VALAR WATCHTake action

Connections to Government

Federal, state and local: programs, agreements, awards, authorizations, lobbying, officials.

recordconfirmed No tax incentive for the Carbon campus found: Inland Port areas in Carbon name other firms and exclude the parcel
2026-09 · csite-029 · Utah Inland Port Authority, Valar Atomics, Carbon County

The Utah Inland Port Authority's Castle Country Project Area (adopted 24 June 2024; amended 6 January 2025, 23 April 2026 and 21 May 2026) lets UIPA use property-tax incentives in parts of Carbon and Emery counties, Wellington and Green River; UIPA says its second amendment adds 2,383 acres in Carbon County tied to Tyr Energy power projects, Wildcat Rail and land next to the Savage rail terminal, for about 15,323 acres in all (the adopted plan gives 2,431.59 acres added and 15,370.25 in all). UIPA's public 'Project Areas' map layer, checked in late September 2026, returned no project area at the center or corners of Section 16, and the legal descriptions in the adopted plan (Amendment #3, 21 May 2026) include no land in Township 14 South, where Section 16 lies. UIPA's 10 September update says Valar's more than 100 acres beside the Emery lab lie inside the project area (mine-018); Emery County's commission passed a resolution on 19 May 2026 removing that parcel from the project area, and the records disagree. The state tax credit approved in July is for Emery County (csite-024). No UIPA, state or county incentive for the Carbon County campus was found in the UIPA, state economic development board and Carbon County commission records read as of late September 2026.

In plain termsUtah has several ways to give companies tax incentives for building in rural areas. The port authority counts Valar's expansion land beside the Emery lab inside one of them, though Emery County voted in May 2026 to remove that parcel and the records disagree; the state has approved tax credits for its Emery operations, paid only out of new state tax revenue. The Wellington parcel is not inside the inland-port tax area on the map we checked, and no vote on an incentive for it was found in the public records read as of late September 2026. The port authority's plan says all its incentives must be approved by its board in a public meeting.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: three UIPA pages (the 'Builds Momentum' update is dated 10 Sept 2026 on UIPA's news index and gives about 15,370 acres; the amendment page gives 15,323); layer metadata (last edited 16 Sept 2026; Castle Country 12,930.77 acres) and five points checked in Sec. 16: no project area. Date set to the as-of date of the finding.
recordconfirmed State boards and legislators heard about Valar's Emery reactor; no agenda found names the Carbon site
2026-09 · csite-031 · Utah Legislature, Utah Energy Council, Utah Office of Energy Development, Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments, Utah Nuclear Consortium

Agendas on the Utah Public Notice Website and legislative materials read in late September 2026: the Legislature's Public Utilities, Energy & Technology Interim Committee heard 'Valar Atomics Nuclear Test Reactor' on 18 June 2025 (its agenda describes a plan for 'a new nuclear test reactor running by 2026', and the approved minutes record public comment on the nuclear discussion later in that meeting; gov-040); slides for the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee's 19 August 2026 data-center item list the 'Valar Atomics-Nvidia Partnership' as an example; the Utah Energy Council's 31 March 2026 agenda has 'Valar Atomics at San Rafael Lab Update', with a general public-comment item next on the agenda (gov-041; its 31 March and 29 September 2026 agendas also list closed sessions on buying, exchanging or leasing real property, unnamed); the Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments (SERDA) board agendas list 'Valar Atomics Groundbreaking' (September 2025) and 'Nuclear Community Campaigns' updates (May and July 2026); the Utah Nuclear Consortium's 25 March 2026 agenda discusses its new duties under S.B. 135 and H.B. 78. None of these agendas or the attachments read names the Wellington parcel, Section 16 or a Carbon County campus. No Valar item was found in the Carbon Community Economic Development Board's notices since June 2025, and the Carbon County Redevelopment Agency's four notices (September to December 2025) have none. For most of these meetings, minutes or audio were not found or were not read. The Energy Council's approved 7 July 2026 minutes, the transcript of its 25 August 2026 meeting and its 29 September 2026 agenda were also read: none names Valar or a Carbon site.

In plain termsValar's reactor in Emery County has been discussed repeatedly by state boards and legislators, in public. Several of those meetings also had public-comment periods, listed on their agendas or recorded in their minutes (gov-040, gov-041, gov-042). The Carbon County site has not appeared on any of their published agendas that we found. What was said inside closed sessions or in meetings without posted minutes is not known.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds, with fixes: the slides' author is not named in their text, so the attribution to the Office of Energy Development was removed; the SERDA September 2025 'Valar Atomics Groundbreaking' item was added. Re-read in late September 2026: PUET agenda (June 18, 2025); the 8/19/2026 slides; UEC notices (6 Feb, 6 Mar, 31 Mar, 'May 26' listed with a 26 June event date); UNC 25 Mar notice; SERDA notices 25 Sept 2025, 28 May and 16 July 2026; CEDB and RDA lists (Utah Public Notice Website notice lists, read again). Second check, late September 2026: UEC notice list: closed real-property sessions on 13 agendas (30 Oct 2025 to 29 Sept 2026), not four; RDA body 3749 lists four notices (3 Sept to 15 Dec 2025), none naming Valar, so 'no notices were listed' was wrong; UEC minutes 1480375, transcript 1480517 and agenda 1493643 searched (no Valar, Carbon, Wellington, trust lands). Date set to the as-of date of this negative finding. Corrected 2026-10-01: wording made more exact against the cited records.
recordconfirmed Utah land-use law: the county land-use chapter gives no jurisdiction over state or federal land unless another law does, and applications vest under the rules in effect
2026-09 · dir-014 · Utah Legislature, Carbon County

Utah Code 17-79-306(2) (amended 2026) says that, unless otherwise provided by law, the county land-use chapter does not give a county jurisdiction over real property 'owned by the state or the United States'. Valar's Wellington parcel is state school trust land; no zoning provision was found in the Trust Lands statute (Title 53C, searched in late September 2026), yet the Trust Lands memo describes the county conditional use permit as part of the process (csite-015); the lease document itself was not found in public records (as of late September 2026); its terms would show whether Valar agreed to seek county approvals. Separately, Utah Code 17-79-803 (the version effective 6 Nov 2025; amended May 2026) entitled an applicant to review under the land-use rules in effect when a complete application is filed, and to approval if it conforms to them, unless the county formally found on the record that approving it would jeopardize a compelling, countervailing public interest, or, before the filing, had formally initiated proceedings to amend its rules in a way that would bar it (that exception lapses after 180 days if no such enactment results); the current text was not checked. Carbon County's planners are drafting rules for 'highly contested industries', with a hearing planned for November (csite-013).

In plain termsState law says the county land-use chapter does not by itself give counties jurisdiction over land the state or federal government owns, unless another law provides it; the state's lease memo still lists a county conditional use permit as a required step. And in Utah, a project is usually judged by the rules on the books the day its complete application is filed; a county that wants new rules to apply has to formally start them first.
verified 2026-10-02: Statute texts read in late September 2026; quotes exact. The 17-79-803 text read is the version superseded 6 May 2026; the current text should be checked before relying on details. Not legal advice.
recordconfirmed No Form D from Valar Atomics Inc. was found on EDGAR for any round, $1B included; only nine outside investment pools filed; the SEC ties the notice to Regulation D sales, and which exemption Valar used was not found
2026-09 · fund-010 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Sydecar, CGF2021 LLC

EDGAR, the SEC's filing system, has no registrant named Valar Atomics, Inc.: its company search for 'valar atomics' returns seven series of CGF2021 LLC (investment pools administered by Sydecar) and nothing else, and a full-text search of all filings for 'Valar Atomics' (31 hits, re-run in late September 2026) finds Form D notices only from nine such pools (ten filings: eight CGF2021 series and one Alumni Ventures fund), plus lenders' and other companies' reports that mention Valar. So no Form D from the company was found for any of the six funding rounds in the records read (among them fund-004, fund-006 and fund-007), including the $1 billion Series B. The SEC's guidance says a company selling under Rule 504 or 506 of Regulation D 'must file this notice within 15 days after the first sale of securities'. The SEC's pages describe Rule 506(b) as a 'safe harbor' under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, which exempts sales 'not involving any public offering', and tie the Form D notice to the Regulation D rules; they do not say that every private sale needs one. Which exemption Valar used was not found in public records. The Form D itself asks for each executive officer, director and promoter (Item 3) and the amount sold (Item 13); without one, Valar's board and round totals are known only from the company's own announcements, press and investors, not from an SEC filing. This is a gap in the public record and nothing more.

In plain termsWhen a U.S. company sells shares privately under the SEC's Regulation D rules, it files a short public notice called a Form D, listing its officers and directors and how much it sold. None from Valar was found on the SEC's EDGAR system, even for a $1 billion round; only small investment pools that bought into Valar filed them. The SEC's pages tie the notice to those rules, not to every private sale, so its absence does not show that a filing was required or missed. But it means Valar's directors and the amounts it raised cannot be checked against an SEC filing.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-verified in late September 2026: EDGAR company search (7 CGF2021 series) and full-text searches (31 hits; 10 Form Ds, 9 entities, none by Valar) re-run. The claim about what a Form D names was not in the pages first cited: now sourced to the SEC's Form D; the line on other exemptions was reworded to what the SEC pages say. Corrected in late September 2026: closing sentence now states the gap only.
recordconfirmed What DOE has made public about Ward 250 safety, and what was not found: no DSA, TSRs, SER or startup approval, though DOE says its teams reviewed Ward 250's readiness before startup
2026-09 · safe-007 · U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Idaho Operations Office

Public DOE records found for Ward 250 as of late September 2026: the categorical exclusion DOE-ID-26-005 (signed 22 April 2026, posted with a June 2026 web path; csite-020); DOE's 18 June 2026 criticality release; and two DOE Packaging Certification Program documents on rampac.energy.gov (the Model 9979 fuel-shipment Safety Evaluation Report of 20 May 2026 and Valar's transport QA approval of 18 May 2026; safe-010). Found on 30 September: the Office of Environmental Management's article of 14 July 2026, which says EM staff took part in DOE's readiness review for the four pilot reactors, naming Ward 250, and in reviewing contractor submittals for advanced microreactor designs, a sentence that does not name Ward 250 (dir-031). Not found on DOE's public sites: the NSDA approval letter, the PDSA and final DSA, the Technical Safety Requirements, DOE's Safety Evaluation Report on the DSA (which DOE-STD-1271 says the approval authority approves), the readiness-review report, the startup approval (signed by the Secretary of Energy or a delegate under the standard), any approval to exceed 100 kWth, and the DOE-Valar Other Transaction Agreement. The NSDA also refers to a Code of Record (document 100437, which it says was provided to DOE with the NSDA) and to a Physical Security Plan and a Material Control and Accountability Plan, which it calls separate controlled documents. The contents of the Idaho Operations Office's document server (id.energy.gov) were not checked. No requirement that DOE or Valar post these documents publicly was found in DOE-STD-1271 or the NSDA. An absent posting is not proof a document is being withheld; it is what a FOIA request to the Idaho Operations Office would settle.

In plain termsDOE has posted its environmental decision, a press release and its approval of the shipping drums for the fuel. No public copy was found of the reactor's actual safety analysis, the operating limits DOE approved, DOE's own review of that analysis, or the signed permission to start. DOE has said that federal reviewers checked contractor safety submittals for the pilot reactors and took part in Ward 250's readiness review before startup (dir-031); what was not found in public records is the documents and their findings, not a statement that the reviews happened. Those are the documents that show what the reactor is allowed to do and why DOE thought it was safe. A Freedom of Information Act request can ask for them.
verified 2026-10-02: Checked in late September 2026: energy.gov B5.26 listing, CX, DOE release, both rampac documents and DOE-STD-1271 sec. 8 re-read. Holds. id.energy.gov was not re-read. Minor wording fixes. Corrected 2026-10-01: wording made more exact against the cited records.
recordconfirmed Incidents: none found in public records read, but DOE keeps occurrence reports closed to the public department-wide, 'for security purposes'
2026-09 · safe-033 · U.S. Department of Energy, Valar Atomics

Valar's NSDA commits Ward 250 to DOE's occurrence reporting order (NE O 232.1), accident investigations (NE O 225.1), ES&H reporting, independent oversight, and DOE's employee concerns and differing professional opinion programs (which DOE-STD-1271 says allow no alternative). DOE's Occurrence Reporting and Processing System page says that, 'for security purposes', access to occurrence reports is restricted to approved DOE and DOE contractor personnel, a restriction covering every report in the system, not one set for Ward 250; that page describes the department-wide order (DOE O 232.2A), while the NSDA commits to the Office of Nuclear Energy's own order, and whether Ward 250's reports go into the same system is not stated in any record read. No public report of an incident, occurrence, violation, enforcement action or worker injury at Ward 250, NOVA or the fuel line was found in DOE, state or news sources read as of late September 2026. OSHA's inspection database was not searched. Absence of a public record is not evidence that nothing happened; DOE's occurrence reports for Ward 250 can be requested under FOIA. Valar's quality program (p.20), for reporting confirmed suspect or counterfeit items, cites a different occurrence-reporting order, NE O 232.2. The NE orders were not found in public records, so which is current could not be checked.

