Update on Paducah Enrichment
Here is an update on Global Laser Enrichment’s proposed Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility (PLEF), the first-of-its-kind laser uranium enrichment facility in the country. The NRC released the draft EIS and opened a public comment period that closed May 11, 2026. The draft EIS: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
ML2606/ML26061A085.pdf
As I wrote in my CounterPunch article back in April, there are two main issues:
First, the NRC is using NUREG-2249 — a Generic Environmental Impact Statement written for nuclear reactors — as a substitute for site-specific analysis of a laser enrichment facility, a completely different technology that has never operated at commercial scale anywhere. Second, the whole project depends on DOE selling GLE more than 200,000 metric tons of depleted uranium tails stored at the old Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant — and the GAO has twice concluded DOE probably lacks the legal authority to sell it.
https://www.counterpunch.org/
Since then, two parties have submitted requests for hearings, and I’m sharing the status of this. I’m lucky to be in communication with the applicants who are keeping me up-to-date and I thought I’d share it with y’all.
Timeline:
In May, the Kentucky Resources Council (KRC), a public-interest environmental law group, filed a request for a hearing:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
A second petitioner, Michael McVicker, also filed a request for hearing, raising issues including seismic risk and the cumulative impacts of the adjacent General Matter enrichment facility now under development on the same site:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
On June 1, both GLE and the NRC Staff filed answers opposing the petitions. They argue the petitioners lack standing and have no admissible contentions. On the NUREG-2249 issue, they defend an internal staff “crosswalk” — a document with no rulemaking and no public process — as sufficient basis to apply reactor findings to a laser enrichment facility. On the DOE issue, they argue that whether DOE can legally sell the uranium is “outside the scope” of the licensing proceeding — even though the license itself authorizes GLE to receive and possess that exact material.
GLE’s answer:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
NRC Staff’s answer:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/
Today, June 8, KRC filed its reply pushing back on all of it, including the NRC’s decision to skip a cumulative impacts analysis entirely by granting itself an exemption from its own regulations.
KRC’s reply should be available on NRC’s Adam’s system soon. I can’t send attachments to the list so if you’re interested in seeing it, let me know and I’ll send it to you.
This is an important and developing story because it shows how the NRC is operating in ways that seem completely illegal. If the Board denies the petition — which it most likely will — KRC can appeal to the full Commission, and if that fails, take the case to federal court.
I plan to write about this after the Board’s decision and will keep you posted. If you have any comments or feedback, please share. Feel free to forward this.
- Log in to post comments
