Anderson reported late March 2025 that Womble Bond Dickinson’s Energy & Natural Resources series titled “Going Nuclear: A Sustainable Solution to Rising Energy Demand” is a collaboration between Christy Woodward, President and Founder of Astute Regulatory Solutions and the author, Partner at Womble Bond Dickinson, who address the challenges of uranium permitting and production as part of the overall changing landscape of commercial nuclear power.
Key Points:
- The US has a massive disparity between domestic uranium production and demand, highlighting a critical dependency on foreign sources, particularly as nuclear energy development is expected to increase.
- Recent federal public land withdrawals will likely be reduced or rescinded by the current Administration.
- While recent reforms like the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 aim to streamline the process, obtaining a uranium mining permit remains a comprehensive undertaking that can result in thousands of pages of documentation, multiple regulatory reviews, and significant public consultation requirements.
- Uranium mining faces significant opposition from environmental groups, Native American tribes, and local communities concerned about health and environmental impacts. This tension between economic/energy needs and environmental/social concerns will likely continue to shape the industry's development.
At present, Kazakhstan, Canada and Namibia account for nearly two-thirds of global uranium production. The United States produces less than one percent of the world’s uranium, and most of the uranium used in the United States is imported, primarily from Canada. As discussed elsewhere in this series, there is increasing commitment to nuclear energy as a fundamental component of domestic and global energy production. Despite its emphasis on the development of fossil fuels, the new administration is likely to support more nuclear-energy development, especially in the form of small modular reactors (SMRs).
The Executive Order on “Unleashing American Energy” includes a direction to the U.S. Geological Service to consider adding uranium to the list of critical minerals. The new administration has also expressed a preference for domestic sources of energy and minerals. But in 2023 U.S. nuclear generators used 32 million pounds of imported uranium concentrate and only 50,000 pounds of domestic uranium concentrate. Expanding U.S. nuclear development will certainly exacerbate the reliance of the United States on imported uranium.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, production of uranium in the United States is on the increase after a decline. In 2023, the United States produced 50,000 pounds of uranium concentrate, down from 194,000 pounds in 2022. Production ramped back up in 2024 – U.S. operations produced over 300,000 pounds of uranium concentrate in the first three quarters of 2024 alone. Yet even this increased production is well short of domestic needs. In anticipation of increased demand, exploration is expanding – from 260 holes in 2021 to 1930 holes in 2023.
These federal lands are subject to federal regulation and those regulations can shift through a change in the presidency. Looking at future uranium development, federal public lands could play a key role in uranium mining. Except for the substantial uranium reserves in southeast Texas, all of the uranium in the United States is located beyond the 100th meridian and in the Mountain West. Wyoming and New Mexico have the largest reserves of uranium by a fair margin over Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, although the latter states have higher grade uranium as compared to Wyoming.
States in the Mountain West include a substantial amount of land held by the United States government. These federal lands are subject to federal regulation and those regulations can shift through a change in the presidency. Certainly, uranium mining has been subject to shifting priorities between administrations. Federal land withdrawals are a prime example of this source of uncertainty.
In 2012, the Secretary of the Interior withdrew approximately one million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon from mineral location for 20 years. While the withdrawal applied to all hardrock mining, the Secretary explicitly tied the withdrawal to the desire to study the effects of uranium mining in this area. Under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA), the withdrawal was subject to “valid existing rights.” As a result, some unpatented uranium mining claims located prior to the withdrawal were found to remain in effect despite the withdrawal, a finding that resulted in litigation.
In 2023 the Biden administration backstopped the withdrawal by creating the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni National Monument in the same general area, a move that would effectively prohibit uranium mining in the National Monument. The new executive order on “Unleashing American Energy” includes a requirement that the Department of the Interior review “actions to review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands, consistent with existing law, including 54 U.S.C. 320301 and 43 U.S.C. 1714.” 54 USC 32301 empowers the President to reserve parcels of land for national monuments and 43 USC 1714 allows the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw lands from mineral location. As a result, both the 2007 withdrawal and the creation of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni National Monument will be under scrutiny by the current administration.
The Permitting Process for a Uranium Mine
The mine permitting process has been relatively untouched since the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) was enacted in 1976, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, and the Mining Law of 1872. That said, technology and rules and regulations promulgated by the States have evolved significantly since that time. Applicable laws and regulations differ depending on the surface and mineral ownership of a potential resource. Uranium mining has a long, rich, and complicated history.
Uranium demand spiked with the Manhattan project in the western U.S. in the 1940’s through the 1960’s and continued to surge with a mining boom after the Second World War when uranium became essential for nuclear power production. Old mines were found by flying Geiger counters from low flying helicopters. When an outcrop of uranium was detected, the U.S. would pay small miners to start digging. As a result, there are potentially 15,000 or more small, abandoned uranium mines scattered across Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. There are also in situ (deep underground) reserves located in Wyoming and Montana as well. As a result of this rich history, many uranium reserves are well established and well known, and most mine permitting focuses on existing or abandoned mines being brought back into production.
Reclamation of these mine sites and historic tailing piles also can lead to additional uranium production depending on the ore concentrations in the waste rock or remaining ore on piles. Many of these mines are located on federal land. These reserves are subject to regulation by the State with jurisdiction over the site as well as the applicable federal land management agency -- either the U.S. Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service. As a result, duplicative but complimentary permitting often is required. Some historical mines have existing permits from a boom that occurred in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s; however, environmental regulations were new at that time, and the permits can range from two to ten pages or so. A modern uranium mine permit will be in the hundreds to even thousands of pages once all applicable permits are obtained.