In plain termsIf something goes wrong at a DOE-authorized reactor, the operator must report it to DOE in a formal 'occurrence report'. DOE's occurrence database is open only to approved DOE and contractor staff, for every facility in it (DOE cites security), and it is not stated whether Ward 250's reports go there. We found no public report of any incident at Ward 250, but because the database is closed, that tells us little. A FOIA request is the way to find out.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read NSDA p. 45-46, the ORPS page and DOE-STD-1271 Attachment 1 in late September 2026. Holds. Fixed: the ORPS page covers DOE O 232.2A; the NSDA's NE O 232.1 reports are not shown to go into ORPS, so the plain text no longer asserts it. No public incident report was found. Corrected in late September 2026: added that the quality program cites NE O 232.2.
recordconfirmed Posted Sept. 25, closed Oct. 1: the state lab hosting Ward 250 advertised a time-limited Safety Manager job to lead its safety program
2026-09-25 · dir-006 · Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Office of Energy Development, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Valar Atomics

Utah state job requisition 2646 (Department of Natural Resources), opened September 25, 2026 with an application deadline of October 1, 2026, says the Utah Office of Energy Development (OED) is seeking a Safety Manager to lead the environmental, health and safety program at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab (USREL), 800 N Coal Haul Rd, Orangeville. The role covers work with hazardous chemicals, molten salts, compressed gases, high-temperature systems, electrical and mechanical equipment, radioactive materials and industrial operations; it is to inspect and audit the lab and partner work areas, review new experiments and equipment before authorization, lead incident investigations, run training and emergency drills, coordinate emergency preparedness with local responders and regulators, and coordinate with the lab's Radiation Safety Officer on radiological training, dosimetry, incident response and license conditions, and with UOSH and Utah DEQ. It reports to the Lab Director, with authority to stop work on an imminent hazard. Minimum: ten years of safety experience and a bachelor's degree; radiological safety experience is listed as 'desirable'. The listing states: Schedule Code 'TL - Time Limited'; full-time, in-office, salary '$58.00' (unit not stated). OED owns the lab and is Valar's landlord there (mine-014); Valar reported first electricity from Ward 250 at the lab on July 1, 2026. The listing does not say whether the position is new or a replacement, or who led lab safety before; it does show that a Radiation Safety Officer role and radiological license conditions already exist at the lab. Ward 250's own nuclear safety basis is Valar's, under DOE's authorization; this job is the state's lab-wide safety lead.

In plain termsOn 25 September 2026 the state posted a job for the person who will run safety for the whole state-run lab where Valar's reactor operates: chemicals, high temperatures, radioactive materials and emergency plans, with power to stop work. It is a temporary (time-limited) state job, open for about a week, and radiation-safety experience is listed as 'desirable'. The listing does not say whether the position is new or a replacement; it does mention coordinating with a Radiation Safety Officer on license conditions.
verified 2026-10-02: Read on the State of Utah careers site (req2646) in late September 2026 and archived. Corrected in late September 2026: plain restated as what the listing shows; states what the listing does not say.
recordconfirmed Legal basis of the deal: an 'Other Business Arrangement', exempt from the normal lease rule and its 30-year norm
2026-09-17 · csite-004 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics

The memorandum cites Utah Code 53C-1-303(3)(e) and Utah Administrative Code R850-30-305 as the authority. 53C-1-303(3)(e) (effective 1 July 2026) lets the Trust Lands director, with the approval of the board, enter into joint ventures and 'other business arrangements consistent with the purposes of the trust'. R850-30-305 says the director may enter into OBAs such as lease-to-sell agreements, that 'OBAs are exempt from Rule R850-30', and that OBAs must be approved by the board. The memo says the deal is an OBA because it includes an option to buy. Rule R850-30, which governs ordinary special use leases, says lease terms 'should not normally' exceed 30 years, with extensions not normally over 20 (the director may go longer). The Valar OBA runs 50 years plus two 25-year extensions (mine-011). Staff told the board on 20 August that a purchase option is a 'rare exception' in the surface-lease portfolio (August minutes).

In plain termsThe state used a special kind of deal, a 'business arrangement' rather than an ordinary lease, because Valar wanted the right to buy the land. That kind of deal is exempt from the normal leasing rule, whose usual limit is 30 years (the director can already go longer for ordinary leases). This one can run up to a century: 50 years plus two 25-year extensions. It needed the Trust Lands board's approval, which the board gave by public vote on 17 September 2026 (mine-011).
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: memo p. 18 (authority); Utah Code 53C-1-303 effective 7/1/2026 on le.utah.gov; R850-30-200 and -305 in the Sept 2025 rulebook; August final minutes pp. 5-6 ('rare exception'). All quotes exact. Second check, late September 2026: plain text no longer says the OBA exemption is 'why' the term can be long (R850-30-200 already lets the director exceed 30 years), or that the deal was 'legal only' with a vote (the rule says board approval).
recordconfirmed Nuclear waste 'strictly prohibited' on the lease, per the slides; the memo lets Valar buy land for spent-fuel storage
2026-09-17 · csite-008 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics, Utah Legislature

The staff slides shown to the board on 20 August list among 'Safeguards': 'Storage of nuclear waste is strictly prohibited on the lease'. The memorandum's terms add that before any portion of the property may be used to store radioactive waste, 'that portion, as determined by TLA, must be purchased by the lessee', and that Valar must buy any portion needed for 'interim storage of spent fuel' before storing it; spent fuel may not be stored on land the trust still owns. So storage is barred on land under the lease but provided for on land Valar buys. Utah Code 19-3-301 separately bans placing 'high-level nuclear waste' in Utah unless, among other conditions, the Governor approves with the Legislature's concurrence (a 2026 exemption for test-reactor waste exists); Utah defines that term by the federal 'high-level radioactive waste' (42 U.S.C. 10101), which covers waste from reprocessing spent fuel plus other highly radioactive material the NRC by rule says needs permanent isolation, while federal law defines 'spent nuclear fuel' separately. Whether used TRISO fuel kept at a Carbon reactor would fall under Utah's ban is not answered in any record read.

In plain termsThe short version shown to the board said nuclear waste is strictly banned on the lease. The full terms add a purchase route: Valar must first buy the piece of land it needs, and with federal and state licenses could store used fuel there for an interim period. Both statements are true; the slide leaves out the purchase route. Utah law strictly limits high-level nuclear waste, but whether that law reaches used fuel stored at a reactor is a legal question the records read do not settle.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: August slides p. 49 ('Safeguards'); memo p. 22 (Spent Fuel Storage) and p. 24 (Purchase Option); Utah Code 19-3-301 and 19-3-102(9); 42 U.S.C. 10101(12) and (23). Quotes exact. Removed two general statements from the plain text that no source read supports. Corrected 30 Sept 2026: the plain-language text was reworded for neutral wording.
official statementconfirmed Carbon commissioners: with Valar 'since the beginning'; county agendas read did not name the site
2026-09-17 · ppl-020 · Larry Jensen, Jared Haddock, Tony Martines, Carbon County Commission, Valar Atomics

The three Carbon County commissioners (Larry Jensen, Jared Haddock, Tony Martines) signed the 29 June 2026 support letter (mine-013) and spoke for the lease at both Trust Lands hearings. On 20 August Haddock said the county had worked with Valar 'since the beginning, when they were looking at other states', and praised its public education, 'not hiding anything'; Jensen stressed the lost coal tax base (no county coal for over four years, which holds, mine-039); Martines spoke of the county's energy history, infrastructure and workforce. On 17 September Jensen said the commission is 'committed to allowing these things to move forward' despite 'a few in our community who will push back', and that the 'silent majority' will support it 'as they're educated and learn how safe this process is'. Set beside the record: the commission's agendas from December 2023 to September 2026 name Valar once (a 19 Aug 2026 presentation), its minutes mention Valar only in that presentation and in remarks on 1 July and 2 September 2026, and none read names the Wellington site or the letter (csite-026); no safety document of any kind for a Carbon reactor or fuel plant was found in the public record as of late September 2026; and for the county conditional use permit Valar would need, state law requires approval if harms can be reasonably mitigated and does not itself require a hearing, the Trust Lands memo says Carbon's process includes one, and the conditional-use chapter of the county's 2023 Development Code does not require one (csite-015). The commissioners' long engagement with Valar is stated in their own remarks, in their 29 June 2026 letter ('working with Valor Atomics for over one year', mine-013) and by Valar; no county agenda or minutes recording it before the 19 Aug 2026 presentation were found (csite-026).

In plain termsCarbon County's commissioners say they worked with Valar from the start and praised it for 'not hiding anything'. In the county agendas and minutes we read, from December 2023 to September 2026, the Wellington site was never named, and no public safety study for a reactor there has been found. No public safety document for a Carbon reactor or fuel plant was found as of late September 2026.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read both Trust Lands transcripts (Haddock 09:12 on 20 Aug; Martines 38:08 and Jensen 24:57 on 17 Sep) and the minutes. Quotes exact. Fixed: 'no safety document exists' restated as 'none found as of late September 2026'; the permit/hearing point restated to match csite-015 (state law does not require a hearing; the memo says Carbon's process includes one). Cross-refs mine-013, mine-039, csite-026 checked. Revised before publication (late September 2026): plain and detail restated as what the records show; absence stated as not found. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): on 20 Aug Jensen spoke on the tax base; Martines on energy history, infrastructure and workforce
recordconfirmed Carbon and Emery move to share a $60,000 consultant to chase coal, gas, nuclear and manufacturing deals
2026-08-19 · loc-029 · Carbon County Commission, Emery County Commission, Utah Public Affairs Consulting, Valar Atomics · joint Carbon-Emery economic development consulting agreement (Carbon approved 19 Aug 2026): $60,000

Carbon County Commission minutes, 19 August 2026, item 9 (the item right after the 'Valor Atomics presentation'): commissioners approved, contingent on Emery County's approval, on Commissioner Haddock's motion seconded by Commissioner Jensen (the motion carried), a joint $60,000 consulting agreement with John Cox of Utah Public Affairs Consulting 'to identify and secure economic development opportunities' across coal, natural gas, nuclear and advanced manufacturing, split $30,000 each with Emery County; Carbon's half comes from unused economic-development consulting funds; the commission approved it contingent on Emery's approval. Emery County's 1 September minutes approve 2027 rural county grant projects that include $30,000 (printed '$30,00') for a 'potential Economic Development Consultant' (the grant money comes from the state's rural county grants); one commissioner said he would rather Emery had its own consultant, not one shared with Carbon; on 15 September the commission 'agreed to move ahead with a possible partnership' with Carbon to hire the consultant (ETV). The signed agreement and its text were not found in the county minutes, agendas and news reports read (to late September 2026). On the same 19 August item 8, the minutes record Valar saying it 'relocated to the region from California two years ago'.

In plain termsThe two counties agreed to share the cost of a paid consultant whose job is to bring in new industry, nuclear included. Both counties took it up in public meetings, and it shows they are actively recruiting new industry. The contract itself was not found in the county records read in late September 2026; it could be requested from either county under Utah's public records law (GRAMA).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the Carbon 19 Aug minutes (scanned), the agenda, Emery's 1 Sept minutes and ETV 21 Sept: holds. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): the minutes name Haddock as mover and Jensen as seconder
recordconfirmed Carbon County kept a 'strict' NDA on a $600M factory prospect until Aug 2026; no NDA with Valar was found in records read
2026-08-19 · loc-036 · Carbon County Commission, Larry Jensen, Georgia-Pacific, Valar Atomics · planned Georgia-Pacific wallboard factory, canceled (per Carbon County minutes): $600,000,000

Carbon County Commission minutes, 19 August 2026, 'Unscheduled Public Update': Commissioner Larry Jensen said the commission had lifted a long-standing non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to give an economic update, announcing that Georgia-Pacific had canceled plans for a $600 million wallboard factory on county-owned land because of rising project costs. The plant would have employed 160 people using a gypsum mine in Emery County, and the minutes say the strict NDA was needed to protect the company's plans because the new plant would have closed two factories in California. The same meeting heard the 'Valor Atomics presentation' and approved the joint economic-development consultant (loc-029). A week earlier Commissioner Jared Haddock had said such agreements are typically required by companies, not the county (loc-002). This is a primary record that Carbon County has handled a major industrial prospect under an NDA and announced it after the agreement was lifted, once the company had canceled. It does not show an NDA with Valar: none appears in any record read, and the minutes do not say whether other NDAs are in force. A GRAMA request to the county would settle it.

