Senator Heidi Campbell has legitimate concerns over Governor Bill Lee’s process and lack of transparency. Read her open letter to the governor:
July 29, 2026
The Honorable Bill Lee Governor of Tennessee
State Capitol
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
RE: Demand for Full Transparency Regarding Tennessee’s Proposal to Host a National Nuclear Waste Repository and Interim Storage Sites
Dear Governor Lee,
I am writing as a concerned Tennessean and State Senator who recently reviewed your administration’s official response to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Request for Information on the establishment of Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses (NLICs) — a document your office posted publicly on the Governor’s website. After careful reading, I have serious concerns that warrant answers prior to the implementation of your official response, and I am sharing this letter with the press because the people of Tennessee have a right to know what is being proposed in their name.
You simply can’t make our state a nuclear dumping ground without public awareness, input, and participation.
Your administration’s response commits Tennessee to hosting not only a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus centered in Oak Ridge, but also a long-term geologic repository for the nation’s spent nuclear fuel, interim storage satellite sites, and large-scale nuclear fuel reprocessing operations — including handling of plutonium. These are among the most consequential decisions a state government can make. Yet the specific locations of proposed nuclear waste storage sites have been redacted from the public version of the document your office published. Tennesseans deserve better.
I am formally requesting your immediate response to the following questions:
I. DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSED SITES
1. Your administration has stated: “The State has identified a potential candidate area that may be suitable for a long-term geologic repository near the Oak Ridge primary site.” What is that location? In which county or counties? What geologic formations are being evaluated? This information must be made public immediately, because Tennesseans have a right to know if hazardous nuclear waste is stored in their immediate vicinity.
2. The public version of your RFI response states that unidentified facilities — with their names redacted — “would provide regional interim storage operations at a larger scale in their capacity as satellite sites… placed within adjacent counties.” Which counties? Which facilities? Which private companies would operate them? The residents of those counties have an absolute right to know that their communities are being considered for nuclear waste storage before any agreement is signed.
3. The document lists over 17 pages as containing “confidential, proprietary, or privileged information.” What is the legal basis for this information being withheld from Tennesseans? Who made the determination that private business interests outweigh the public’s right to know about proposed nuclear waste storage in their backyards? Please release the unredacted document in full or provide a detailed legal justification for each redacted page.
4. The document proposes that satellite storage sites will be connected to Oak Ridge via road, rail, and barge on the Clinch River. What communities along those transportation corridors have been notified that nuclear materials may be regularly transported through their towns
II. THE PUBLIC WAS DELIBERATELY CUT OUT
5. Your response document states that public engagement will begin only “immediately following any notice of anticipated selection announcements from DOE” — meaning after sites are already chosen. It further states that your administration and DOE “will need to be aligned in making public announcements… to allow the State enough time and diligence to appropriately prepare communities adjacent to lifecycle activities.” This is not public participation. This is a coordinated communications strategy designed to manage community reaction after decisions have already been made behind closed doors. Why were Tennesseans not given the opportunity to weigh in before your administration committed to hosting a national nuclear waste repository?
6. Tennessee has no state environmental policy act — no “mini-NEPA” — requiring environmental review of state decisions. You have now signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council under the FAST-41 process, explicitly designed to accelerate permitting and “avoid additional roadblocks.” What safeguards remain to ensure thorough, independent environmental review? What opportunities will the public have to meaningfully comment before permits are granted?
7. The document notes that community engagement has taken place with industry partners, mayors, universities, and a biweekly Mayors Energy Caucus — but there is no mention of engagement with the general public, community health organizations, or environmental advocacy groups. Why have ordinary Tennesseans been excluded from these conversations? And where can the public find information about the Mayors Energy Caucus?
III. HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
8. Your RFI response explicitly advocates for loosening federal environmental regulations, stating that EPA and NRC rules “governing the release of radionuclides from the entire uranium fuel cycle into the general environment should be reevaluated.” Are you advocating for weaker radiation standards for Tennessee communities? If so, on what scientific basis, and were public health officials consulted?
