VALAR WATCHTake action

Timeline

Every dated fact, newest first: the company's movements.

2026

recordconfirmed Oct 7 (expected): the Carbon County Commission's next regular meeting (first Wednesday, 4:30 p.m.); no agenda was found on the state notice site as of 2 Oct
2026-10-07 · dir-016 · Carbon County Commission, Carbon County Planning Commission

The Carbon County Board of Commissioners' notices on the Utah Public Notice Website show regular meetings on the first and third Wednesdays at 4:30 p.m. (3 and 17 June, 1 and 15 July, 19 August, 2 and 16 September 2026; the 5 August meeting was canceled), at 751 E 100 N, Price. Wednesday 7 October 2026 is the first Wednesday of October; as of 2 October 2026 no notice or agenda for it was posted. The most recent agenda, for 16 September, was posted on 10 September, six days ahead; it had no Valar, nuclear or Section 16 item and listed no public-comment period. The day before, Tuesday 6 October, is the Planning Commission. Its agenda (first posted 23 September) has one permit item, the Altigen technology park (no link to Valar was found in the records read); on 2 October it was amended to add a presentation from Valar Atomics about its proposed project in Carbon County (loc-037). Before that amendment, the only Valar item found on the Carbon County Commission and Planning Commission agendas read was the commissioners' August 19, 2026 'Valor Atomics presentation' (about its Orangeville operation, per the minutes); it did not concern the Wellington site or a permit, and no county permit application by Valar appeared in the planners' notices (csite-012). The county's rules for 'highly contested industries' are at the drafting stage, with a hearing planned for November (csite-013); under Utah Code 17-79-803 (in the version read, in effect until May 2026) an application was judged by the rules in effect when it was complete, and a conforming one approved unless the county had formally started changing them first or found a compelling, countervailing public interest (dir-014), and the Trust Lands memo describes a county conditional use permit with notice and a public hearing as part of the process for the lease; the conditional-use chapter of the county's 2023 Development Code does not require a public hearing (csite-015).

In plain termsThe county commissioners' next regular meeting should be Wednesday, October 7 at 4:30 p.m. in Price; no agenda for it was on the state notice website as of 2 October. The day before, October 6, the Planning Commission meets, and on October 2 a presentation from Valar was added to its agenda.
verified 2026-10-02: Read in late September 2026: the commissioners' notice list (every notice June-Sept 2026: all Wednesdays at 4:30 p.m., first and third of the month; 5 Aug a cancellation), the 16 Sept notice (posted 10 Sept; agenda items 1-15, none on Valar, no public comment listed) and the 6 Oct Planning Commission notice (items 1-7). 7 Oct 2026 is a Wednesday. Whether the 7 Oct meeting is held, and what is on it, is not known until the notice posts. Re-read 2 October 2026: no notice for 7 October yet (the latest is the 16 September meeting); the 6 October Planning Commission notice was amended that morning to add a Valar presentation (loc-037).
recordconfirmed Oct 6: 'Jurassic Spark' technology park east of Wellington, 1,240 private acres shown as Mining & Grazing on the county zoning map, goes to the planners
2026-10-06 · dir-015 · Carbon County Planning Commission, Altigen JS, LLC, Duct Tape, LLC

The Carbon County Planning Commission meets 6 October 2026 at 4:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers, 751 E 100 N, Price (in person only per the notice). Its one permit item is a conditional use permit for 'a phased Technology Park and associated infrastructure located East of Wellington' on parcels 2A-1320-0000 and 2A-1656-0000 for Altigen JS, LLC and Duct Tape, LLC (csite-012). The application's vicinity map ('Project Jurassic Spark', added to the notice 28 September 2026) covers all of Section 36, T14S R11E and all of Section 2, T15S R11E, along U.S. 6. County parcel records list 2A-1320-0000 at 640 acres and 2A-1656-0000 at 600.74 acres, both assessor class 'Commercial' and neither in the state's government-owned parcel layer (privately owned); the county zoning map shows both in the Mining & Grazing zone, though Carbon County Commission minutes of 3 January 2024 record Ordinance 574 changing a 13-acre portion of 2A-1656-0000 from M&G to C-1, which the map layer does not show. In May the county agreed to begin holding a BLM gas-pipeline right-of-way for Altigen, whose stated plan is natural-gas power plants on private land east of Wellington (mine-050). The project lies about three miles southeast of Section 28 and about four miles from Section 16, which the state approved leasing to Valar. No link between this project and Valar was found in the records read (as of late September 2026).

In plain termsA big land-use permit near Wellington is up on October 6: a technology park on about 1,240 acres of private land east of town, where the developer has said it plans gas-fired power plants. No link to Valar was found in the records read. It comes while the county's rules for big, contested projects are still being written.
verified 2026-10-02: Notice page read in late September 2026 (attachments: agenda; region map, one page, 'page 28' of the application). Parcel acres/class from UGRC LIR; government-owned layer returned no match for either id. Distances from section centers. Revised before publication (late September 2026): lease wording now 'approved leasing'.
newrecordconfirmed Carbon County's planners added a Valar Atomics presentation to their October 6 agenda on October 2
2026-10-02 · loc-037 · Carbon County Planning Commission, Valar Atomics, Utah Public Notice Website

The Carbon County Planning Commission's notice for its regular meeting on Tuesday, October 6, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers, 751 East 100 North, Price, was edited on October 2, 2026 at 8:49 a.m. The amended agenda adds item 6, 'Presentation to the Planning Commission from Valar Atomics regarding their proposed project in Carbon County'. The agenda first posted with the notice (a one-page PDF created September 23, 2026, still on the state site as file 1492435) had seven items and no Valar item, and the notice read on September 29 matched it. Neither version lists a public comment item, and the notice says neither electronic nor telephone participation is available. The edit also removed the agenda PDF from the notice. Item 5, the conditional use permit for a technology park east of Wellington for Altigen JS, LLC and Duct Tape, LLC, is unchanged and separate; no record read links that project to Valar.

In plain termsValar is now on the agenda for the county planners' meeting on Tuesday, October 6, at 4:30 p.m. in Price: the agenda was changed on October 2 to add a presentation from Valar about its proposed project in Carbon County. The agenda lists no public comment item, and the meeting is in person only.
verified 2026-10-02: Read on 2 October 2026: the notice as edited that morning, and the agenda PDF first posted with it on 23 September (one scanned page). The earlier version of the notice was read on 29 September.
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.
company claimreported Valar told The Washington Sun it dropped the 10,200-acre site; BLM's public record still lists it Pending
2026-09-18 · mine-008 · Valar Atomics, Bureau of Land Management, The Washington Sun

The Washington Sun (Mara Hoplamazian and Jade Lozada, published and updated 18 September 2026) reported that the largest data-center proposal it found on BLM land 'appears to be' a 10,200-acre project from Valar Atomics at a site near Green River, Utah, and that Valar had a second Utah proposal it called the 'Raceway Gigasite', with no estimated size. An editor's note added after publication says Valar contacted the paper, confirmed it had applied 'for survey access' at the 10,200-acre site, and that a company spokesperson said it had decided not to pursue the project. In late September 2026 BLM's public layer still showed UTUT106784007 as 'Pending' (last modified 26 May 2026) and titled for a reactor and data center, not a survey. No BLM case named 'Raceway' was found in BLM's public MLRS layers searched in late September 2026; the only other Valar case with a site name is 'Project Beehive' (mine-006). Whether 'Raceway' and 'Beehive' are the same site is not shown in any record read.