In plain termsA non-disclosure agreement is a promise to keep talks confidential. Carbon County's own minutes show that a large factory prospect was handled under such an agreement for a long time, and announced only after the company pulled out. That shows the county has used such an agreement for a company prospect. It does not show there was one with Valar; a public-records request for any such agreement would answer that.
verified 2026-10-02: New in an earlier check: found on page 1 of the 19 Aug minutes while checking loc-029. Bears on the NDA question in loc-002 and the open questions.
recordconfirmed Was the Emery land sale finished? Valar said Aug 13 it was 'waiting on a clean title'; the state says it 'has also purchased'
2026-08-13 · loc-014 · Valar Atomics, Emery County, Orangeville City Council, Harry Hansen, Utah Inland Port Authority · agreed price for parcel 04-0019-0030: $394,500

Records on whether Valar's purchase of Emery County parcel 04-0019-0030 (about 112 acres beside the lab, $394,500, gov-022) has closed: 7 July 2026, an Emery commissioner who signed the due-diligence extension said the land 'has been sold' (gov-022), and the extension itself gave 30 more days for a survey (ETV, 8 July). 28 July, ETV, reporting the 21 July county meeting, described 'the larger property Valar recently purchased'. 13 August, Orangeville council minutes: Valar's Harry Hansen said Valar is 'waiting on a clean title to purchase the property', and the mayor said Valar was working on a title search and mineral rights and that annexation could begin 'once sale is finalized'. 20 August, Valar's Max Ukropina told the Trust Lands board Valar is 'currently purchasing' the land (mine-018). 10 September, the Utah Inland Port Authority wrote that Valar 'has also purchased' more than 100 acres there. By Valar's own account in mid-August the purchase was not complete; whether it closed between 20 August and 10 September is not shown in any record read. A deed recorded with the Emery County Recorder would settle it.

In plain termsA county commissioner, a local news report and the state's port authority have described the 112 acres next to the lab as already sold to Valar. Valar's own representative told Orangeville on 13 August that the company was still waiting for a clean title before buying, and a Valar manager said a week later it was 'currently purchasing'. No recorded deed was found in the records read as of 2 October 2026, so whether the sale is done is not settled; a deed at the county recorder would show it.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the 13 Aug Orangeville minutes and ETV 8 July: holds ('waiting on a clean title to purchase the property'; 30-day extension for a survey). Other dates rest on the cited cross-references.
newrecordconfirmed Aug 12, 2026: the state energy research board's agenda set its meeting at the San Rafael lab, with a public-comment item and a board tour of the lab and Valar listed
2026-08-12 · gov-042 · Utah Energy Research Board, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Valar Atomics

The Utah Energy Research Board's amended agenda for 12 August 2026 (file dated 6 August 2026) places the meeting at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, 800 North Coal Haul Rd, Orangeville, 10 to 11 a.m., with a video and phone option. It lists a lab update (item 7), 'OTHER BUSINESS: Open to public comment' (item 13), and, after the meeting, a 'Tour of Utah San Rafael Energy Lab and Valar Atomics for Board Members'. The agenda has no item on a Valar project and does not say whether the public could join the tour. The board's first meeting, on 13 August 2025 in Salt Lake City, at which it approved 'the Valar Project', also closed with a public comment period, in which attendees, per the minutes, expressed appreciation for the board's formation (gov-013). The 12 August 2026 minutes were not read.

In plain termsThe state board that approves projects at the San Rafael lab set its August 2026 meeting at the lab itself in Emery County, with time on the agenda for public comment, and listed a tour of the lab and Valar Atomics for its members afterwards. The agenda does not say whether the public could join the tour, and the meeting's minutes were not read. The board's 2025 meeting that approved Valar's project also ended with public comment.
verified 2026-10-02: Added 1 October 2026. Read the amended agenda (last modified 6 August 2026) and the 13 August 2025 minutes (item 8); quotes exact. The 2026 minutes were not read. On a second check the headline and plain summary were reworded to what the agenda shows: the meeting place, the comment item and the tour are listed; whether the tour took place is not in any record read.
recordconfirmed Board committees discussed the lease before the vote, as they did other deals; no notices of the board's committee meetings were found on the state notice website
2026-07-28 · csite-017 · Utah Trust Lands Administration

The memoranda say the Trust Lands board's Surface Resources Committee discussed the Valar lease on 20 July 2026 and again on 28 July, when Valar presented, and that the Energy & Minerals Committee discussed it on 25 August; the committees raised safety, water, radioactive materials, outreach and 'the need for full transparency', and directed staff to discuss some of the proposed financial terms further with Valar (mine-014). Committee review before a board vote was not special to this lease: the board's approved minutes for 20 August say two geothermal agreements and a minerals agreement approved that day were 'reviewed in the Energy and Minerals Committee meeting in July', and that a development deal at St. George Regional Airport was reviewed at the Real Estate Committee's July meeting; the same minutes note the Valar lease's two July committee reviews. As of late September 2026, the Trust Lands board's page on the Utah Public Notice Website lists 2026 board meetings only (April, May, June, August and September) and no committee meetings. As of late September 2026, no agenda, minutes or recording of these committee meetings was found on the Utah Public Notice Website or in the board packets read. Whether board committees are 'public bodies' under the Open and Public Meetings Act (whose definition includes, among other tests, being supported in whole or part by tax revenue and being 'vested with the authority to make decisions regarding the public's business') is a legal question the records read do not answer.

In plain termsSome of the detailed discussion of the Wellington lease, including the company's presentation and the call for transparency, happened in two board committees whose meetings were not found on the state's public notice site. The board handled other deals the same way: its minutes show other agreements going through board committees first, and no notices of those committee meetings were found either; its memo later summarized the Valar discussions. The full board's votes were public; no agenda or minutes of the committee work on the deal were found in the public records searched. A records request would show whether minutes exist.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds, with two fixes: 'renegotiate' overstated the memo ('further discussion ... regarding some of the proposed financial terms'), and an unsourced remark on how Trust Lands is funded was removed. Re-read in late September 2026: memo pp. 25-26; PMN entity 30 body list (SITLA Board of Trustees, SITLA Wildlife Advisory Committee, Trust Lands Administration Board of Trustees) and body 69/8609 notice lists (2026 board meetings only; none in July).
recordconfirmed Utah-DOE 'Lifecycle Innovation Campus' pact cites Ward 250's 'successful permitting' and plans for out-of-state spent fuel
2026-07-27 · gov-030 · U.S. Department of Energy, State of Utah, Chris Wright, Spencer Cox, Valar Atomics

The memorandum of understanding signed on 27 July 2026 by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Gov. Spencer Cox to establish a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) in Utah (posted by OED; read from its scanned pages) names, as the 'Historical Foundation' of the partnership, 'the successful permitting, development, and testing of Valar Atomics' Ward 250' test reactor at the San Rafael lab. It calls for a later Host Agreement that 'shall address the acceptance and management of out-of-state used nuclear fuel', spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste and greater-than-class-C radioactive waste; says permanent disposal facilities at the campus would be NRC-licensed, with the state never the licensee; has DOE provide regulatory oversight and authorization under 10 CFR 830 for activities not licensed by the NRC or regulated by the state; says decisions on public disclosure under FOIA or GRAMA 'will be made following consultation between the Parties'; and lets either side end it if no Host Agreement is signed by 30 September 2026. It also commits both sides to 'robust community engagement and transparency' (3.1), runs for 30 years, and extends federal nuclear-accident indemnity (AEA section 170d) to the state, campus tenants and contractors. The MOU names no site; the governor's March 2026 release named Tooele County as the candidate host, and no record read through 2 October 2026 places the campus in Carbon or Emery County. Set beside the record: the permitting on file for Ward 250 is DOE's authorization (safe-001, safe-007) and the Emery County Commission's 2 September 2025 building-permit vote (gov-021); no state permit for it was found.

In plain termsIn July 2026 the Energy Secretary and Utah's governor signed a pact to build a large nuclear fuel-cycle campus in Utah, possibly including the handling of spent fuel and high-level waste shipped in from other states. They point to Valar's reactor as an example of the two governments' past successful collaboration, calling its permitting 'successful'. Copies of DOE's actual approval documents for the reactor were not found in public records. The campus's location is not set in the document; the candidate named in the governor's March 2026 release is Tooele County, not Carbon or Emery.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read all 8 pages of the NLIC MOU and re-read the governor's Tooele release in late September 2026; quote exact. Holds; added the transparency commitment, 30-year term and indemnity clause.
newofficial statementconfirmed DOE confirms federal readiness reviews of the four pilot reactors, Ward 250 among them, ending in a final report to the startup authority; no report was found in public records as of Sept. 30, 2026
2026-07-14 · dir-031 · U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Office of Environmental Management, National Nuclear Security Administration, Valar Atomics

DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) wrote on 14 July 2026 that 17 EM team members 'took part in DOE’s readiness review process for facility startup' and transition to operations for the four Reactor Pilot Program reactors that went critical by 4 July, naming Valar Atomics' Ward 250. It says readiness review team members reviewed documents, took part in onsite interviews and performance demonstrations, and 'prepared the final report with recommendation to the startup authorization authority' for approval to proceed with nuclear operations. They also reviewed corrective action plans and closure documents answering 'DOE-identified pre- and post-start findings'. The article does not say which reactor any finding concerned, or give each reactor's report or recommendation separately. It also says EM staff reviewed contractor safety submittals from preliminary to final design before recommendation to the safety basis approval authority. Separately, the DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program manager wrote in the program's Summer 2026 newsletter that NNSA's NA-ESH office 'has been helping out performing the federal readiness reviews for these reactors'. This is DOE's own confirmation of the kind of review Valar described to the state lab board in May. No copy of the readiness report, its findings or the startup authorization was found in public records as of 30 September 2026 (safe-007).

In plain termsDOE now confirms that federal teams reviewed Ward 250 and three other test reactors before startup and wrote a final report with a recommendation to the official who approves startup. That report, and any problems it found, were not found in public records as of 30 September 2026.
verified 2026-10-02: Checked 2026-09-30: re-read the EM article in full (published 14 July 2026) and the NCSP Summer manager's message (PDF created 10 Aug 2026); quotes exact. Tightened the headline: the article describes the review process across four reactors and speaks of 'the final report' generically, so a Ward-250-specific recommending report is not stated outright. Added the safety-basis review sentence from the same article. EM staff names omitted (roles only).
recordconfirmed Utah approved up to $106.7M in tax credits for Valar in July 2026 (Emery County); like all 13 tax-credit applicants the board took up from April to September 2026, it was not named on the public agenda
2026-07-09 · csite-024 · Governor's Office of Economic Development, Valar Atomics, Emery County · maximum REDTIF post-performance tax credit, 10 years: $106,737,499; projected capital investment (Emery County): $1,299,110,000

The Board of the Governor's Office of Economic Development approved, by unanimous consent on 9 July 2026, a REDTIF post-performance refundable tax credit for Valar Atomics Inc. of up to $106,737,499: 50% of new state tax revenue for 10 years, with projected capital investment of $1,299,110,000, 275 jobs at an average wage of $137,567, in Emery County. The credit is paid only after new revenue is receipted, is 'site specific and subject to local incentive participation', and needs a local incentive approved by the GOED Incentives Committee. The notice and agenda, posted 7 July, described the item only as a company in 'the energy and advanced manufacturing industry' (the same agenda named the three companies up for economic development zones, but not the other tax-credit applicant); every agenda of the board from April to September 2026 described its tax-credit applicants only by industry (13 companies in five meetings, up to about $549 million in all, from a food manufacturer to a lithium project; Valar's share was about 19%), and the materials naming them were posted during or after each meeting; the board materials naming Valar were attached to the notice at 1:00 p.m. on 9 July, after the meeting, which was scheduled for 10 a.m. to noon. Utah's records law lets agencies protect records that would reveal incentive negotiations if disclosure would cause the company actual economic harm or put the agency at a competitive disadvantage (63G-2-305(35)), and the July 9 minutes carry that label. Per the minutes, Valar's representatives spoke of a 'waterless data center in Orangeville' and plans 'to install additional commercial units in the area', and an Emery County commissioner spoke in support. As of late September 2026, no state incentive record for the Carbon County campus was found in the GOED board records read.