Permitting starts with a literature search and understanding of the mineral and surface ownership of the claims. If additional exploration is required, a separate permit would be required, which may include an accompanying NEPA assessment. To promote a successful permitting process, community outreach should begin as soon as practicable to ensure that community concerns are addressed proactively in the permitting process. Meetings with State and federal regulators will facilitate coordination of the NEPA process and the State Mine Development Plan process. Because uranium mining permits are likely to be “vintage,” it is useful to find common agreement on the level of environmental assessment, sampling, modeling, and monitoring required for permitting. A project is likely to be required to navigate another tier of permitting with local governments, departments of transportation, and air and water quality.
Specifically, mine plans include a mining plan, reclamation plan and environmental impact assessment. The latter should include assessment of potential impacts to air quality, surface water, spills, groundwater, mine water, waste rock characterization, wildlife and biological resources, historic preservation assessments and consultations, tribal consultations, radioactive materials license(s), archaeological resources assessments, visual quality, noise, wetlands, floodplains, and transportation plans. Local permits for buildings, access roads, visibility, special use, and transportation also may be required to name just a few examples. This is all in accordance with local planning and zoning regulations, transportation and hazardous waste requirements, state environmental regulations, and 40 CFR 1500 (NEPA) and, for projects on federal lands, 40 CFR Part 3800 (Mining Claims under the General Mining Laws).
Many of these processes include public comment periods, responses to comments and public hearings. Approvals are followed up by an appeals process (or several). After a project begins operations, there are ongoing operational, maintenance, monitoring and inspection requirements that include a wide range of environmental protections. The mine permit will also include a cost estimate and mine reclamation plan with a surety bond or similar assurance for the full cost of reclamation. Most recently, the Federal government passed the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, which shortens timelines before, during and after litigation for federal authorizations of energy and mineral projects.
Permitting Reform/Permitting Inefficiencies
There is much ongoing discussion about permitting reform and inefficiencies. The literature on NEPA concerns, litigation and inefficiencies is voluminous. Most recently, the Federal government passed the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, which shortens timelines before, during and after litigation for federal authorizations of energy and mineral projects. Specifically, the bill establishes a 150-day statute of limitations from the date of the final agency action on a project; requires courts to expedite review of legal challenges; and sets a 180-day deadline for federal agencies to act on remanded authorizations.
More recently the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order titled Establishing the National Energy Dominance Council. This Council is made up of the Secretaries throughout the federal government, as well as heads of other executive department and agencies as the President may, from time to time, designate. The objective is for the Council to advise the President on how best to exercise his authority to produce more energy to make America energy dominant and improving the process for permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, transportation, and export of all forms of American energy, including critical minerals. They are to provide a strategy to produce more energy including long-range goals by cutting red tape, encouraging cooperation amongst private industry and the Federal Government, and bringing small modular nuclear reactors online specifically is called out in the Order Section 4(d)(ii).
Opposition to Uranium Mining
Uranium mining continues to attract opposition, especially in the U.S. West. Activist organizations like Uranium Watch out of Moab, Utah, the Grand Canyon Trust out of Flagstaff, Arizona and larger groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Natural Resources Defense Council all actively campaign against uranium mining. Opponents express concern over the contamination of water resources with radioactive materials and heavy metals, the disruption of ecosystems and wildlife habitats and the long-term environmental degradation, including issues related to mine waste and tailings. Many Native American Tribes, such as the Navajo Nation and various Pueblo Tribes, also have historical opposition to uranium mining near their lands. Health concerns around the risks of radiation exposure and long-term health effects and increased health issues in areas near mines are another source of community concern. Local communities may also raise concerns about mining adversely affecting property values or causing transportation disruptions.
Nuclear energy can and should play an important role in the future generation of energy, and assuring and promoting the responsible and efficient production of uranium will be a critical element of that future. Opponents are likely to use the appeals process applicable to federal and state permits as a way to delay or prevent uranium mining. For example, in states like Wyoming and New Mexico, legal challenges have been sought in invalidate permits for in-situ recovery mines, stating that they did not sufficiently assess potential water contamination or the impacts to public health.
A Framework for Responsible and Efficient Uranium Mining Approval in the United States
A paradigm shift in our understanding of energy demand and the importance that nuclear energy will play in meeting that need will facilitate an increase in uranium production, especially if accompanied by a public campaign for modern mining practices in the arena of public health, safety, welfare and environmental protection. Nuclear energy can and should play an important role in the future generation of energy, and assuring and promoting the responsible and efficient production of uranium will be a critical element of that future. The United States has abundant uranium resources and allowing efficient mining and processing of those resources will be crucial to the stable development of nuclear energy. The future of uranium mining in the United States stands at a critical crossroads. As nuclear energy increasingly becomes recognized as a vital component of America's energy strategy and climate goals, the stark gap between domestic uranium production and demand cannot be ignored. However, bridging this gap will require careful navigation of complex challenges.
The path forward likely requires a three-pronged approach. First, streamlining the permitting process while maintaining robust environmental and safety standards will be essential. The recent Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 represents a step in this direction, but further reforms may be necessary. Second, developing stronger partnerships with local communities, including Native American tribes, and addressing their legitimate concerns through transparent dialogue and modern mining practices will be crucial for building social license to operate. Finally, consistent policy support across administrations would provide the regulatory certainty needed for long-term investment in domestic uranium production.
As global demand for nuclear energy grows, the United States faces a choice: continue relying heavily on imported uranium or develop its substantial domestic resources. The success of this transition will depend on finding the right balance between energy security, environmental protection, and community interests. With thoughtful policy development, technological innovation, and stakeholder engagement, the U.S. has the potential to significantly expand its domestic uranium production while setting new standards for responsible mining practices.
Click here to explore the full Going Nuclear series.
Managed by I2M Consulting, LLC