In plain termsWhat the company says now (the Green River site is dropped; it was a request to survey) and what the federal record shows (a pending application titled for a reactor and data center) do not yet match. That can be ordinary paperwork lag: a withdrawal letter may simply not have reached the public map. BLM's case file would show whether and when Valar withdrew, and what it asked for.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: article and editor's note match (quote exact, 14 words); BLM status checked again, still Pending, not modified since 26 May 2026.
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.
recordconfirmed Sept 17, 2026: Trust Lands board approved Valar's Carbon County lease with a purchase option (per transcript)
2026-09-17 · mine-011 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics · up-front bonus payment to the trust: $400,000; appraised value of all 640 acres ($750/acre): $480,000; staff estimate of rent to the trust over 50 years: $35,000,000

At its 17 September 2026 meeting in Salt Lake City, the Trust Lands board took up the proposed SULA 2095 OBA with Valar Atomics, Inc. as an action item. The auto-generated transcript posted with the meeting records a motion to approve 'SULA 2095 OBA on the terms set forth in the board memorandum', a second, and the chair calling the vote unanimous. Terms in the memorandum: an initial lease of 480 acres (N1/2 and SW1/4 of Sec. 16), with the other 160 acres added if a Utah National Guard lease there is moved; 50 years plus two optional 25-year extensions; a $400,000 up-front bonus; $30 per acre a year in years 1-5, rising to $625 per acre by year 8, with CPI and 25-year appraisal adjustments; and an option to buy all or part at the greater of appraised value or the present value of 50 years of rent (about $10.2 million if bought in year 10, per the staff table). Staff said an independent appraisal valued the land at $750 an acre ($480,000 for 640 acres). As of late September 2026 the official minutes of the 17 September meeting were not yet among the posted attachments.

In plain termsA state board has agreed to lease Valar up to a square mile of school trust land near Wellington for up to a century, with the right to buy it. This is a land deal only: it does not approve a reactor, which would still need federal, state and county permits. Carbon County residents were not asked to vote on it; the decision was the trust board's.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: motion quote exact (15 words); vote recorded as unanimous in the auto-transcript; terms match the September memorandum (unchanged from August); staff said $750/acre ($360,000 for 480 acres; $480,000 for all 640) and ~$35 million over 50 years. The agenda lists the item as an action item though the memo's cover page reads 'Notification Item 10A'. Sept 17 minutes still not among the notice attachments (last edited 23 Sept). ETV quote corrected to exact case.
recordconfirmed No comment at either Trust Lands hearing opposed the lease; those who spoke on it were officials and Valar staff, in Salt Lake City
2026-09-17 · mine-014 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Carbon County Commission, Utah Office of Energy Development, Jake Garfield, Tracy Rees, Jess Housekeeper, Harry Hansen, Cory Gardner

At the 20 August 2026 board meeting the public comments came from the three Carbon County commissioners, the Utah Office of Energy Development's deputy director Jake Garfield (whose office owns the San Rafael lab and is Valar's landlord there), Valar's director of Utah operations Jess Housekeeper, and one online commenter, an educator, who spoke about school trust funding. At the 17 September meeting the commenters were Commissioner Jensen in the room, Commissioners Haddock and Martines online, another Office of Energy Development deputy director (Tracy Rees), and five people who said they work for Valar, including its public-affairs staffer Harry Hansen, Jess Housekeeper and Cory Gardner; one other online commenter, a member of the state's Federalism Commission, spoke about workforce housing. No comment opposing the lease is recorded in either transcript or in the August minutes; Commissioner Jensen acknowledged 'a few in our community who will push back'. Both meetings were held at 102 South 200 East in Salt Lake City, with online attendance possible; the notices were posted on the Utah Public Notice Website on 10 August and 8 September 2026. In August the board chair said the committee had felt the need to step very carefully, and that the trust would work with Valar 'to make sure that this proposal is approved and that all the parties are satisfied'. The memoranda record committee discussions on 20 and 28 July (Surface Resources) and 25 August 2026 (Energy & Minerals); the Surface Resources Committee 'discussed the need for full transparency' and asked Valar to keep up local outreach.

In plain termsThe state's decision took public comment, but everyone who spoke about the lease supported it: county officials, the state office that is Valar's landlord, and company employees. No resident of the Wellington area spoke against it at either hearing, though a county commissioner said some residents will push back. That may reflect support, or that people did not know, or that the meetings were in Salt Lake City (one speaker from Emery County called it a 150-mile, three-hour trip); the record cannot tell which.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: fixed the September speaker list (was 'four people' from Valar; the transcript shows five Valar staff plus OED deputy director Tracy Rees). Added Commissioner Jensen's acknowledgment of pushback and the chair's August remark, both from the auto-transcripts. The 25 August committee meeting is in the September memo, not the August one; source added. Lower-level employees who spoke are described, not named.
official statementconfirmed Official claim holds: Carbon commissioner said no county coal output for ~4 years; state data show none after 2019
2026-09-17 · mine-039 · Larry Jensen, Carbon County Commission, Utah Geological Survey

At both Trust Lands hearings Carbon County Commissioner Larry Jensen said no coal had been produced in Carbon County for about four years (over four years, in August) and that the county's one remaining mine, Skyline, was producing in Sanpete County. The Utah Geological Survey's table of coal production by mine (2002-2024) shows the Carbon County mines Dugout Canyon, West Ridge and Horizon with no output after 2019, 2015 and 2012 respectively, and Skyline #3 output assigned to Carbon County last in 2018 (941,447 tons), with 2019-2023 output assigned only to Sanpete and Emery. Statewide output was 7.0 million tons in 2023, the lowest since 1975, and 7.4 million in 2024. The board chair's September remark that this was the 'first year in history' with no Carbon County coal is not borne out: the table shows none in 2020 through 2024 as well.

In plain termsThe commissioner's description of Carbon County's coal collapse is borne out by state data; if anything it understates how long it has been. This is the economic pressure county leaders cite for backing Valar.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: both transcripts, UGS Table 2.8 (checked again, unchanged) and Circular 139 match; quote exact. 2024 Skyline output is not split by county in the table. Headline wording 'none since 2019' changed to 'none after 2019' (2019 had output).
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
analysisreported The notice's survey tie, as written, points about 1.5 miles west of the section corner, outside Section 28
2026-09-12 · dir-001 · Valar Atomics, Carbon County

The RW 453 notice (mine-453) ties the claim's NW corner to the permanent monument at the SE corner of Section 32, T14S R11E: approximately 8,179 feet at an azimuth of 265.3 degrees. BLM's survey grid puts that corner at about 39.5570 N, 110.7025 W. An azimuth of 265.3 degrees is almost due west; 8,179 feet that way ends near 39.555 N, 110.73 W, about two miles from Section 28, which lies to the north (39.572-39.586 N). The same distance at about 5 degrees (nearly due north) lands in Section 28's north half (39.579 N, 110.700 W), so the bearing looks like an error. This is a calculation from the notice and BLM's section geometry, not a survey.