In plain termsThe state approved giving Valar back up to about $107 million in state taxes over ten years, paid only out of new state tax revenue and tied to job and wage targets; the board materials project a $1.3 billion investment and 275 jobs in Emery County. Per the minutes, Valar's representatives spoke of a data center in Orangeville and more commercial units in the area. Before the vote, the public agenda said only that an energy company was up for approval; the documents naming Valar were posted after the meeting. The board's agendas described all 13 of its tax-credit applicants from April to September 2026 only by industry, and the documents naming them were posted during or after each meeting. State law allows incentive talks to be kept confidential in some cases. The Carbon County campus is not part of this incentive.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds, with one addition. Re-read in late September 2026: July 9 notice (posted 2026-07-07 15:18; attachments: agenda and June minutes added 7 July, board materials added 9 July 13:00, audio 13:05); agenda docx (no company named for incentives); board materials pp. 1-3; July 9 minutes (docx headed 'Incentive Committee Meeting Minutes' and 'PROTECTED BY 63G-2-305(35)', attached to the Sept 10 notice); Utah Code 63G-2-305(35). Unsourced expansion of 'REDTIF' removed. Named individuals other than officials are Valar staff speaking publicly for the company. Corrected 2026-09-30: reworded the plain-language text.
recordconfirmed The notice rule protects the application's confidentiality; Trust Lands' Wellington notice named neither Valar nor any use
2026-07-08 · csite-005 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Carbon County Commission, Southeastern Regional Development Agency, Resource Development Coordinating Committee

Rule R850-30-500 requires Trust Lands, on accepting a special use lease application, to solicit competing interest by giving at least 30 days' notice by certified mail to the county's legislative body, lessees or permittees of record and adjoining landowners; it may add other methods. The notice must describe the land and its location, give the agency contact, and must also include any other information 'that may create interest in the subject property' that 'does not violate the confidentiality of the initial application'. R850-30-150 also requires lease proposals to go to the state Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC). The memorandum says Trust Lands posted notices in the local newspaper and on its website, sent them to lessees, permittees and adjoining landowners 'per agency rule R-850-30-500', posted the proposal on the RDCC dashboard for 30 days and sent it to the Carbon County Commission and SERDA. The web notice (which Trust Lands' own site now marks as archived) matches this format: it says an application was received for Section 16 near Wellington and invites bids to lease, buy or exchange by 7 August 2026, naming no applicant or use; it points inquiries to the Southeastern Area Office in Monticello. The notice page itself records a publication date of 8 July 2026 (last modified 9 August), 30 days before the bid deadline. Because OBAs are exempt from R850-30 (csite-004), our reading is that this notice was given by choice rather than by requirement; the memo does not say. The certified-mail list, the newspaper's affidavit and the RDCC posting's recipients were not in the records read; a matching Trust Lands notice ran in ETV News on 15, 22 and 29 July 2026 (loc-032).

In plain termsWhat the notice told readers was limited: it said only that someone had applied for the land near Wellington, and invited competing bids. That matches the state's rule, which calls for extra details that may draw interest, but only ones that keep the application confidential. The rule requires notice by certified mail to the county commission, existing users of the land and neighboring landowners; Trust Lands says it also posted the notice in a local newspaper and on its website. So the silence about who and what fits the rule rather than departing from it. Whether people were fairly informed is a separate question from whether the rule was followed (csite-018).
verified 2026-10-02: Holds, with the plain text corrected (the certified-mail list is the rule's minimum, not the only notice) and the date set to the notice's posting. Re-read in late September 2026: rulebook R850-30-150, -305, -500; memo p. 20 ('Notice and Advertising'); the notice page's own published and modified dates (8 July and 9 August 2026, UTC). Quotes exact.
recordconfirmed DOE: Ward 250 completed zero-power fueled criticality in Emery County, second under the Reactor Pilot Program
2026-06-18 · orig-010 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy, Chris Wright, Isaiah Taylor, Antares Nuclear

DOE's June 18, 2026 release says Ward 250 completed a zero-power fueled criticality demonstration at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab in Emery County, the first DOE-authorized reactor built outside a national laboratory. DOE calls it the second of several reactors expected to go critical by the July 4 deadline in the May 2025 executive order; Antares Nuclear's Mark-0 at Idaho National Laboratory was first earlier that month. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Isaiah Taylor are quoted; Taylor says the site was empty nine months earlier. DOE describes criticality as a sustained chain reaction that must precede power generation.

In plain termsDOE confirms that on June 18, 2026 Ward 250 in Emery County sustained a chain reaction at essentially zero power, the first step before a reactor makes heat. It was the second reactor to do this under DOE's pilot program. DOE says criticality must be achieved before a reactor can generate power; it shows a sustained chain reaction, not how the reactor performs at power, and it does not settle the separate questions about its safety documents (safe-007).
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: DOE release and ANS re-read: zero-power fueled criticality, first DOE-authorized reactor built outside a national lab, second after Antares, quotes exact. Revised before publication (2026-10-01): wording made more exact against the cited records.
newofficial statementconfirmed June 17, 2026 minutes: Carbon commissioners called the rate change a state-mandated adjustment to keep taxing entities whole, not a county tax increase
2026-06-17 · ptax-012 · Carbon County Commission, Larry Jensen

Final minutes of the Carbon County Commission meeting of 17 June 2026, item 7 on certified tax rates (PDF pp.2-3, read from the scanned pages). After recording Commissioner Jensen's explanation that centrally assessed values fell $48 million, primarily due to a gas field sale, 'which shifted the tax burden slightly', the minutes state that the commissioners repeatedly stressed this was 'a state-mandated adjustment to balance the budget and keep taxing entities whole', not a county tax increase. The three rates were then approved (PDF p.3). This is the minutes' summary of the discussion, not a transcript. Under Utah's truth-in-taxation law, a certified tax rate is the rate that gives a taxing entity the same property tax revenue it budgeted for the prior year. The minutes do not say which taxpayers the shift fell on.

In plain termsAt their 17 June 2026 meeting, the commissioners stressed that the certified rates were an adjustment required by state rules to keep the county's and other taxing bodies' money the same, not a county tax increase. The minutes say the drop in industry value shifted the tax burden slightly, but do not say onto whom.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the scanned pages of the 17 June 2026 final minutes, item 7 (PDF pp.2-3): the full sentence quoted in the detail and both short quotes match word for word on PDF p.3 (the clause 'which shifted the tax burden slightly' starts at the foot of p.2), and the rates were approved after that sentence. The minutes do not say who bears the shift.
recordconfirmed What legislators were shown: OED briefings in 2025, and a 17-slide Valar deck in May 2026 that is all photographs
2026-05-20 · gov-019 · Utah State Legislature, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Interim Committee, Valar Atomics, Isaiah Taylor, Utah Office of Energy Development, Emy Lesofski, Jaron Wallace, Natura Resources

The Legislature's Public Utilities, Energy and Technology Interim Committee has heard about Valar at three meetings, per its posted agendas, minutes and materials. 18 June 2025, under an agenda item titled 'Valar Atomics Nuclear Test Reactor' (described as a plan for 'a new nuclear test reactor running by 2026'): OED Director Emy Lesofski and lab director Jaron Wallace gave 'an update on companies partnering' with the lab, 'including Valar Atomics and NuCube' (approved minutes); OED's slides list 'Valar MOU signed May 16, 2025'; later in the meeting the chair opened public comment on the nuclear discussion (gov-040). 15 October 2025: OED's slide update says the Energy Research Board first met 13 August, Valar broke ground on 11 September 2025, Natura Resources is 'leasing the majority of the space' at the lab, and the state Energy Research Grant Program is 'on hold' until money exists both for grants and to run the lab. 20 May 2026: Isaiah Taylor gave a 'Valar Atomics Update' in a 20-minute agenda slot and 'answered committee questions' (minutes, no detail). The presentation Valar filed with the committee is 17 slides of photographs and headings ('Concept to Thermal Prototype', '10 Months', 'Ward 250 Site Ground Breaking', 'Criticality', 'Reactor Transport', 'Ward 250 Site'): it contains no figures on power, fuel, safety, emergency planning or waste, and does not mention Carbon County, although the state's Wellington lease map was dated 9 April 2026 and the state notice went out 20 April (mine-048, csite-032). One slide shows the reactor vessel on a trailer in front of the State Capitol. Its 'Criticality' slide predates Ward 250's own criticality (18 June 2026), so it can only refer to the November 2025 NOVA test in Nevada (orig-008); the slide does not say which. The meeting audio is posted on the Legislature's site but has not been transcribed for this site.

In plain termsWhen Valar's chief executive briefed the state legislators who oversee energy, the slides he left for the public record were photos: machinery, a groundbreaking, a cargo plane, the reactor on a truck at the Capitol. There were no numbers on safety, fuel or waste, and no mention of the Carbon County site the state was already mapping. Legislators asked questions, which the minutes do not summarize (the recording exists), but the slides and minutes read contain no figures on safety, fuel or waste. A year earlier, in June 2025, the same committee had heard about the Valar test reactor under its own noticed agenda item, and later in that meeting took public comment on the nuclear discussion (gov-040).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the June 2025 and May 2026 minutes, OED's June and October 2025 slides, and viewed all 17 Valar slides in late September 2026. Holds; fixed 'written update' to slides, added the June 2025 agenda item title and that the 'Criticality' slide predates Ward 250's criticality. Corrected 1 Oct 2026: wording made more exact against the cited records.
recordconfirmed DOE shipping review: fuel for Ward 250 is HALEU (under 20%), not the 4.95% its safety agreement lists
2026-05-20 · safe-010 · U.S. Department of Energy, Valar Atomics, National Criticality Experiments Research Center

A DOE Safety Evaluation Report, prepared by the manager of DOE's Packaging Certification Program and approved by DOE's Headquarters Certifying Official on 20 May 2026, reviews and recommends an amendment to the certificate of the Model 9979 shipping package to allow 'limited shipments' of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) TRISO fuel compacts from the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC) in Nevada to the Valar Ward 250 reactor site in Utah. Each package holds one hexagonal graphite 'WARD250 FUEL BLOCK' (Valar drawing V-002782) with 170 compacts; the U-235 in a block is 234.94 grams 'at less than 20% enrichment', the application describes the uranium in the particles as 'enriched to a maximum of 19.9 wt.% U-235', and the stated condition is 'less than 20 weight percent'. The report says the block's end use is as a fuel element in the Ward 250 microreactor. Valar's NSDA (October 2025, Table 6) lists Ward 250's fuel enrichment as '4.95% U-235' on the basis of 'LEU limits', and says that if the fuel differs from the specification its safety assumptions will be updated in the PDSA. The later PDSA and DSA were not found in public records, so whether DOE's approved safety basis was updated to HALEU could not be checked. This is the DOE record that disc-001 lacked: it matches the NOVA release's 'HALEU TRISO' wording (orig-008) and a Valar speaker's statement that part of the core went critical in Nevada, and conflicts with the NSDA's 4.95% figure. Per element, the NSDA's own figures imply 162.83 g of U-235 in 3.29 kg of heavy metal; DOE's block holds 234.94 g of U-235, about 1.18 kg of uranium at the 19.9% maximum enrichment. No single enrichment fits both (76 such blocks holding 250 kg would need 7.14%), so Table 6's equal per-element loading does not match the block DOE cleared, unless some of the 76 elements are unfueled or loaded differently, which the paper does not say.

In plain termsUranium fuel is graded by the share of U-235, the kind that splits. Ordinary power-plant fuel is below 5%; HALEU runs from 5% to just under 20%. Valar's public safety agreement says Ward 250 burns 4.95% fuel. DOE's own shipping review says the fuel approved for shipment to Ward 250 from Nevada is HALEU, enriched up to 19.9%, which is up to about four times richer. The fuel is the same kind of tiny coated bead (TRISO); what differs is how much of the splitting kind of uranium is in each bead. Richer fuel changes the reactor physics, and the safety agreement says fuel-design changes will be carried into the later safety analysis. The only public safety agreement describes different fuel from the fuel DOE reviewed for shipment; the safety analysis DOE approved, which may have been updated, was not found in public records.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the SER (all 9 pages) and NSDA Table 6 and pp. 11, 26 in late September 2026. Conflict holds. Fixed: the SER reviews and recommends the letter amendment (the amendment letter itself was not read); added the 19.9% maximum the SER gives; plain now says 'approved for shipment' and 'up to about four times', not 'sent' and 'roughly four times'. Corrected in late September 2026: added the per-element U-235 and heavy-metal comparison with DOE's block. Corrected 2026-09-30: reworded the plain-language text.
recordconfirmed How Emery County approved selling Valar the 112-acre lab-side parcel: bid rule amended, then a $394,500 direct sale approved
2026-05-19 · gov-022 · Emery County Commission, Emery County Local Building Authority, Valar Atomics, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Dennis Worwood, Keven Jensen, Jordan Leonard, Max Ukropina · sale price of parcel 04-0019-0030 from Emery County / LBA to Valar Atomics (average of two appraisals): $394,500

From the Emery County Commission's minutes. 20 Jan 2026: the commission began 'the disposition process' for parcel 04-0019-0030 ('the property next to the Research Center') 'solely for the purpose of economic development'. 17 Feb: a letter of support for Valar passed; the MOU for Valar's site-suitability testing on the parcel was 'Tabled' (the agenda listing is in orig-046). 17 March: the county's property ordinance required 30 days' notice to neighbors, posting three weeks before sale, and 'sealed bids'; the commission added a section letting it sell under state statute 17-78-103 (notice, public comment and fair value by two appraisals, no bidding) when a parcel is not posted within 30 days; the county attorney said he had not reviewed the new wording and Commissioner Worwood voted no for that reason; the same meeting then approved selling the parcel to Valar under 17-78-103, subject to a hearing and two appraisals, and let Valar use it as a staging area if the county were released from liability. 7 April hearing: Valar said it wants the land for 'Fuel fabrication and manufacturing' and possible temporary employee housing; the state lab director said the state also wanted to buy it, for 'contiguous ownership to maintain safety', and asked whether a bid process could be requested; Commissioner Worwood answered that the county followed state requirements and called the sale 'an intermediate step' while Valar looks for 'a larger piece of property with water'; asked about incentives, the answer recorded was 'None'. 19 May: the commission (2-0) approved the purchase and sale agreement at $394,500, the average of two appraisals, sent annexation notices for the parcel and the lab parcel into Orangeville, and passed a resolution removing the parcel from the Inland Port project area. 7 July: a 30-day due-diligence extension, already signed by one commissioner, was ratified; he said the land 'has been sold' to Valar. Other items in these minutes: on 17 March a local special service district asked that Valar annex the parcel into Orangeville, and the sheriff reported a recent meeting with Valar on safety. No recorded deed was read (open question).

