagement or public and environmental health protections are cut, and because of the decreased funding for critical air quality research.

  • HEAL Stance: OPPOSE
  • This bill PASSED

A Closer Look At The Issue

Utah is once again being positioned as a testing ground for the nuclear industry, with federal and state leaders pushing forward small modular reactor (SMR) and microreactor projects across the state and to be home to a nuclear lifecycle innovation campus (mapped below), opening up the state to nuclear fuel fabrication, enrichment, recycling of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste storage, including interim storage and a long-term repository for waste – all of which leaves radioactive contamination and needs taxpayer subsidies to stay afloat.

Seen to the left of the Great Salt Lake, the proposed ‘Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus’ is enormous.

 

  • Sourced From: Utah Office of Energy Development
  • Mapping: Christopher Cherrington
  • Title: Utah’s Planned Statewide Nuclear Ecosystem

While numerous small nuclear test reactors are expected to launch this year, HEAL remains skeptical whether these will turn on, function properly, and what their cost means for taxpayers. These projects are being fast-tracked under federal policies that are reducing environmental review and safety oversight to speed nuclear development. Once again, Utah communities are being asked to take on the risks while federal agencies and private companies receive the benefits, reinforcing the idea that Utah is expendable when it comes to nuclear development. Accelerated timelines also raise concerns about safety oversight, environmental review, and long-term planning. Utah is ultimately becoming a hub for nuclear testing, manufacturing, and deployment, despite unresolved issues around waste, cost, timelines, and safety.

Costs & Timelines - Risks to Taxpayers

Nuclear power is one of the most expensive energy sources to build, with high upfront capital costs. Even when private companies build reactors, projects often rely heavily on federal and state subsidies, tax credits, and public infrastructure meaning taxpayers still carry the financial risk. Many small modular reactor projects have already been canceled or delayed due to rising costs, including a major project connected to Utah municipal power systems that collapsed after costs increased significantly. This means that nuclear projects frequently go over budget and over timeline, leaving communities and ratepayers paying the difference.

“... it just isn’t economic, and it’s not economic within a foreseeable time frame... Claims that small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear reactors in a shiny new mini box, will change the cost equation have been made for 15 years and are still disputed by numerous nuclear experts.” -John Rowe, former CEO of Exelon, America’s Largest Owner of Nuclear Power Plants

Ratepayers are also at risk of high energy costs as nuclear energy is consistently one of the most expensive energy sources. Communities could face higher electricity costs, infrastructure costs, and long-term waste management costs. SMRs are often marketed as cheaper and faster, but most are still untested commercially and have yet to prove they can deliver affordable electricity.

Environmental and Health Impacts

There are a number of non-negotiable impacts that nuclear energy in general creates: 

  • Exposure to radioactive material is detrimental to the human body, and environment at any level and with the risk of continuous and long term exposure, health risks increase.
  • Nuclear reactors also require a tremendous amount of water, a resource the state is already struggling to conserve. 
  • Nuclear energy also requires long-term waste storage and decommissioning funds that can last decades or centuries.

 

Radiation exposure is especially harmful to women and children. With reproductive cells and dividing cells, risks of DNA strands gone bad from radiation exposure increases, along with the likelihood of adverse health impacts (see https://www.radiationproject.org/ for more).

Federal Officials Weakening Nuclear Safety Rules

Federal officials are currently rewriting nuclear safety and environmental review rules to make it easier and faster to build new reactors. Some experimental reactors are now being exempted from environmental review requirements. Experts have warned that these changes could weaken safety, security, and environmental protections at new nuclear facilities.

 

This raises serious concerns about Utah being used as a testing ground under weaker federal oversight, and reinforces a long history of federal decision-makers treating Utah as expendable when it comes to nuclear and radioactive industry.

Solutions

While transitioning to a just energy future is absolutely critical for the state, nuclear power is too risky and too far into the future to fully lean into at this time (or at all). Other options, that are both cheaper and safer for our community, must be considered. 

 

Utah serves as a research hub for geothermal energy. Current projects such as https://capestation.com/ are actively harnessing this resource for clean energy. Additionally, while solar energy has an impact on the environment through its manufacturing and installation, it is still a safe and reliable option for Utah. Small scale solar projects and rooftop installations cut down both on emissions and the overall cost of power for residential sites (refer to https://www.healutah.org/solarforcleanair/ for additional information). 

 

Utah communities deserve energy solutions that lower costs, protect public health, and do not leave future generations with radioactive waste and financial liability.

Additional resources

Local researchers’ newest findings: https://www.uphe.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Nuclear-power-report-PDF-compressed.pdf

Citations

  • https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2026/02/16/us-military-flies-nuclear-reactor/
  • https://www.nuscalepower.com/
  • https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2026/02/01/nuclear-power-utah-expensive-unsafe/
  • https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-power-reactors/small-modular-reactors/small-modular-reactors
  • https://www.healutah.org/solarforcleanair/ 
  • https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/proximity-to-nuclear-power-plants-associated-with-increased-cancer-mortality/ 
  • https://capestation.com/ 

Legislative Recap

Interested in learning more about environmental health during Utah’s 2026 Legislative Session? Check out our blogpost recapping the session today!

2026 Legislative Recap