In plain termsA claim notice has to say where the claim is by measuring from a known survey marker. This notice's measurement points the wrong way: followed as written, it leads to ground well west of the section the notice itself names. It is probably a typo. Utah law expects the notice to identify the claim by reference to a permanent monument (Utah Code 40-1-2), so a surveyor or attorney could say whether it matters.
verified 2026-10-02: Computed from the notice and BLM's section geometry; a licensed surveyor should confirm.
recordconfirmed Valar Atomics Inc located the 'RW 453' lode mining claim in Carbon County on Sept. 12, 2026
2026-09-12 · mine-453 · Valar Atomics, Carbon County, Bureau of Land Management

The claim's Notice of Location reads: locator Valar Atomics Inc, 20333 Normandie Ave, Torrance, CA 90501; the 'RW 453' Lode Mining Claim in quarter sections NW and NE of Section 28, Township 14S, Range 11E, Salt Lake Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Utah; located on the 12th day of September 2026. The claim is about 1,500 by 600 feet (1,490 feet east and 10 feet west of the monument, 300 feet each side), which is the largest size a single lode claim may take. It ties the claim's NW corner to the permanent monument at the SE corner of Section 32 (see dir-001 for a problem with that tie). The number 453 suggests a numbered series of claims, but one notice does not show how many exist; no RW claim was found in BLM's public mining-claim layer when it was checked in late September 2026 (dir-005).

In plain termsA Notice of Location is the document a company must make when it stakes a mining claim. It names Valar Atomics as the claimant, gives the exact survey section, and dates the staking to September 12, 2026. A lode claim is a claim to a mineral vein or deposit in federal land; under federal law an unpatented claim may be used only for prospecting, mining or processing and uses reasonably incident to them (30 U.S.C. 612; disc-003).
verified 2026-10-02: Corrected 30 Sept 2026: reworded the plain-language text.
company claimreported Sept 10 open house, a week before the Carbon lease vote: CEO spoke of hundreds of reactors in Carbon and Emery
2026-09-10 · loc-001 · Valar Atomics, Isaiah Taylor, Max Ukropina, David Hinkins, Jess Housekeeper, Harry Hansen

ETV News (14 Sept 2026) reported Valar's public open house at its Orangeville site on Thursday, 10 September 2026, for Carbon and Emery residents: small-group tours of the Ward 250 building, food and entertainment. As ETV reported it, head of projects Max Ukropina said Valar has hired dozens of community members and wants to hire more; founder and CEO Isaiah Taylor said Valar chose Emery and Carbon counties after considering more than 22 states, and that Valar aims to build hundreds of reactors in Carbon and Emery counties (ETV's paraphrase, not a quote); he was quoted saying the goal is that many residents will come to work for Valar 'as we grow here in your backyard'. State Sen. David Hinkins spoke of industry easing residents' property taxes. The report does not mention the Wellington trust-land lease the Trust Lands board approved seven days later (mine-011; ETV, 18 Sept), any Carbon County site, a fuel factory or a timeline. When Valar's Harry Hansen (spelled Hanson in that report) announced the open house to the Carbon County Commission on 2 September, he called it a chance to 'come check out what’s going on here in Orangeville' and said Valar planned a town hall specifically for Carbon County residents in late September or early October, date not yet set (ETV, 4 Sept). Whether the Carbon site came up in the small-group tours is not in any record read.

In plain termsAt a public open house one week before the state approved the Carbon County land deal, Valar's founder told residents, as the local paper reported it, that the company aims to build hundreds of reactors in Carbon and Emery counties. The paper's account names no site. So people there heard how big the plan is, but not, going by the report, that up to a square mile of state land north of Wellington, starting with 480 acres, was about to be approved for leasing for it.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read ETV 14 Sept and 4 Sept pages: holds (hundreds of reactors is ETV's paraphrase). Added the 4 Sept report of a planned Carbon County town hall and the 18 Sept source for the site's location. Revised before publication (late September 2026): lease wording now 'approved leasing'.
recordconfirmed Valar's own site first linked its 'Castle Country' page between Aug. 25 and Sept. 9, 2026
2026-09-09 · dir-008 · Valar Atomics, Internet Archive

Valar's website menu is the same on every page. In the Internet Archive's captures, no Valar page carries a 'Castle Country' menu link on 25 August 2026 (captures of /mission, /careers and /docs at 19:31-19:32 UTC), and the careers page carries it on 9 September 2026 (05:22 UTC); there is no capture of any of the pages in between. Every later capture and the live site (29 September) carry it. The Castle Country page itself has one archive capture, 18 September 2026, so when the page was first created is not shown; only when the menu began linking to it. For context: Valar's name first appeared on a public agenda for the lease on 10 August (csite-018), the Trust Lands board heard it on 20 August (mine-014) and voted on 17 September.

In plain termsThe company's own web page about its Carbon County plans was added to its website's menu sometime between August 25 and September 9: after the first public hearing on the lease and one to three weeks before the state voted. Valar may have spoken about the site elsewhere earlier; this is only about its own website.
verified 2026-10-02: Worked out from archived copies of Valar's pages (7 pages, 105 Internet Archive captures): the last capture without the menu line 'Castle Country' is from 25 August 2026 (/docs); the first with it is from 9 September 2026 (/careers).
analysisconfirmed Carbon site in brief: state lease for a nuclear campus approved; no build permits found; a Valar mining claim 2 mi south
2026-09 · csite-001 · Valar Atomics, Utah Trust Lands Administration, Carbon County

As of late September 2026: the Trust Lands board voted unanimously on 17 September 2026 to approve an 'Other Business Arrangement' with Valar Atomics on Section 16, T14S R11E, about five miles north of Wellington: 480 acres now, the other 160 if a National Guard lease is moved, 50 years plus two 25-year extensions, with an option to buy (csite-004, mine-011). The stated purpose is an integrated nuclear energy, advanced manufacturing, critical mineral refining and data center campus: high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, TRISO fuel manufacturing, hydrogen and synthetic fuels, desalination and steel. Separately, a Notice of Location names Valar Atomics Inc as locator of the 'RW 453' lode mining claim in Section 28, two miles south, located 12 September 2026; it is not yet in BLM's public claim layer, which the 90-day recording window allows (mine-453, dir-005). No county permit application, state DEQ permit or DOE/NEPA document for the Carbon site was found (csite-012, csite-020). Whether any NRC filing exists was not checked, and water-right filings were not searched. The only official actions found are the board's vote and the commissioners' 29 June support letter, which was not found on any Carbon County Commission agenda posted for its 6 May to 16 September 2026 meetings (mine-013, csite-026). No departure from the notice rules read was found (csite-005, csite-016, csite-018), but the first public document found naming Valar for the site was posted on 10 August 2026, and the April state review notice did not say nuclear (csite-032). Open questions: waste-storage framing (csite-008), the NRC route vs the CEO's 2025 stance, a one-test NEPA review vs a larger build-out, officials' praise of Valar's openness beside county agendas that did not name the site (disc-031), and a lode claim with no mineral stated (disc-003).