In plain termsEmery County approved selling Valar about 112 acres next to the state lab for $394,500, roughly $3,500 an acre, set by averaging two appraisals. The county's own rule had called for sealed bids; the commission changed that rule at the same meeting where it approved the sale to Valar, before its attorney had reviewed the change. The state lab said it wanted the land too, to keep ownership around the reactor in one hand for safety, and asked whether a bid process could be requested; the county went ahead with the sale to Valar. Valar says it wants the land for making nuclear fuel and manufacturing. The sale followed state law, but it was not a competitive sale.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the Jan 20, Feb 17, Mar 17, Apr 7, May 19 and Jul 7 2026 minutes and Utah Code 17-78-103 (version effective 6 May 2026: notice, public comment, two-appraisal fair value, no bidding requirement) in late September 2026; all quotes exact. Holds; added two related items from the same minutes. Corrected in late September 2026: sale wording now 'approved selling' (no deed read).
recordconfirmed A 2026 Utah law makes counties notify water regulators before approving a large data center; it is not public notice
2026-05-06 · csite-025 · Utah Legislature, Utah Division of Water Rights

H.B. 76 (2026, 'Data Center Water Transparency Amendments', effective 6 May 2026) enacted Utah Code 73-5-8.3. A 'large data center' is one withdrawing 75 acre-feet or more of water a year, with at least 10,000 square feet of buildings. Before a county or city land use authority approves a land use application for a new one, it must notify the Division of Water Rights, the Division of Water Quality and the relevant water provider by mail or email. On or after 1 July 2026 the operator must, at least 90 days but no sooner than 360 days before construction, tell the water provider its expected water use and report to the Division of Water Rights; after opening it reports yearly, and the Division publishes each new center's withdrawals. The Carbon campus plan includes data centers (mine-010); whether any would reach 75 acre-feet a year is not stated.

In plain termsIf the Carbon campus includes a big water-using data center, a 2026 state law requires the county to tell the state's water agencies before approving it, and requires the data center's operator to report expected and actual water use, which the state then publishes. That gives the public a later window into water use, but the law does not itself require a public hearing or public notice.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds, with the date corrected: the bill takes effect 6 May 2026 (Section 3); 1 July 2026 is when the operator's reporting duty starts. Re-read in late September 2026: H.B. 76 enrolled copy and the LRGC 2026 NRAE summary (May 20, 2026). Quote exact.
recordreported POWER: DOE gave preliminary safety-analysis approval in Feb 2026 and final approval April 23, 2026
2026-04-23 · orig-033 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy, POWER magazine

POWER magazine's June 19, 2026 report says Ward 250's DOE Documented Safety Analysis received preliminary approval in February 2026 and final approval on April 23, 2026, ahead of the June 18 criticality. It describes Ward 250 as a TRISO-fueled modular HTGR with helium coolant and names applications including electricity, process heat, hydrogen and materials processing. The DSA itself was not read: no public copy was found as of late September 2026 (safe-007). POWER also names Kiewit Nuclear Solutions as the engineering, procurement and construction contractor. The Partnership for Global Security separately wrote in March 2026 that the government had approved Valar's preliminary safety analyses.

In plain termsA trade magazine reported that DOE approved Ward 250's safety analysis in two steps, in February and April 2026. No public copy of the safety analysis itself was found (safe-007).
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: POWER re-read: preliminary DSA approval Feb 2026, final April 23, applications list. Match. Stays 'reported': the dates come from one trade report, and no public copy of the DSA was found. Corrected 1 Oct 2026: wording made more exact against the cited records.
recordconfirmed Valar's Utah reactor cleared federal environmental review with a categorical exclusion, so no EA or EIS was required
2026-04-22 · csite-020 · U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Idaho Operations Office, Valar Atomics

DOE's NEPA determination DOE-ID-26-005, digitally signed on 22 April 2026 by a DOE NEPA compliance officer (the PDF's web address places its upload in June 2026), categorically excluded 'Valar Ward250 Research Reactor' at the Utah San Rafael Energy Research Center from further NEPA review under category B5.26. DOE created B5.26 by a Federal Register notice effective 2 February 2026 (comments were taken afterwards, to 4 March), under Executive Order 14301; it covers 'Authorization, siting, construction, operation, reauthorization, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors' if DOE finds the risk of offsite release is sufficiently reduced and wastes can be managed, and says a project 'may include multiple reactors'. The notice states that reactors 'developed for additional purposes, such as power production and industrial applications' are also appropriate for it. DOE's B5.26 listing showed five determinations in late September 2026. No DOE NEPA document for a Carbon County site was found in the records read as of late September 2026.

In plain termsFederal law (NEPA) makes agencies study environmental effects before approving projects, for larger actions in a public environmental assessment or impact statement. A 'categorical exclusion' is a category for actions the agency has decided are normally minor: no environmental assessment or impact statement, and no comment period on the project. It is an environmental-review decision under NEPA, separate from DOE's nuclear-safety approval of the reactor (safety analysis, operating limits, readiness review, startup approval; dir-031). DOE created one for advanced reactors in February 2026 and used it for Valar's Emery County reactor in April. It is written broadly enough to cover power reactors and multi-reactor sites. If a Carbon County reactor goes the DOE route, neighbors may get no federal environmental report to comment on at all; if it goes through the NRC, a public review would be expected.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: CX-271015 (7 pages; signature dated 2026.04.22); Federal Register 2026-02071 (91 FR 4550; effective 2 Feb 2026, comments to 4 Mar) full text; DOE's B5.26 listing (Groves-1, SPARC, Ward250, Deployable Energy, Aalo-X). Quotes exact. 'Idaho Operations' removed: the document gives only the DOE-ID number. Second check, late September 2026: the notice is now cited from DOE's own posted copy, read in full: effective 2 Feb 2026, comments due 4 Mar 2026, B5.26 text, 'multiple reactors within a nuclear facility', 'additional purposes, such as power production and industrial applications'. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the plain-language text. Revised before publication (2026-10-01): wording made more exact against the cited records.
recordconfirmed The state's first public notice of the lease (RDCC, April 20, 2026) called it an industrial and power project; no nuclear, no name
2026-04-20 · csite-032 · Resource Development Coordinating Committee, Utah Trust Lands Administration, Carbon County

The Resource Development Coordinating Committee's public project layer (the data behind rdcc.utah.gov) holds project 87203, 'SULA 2095 - Lease Agreement with possible option to purchase', sponsor Trust Lands Administration, created 20 April 2026 with a comment deadline of 18 May 2026, legal description 'T14S, R11E, Sec. 16 N2, SW4', Carbon County, local government contacted 'Y' on 20 April 2026, status 'State Comment Published'. Its abstract says TLA received a lease application 'from a private entity' for 'a large-scale industrial project' including manufacturing, 'power generation infrastructure' and other industrial uses, with a possible purchase option, on 480 acres. It lists impacts as permanent land-use change, landscape change, traffic and 'noise associated with manufacturing and power generation'. It does not name Valar or mention nuclear reactors, fuel or radioactive material. This broadly matches the memo's statement that the proposal ran 30 days on the RDCC dashboard (the layer's comment period, 20 April to 18 May, is 28 days) and went to the county (csite-005); the only comment the memo records is from the Division of Water Rights (mine-012). The same layer holds the Guard lease on the section, 'SULA 1321 - Utah National Guard Training Area' (project 588), whose document link is filed under 2001.

In plain termsRDCC is the state's clearinghouse where agencies and local governments can comment on projects on state land. The Wellington lease was posted there from 20 April to 18 May 2026, and Carbon County was formally contacted on 20 April, more than two months before the commissioners signed their letter of support. The posting described a big industrial and power-generation project, which is accurate as far as it goes, but did not say the power would be nuclear or who the company was. A reader of the state dashboard would not have known this was a nuclear campus.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Checked again in late September 2026: RDCC public layer, projects 87203 (created 2026-04-20 17:14 UTC; comment deadline 2026-05-18; local government contacted Y on 2026-04-20; status 'State Comment Published') and 588. Abstract quote exact. The 2001 date for SULA 1321 now rests only on the record's document link, as stated.
company claimconfirmed At the April 2026 land-sale hearing Valar promised 'to be open with all plans'; its Carbon site was not named
2026-04-07 · gov-038 · Valar Atomics, Cory Gardner, Keven Jensen, Dennis Worwood, Emery County Commission, Utah Trust Lands Administration

Emery County's minutes of the 7 April 2026 public hearing on selling parcel 04-0019-0030 record Valar's commercial development representative, Cory Gardner (spelled 'Gardiner' there), saying the company is part of the community and will 'promise to be open with all plans', and Commissioner Keven Jensen saying Valar 'has been transparent'. Set beside the record: at that hearing Valar described its plans for the Emery parcel (fuel fabrication, manufacturing, possible temporary employee housing), and Commissioner Dennis Worwood said the sale was 'an intermediate step' while Valar looks for 'a larger piece of property with water' (gov-022), but no Carbon County site was named; the state's lease map for the Wellington section is dated two days later, 9 April 2026 (mine-048); the state's 20 April public notice named neither Valar nor nuclear (csite-032); and the first public agenda naming Valar with the Carbon site came on 10 August 2026 (csite-018). On the other side of the ledger, Valar did open its Emery facility to the public: on 17 February 2026 it told the commission it would hold open houses, the first on 24 February 2026. The gap is between a general promise of openness and a public record that did not show the Carbon site for four months; what Valar knew about the Wellington lease on 7 April is not in the records read.

In plain termsAt a public hearing in April 2026, Valar told Emery County residents it would be open about all its plans, and a county commissioner called the company transparent. Two days later the state produced the lease map for Valar's Carbon County site, and no public notice found named Valar as the applicant for that site until August. Valar did hold open houses in Emery County, and a commissioner said at the hearing that Valar wanted more land with water. But the public record did not connect Valar to the Wellington site for four months after the promise.
verified 2026-10-02: New in an earlier check, late September 2026; both minutes read in that check; dates of the Carbon records rest on mine-048, csite-032 and csite-018. No intent asserted.
newrecordconfirmed March 31, 2026: the Utah Energy Council's agenda put a Valar update at the San Rafael lab just before a public-comment item
2026-03-31 · gov-041 · Utah Energy Council, Utah Office of Energy Development, Valar Atomics, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab

The Utah Energy Council's agenda for its 31 March 2026 meeting (virtual, with an anchor location at the Cannon DHHS Building in Salt Lake City; posted on the Utah Public Notice Website, file dated 30 March 2026) lists item 7, 'Valar Atomics at San Rafael Lab Update', and item 8, 'Public comment', two minutes per speaker, which the agenda describes as 'time set aside for citizens to express their views' and says no immediate action can be taken on matters raised. Item 9 is a closed strategy session on the purchase, exchange or lease of real property under H.B. 70 (2025), which names no property (csite-031). The minutes of this meeting were not read, so what was said in the update or in public comment is not known. It is one of several noticed state meetings at which Valar's Emery work came up with a public-comment item on the same agenda (gov-040, gov-042).

In plain termsIn March 2026 the state's Energy Council had a Valar update on its posted agenda, followed directly by time for the public to speak. The agenda shows the chance to comment existed; the record read does not show what was said.
verified 2026-10-02: Added 1 October 2026. Read the agenda (last modified 30 March 2026), items 1-13; quotes exact (the second quote is split across a line break in the PDF, so only its first line is quoted). Minutes not read. Checked a second time on 1 October 2026.
recordreported ProPublica: a DOE memo cited shielding savings on Valar's reactor to argue for loosening public radiation limits
2026-03-20 · dir-011 · U.S. Department of Energy, Valar Atomics, ProPublica, The Salt Lake Tribune

ProPublica reported on 20 March 2026 (Avi Asher-Schapiro; republished by The Salt Lake Tribune on 13 April 2026) that a recent DOE memo it had seen 'cites cost savings on shielding for Valar's reactor to justify changing' the radiation-exposure limits, putting 'shielding-related cost reductions' at '$1-2 million per reactor', and that internal DOE documents show the department 'has been considering a fivefold increase' to the limit for public exposure to radiation. A DOE presentation made in its Idaho offices argued changing dose rules could cut some new reactors' cost by as much as 5%. ProPublica reports, citing sources familiar with the deliberations, that whether the agencies will change the legal limits is an open question. DOE said its radiation standards protect people and the environment; the NRC declined to comment; Valar did not reply. No copy of the memo was found in public records. Valar's CEO has called radiation-exposure limits a top barrier to the industry's growth.