9. The proposed campus sits adjacent to a National Priorities List Superfund site, on partially remediated land where some parcels cannot be developed due to legacy contamination from the Manhattan Project and Cold War nuclear weapons production. What independent assessment has been done of the cumulative health risk to communities — particularly in Anderson and Roane counties — from adding new nuclear operations on top of existing contamination?
10. Has your administration conducted any health studies, cancer risk assessments, or epidemiological analyses for communities near the proposed primary and satellite sites? If not, why not, and will you commit to doing so before any final agreements are executed?
11. The document proposes large-scale reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including separation and handling of plutonium. There has been no civilian plutonium reprocessing in the United States in decades, due to nonproliferation concerns. What safeguards are in place to address proliferation risks? Has the State consulted with national security experts independent of the nuclear industry?
12. What emergency preparedness plans exist — or will be required — for communities along the proposed barge routes on the Clinch River and the road and rail corridors that would carry spent nuclear fuel to interim storage satellite sites?
IV. ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT
13. The document states that Senate Joint Resolution 887 passed committee 11-0 as a legislative endorsement of the Innovation Campus. This resolution was passed without the satellite storage site locations or the geologic repository candidate area being disclosed to the public or, apparently, to the full legislature. It did not pass unanimously on the Senate floor. I voted against it. Will you commit to a full floor vote on any final agreement with DOE, with complete site information disclosed in advance?
14. Your response states that Tennessee has no existing statutory barriers to nuclear waste storage, reprocessing, or disposal — including no reprocessing ban. This means commitments of potentially national and generational significance are being made entirely at the executive level, without a public mandate. Will you support legislation requiring legislative approval and public hearings before Tennessee enters into any binding agreement with the DOE regarding nuclear waste storage or a long-term repository?
15. The document identifies more than $8 billion in private sector nuclear investment already committed in Tennessee, with your administration serving as a facilitator. What financial liability does the State of Tennessee assume if any of these projects fail, cause environmental damage, or require long-term remediation? Have you sought an independent actuarial or legal assessment of the State’s exposure?
16. Assuming taxpayer-funded investments in nuclear companies prove successful, will taxpayers get lower-cost energy rates? Or is your administration just socializing development costs for forprofit corporations?
Governor Lee, Tennessee may well have a role to play in the nation’s nuclear energy future. But the decision to make Tennessee the permanent home of the nation’s nuclear waste — including used nuclear fuel from reactors across the country and potentially from other nations — is not yours alone to make. It belongs to the people of this state.
The document your office posted is titled “NON-CONFIDENTIAL” while concealing the identities of proposed nuclear waste storage sites, the location of a candidate long-term repository, and the names of private companies that would operate these facilities. That contradiction is not a clerical matter. It represents a fundamental failure of transparency on one of the most consequential decisions in Tennessee’s history.
I am calling on you to:
• Release the full, unredacted version of Tennessee’s NLIC RFI response immediately;
• Publicly disclose the location of every site under consideration for interim or long-term nuclear waste storage;
• Suspend any binding commitments to DOE until the Tennessee General Assembly and the public have had meaningful opportunity to review and comment;
• Commission independent environmental and public health assessments for all proposed sites and transportation corridors; and
• Establish a formal, open public comment process before any final agreement is signed.
Tennesseans are watching. I urge you to act with the transparency this moment demands.
Respectfully,
Senator Heidi Campbell
District 20, Davidson County
Tennessee General Assembly
cc:
Sen. Shane Reeves
Commissioner David Salyers
This letter is being shared with the press. The document referenced — “State of Tennessee Response on the Establishment of Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses – Part B” — is publicly available on the Governor’s Office website at:https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/governorsoffice-documents/governorleedocuments/NON-
CONFIDENTIAL_DOE_2026_RFI_for_NLIC_Tennessee_Response_Part_B_D5_Redacted.pdf