In plain termsIn short: the state has agreed to rent Valar about three-quarters of a square mile north of Wellington (the whole square mile later if a National Guard lease is moved, with an option to buy) for a future nuclear and industrial campus. Nothing has been built there, and no application for the permits that would allow building appears in the records we could check. The deal followed the notice rules we could check, but those rules kept the company's name and plan out of the first public notices, and the first public record found naming Valar for the site came about five weeks before the vote. Separately, a Notice of Location shows Valar has staked a mining claim two miles south. The next steps (a county permit, water rights, state and federal nuclear approvals) are where the public can still weigh in.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-checked in late September 2026 against the September memo (pp. 18-27), the 17 Sept transcript (motion; 'Is unanimous') and each cited fact. Corrected: the earlier 'Valar holds no mining claims there' is superseded by the Notice of Location (mine-453); 'critical mineral refining' added from the memo summary; NRC filing status now stated as unchecked, not as absent.
recordconfirmed No Valar permit item was found in Carbon County Planning Commission notices, 5 May to 6 October 2026
2026-09 · csite-012 · Carbon County Planning Commission, Altigen JS, LLC, Duct Tape, LLC, Valar Atomics

The Planning Commission's notices on the Utah Public Notice Website from 5 May to 6 October 2026 (ten on the commission's notice page) listed rezones, subdivisions and routine hearings, and, until a Valar presentation was added to the October 6 agenda on October 2, no item for Valar, a reactor, Section 16 or the Wellington trust-land parcel. The June and August 2026 minutes (scanned) do not mention Valar. The agenda for 6 October 2026 (posted 23 September) has one land-use item: possible approval of a conditional use permit for 'a phased Technology Park and associated infrastructure located East of Wellington' on two parcels for Altigen JS, LLC and Duct Tape, LLC (no record read links that project to Valar). The October notice says it was sent to a local newspaper, radio stations KOAL and KUSA, ETV Channel 10 and the state website. As of late September 2026 no Valar conditional use application, site plan or rezone appears in these records.

In plain termsBefore anything can be built on the Wellington parcel, Carbon County must approve a conditional use permit (csite-015). No Valar item was found in the planning board's posted notices from May to early October 2026, as read on 29 September; on 2 October a Valar presentation was added to the 6 October agenda (loc-037). The state memo says Valar's site plans would go to the county planning commission for review.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: body 1652 notice list; October 6 notice and the text of its Altigen map; June 2 and August 4 minutes. Date changed from the future hearing date (6 Oct) to the as-of date of the finding; the claim that every notice names ETV's publication date was not re-checked and was removed. Second check, late September 2026: the notice list for body 1652 shows ten notices, 5 May to 6 Oct 2026; only the Altigen item matched a search for land-use terms.
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 The only mineral occurrences in the state's mineral records near Section 28 are road-gravel pits and one CO2 occurrence; by law common gravel cannot be claimed
2026-09 · dir-003 · Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Valar Atomics, Carbon County

Utah's mineral occurrence records (the USGS / Utah Geological and Mineral Survey records compiled by UGRC) list six occurrences within about 6 km of Section 28: all are sand-and-gravel pits in pediment gravels (Utah Department of Highways pits 04024, 04025 and 04026 northeast of the Wellington rodeo ground, the Wellington NE and NW gravel pits, and the Soldier Creek upper gravel pits), described as road metal, riprap and aggregate. The CRIB mineral-location layer adds one carbon dioxide occurrence. Federal law says no deposit of common varieties of sand, stone or gravel is a valuable mineral deposit under the mining laws unless it has a distinct and special value (30 U.S.C. 611), and carbon dioxide is obtained by lease, not by claim. No vein or lode deposit of a locatable mineral is on record there in these databases. A lode claim requires a vein or lode discovered within it (Utah Code 40-1-1; dir-004). Absence from these databases does not prove no mineral exists.

In plain termsThe government's mineral records for the area around the claim show only gravel pits for road building, plus some carbon dioxide underground. Ordinary gravel cannot be held with a mining claim, and carbon dioxide is obtained by lease, not by claim. A lode claim is supposed to cover a mineral vein. None is recorded there. That does not prove there is none, but it is the question Valar's claim raises.
verified 2026-10-02: Map layer read in late September 2026 for the area about 110.62-110.76 W, 39.53-39.64 N. Corrected in late September 2026: lease wording restated. Corrected 2026-09-30: The State's map layer cited here (Utah Geospatial Resource Center, hosted on ArcGIS Online) was checked in late September 2026; no copy of it is kept, and the figures rest on the cited layer as it stood that day.
recordconfirmed No 'RW' claim is in BLM's public claim layer yet; federal rules allow 90 days after location to record it
2026-09 · dir-005 · Bureau of Land Management, Valar Atomics

Every claim in BLM's not-closed mining-claim layer that intersects Carbon County was pulled in late September 2026: ten open claims (AMBERIA 1-9 in T14S R8E-R9E, BLACK RIFLE placer in T15S R11E), none RW and none naming Valar. A second check the same day, by legal description, found no claim, open or closed, anywhere in T14S R11E (the township of both the lease and RW 453), and no Utah claim named RW among the 134 Utah claims BLM created from September 12 to September 29. Federal rules require recording with BLM by the 90th day after location (43 CFR 3833.11), so RW 453 (located Sept 12, 2026) is due by December 11, 2026 and may simply not be filed yet.

In plain termsThe RW 453 claim is not in BLM's public database yet. The filing is not yet due: Valar has until December 11 to file it. BLM filings, once made, may show how many RW claims exist.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-checked in late September 2026: a search of BLM's open and closed claim layers by legal description found no claim in T14S R11E (the same search found 8 in T14S R9E, showing the search itself worked); none of the 134 Utah claims created from 12 September 2026 is named RW. Revised before publication (late September 2026): the deadline sentence now reads 'the filing is not yet due'.
recordconfirmed Valar's public safety agreement still lists 4.95% fuel, unchanged in every copy from Nov. 2025 to Sept. 2026
2026-09 · dir-009 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy

Valar publishes one version of the Ward 250 Nuclear Safety Design Agreement (No. 100403, Revision 02, dated October 2025). The Internet Archive holds seven captures of that PDF (7 November 2025; 1 January, 3 March, 5 July, 6 July, 6 August and 18 September 2026); with the live file as of late September 2026, all eight are the same file, and each carries the fuel line 'Fuel Enrichment 4.95% U-235 LEU limits'. So the public copy was not revised after DOE's packaging review approved shipping HALEU fuel to Ward 250 (20 May 2026, safe-010) or after the reactor's first criticality (18 June 2026, orig-010). The agreement itself says that if the fuel differs from its specification, the safety assumptions will be updated in the later Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis, of which no public copy was found (safe-007); an updated analysis may exist. The companion Quality Assurance Program Description (No. 100474, Revision 02) is likewise unchanged across its six copies.