In plain termsThe public radiation limit is the rule that protects people who live near a reactor. An investigative news outlet saw an Energy Department memo that used the money Valar's reactor could save on shielding as a reason to loosen that rule, and department papers showing it has considered letting the public limit rise fivefold. As of ProPublica's March 2026 report the limit had not been changed, and no copy of the memo was found in public records.
verified 2026-10-02: Read ProPublica directly in late September 2026: memo sentence and '$1-2 million per reactor' quoted exactly; 'fivefold increase' sentence confirmed; the article gives no numeric limit. Tribune page shows the ProPublica byline (body paywalled). Written about the department's documents only; conduct attributed in the same article to individual officials is kept out of this fact.
recordconfirmed DOE's new NEPA exclusion drew formal objections, incl. from Utah groups; no DOE response was found on its NEPA page as of late September 2026
2026-03-04 · safe-029 · U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, HEAL Utah, Uranium Watch

DOE announced categorical exclusion B5.26 on 2 February 2026 (91 FR 4550), already included in its procedures (the notice says it is 'effective on February 2, 2026'), and invited comments until 4 March 2026 (csite-020). On 4 March the Nuclear Information and Resource Service filed comments for itself and 25 groups, including HEAL Utah and Uranium Watch of Moab, arguing among other things that the exclusion expressly allows multiple reactors in one facility, that stacking exclusions and judging segmentation or 'extraordinary circumstances' would be shielded from public input, and that public involvement improves reviews. Uranium Watch wrote that coverage of the Valar reactor gave no information on worker and resident protection, emergency response planning, spent-fuel storage, who to contact, oversight or the need for NRC licensing if power is sold to non-federal entities. DOE's categorical-exclusion page, read in late September 2026, still says DOE 'will consider' comments received by 4 March and links no response. DOE applied B5.26 to Ward 250 on 22 April 2026; that determination says no extraordinary circumstance applies, a category it defines to include scientific controversy about environmental effects. The exclusion's text, as printed in the determination, says 'a project may include multiple reactors within a nuclear facility'.

In plain termsDOE put the exclusion into effect first and took comments afterwards. Twenty-six groups, including two from Utah, objected in writing that it limits public input and can cover several reactors at one facility. Seven weeks after the comment period closed, DOE used it for Valar's reactor, finding no 'extraordinary circumstance', a category that includes scientific controversy. As of late September 2026, DOE's page shows no answer to those comments.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read NIRS comments (25 co-signers counted, incl. HEAL Utah and Uranium Watch), DOE's CX page and the CX in late September 2026. Holds. Fixed: 'effective 2 February' now sourced (DOE page plus NIRS); the CX finds no 'extraordinary circumstance', which it defines to include scientific controversy, rather than finding 'no scientific controversy' as such. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the headline; reworded the detail; reworded the plain-language text; removed the citation of Nuclear Information and Resource Service et al. (it was cited for what DOE said, which DOE's own notice now shows; the filing stays cited as the objectors' own comments); now cites U.S. Department of Energy (Federal Register notice) instead.
recordconfirmed Ward 250 flown unfueled from March ARB, Calif., to Hill AFB, Utah, on three C-17s (Operation Windlord)
2026-02-15 · orig-030 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of War, U.S. Air Force, Chris Wright, Michael Duffey

World Nuclear News (Feb 18, 2026) reports the Ward 250 reactor, without its nuclear fuel, was loaded onto a C-17 at March Air Reserve Base in California on February 15, 2026 (Stars and Stripes reports three C-17s carried the modules) and flown to Hill Air Force Base, with Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Under Secretary Michael Duffey aboard, for later transfer to the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab. WNN, citing Reuters, says Wright stated fuel would move separately from the Nevada National Security Site. ExecutiveGov describes the same flight as a DOW-DOE partnership. This shows the reactor hardware was in Southern California before it moved to Utah; Valar's June 2026 draft says it was tested at its Hawthorne headquarters (orig-059).

In plain termsIn February 2026 three Air Force cargo jets flew the reactor's modules, without fuel, from Southern California to Hill Air Force Base, and trucks took them on to Emery County.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: WNN and ExecutiveGov re-read: unfueled, March ARB, Feb 15, Hill AFB, Wright and Duffey aboard, fuel to move separately (Reuters via WNN). One overstated inference softened.
recordconfirmed Emergency planning: Valar asked to plan for on-site emergencies only; no public record shows DOE agreed
2025-12-15 · safe-016 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy, Emery County Fire Protection District, Emery County Emergency Management

The NSDA asks DOE to tailor its emergency-management order (NE O 151.1) to 'on-site emergency response only (no off-site planning required)', justified by the worst-case boundary dose and an 800 m distance to the nearest residence (Appendix C.3); it says 'Emergency planning requirements remain limited to on-site response'. It commits to coordination with Emery County Emergency Management, Emery County Fire and local responders: familiarization tours, table-top exercises, hazard information, direct notification links and annual coordination meetings. DOE-STD-1271 lets contractors use equivalent NRC or industry standards 'except where noted'; its Emergency Management entry (NE O 151.1) lacks the explicit 'may choose ... an alternative' sentence most other sections carry, and the Nuclear Innovation Alliance reads the standard as allowing equivalents 'except for Emergency Planning and Cybersecurity'. The standard's general text does still let a contractor request a 'self-generated equivalent' or an exemption for any listed item, decided by DOE's approval authority, so a request like Valar's is not ruled out on its face. Valar's web summary does not list emergency planning among the alternatives DOE approved. Local record: the Emery County Fire Protection District's 15 December 2025 minutes record the board discussing the 'nuclear test plant proposed in Orangeville' and its fire protection plans, and the outgoing chair saying he would sign them when the paperwork arrived. No public emergency plan for Ward 250, no record of a table-top exercise, and no public notification arrangement for residents were found as of late September 2026. In comments to DOE (March 2026), Uranium Watch said news coverage of the Valar reactor gave no information on emergency response planning, spent fuel or who to contact. The paper's justification (p.54) calls boundary doses under 0.5 rem 'well below Protective Action Guidelines'. EPA's guide for evacuating or sheltering the public starts at 1 rem over four days, a factor of 2 above that bound, and the paper does not address EPA's 5 rem child-thyroid guide for potassium iodide, although it names iodine-131 as the main dose contributor.

In plain termsBig power plants must plan for evacuating or sheltering people for miles around. Valar argued its worst accident is small enough that emergency planning can stop at its own fence, with local fire crews briefed. DOE's own rulebook seems to leave less room to swap out the emergency rules than others, though a company can still ask, and the company's public summary does not say DOE agreed. The county fire board discussed fire-protection plans for the site in December 2025. No copy of the emergency plan itself was found in public records as of late September 2026: who gets called, and what neighbors would be told to do.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read NSDA pp. 11, 20-21, 45, 54; DOE-STD-1271 Attachment 1; NIA; Emery County Fire Protection District minutes of 15 Dec 2025; NIRS comments in late September 2026. Fixed: the headline 'no stated opt-out' overstated the standard, whose general text lets a contractor request an equivalent or exemption for any item; the fire board 'discussed' (not 'reviewed') the plans. Corrected in late September 2026: added EPA's evacuate-or-shelter guide (1 rem, a factor of 2) and the unaddressed 5 rem child-thyroid guide.
recordconfirmed NOVA ran on a federal lab's machine, staff and site, with the core and fuel Valar provided; who paid for the lab's part, and under what agreement, was not found in public records
2025-11-17 · fund-012 · Valar Atomics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, National Criticality Experiments Research Center, NNSA Nevada Field Office

Valar's joint release with Los Alamos (18 Nov 2025) divides the work: Valar supplied the reactor core, the TRISO fuel and the system configuration; Los Alamos's National Criticality Experiments Research Center, which the release calls the United States' only general-purpose critical-experiments facility, supplied the critical assembly, the facility safety envelope, experimentalists, instruments, the experiment platform and reflectors, data analysis and validation oversight, under the oversight of NNSA's Nevada Field Office. The release adds that the center is supported by DOE's Nuclear Criticality Safety Program, 'funded and managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration for the Department of Energy', and quotes DOE's deputy assistant secretary for nuclear reactors on 'leveraging all DOE capabilities' for the pilot program. ANS Nuclear Newswire's report describes the same split, adds that Los Alamos 'also provided many of the components used', and quotes Valar's chief executive, in a statement to Wired, saying the pilot program gives Valar access to sites, national-lab expertise and federal oversight. Neither names the agreement type (for example a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement or a Strategic Partnership Project) or says who paid for the lab's time. No NOVA-related award was found on USAspending as of late September 2026. The NOVA result is one of the 'firsts' Valar used in its Series B pitch (fund-007).

In plain termsValar's first chain reaction happened inside a government laboratory, on government equipment, run by national-laboratory scientists at a federal site in Nevada. By the release's account, Valar provided the core and the fuel. Whether Valar paid the full cost of the lab's time, or taxpayers covered some of it, is not in any public document found.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-verified in late September 2026: NOVA release and ANS re-read; quotes exact. Added the release's own line that the center is NNSA-funded, which bears on who carried the cost.
recordconfirmed Project NOVA: Valar-built HALEU TRISO core reached zero-power criticality at LANL's NCERC in Nevada
2025-11-17 · orig-008 · Valar Atomics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, National Criticality Experiments Research Center, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada National Security Site

A joint Los Alamos National Laboratory and Valar announcement (posted on Valar's site, dated November 18, 2025) says the NOVA core reached zero-power ('cold') criticality at 11:45 a.m. PT on November 17, 2025, at LANL's National Criticality Experiments Research Center on the Nevada National Security Site, after approach-to-criticality work began November 12. Valar built the central core and supplied the TRISO fuel; LANL operated it on NCERC's Comet critical assembly and supplied the facility safety envelope, instruments, reflectors and analysis, under NNSA Nevada Field Office oversight. The core is graphite-moderated, HALEU TRISO-fueled, with boron-carbide control elements, and was configured to model the Ward 250 core. The release itself stresses there was no power production, grid connection or full-temperature operation. The claim of the first criticality by a venture-backed company is the company's. POWER magazine (June 2026) independently describes the same November 2025 campaign and notes it ran under NNSA oversight at LANL, not under the Reactor Pilot Program authorization.

In plain termsIn November 2025 a core built by Valar and loaded with its fuel reached a self-sustaining chain reaction inside a Los Alamos laboratory machine in Nevada, run by Los Alamos staff. 'Zero power' means the reaction made no useful heat or electricity; it tests the physics only.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: release re-read: times, dates, roles (Valar core and fuel; LANL assembly, safety envelope, reflectors, instruments, analysis), NNSA Nevada Field Office oversight and the no-power caveat all match. It is a company-hosted joint release that quotes a DOE official; no separate LANL posting was read. POWER's independent account added as a second source.
recordconfirmed The county permit Valar will need: state law says approve it if harms can be reasonably reduced; state law requires no hearing
2025-11-06 · csite-015 · Carbon County, Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman

The Trust Lands memo says the parcel is zoned Mining and Grazing (M&G), where large industrial projects are a conditional use, and that the county conditional use permit (CUP) process is public, 'requiring the publishing of notice, a public hearing' and acceptance of public comments. Utah Code 17-79-506 (effective 6 November 2025) says a county land use authority 'shall approve a conditional use' if reasonable conditions can mitigate its reasonably anticipated detrimental effects (mitigation need not eliminate them), and may deny it only if they cannot be substantially mitigated. Utah's Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman states that state law does not require a public hearing on a CUP and that local ordinances decide. The conditional-use chapter of Carbon County's Development Code, as published on August 28, 2023, does not require a public hearing before a conditional use permit is approved; the memo's statement may reflect later changes or county practice, so ask the county which applies (see who decides, on the County Transparency page, which cites the code).

