A first-of-its-kind uranium enrichment facility in western Kentucky – which would use laser technology to re-enrich spent nuclear fuel for use at power plants or other enrichment facilities – has cleared another major milestone on its journey to getting the project up and running.
In a filing late last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that the federal agency’s staff is recommending approval of Global Laser Enrichment’s application for a license for the long-gestating $1.76 billion Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility (PLEF). That recommendation came in the final Environmental Impact Statement the agency issued for the project.
"The NRC's issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement represents a significant regulatory milestone for the PLEF and reflects the NRC staff's comprehensive and efficient review of our application,” GLE Vice President of Safety, Security & Compliance Tim Knowles said in a release.
Plans for the PLEF have evolved over more than a decade: GLE was already in negotiations with the U.S. Department of Energy in 2014, then intending to build on the former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant site; the company signed a deal with the DOE in 2016 to re-enrich 200,000 metric tons of depleted uranium tails leftover from the operations of the former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in West Paducah; it acquired 665 acres of land adjacent to the former PGDP in 2024; and, last year, the company’s license application was accepted by the NRC.
The laser uranium enrichment process – which has never been utilized at commercial scale – involves bombarding depleted tails with lasers to selectively vibrate only the uranium-235 molecules and then physically separating them from the inert uranium-238 molecules also present in spent nuclear fuel.
Studies have found that techniques utilizing laser enrichment need less space and power to operate compared to methods like gaseous diffusion or a gas centrifuge. Once the tails are restored to the level of natural uranium, they’ll be used at other enrichment facilities or for fuel in nuclear power plants.
Potential environmental impacts, and how GLE plans to mitigate them
In the more than 200-page Final EIS, the NRC notes the largest potential for environmental impacts from GLE’s project is in the areas of surface water, ecology, transportation and socioeconomics (all of which were rated small to moderate in impact potential).
Loss of vegetation, construction noise and lighting during construction could impact local wildlife habitats, though the Final EIS states that most streams onsite don’t have a suitable habitat for aquatic wildlife. Operation of the PLEF would not directly impact area species of plant or animal beyond the wildlife affected during construction, the report found. Wetlands undisturbed by construction – which is expected to total a little less than a half-acre – are also not expected to be impacted. GLE also plans to mitigate wetland impacts by building a fence around a portion of wetlands in the project site’s northwest corner.
The final EIS also states that Kentucky Fish & Wildlife Services officials assured NRC staff that the project would have “no effect” on protected aquatic species (fish, reptiles and mussels). When it comes to other species – like the monarch butterfly, Indiana bat, tricolored bat and cotton mouse – the NRC said they may be impacted but characterized adverse effects as “unlikely.” The statement also clarifies that no Endangered Species Act-designated critical habitats are located on the planned PLEF site.
The threat of soil erosion and incidental release of contaminants affecting surface water quality during construction, the NRC wrote, could be minimized with the use of a state-approved stormwater system. Once operational, surface water quality could be impacted by stormwater runoff, sanitary and process wastewater discharges, and cooling tower blowdown – though PLEF is expected to “release only trace levels of radiological constituents, if any.” Water would be discharged to Little Bayou Creek under a state permit.
To mitigate erosion, NRC advised that GLE use “soils from onsite borrow pits” in construction activities to minimize disturbance to disturbance outside the PLEF site. GLE would also plant grasses and native shrubs and trees to minimize impacts, and inspect outgoing trucks to remove loose soils, preventing them from being removed from the site. Many local residents have voiced concerns in recent months about another uranium enrichment company, General Matter, removing soil from the former PGDP site.
The Final EIS also comments on the economic potential of the development, detailing how the roughly 600 construction workers needed to construct the PLEF and more than 300 permanent workers needed to operate it would impact the area’s socioeconomic standing. The report indicated that indirect employment opportunities could be generated because of the project, leading to “additional business and household spending” around the region. The workforce generated by the project is then expected to create additional income tax revenue and an overall “positive fiscal impact” for state and local governments. The project is not expected to “significantly strain” area schools, healthcare services or emergency services.
The NRC received dozens of comments during the scoping and public comment periods for the project, and in the wake of the filing of the Draft EIS. Despite many of these criticizing the development and voicing concern over potential environmental impacts, only minute, clarifying changes were made to the EIS.
Other PLEF-related developments
When the NRC issued the final EIS for GLE’s planned development, the federal regulator also dismissed a challenge to the company’s license application filed earlier this year by the Kentucky Resources Council and a pair of Paducah area residents.
The nonprofit environmental law firm urged the NRC to address the legality of the 2016 deal struck between GLE and the U.S. Department of Energy to give the company access to spent nuclear fuel from the former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. They also disputed the contents of the draft EIS, an analysis the federal government mandates for most major developments. KRC argued that, in failing to use site-specific data to study potential environmental impacts, the NRC’s review could be violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – a legal framework designed to assess the impacts of projects, regulations or policies and generally lead them towards the least threatening option.
NRC dismissed the challenge in July, with KRC then appealing their case. When the NRC issued the Final EIS, it also dismissed KRC’s appeal to hold a contested federal hearing regarding GLE’s license. A representative of KRC said the group’s not yet decided if it will further pursue a contested hearing.
GLE leadership said in September – when the company inked a deal to exclusively sell its re-enriched uranium to one of its parent companies – that it remains on track for production to begin in Paducah by 2030. GLE expects to acquire its NRC license in early 2027.