In plain termsThe only safety agreement the public can read still says the reactor's fuel is 4.95% enriched. It has not been changed since at least November 2025, even after DOE approved shipping richer HALEU fuel to the reactor and the reactor started up. The company may have updated its fuel numbers in a later safety analysis, but no public copy of that document was found in the records read.
verified 2026-10-02: Every archived copy of the PDF has the same text (Internet Archive captures from 7 November 2025 to 18 September 2026, plus the live file); the 4.95% line is in each. Copies are kept; the PDF files themselves are also identical (rechecked 2 Oct 2026). QAPD: 6 copies, identical text. Revised before publication (late September 2026): the archive index lists a 6 July 2026 capture the first count missed; seven captures plus the live file, all identical. Revised before publication (2026-10-01): wording made more exact against the cited records.
recordconfirmed Valar's two public safety papers were never listed in its own website library in any copy since they went up
2026-09 · dir-010 · Valar Atomics

Valar posted its Ward 250 safety agreement (NSDA) and Quality Assurance Program Description on its website on 13 October 2025, each on its own page linking the PDF. Valar Watch compared every saved copy of Valar's library page (valaratomics.com/docs): Internet Archive captures of 16 October and 7 and 19 November 2025, and 5 July, 6 August and 25 August 2026, and the live page in late September 2026. In none is either safety-paper page among the library's listed posts; the library lists the NRC-lawsuit post, the Project NOVA release and Valar's other announcements. So since they went up, the only safety papers Valar publishes have been reachable only by a direct link (for example from the Ward 250 page's data or from outside reporting), not by browsing Valar's library. The record does not show why they were left unlisted.

In plain termsThe two safety papers Valar has made public were not listed in any saved copy of its website library from October 2025 to September 2026. They are online, but a visitor browsing Valar's library would not find them; you need the exact link.
verified 2026-10-02: Saved copies of /docs (10 versions, 2025-04-08 to late September 2026): the links to listed posts were read from each copy; 'Ward250-Nuclear-Safety-Design-Agreement' and the QA post never among them. Captures before October 2025 predate the posts.
recordconfirmed County zoning map: Valar's lease is Mining & Grazing; where RW 453 was staked is zoned rural residential
2026-09 · dir-013 · Carbon County, Valar Atomics

Carbon County's own zoning map service (the county's 'County Zoning' layer, checked in late September 2026 at the center of each area) shows: Section 16, T14S R11E, Valar's Wellington lease, zoned M&G, 'Mining and Grazing Zone' (matching the Trust Lands memo, csite-015); the NW quarter of Section 28, where the RW 453 notice places the claim, zoned RR-1, 'One-acre Rural Residential Zone', and the NE quarter zoned RR-2.5, 'Two-and-one-half-acre Rural Residential Zone' (the notice names both quarters, mine-453). Utah's county land-use law does not give the county jurisdiction over land the United States owns, unless other law provides it (Utah Code 17-79-306), and about 37% of Section 28's north half is a federal parcel; the rest is private land under the county's zoning. What the county's residential zones allow is set by Carbon's development code, which this record does not summarize for those zones.

In plain termsThe county's own zoning map puts the square mile the state approved leasing to Valar in its mining-and-grazing zone, where, the state's lease memo says, big industrial projects need a county permit. The land named on Valar's mining-claim notice, two miles south, is zoned for rural homes.
verified 2026-10-02: Read from Carbon County's public zoning map service at the center of each section or quarter named (BLM survey grid): Sec 16 M&G; Sec 28 NW quarter RR-1; Sec 28 NE quarter RR-2.5; Sec 36 M&G; Sec 2 T15S M&G. Quarter-center points only: zone lines inside a quarter were not mapped. Revised before publication (late September 2026): lease wording now 'approved leasing'.
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.
analysisconfirmed BLM's claim records show no mining claims in the Green River gigasite footprint; the route there is a federal land-use application
2026-09 · mine-007 · Valar Atomics, Bureau of Land Management

The Green River Gigasite application (UTUT106784007) lists 22 sections: T20S R14E secs. 24-25; T20S R15E secs. 19-21, 25-31 and 33-35; T21S R15E secs. 1, 3-5 and 12; T21S R16E secs. 5-6. None of the 2,060 Emery County claims in either BLM claim layer (open, or closed within the year), as checked in late September 2026, lists any of those sections. The nearest claim activity is in other sections of the same and neighboring townships (e.g. the GFU placers in T21S R15E and GRU placers in T21S R16E, August 2025). The application skips sections 32 and 36 of T20S R15E and section 2 of T21S R15E.

In plain termsOn this site, the company did not use mining claims. It asked BLM directly for the land under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which is the ordinary, reviewable way to seek a non-mining use of public land (see mine-028).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-checked in late September 2026: the case's legal description lists exactly these 22 sections; none of the 2,060 Emery claims (open + closed within the year) lists any of them; GFU/GRU placers sit in other sections of T21S R15E-R16E.
recordconfirmed Valar's Castle Country page mentions 'gigasites' but not where: no Carbon lease, Green River or BLM applications
2026-09 · mine-020 · Valar Atomics

Valar's community page for Carbon and Emery counties, read in late September 2026, describes Ward 250, open houses ('more than 400 neighbors' at the first), town halls, the Emery County Commission's unanimous backing, local partners and news items. The words Green River, Wellington, Beehive, Raceway, BLM, Bureau of Land Management, trust, lease, acres and Price do not appear on it; 'Carbon' appears only in the page's two 'Carbon & Emery' headings and on a Carbon County logo among its 'Public Partners'. The company's document library (valaratomics.com/docs) lists five documents (a Series B announcement, the NOVA criticality release, a pilot-program selection, a roadmap and its NRC lawsuit) and no land, siting or environmental document. The page does say Valar 'is building America's first nuclear gigasites', energy campuses powered by fleets of reactors, without saying where; that text is the same in the Internet Archive's copy of 18 September 2026 and on 29 September.

In plain termsThe company's page for local residents describes the test reactor and community events and says Valar is building nuclear 'gigasites', but not where: nothing on it names the land it is seeking in Carbon or Emery County. That appears in state, county and federal records and in local news reports.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: word checks and the '400 neighbors' quote confirmed; library lists 5 documents, none on land or siting. Corrected in late September 2026: the first reading missed 'gigasite'; the Sept 18 archive copy was compared with the live page (identical text).
analysisconfirmed Valar has sought its sites by lease, BLM applications and purchase; separately a Notice of Location names its lode claim RW 453
2026-09 · mine-027 · Valar Atomics, Bureau of Land Management, Utah Trust Lands Administration, Emery County

Checking each route to a reactor site against the record: the Carbon site is state trust land that Trust Lands approved leasing to Valar (mine-010, mine-011), where federal claims cannot be staked (mine-021); the Green River and 'Project Beehive' sites are FLPMA land-use applications to BLM (mine-006), with no claims in the Green River footprint (mine-007); the Emery expansion is a land purchase from Emery County (mine-018); the test reactor sits on the state's lab by agreement (orig-045). No mining claim, 3809 notice or plan of operations in BLM's public layers is linked to Valar by name or customer (mine-030). Federal law allows an unpatented claim to be used only for prospecting, mining or processing (mine-022, mine-023). Separately, a Notice of Location shows Valar located the RW 453 lode claim in Section 28, two miles south of the lease, on 12 September 2026 (mine-453); it is not yet in BLM's layers, which is within the 90-day filing window (dir-005).