In plain termsA conditional use permit is the county's main say over what gets built on this land. But under Utah law it is not a yes-or-no vote on whether a project is wanted: if reasonable conditions can reduce the harms, the county must approve it with those conditions. State law does not require a public hearing; the county's own rules decide. The state's memo says Carbon's process includes notice, a hearing and public comment; the conditional-use chapter of the county code's 2023 edition does not require one (see who decides, on the County Transparency page). The county's planned code update (csite-013) is where residents can shape those conditions.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: memo p. 21 (Zoning and Local Land Use); Utah Code 17-79-506 (effective 11/6/2025); OPRO conditional-uses page (modified 2026-04-10). Quotes exact.
recordconfirmed Who approves Ward 250: DOE alone. Its safety agreement says no move to an NRC license is planned
2025-10 · safe-001 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Valar's Nuclear Safety Design Agreement (NSDA, document 100403 rev 02, October 2025) says Ward 250 is a contractor-owned, contractor-operated facility 'under DOE jurisdiction', authorized under the federal nuclear safety rule 10 CFR 830, with DOE-STD-1271-2025 as its primary authorization standard, and that no transition to NRC licensing is planned or intended. DOE's NEPA determination of 22 April 2026 says the same: the facility 'will operate under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) authorization'. The legal basis is Executive Order 14301 (23 May 2025): section 3 finds that advanced reactors under enough DOE control that are not built 'to produce commercial electric power' fall within DOE's jurisdiction rather than the NRC's, and section 5 orders a pilot program outside the national laboratories under 42 U.S.C. 2140, approving at least three reactors 'with the goal of achieving criticality' in each by 4 July 2026. DOE-STD-1271 itself exempts anything the NRC regulates. The text of DOE-STD-1271 contains no public-hearing or public-comment step (searched for 'hearing', 'public comment', 'comment period'); its foreword only invites emailed suggestions for improving the standard itself.

In plain termsTwo federal agencies can approve a reactor. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the independent safety regulator for commercial reactors, and its licensing includes published notices and a chance for the public to ask for a hearing. The Department of Energy (DOE) can instead approve test reactors it controls. Ward 250 took the DOE route, so the agency that sponsors the pilot program is also the one that judges its safety, and the DOE rulebook used has no step where the public comments or asks for a hearing. This is the route the 2025 executive order set up; it also means far less of the review happens in public.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: NSDA pp. 2 and 47, CX p. 1, EO 14301 secs. 3 and 5, DOE-STD-1271 sec. 2.1.d and full-text search. Fixed: headline said 'will never move' where the NSDA says no NRC transition is 'planned or intended'; the EO sets criticality by 4 July 2026 as a goal, not a requirement; Federal Register page corrected to 90 FR 22591.
recordconfirmed Emery County's commission itself voted Valar's building permit, as the building department had not issued one
2025-09-02 · gov-021 · Emery County Commission, Valar Atomics, State of Utah Division of Facilities Construction and Management, Utah Office of Energy Development · proposed price for Emery County's sale of the San Rafael Energy Research Center to the State of Utah (Nov 2024): $2,111,444

The Emery County Commission's minutes of 2 September 2025, item 16: 'Valor Atomics is getting ready to break ground' at the San Rafael Energy Research Center 'on September 11' and hopes to start 'next year on July 4th'; 'The Building department has not issued a building permit, so this is the process to move forward.' The commission voted 3-0 to approve a building permit for Valar 'so they can move forward with their project'. No building-code review, plans or conditions are recorded in the minutes. The same meeting voted to support Green River as a potential site for the state energy office's nuclear power generation project after the governor's agreement with TerraPower. The county's Economic Opportunity Board minutes of 9 September 2025 note the Valar groundbreaking 'scheduled for Thursday at 9:30 a.m.', i.e. 11 September. Earlier county-state steps: on 19 November 2024 the commission approved selling the San Rafael Energy Research Center to the State of Utah (Division of Facilities Construction and Management) for $2,111,444, and on 4 February 2025 extended contract #231366 with OED to June 2025 so the county could keep being reimbursed for bills it paid on the state's behalf at the lab.

In plain termsFor Valar's facility at the lab, the elected commission voted to approve a building permit directly because the county's building department had not issued one, days before the groundbreaking. The minutes do not say what was reviewed. The county had approved selling the lab to the state for about $2.1 million the year before.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the 2 Sept 2025 minutes, 9 Sept economic board minutes and 19 Nov 2024 minutes in late September 2026; quotes exact. Fixed: the 4 Feb 2025 contract point had no cited source; the minutes were found and read and are now cited.
recordconfirmed The state board that must approve lab projects approved 'the Valar Project' Aug 13, 2025, at a 35-minute first meeting
2025-08-13 · gov-013 · Utah Energy Research Board, Utah Office of Energy Development, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Valar Atomics, Dennis Worwood, Jaron Wallace, Emy Lesofski, Natura Resources

Utah law (Title 79, Chapter 6, Part 10) creates the Utah Energy Research Board inside OED to oversee the San Rafael Energy Lab; the lab must receive and evaluate project proposals and recommend them, and the board 'shall review the project proposals' and make 'final decisions on approval' (79-6-1005); the lab may contract with users, with revenue going to the Utah Energy Research Fund (79-6-1004(2)(d)). The board's first meeting, noticed on the Utah Public Notice Website, was held 13 August 2025 at the State Capitol, 10:00 to 10:35 a.m. Per its approved minutes, members took the oath, appointed Jaron Wallace lab director, and then heard 'Project Valar', 'a 250-kilowatt microreactor test site' that 'recently received approval' from DOE; they discussed private funding, returning the site to a 'Greenfield' state and financial assurance for liability; Emery County Commissioner Dennis Worwood, a board member, 'noted strong public support' in Emery County; the motion to approve, made by member Larry Howell and seconded by Worwood, passed 7-0. Set beside the record: by then OED had signed its MOU (16 May), Valar had held its Emery town hall (8 July) and DOE had announced its selection a day earlier (12 August), a selection, not an authorization; DOE's OTA began 22 October 2025. The same meeting approved a Natura Resources molten-salt project at the lab. The minutes record that the meeting closed with a public comment period, in which attendees expressed appreciation for the board's formation.

In plain termsState law gives a specific board the final say on which projects go into the state energy lab. That board approved Valar's reactor project at its very first meeting, in Salt Lake City, in a meeting that lasted 35 minutes, after the state had already signed with Valar and announced the project. The meeting was legally noticed and ended with a public comment period, and its notice offered video-call and phone participation; it was held after the state had signed its non-binding MOU and DOE had announced its selection; under state law, this board makes the final decision on approving projects at the lab (79-6-1005). The minutes say the project 'recently received approval' from DOE; DOE had only selected it the day before.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read Utah Code 79-6 Part 10, the 13 Aug 2025 notice and minutes in late September 2026; quotes exact. Fixed: the 'DOE selected it a day earlier' point had no cited source; DOE's 12 Aug 2025 selection release was read and is now cited. Added that Worwood seconded the approval. Corrected 1 Oct 2026: wording made more exact against the cited records.
company claimconfirmed Valar announces DOE selection to reach criticality by July 4, 2026 under Executive Order 14301
2025-08-12 · orig-006 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy, Isaiah Taylor, Spencer Cox, Chris Wright

In a post dated August 12, 2025, signed by Isaiah Taylor, Valar said DOE had selected it to achieve criticality on American soil by July 4, 2026, pursuant to Executive Order 14301. The post thanks President Trump and Energy Secretary Wright, and Governor Cox and his administration for their partnership, names the test site as the San Rafael Energy Research Center in Emery County, and says testing there can proceed without multi-year licensing delays under the new framework. It describes the test reactor as a TRISO-fueled high-temperature proof-of-concept and claims operating temperatures above 750 C. The post frames the effort as a 'second Manhattan Project'.

In plain termsIn August 2025 the Energy Department picked Valar as one of the companies allowed to try to start a test reactor by July 4, 2026, under a presidential order. Being picked meant permission to try under DOE's oversight, at the company's own cost, not federal money to build.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: post re-read; selection, EO 14301, site, TRISO proof-of-concept, >750 C and second-Manhattan-Project wording match. Thanks wording tightened to the text.
newrecordconfirmed The 'CONFIDENTIAL' marking is on a Valar deck posted publicly on the state's notice website; the Legislature's June 2025 Valar item used state slides without it
2025-07-08 · dir-038 · Valar Atomics, Utah Public Notice Website, Utah State Legislature, Utah Office of Energy Development

Valar's 12-page deck 'Valar Atomics + SRERC in Emery County' (PDF created 8 July 2025; server date 9 July 2025) is posted on the state-run Utah Public Notice Website as file 1295975, and 11 of its 12 pages carry the line 'CONFIDENTIAL. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.'; the public body that posted it and the notice it is attached to were not found in the records searched (as of 1 October 2026). Its content (under 250 kW, 30 effective full-power days in 12 months in a temporary facility, commercial deployment by 2028) matches Valar's 8 July 2025 Emery County town hall as reported (orig-045) on the 12-month test and the 2028 commercial goal; the report does not give the power level or full-power days, or call the facility temporary. The Legislature's record of its 18 June 2025 committee meeting lists, for the Valar item, only OED's four-page 'Nuclear Update' slides, whose text carries no such marking (gov-040); Valar's own 17-slide deck filed with the same committee in May 2026 carries none either (gov-019). The marking shows how Valar labeled one deck. The deck itself is public, and the marking on its own does not show that any meeting or decision was confidential.

In plain termsOne Valar slide deck from July 2025 is stamped 'CONFIDENTIAL. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.' on most pages, yet it is posted on the state's public notice website for anyone to download. The stamp shows how Valar labeled its slides; it does not show that any meeting or decision was closed to the public. The only slides on the Legislature's record for the June 2025 briefing were the state energy office's own, with no such stamp.
verified 2026-10-02: Added 1 October 2026. Read: the Valar deck as posted on the state notice website (PDF created 8 July 2025, server date 9 July 2025; the marking is on most pages); the Legislature's meeting record for 18 June 2025; and the Office of Energy Development's slides (no marking in their text). The May 2026 Valar deck was read in full, page by page. The notice this deck is attached to was searched for and not found.
newrecordconfirmed June 18, 2025: legislators heard a noticed agenda item, 'Valar Atomics Nuclear Test Reactor', then took public comment on nuclear
2025-06-18 · gov-040 · Utah State Legislature, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Interim Committee, Utah Office of Energy Development, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Valar Atomics, Emy Lesofski, Jaron Wallace

The Legislature's Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Interim Committee met on 18 June 2025 at the State Capitol. Its agenda (file dated 13 June 2025) lists item 3, 'Valar Atomics Nuclear Test Reactor', 9:00 to 9:30 a.m.: Valar had 'partnered with the San Rafael Energy Research Center' to have 'a new nuclear test reactor running by 2026', and the committee would hear about the plan from the Office of Energy Development and the research center. Per the approved minutes, OED Director Emy Lesofski and lab director Jaron Wallace 'gave an update on companies partnering' with the lab, 'including Valar Atomics and NuCube'. The Legislature's meeting record lists, for item 3, only OED's four-page slides, 'Nuclear Update', which give 'Valar MOU signed May 16, 2025'; no presentation filed by Valar is listed for this meeting, and OED's slides carry no confidentiality marking in their text. After the committee voted on a draft nuclear-manufacturing resolution, the chair 'opened the meeting to public comment on the nuclear discussion': four members of the public spoke, some for more nuclear power and others urging caution and asking that communities be included in decisions. The meeting record also lists the meeting notice, the approved minutes and an audio/video recording. The meeting came 33 days after the OED-Valar MOU (gov-011) and the day after Emery County's public hearing on nuclear industries (gov-020). It was an informational update: the committee took no action on Valar, and it was not a hearing on the reactor's safety.

In plain termsA year before Ward 250 started up, state legislators had a posted agenda item called 'Valar Atomics Nuclear Test Reactor', describing a test reactor planned at the Emery County lab by 2026. State energy officials briefed the committee, and later in the same meeting members of the public spoke on the nuclear discussion, some supporting more nuclear power and others urging caution. It was a briefing, not a hearing on whether the reactor is safe, but it shows the plan itself was discussed in public by June 2025.
verified 2026-10-02: Added 1 October 2026. Read: the meeting agenda (file dated 13 June 2025), the approved minutes (pp. 1-3), the Office of Energy Development's slides (their text carries no confidentiality marking) and the Legislature's meeting record (read 1 October 2026; four materials, none filed by Valar). Quotes exact. Members of the public who spoke are not named. The audio was not transcribed. Checked a second time on 1 October 2026.
recordconfirmed June 2025 Emery hearing: lab director said Valar was 'looking at manufacturing in Emery or Carbon County'
2025-06-17 · gov-020 · Emery County Commission, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Jaron Wallace, Valar Atomics, NuCube

The earliest county meeting on Valar found in Emery County's posted minutes followed news reports: at the 3 June 2025 Emery County Commission meeting a commissioner referred to 'the article floating around and on social media' about reactors at the San Rafael Energy Research Center and said a public hearing had been set for 17 June (its notice was posted 29 May). The minutes of that 17 June 2025 hearing on 'Nuclear Industries in Emery County' record the state lab director, Jaron Wallace, saying Valar 'would like to build nuclear reactors at the Research Center' and was 'looking at manufacturing in Emery or Carbon County', that another company, NuCube, was also interested, and that permitting 'will take some time'; later he said 'Transparency is imperative. We are not trying to keep anything from anyone', that the meeting was 'the first of many', and that safety was 'the number one priority'. Residents spoke both ways: several supported nuclear power and jobs; others asked whether the county has any control over a state-owned site, worried about being 'by-passed by the State', security, waste staying in the county, and cancer in families exposed in the past; one said she had not heard enough to be convinced. Set beside the record: the OED-Valar MOU signed a month earlier said the agreement and related information were confidential and barred publicity without both parties' consent (gov-011), terms that yield to Utah's records law and that the energy office also uses with other nuclear developers; DOE's pathway gave the county no approval role over the reactor (safe-001). This is also the earliest public record found that ties Valar to Carbon County, fourteen months before the Trust Lands agenda of August 2026 (csite-018, ppl-027); it names the county, not a site.

In plain termsEmery County's commissioners held a public hearing on nuclear in June 2025 after residents saw news stories. There, the state's lab director said Valar wanted to build reactors at the lab and was looking at manufacturing in Emery or Carbon County. So Carbon County was mentioned in public over a year before Valar's name appeared on a Trust Lands agenda for the Wellington lease (August 2026), but only in passing, at an Emery County meeting, with no site named. Residents asked who actually controls a state-owned nuclear site; on the record, the reactor's authorization rests with the federal Energy Department, a state board approves projects at the state lab (gov-013), and the county commission later approved Valar's building permit (gov-021).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the 17 June 2025 hearing minutes, the 3 June minutes and the notice in late September 2026; all quotes exact; residents described, not named. Fixed: the hearing had already been noticed (29 May) when the 3 June meeting mentioned it; plain wording made neutral.
recordconfirmed The state's earliest agreement with Valar found in public records (May 16, 2025) made it and 'related information' confidential, except as required by law, and barred publicity without consent; the energy office uses similar terms with some other nuclear companies
2025-05-16 · gov-011 · Utah Office of Energy Development, Valar Atomics, Emy Lesofski, Max Ukropina, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab

The memorandum of understanding between the Utah Office of Energy Development and Valar Atomics, dated and signed 16 May 2025 by OED Director Emy Lesofski and Valar's Max Ukropina, is posted on OED's website with signatures omitted (the file was uploaded 12 January 2026, per the site's media record). It sets a 'non-binding framework' to evaluate Valar 'activating a nuclear test reactor' and 'TRISO fuel fabrication' at the San Rafael Energy Lab 'for research'; the areas the parties 'intend to explore' include OED providing site, infrastructure and shared facilities, and Valar's responsibility for design, operation and 'regulatory compliance'. It targets 'Test Reactor activation by July 2026, with milestones for approvals', a week before Executive Order 14301 (23 May 2025) set the 4 July 2026 criticality goal. Clause 5 says the MOU 'and related information are confidential' and shall not be disclosed without both parties' consent, except as required by law, and that OED 'requires Valar officer approval for external disclosures'; clause 4 treats information exchanged as confidential 'unless otherwise required by law', notes that OED is subject to GRAMA, and has the lab notify Valar of any records request touching Valar-designated confidential information; clause 8 says 'No publicity shall be issued without mutual consent'. Clause 6 names compliance with applicable laws 'including Department of Energy (DOE) regulations'; the NRC is not mentioned. Either side may end it on 30 days' notice; OED cannot indemnify Valar, and the MOU does not oblige it to spend money not appropriated. The confidentiality terms are not unique to Valar: two of OED's later nuclear MOUs posted on its website carry similar clauses, Deployable Energy's (18 Aug 2026) barring publicity 'without the prior written consent' of the other party, and Oklo's (27 March 2026) treating the MOU, its contents and 'the fact that the Parties are discussing' it as confidential. They are OED's common practice with nuclear developers, though not universal: its June 2026 MOU with Nuclea Energy has neither clause and says only that OED is subject to GRAMA.

In plain termsThis is the earliest signed agreement between the State of Utah and Valar found in public records. It is not a contract: it only says both sides will explore putting a test reactor and a uranium-fuel making operation at the state's energy lab in Emery County, with the reactor running by July 2026. It also says the agreement and 'related information' are confidential, that the state needs Valar's sign-off before disclosing things, and that neither side will publicize the deal without the other's consent. Utah's public-records law still overrides that. The agreement's own text went up on the energy office's website in January 2026, but the project itself was publicly discussed within weeks of the signing: after news reports, Emery County held a noticed public hearing on nuclear industries (17 June 2025, gov-020), and the next day a legislative committee heard an agenda item titled 'Valar Atomics Nuclear Test Reactor', where the state's slides gave the MOU's signing date (gov-040). And from the first day, the plan named the Energy Department's rules and did not mention the NRC. The state's energy office puts similar confidentiality terms in some of its agreements with other nuclear companies, so these terms are not unique to Valar.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read both pages of the Valar MOU in late September 2026 (clauses 1-12, signature note) and re-read the Deployable, Oklo and Nuclea MOUs and the media upload record (12 Jan 2026). Holds; added clause 4's own GRAMA acknowledgment. Corrected 2026-10-01: wording made more exact against the cited records.
company claimreported April 2025: Valar joins states' suit against the NRC over small-reactor licensing; names 'Ward One'
2025-04-07 · orig-016 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Last Energy, Deep Fission, State of Utah, State of Texas

In a post dated April 7, 2025, Isaiah Taylor announced Valar was joining Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Florida and Arizona (in the complaint, the Arizona State Legislature), and the reactor companies Last Energy and Deep Fission, in a lawsuit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The argument, as Valar summarizes it, is that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 narrowed federal licensing to reactors significant to defense or public safety, and that a 1956 rule wrongly swept in all reactors. The post says Valar's planned 'Ward One' test reactor is named in the suit. Litigation status and outcome are tracked in safe-028.

In plain termsIn April 2025 Valar joined Texas, Utah and other states in suing the federal nuclear regulator (the NRC), arguing small reactors should not need its license at all. Utah, which later hosted Valar's reactor, is one of the states in that suit.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: post re-read; co-plaintiffs, 1954 Act argument, 1956 rule and Ward One claim match; quote exact. The court docket was not read in this check.
recordreported Valar's suit against the NRC: joined April 2025 to exempt small reactors from NRC licensing; paused for settlement talks
2025-04-07 · safe-028 · Valar Atomics, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, State of Utah, State of Texas, Last Energy, Deep Fission

Valar's post of 7 April 2025 announces that it joined Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Florida and Arizona (the court filing names the Arizona Legislature), with Last Energy and Deep Fission, in a lawsuit against the NRC. As Valar describes it, the suit argues that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 limits NRC licensing to reactors significant to defense or public health and safety, and that the 1956 'Utilization Facility Rule', issued by the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, which requires a license for any reactor, exceeds that authority; Valar says its planned 'Ward One' reactor is named in the suit and that states have begun creating regulatory bodies to host such tests. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's release of 8 April 2025 says the case was filed by Texas, Utah and Last Energy (on 30 December 2024, per the NRC's litigation status report) and positions Louisiana to benefit from a favorable ruling or settlement. E&E News (23 July 2025) reports the case is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, that the NRC first moved to dismiss it, and that in June 2025 the NRC joined the plaintiffs in asking the court to extend a stay to 29 September 2025 to seek 'a mutually agreeable resolution'; the court granted it on 30 June. E&E also reports Valar had not contacted or met with the NRC, with Taylor asking why a company that believes the jurisdiction is wrong would engage. The NRC's litigation status report, current to 27 January 2026, says the case had been placed in abeyance at the parties' request; on 26 January 2026 the parties asked for 45 more days, and the court had not yet acted. A commercial copy of the court docket lists a joint status report filed on 2 September 2026 as its latest entry, with no dismissal or settlement shown; that report's text was not found in the records we checked as of 2 October 2026. Ward 250 itself went forward under DOE authorization, not under the state-regulation model the suit argued for.

In plain termsIn 2025 Valar and several states sued the federal nuclear regulator, arguing small reactors should not need its license at all. By mid-2025 both sides had paused the case to try to settle. In January 2026 the NRC reported that the case was still on hold, and a copy of the court record shows the parties filed another joint progress report on 2 September 2026, with no settlement or dismissal shown. Meanwhile the company got its reactor approved a different way: through DOE, not through the states.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read Valar's 7 April 2025 post, the Louisiana DEQ release (8 April 2025) and E&E News (23 July 2025) in late September 2026. Holds. The date is Valar's joining, not E&E's report date. Revised before publication (late September 2026): 1956 rule attributed to the Atomic Energy Commission, the NRC's predecessor.
recordconfirmed The meeting-law yardstick: 24-hour notice, agendas that say what is decided, minutes within 30 days, audio in 3 business days
undated · csite-016 · Utah Legislature, Utah Trust Lands Administration, Carbon County Commission

Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act requires a public body to give at least 24 hours' notice with the agenda, date, time and place (52-4-202(1)); the agenda must give 'reasonable specificity' about the topics, and a body may not take final action on a topic not listed on the agenda (52-4-202(6)). A 'meeting' is a gathering of the body with a quorum, convened to take comment, deliberate or act (52-4-103(5)). A state body must make pending minutes public within 30 days, post approved minutes within three business days of approval, and post the audio within three business days (52-4-203(4)(e)); a county commission must make pending minutes public within 30 days and audio available within three business days (52-4-203(4)(f)). Applied to the records: the Trust Lands board's notices were posted on 10 August for the 20 August meeting and on 8 September for the 17 September meeting; the 17 September audio recording was attached on 18 September and the transcript on 23 September, and pending minutes are not due until mid-October, so no lateness shows as of 29 September. The Carbon Commission's 29 June support letter was not found on any of its agendas posted for its 6 May to 16 September 2026 meetings (mine-013); the records do not show whether the commissioners agreed on it in any 'meeting' as the Act defines it, so whether the Act applied is a legal question.

In plain termsUtah's open-meetings law says public boards must announce meetings a day ahead, say on the agenda what they will decide, and not decide anything that was not on it. Measured against it, the state board's notices for the Wellington lease were on time. The county's letter of support is the open question: it was signed, but no public meeting record found shows the county deciding to send it.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: 52-4-202 (eff. 5/3/2023), 52-4-203 (eff. 5/1/2024), 52-4-103 (eff. 5/6/2026) on le.utah.gov; notice pages 1100659 (posted 10 Aug) and 1107027 (posted 8 Sept; audio added 18 Sept, transcript 23 Sept). Date set to null: the fact states a legal yardstick drawn from several sections, not one event.
analysisconfirmed Emery's public process for the San Rafael reactor: a general nuclear hearing, a land-sale hearing and many meetings; no hearing within the reactor's federal safety review was found in public records
undated · loc-030 · Emery County Commission, Utah Energy Research Board, U.S. Department of Energy, Orangeville City, Valar Atomics

What Emery residents were offered, in order: a county 'Nuclear Industries' hearing on 17 June 2025, called after news reports, where the state lab director said transparency is imperative (gov-020); a town hall on 8 July 2025 that the county hosted at Valar's request (ETV; orig-045); a state board approval in Salt Lake City on 13 August 2025 at a 35-minute first meeting that closed with a public comment period (gov-013); a county commission vote on 2 September 2025 issuing the building permit itself (gov-021); DOE's categorical exclusion of 22 April 2026, posted online later with no public comment period (csite-020); a noticed hearing on 7 April 2026 on selling the lab-side parcel (gov-022); open houses (February and September 2026) and frequent appearances at town councils. Separately, state bodies listed the project, or a tour of it, on noticed agendas that also had public-comment periods: the Legislature's energy committee on 18 June 2025, whose minutes record public comment on the nuclear discussion (gov-040); the Utah Energy Council's 31 March 2026 agenda (gov-041); and the Energy Research Board's 12 August 2026 agenda, for a meeting at the lab with a members' tour of the lab and Valar listed afterwards (gov-042). What was not found in the records read: any public hearing or comment period within the federal safety review of the reactor, its emergency plan or fuel plant (safe-001, safe-016; the June 2025 county hearing, gov-020, was a general one, which the commission's 3 June 2025 minutes said would address safety issues); any county land-use (conditional use) review of the reactor, since the county had no nuclear standards; a state permit under the 2026 waste law; a completed third-party fire plan review (loc-018); or, as of late September 2026, a hearing on Orangeville's new zone for Valar's land (loc-013). The March 2026 utility minutes record a staff report that Valar tied into the county sewer system without prior authorization (loc-015). Under the federal pilot program, local governments have no approval role over the reactor itself; what they control is land, buildings, water, sewer and zoning, and those steps were taken quickly, some with little recorded review.

In plain termsEmery County residents got meetings, a hearing about selling land, open houses, many presentations, and public-comment periods at state meetings whose agendas included the project or a board tour of the lab and Valar (gov-040, gov-041, gov-042). No public hearing within the reactor's federal safety review was found in the records read; the federal program used here does not require one, and the county had no rules of its own for nuclear projects. Local officials approved the parts they control, like the building permit and the land sale, some of them quickly. In short: many meetings and presentations, and few formal review steps open to residents.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the cited notice, minutes and DOE exclusion: holds. The July 2025 town hall was hosted by the county at Valar's request (ETV), now said so; fire-minutes date corrected to 17 Feb. Revised before publication (2026-10-01): wording made more exact against the cited records.