In plain termsOn the record, the company has not been using mining claims to get land for reactors; it has used leases, federal land-use applications and a purchase, each of which leaves a paper trail. A Notice of Location shows a Valar mining claim, RW 453, two miles south of the lease; what mineral it claims is not stated anywhere read (disc-003).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-checked in late September 2026 against the re-verified facts it cites; the conclusion holds on the records read. Updated in late September 2026 for the RW 453 notice (mine-453). Revised before publication (late September 2026): use-limit sentence restated as what the law allows; lease wording now 'approved leasing'.
recordconfirmed No BLM mining notice, plan of operations, lease, permit or easement in Valar's name was found in BLM's public layers (late September 2026)
2026-09 · mine-030 · Valar Atomics, Bureau of Land Management

Queries of BLM's public MLRS layers for 'VALAR' in the customer or case name returned 0 locatable-mineral notices, 0 plans of operations and 0 leases/permits/easements nationwide, and 3 rights-of-way cases (mine-006). The layers include pending and authorized cases.

In plain termsOn federal land, Valar has asked for land-use rights three times and, as of late September 2026, had no mining notice or plan of operations in BLM's public layers. A Notice of Location names Valar as locator of the RW 453 lode claim (mine-453), which was not yet in BLM's claim layer (dir-005).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-checked in late September 2026: 0 notices, 0 plans, 0 leases/permits/easements, 3 rights-of-way. The notices layer description confirms it holds 'Authorized' or 'Pending' cases.
recordconfirmed Every Valar site on record (late September 2026): one test reactor, one lease, three pending BLM files, one unbuilt abroad
2026-09 · plan-017 · Valar Atomics, Bureau of Land Management, Utah Trust Lands Administration, Emery County

Built or operating: Ward 250 and its fuel lab at the San Rafael lab, Emery County; the company's design, machining and test shops in Hawthorne/Torrance, California. Used once: the NOVA test core at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center, Nevada, operated by Los Alamos in November 2025 (orig-008). Being acquired: the 112-acre Emery County parcel beside the lab (gov-022, loc-014). Lease approved: on 17 September 2026 the state trust-lands board approved a lease with purchase option for 480 acres of the section north of Wellington, with the other 160 acres to follow if the National Guard's lease there is moved (mine-011); no record read shows the lease signed. Applied for: three Bureau of Land Management cases, all in the Price Field Office, all 'Pending' in late September 2026: UTUT106784007 'Green River Gigasite Small Modular Reactor/Data Center' (10,270.61 acres, case date 13 February 2026, which Valar told The Washington Sun it no longer pursues, mine-008), UTUT106801248 'Project Beehive Small Modular Reactor/Data Center' (case date 13 April 2026, no acreage shown), and UTUT106833224, a distribution-line case with no name (entered 23 July 2026). NPR reported on 30 September 2026, citing a Valar proposal to federal regulators that NPR reviewed, that Project Beehive would cover over 9,000 acres of BLM land near Price with data centers, some 456 small reactors of 25 megawatts of electricity each, a fuel facility and nuclear-waste storage, with the first reactors in 2028; BLM's Utah office told NPR it had received an application and was reviewing it for completeness. The proposal itself was not found in public records. No BLM rights-of-way case names Valar outside Utah, and its other public layers show no Valar claims, notices, leases or permits (mine-030). Valar says it looked at more than 20 states (loc-001); no site in another state was found in any public record read.

In plain termsHere is the whole map as far as public records go. One small test reactor is running in Emery County, next to a fuel lab. The reactors are built in the Los Angeles area. Valar is buying land next to the Emery lab and has state approval to lease most of a square mile of state land in Carbon County. It has three pending cases with the federal land agency: the Green River site (over 10,000 acres; Valar says it dropped it), Project Beehive near Price (which NPR reports is planned for about 456 small reactors on over 9,000 acres) and a distribution-line right-of-way.
verified 2026-10-02: Checked in late September 2026: BLM's rights-of-way records re-checked for customer name Valar: three Utah cases, all Pending, Price Field Office; Green River 10,270.61 acres, case date 13 Feb 2026; latest modification 15 Sept 2026. Fixed: lease wording overstated (board approval; initial 480 acres; signing not found); Launch Pad wording corrected. Revised before publication (late September 2026): earlier fix note reworded (lease wording). Checked 2 Oct 2026: the NPR paragraph matches NPR's 30 September 2026 article as published (456 reactors, over 9,000 acres, 25-megawatt units, first reactors in 2028, BLM reviewing the application for completeness).
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.
analysisreported 'CAT scan' spent-fuel claim still on Valar's site; no supporting calculation or correction found there
2026-09 · safe-026 · Valar Atomics, Isaiah Taylor

Valar's April 2025 lawsuit post, still online in late September 2026, says its analysis indicates that holding spent fuel from its 100 kWt 'Ward One' test reactor (planned life under a month) for five minutes gives radiation exposure equal to a CAT scan. Valar's Ward 250 safety paper, the NSDA, credits reactor shielding that 'cannot be inadvertently defeated', analyzes fuel-handling accidents, and plans defueling into storage; DOE's categorical exclusion has the spent core leave in dry storage casks. No Valar correction or published calculation was found on Valar's website as of late September 2026. For scale: a CT scan is about 1 to 10 millisieverts (FDA), so five minutes would need 12 to 120 millisieverts an hour; the post gives no amount of fuel, cooling time, distance or shielding.

In plain termsUsed reactor fuel is radioactive; how much depends on the reactor's power, how long it ran and how long the fuel has cooled. Valar said holding used fuel from its planned Ward One test reactor for five minutes would be like one hospital CT scan. No calculation supporting it was found on its website, where the claim remains. For Ward 250, its own safety paper treats radiation shielding as a safety function, and DOE's review has the used fuel leave in dry storage casks.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read Valar's 7 April 2025 post in late September 2026: the five-minute CAT-scan sentence is still on the page, with no correction or supporting calculation. Corrected in late September 2026: added the CT-scan dose-rate scale; removed a quoted phrase that was not Valar's wording. Corrected 30 Sept 2026: reworded the headline, detail and plain-language text to rest on government and company documents; a news citation was removed; now also cites the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy.
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.
analysisconfirmed What holds up: DOE did authorize the reactor, the airlift was unfueled, DOE checked the fuel's shipping package, DOE rates TRISO fuel more resistant than ordinary fuel
2026-09 · safe-039 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy

Claims tested and found supported by the record: DOE confirms Ward 250 is DOE-authorized and completed a zero-power criticality on 18 June 2026 (orig-010). The February 2026 airlift carried the reactor without fuel, and the fuel was to move separately from Nevada, consistent across World Nuclear News and DOE's packaging review. DOE's packaging reviewers independently recalculated criticality safety for the fuel's shipping package and agreed with the applicant. TRISO fuel's retention of fission products to about 1,600 C is stated in Valar's NSDA, and DOE says TRISO fuel is 'more resistant to neutron irradiation, corrosion, oxidation and high temperatures' than traditional reactor fuels. No active fault is mapped at the Ward 250 site, according to DOE's categorical exclusion and the Utah Geological Survey's fault map, and the same state map bears out Valar's no-fault claim for the Carbon parcel, as the Trust Lands memo relays it; the flood reasoning for Ward 250 is consistent across Valar's NSDA and DOE's categorical exclusion. The NOVA test was accurately described as operated by Los Alamos under NNSA oversight at zero power (orig-008). The 1 July electricity demonstration shows no sign of a commercial sale that would cross the EO 14301 line. The company's passive-cooling design is consistent with its safety documents, though the June 26 test is known only from Valar. Checked against Valar's own paper: its core-table arithmetic holds; its 100 m worker dispersion factor is at or above DOE's prescribed default; its 0.2 g earthquake value is close to the USGS design value for the site on soft rock (about 0.21 g); and its staffing of one senior operator and one operator per shift meets the NRC research-reactor benchmark.

In plain termsNot everything Valar says is contradicted by the record. The reactor really was approved by DOE and really did start up. It really was flown empty, and the fuel was approved to travel separately in a shipping package DOE checked for itself. DOE says the fuel type, TRISO, is 'more resistant to neutron irradiation, corrosion, oxidation and high temperatures' than traditional reactor fuels. Where the record supports the company, this file says so.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-checked in late September 2026 against DOE's 18 June 2026 release, World Nuclear News and DOE's packaging safety evaluation report. Holds. Revised before publication (late September 2026): added the NSDA values that check out (core table, 100 m factor, 0.2 g, staffing). Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the detail; reworded the plain-language text; reworded the headline; removed the citation of Union of Concerned Scientists (advocacy publication); now cites U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy instead; corrected the description of U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy (quote).
recordconfirmed Trust Lands memo: Valar's Carbon County site is Sec. 16 T14S R11E, 5 miles north of Wellington, for a nuclear 'campus'
2026-08-20 · mine-010 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics, Carbon County

The Utah Trust Lands Administration's 20 August 2026 board memorandum (Discussion Item 9A) names the applicant as Valar Atomics Inc. and the land as T14S, R11E, Section 16, 640 acres of state trust land about five miles north of Wellington, benefiting the Public Schools Trust. It confirms that the Special Use Lease Agreement 'SULA 2095 OBA' on the August agenda is this parcel. The stated purpose is an integrated nuclear energy, advanced manufacturing, critical mineral refining and data center campus: developing, manufacturing and operating high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) for power, plus possible TRISO fuel manufacturing, concrete batch plants, component manufacturing, hydrogen and synthetic fuels, data centers, water desalination and steel making. It is an 'Other Business Arrangement' because it includes an option to buy the land. Staff at the meeting described the site as about six miles east of Price and said Valar chose it after a multi-state search.

In plain termsThe Carbon County site is not a single test reactor. The state land office describes a long-term industrial campus built around several reactors, with possible fuel making, factories and data centers, on a square mile of school trust land north of Wellington, with the right to buy the land later.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026 (packet checked again, unchanged from the archived copy): memo pp. 23-24 and transcript (Torgerson: 'about six miles east of Price', 'multi-state search') match; quote exact (14 words). Plain field softened: the memo lists fuel making and data centers as activities that 'could' be included.
company claimconfirmed Valar at the Aug 20 board meeting: came to Utah in 2024 and is 'currently purchasing' 110 acres from Emery County
2026-08-20 · mine-018 · Valar Atomics, Max Ukropina, Emery County, Utah Inland Port Authority, Utah Office of Energy Development

At the 20 August 2026 board meeting Valar's head of projects, Max Ukropina, said the company talked to more than 20 states and that in 2024 he came to Utah and met the Office of Energy Development, the Governor's economic office, SERDA and Carbon County. The auto-transcript then renders him as saying 'the first property I looked at was actually property', apparently referring to the parcel under discussion, back when the plan was to make fuels from coal-plant flue gas; the garbled wording does not settle which property he meant. On 17 September another Valar speaker said 'Max came to look at sites in September', without a year. Ukropina said the Emery lab is no longer just a test facility but Valar's 'whole Utah operations', including its fuel facility, and that Valar is 'currently purchasing 110 acres north of the lab from Emery County'. The records differ on whether that purchase has closed: ETV News wrote on 28 July 2026 that, according to Valar, extra water shares would support development on 'the larger property Valar recently purchased from Emery County'; ETV reported on 20 August an 'ongoing annexation of Valar property into Orangeville City'; and the Utah Inland Port Authority wrote on 10 September 2026 that Valar 'has also purchased' more than 100 acres next to the state research center, inside its Castle Country Project Area. Staff described Valar as headquartered in Hawthorne, California.

In plain termsBy the company's own account, it began talking to Carbon County and state offices in 2024, well before the public heard of a Carbon County site, and it may have looked at this parcel then. It is also acquiring county land beside the Emery lab to grow there; one record says 'purchasing', others say 'purchased'. Emery County's deed records would show whether and when the sale closed, and on what terms.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: overstatement fixed. The headline said Valar 'first eyed this parcel in 2024'; the auto-transcript is garbled at that point ('the first property I looked at was actually property'), so that is now reported as unclear. Purchase quotes exact. Added two ETV reports that say Valar already 'purchased' / owns property there, set against 'currently purchasing' (Aug 20); the deed would settle it.
analysisconfirmed Stated scope grew from a 12-month test in a temporary facility (2025) to a long-term fuel-and-reactor base (2026)
2026-08-20 · mine-019 · Valar Atomics, Emery County

In July 2025 Valar told an Emery County town hall, and its slides said, that Ward 250 would be a test of about 12 months with 30 effective full-power days in a temporary facility (orig-045), and its safety agreement set a 12-month run and an 18-month life ending in decommissioning. The same 2025 slide deck also projected 'Commercial Deployment by 2028', without naming a site. In September 2025 the state's groundbreaking release, printed by ETV News, ended with Valar's own description of itself as 'building America's first nuclear gigasites', and in October 2025 ETV reported Valar's 'current plan' for a manufacturing hub in Carbon County after about three years; neither named a site (loc-034). By August 2026 the company described the Emery lab as its 'whole Utah operations' including a fuel facility, was acquiring about 110 acres beside it (mine-018), had applied to BLM for a 10,270-acre site near Green River and a second site (mine-006), and on 17 September 2026 the Trust Lands board approved leasing Valar the Carbon County parcel for up to a century, for a reactor, fuel and industrial campus (mine-010, mine-011).

In plain termsWhat Valar first told Emery County about Ward 250, a short test in a temporary building, has become a plan for a long-term nuclear industry base across both counties. The 2025 slides did say the company aimed at commercial deployment by 2028, but named no site. Plans can change honestly as a company grows; the point is that the public was first told about a small, short test, and the specific larger sites surfaced later, mostly through state and federal land records.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: 2025 deck re-read (slide 7: 'operates for 30EFPD, in 12 months in a temporary facility'; slide 6: 'Commercial Deployment by 2028'); August transcript quote exact. Added the 2028 line for fairness.
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.
official statementreported Aug 12, 2026: a Carbon commissioner said project nondisclosure agreements are usually the companies' demand
2026-08-12 · loc-002 · Jared Haddock, Carbon County Commission, Valar Atomics, Southeastern Regional Development Agency · Carbon County taxable value lost over a decade, per Commissioner Haddock: $1,000,000,000

ETV News (14 Aug 2026) reported the Carbon & Emery Energy Collaborative held on 12 August 2026 at the Southeastern Regional Development Agency's offices in Price. Carbon County Commissioner Jared Haddock said the county had lost roughly $1 billion in taxable value over the past decade and that one large data center could provide a tax base comparable to about 4,200 homes. He also addressed concerns about nondisclosure agreements connected to economic development projects, saying (as ETV paraphrased him) that such agreements are typically required by the private companies considering an area rather than by the county, and that another company was looking at bringing industry to Carbon County, with details limited. At the same event Valar's Jess Housekeeper spoke of plans to eventually manufacture reactors and fuel. The report names no Valar site. Eight days later Haddock told the Trust Lands board the county had worked with Valar 'since the beginning' (ppl-020). One week after the summit, the commission's own minutes (19 Aug 2026) record it lifting a 'long-standing' NDA on a separate $600 million factory prospect that had been canceled (loc-036). No nondisclosure agreement between Carbon County and Valar appears in any record read; neither the report nor the minutes say one exists.

In plain termsA nondisclosure agreement (NDA) is a contract to keep talks confidential. A Carbon County commissioner said in public that such agreements come up in economic-development talks and are usually the company's demand, not the county's, and a week later the county's own minutes recorded that a big factory prospect had been under a long-standing NDA, lifted and announced after the company canceled (loc-036). It does not show that the county signed one with Valar: a public-records (GRAMA) request to Carbon County for any NDA or confidentiality agreement with Valar would settle that.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read ETV 14 Aug: holds as ETV's paraphrase of Haddock. Replaced a quote that was Housekeeper's, not Haddock's. Added the 19 Aug minutes recording a county NDA on another project (loc-036).
recordconfirmed Valar first appears on a public Trust Lands agenda on Aug 10, 2026, for the full board's initial consideration of the lease, four months after it was mapped
2026-08-10 · csite-018 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics

The Trust Lands board's 2026 agendas and packets for 22 January, 5 and 19 February, 19 March, 16 April, 21 May and 18 June do not mention Valar, SULA 2095, Section 16 or Wellington. They do name other applicants in agenda titles (for example 'with ST Oil Utah, LLC' in January), and the 16 April agenda lists a closed session, citing Utah Code 53C-1-201(8)(a)(i), on market conditions for possible sales of unnamed trust assets; no link between it and this lease was found in the records read. The lease map was produced on 9 April 2026 (mine-048) and the state RDCC review notice, which did not name Valar, ran from 20 April (csite-032). Valar's name first appears in the notice for the 20 August meeting, posted 10 August (mine-014); the board voted on 17 September (mine-011). The board's notice list shows no board meeting in July.

In plain termsFrom the state's side, the first public record found naming Valar for this site dates from August 2026. The lease had been mapped in April, posted for state review in April without Valar's name or the word nuclear (csite-032), and discussed by committees in July, but the first public agenda naming Valar came out ten days before the August hearing and about five weeks before the vote. That is within the law's notice rules (csite-016); the hearings were held in Salt Lake City, with online participation offered. The board's memo says the committee suggested a discussion at the August meeting and a possible vote in September because its members 'wanted to ensure the full board had ample time to evaluate the proposal and that stakeholders were informed'.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: the seven 2026 board notices before August (1051443, 1055725, 1058357, 1064897, 1070913, 1079621, 1087073) and the text of all 48 attached PDFs, plus the seven scanned attachments: no Valar, SULA 2095, Section 16 or Wellington. Notice 1100659 posted 10 Aug 2026 10:18 AM. Quotes exact.
recordconfirmed The public notice for the Wellington parcel named neither Valar nor a nuclear use; the memo says other notices were also given
2026-08-07 · mine-012 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics, Carbon County Commission, Southeastern Regional Development Agency, Utah Division of Water Rights

Trust Lands' public notice for the parcel (now archived) said the agency had received an application on 640 acres in Sec. 16, T14S R11E near Wellington and invited competing bids to lease, buy or exchange it by 5 p.m. on 7 August 2026 (with $51,100 in deposits and fees). It did not name the applicant or say what the land would be used for. The board memorandum says notices were also posted in the local newspaper (not named), on the agency website, and sent to existing lessees, permittees and adjoining landowners under rule R850-30-500; that notice ran for 30 days on the state Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC) dashboard and went to the Carbon County Commission and the Southeastern Regional Development Agency; and that no competing offers came in. The only agency comment the memo records is from the Division of Water Rights.

In plain termsTrust Lands' memo says other notices were also given, but the main public notice, the one an ordinary reader might see, said only that 'an application' had been received for the land. It did not say who or what for. Someone reading it would not have learned that a nuclear company wanted the land.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: notice (archived) names no applicant or use; deadline 5:00 PM 7 Aug 2026; $50,000 + $700 + $250 + $150 = $51,100. Memo notice paragraph matches; quote exact. The date field is the bid deadline; the notice's first posting date is not shown on the page. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the plain-language text.
recordconfirmed Carbon County's planners are drafting rules for big 'contested' projects and data centers; hearing planned for November
2026-08-04 · csite-013 · Carbon County Planning Commission

Signed minutes of the 4 August 2026 Planning Commission meeting (scanned) record the zoning administrator presenting a map of possible development areas with a one-mile buffer around cities for 'big infrastructure projects' and a half-mile buffer around county addresses, limited to the Mining & Grazing zone. A commissioner proposed a conditional overlay permit for 'highly contested industries' and said he did not want large computer companies to 'fly under the guise of Industrial zoning'; members listed possible conditions (water use, evaporation, heat, power supply, the county's finances). The administrator asked members to list conditions and said he would like a public hearing in November 2026, aiming to finish the code update by year end. Valar, nuclear power and the Wellington parcel are not mentioned. The parcel lies about five miles from Wellington, outside a one-mile city buffer.

In plain termsThe county is writing new rules that could set conditions on very large industrial projects such as data centers, and plans a public hearing on them this November. The minutes do not say whether nuclear plants or Valar's campus are in view. The minutes say the hearing would gather public feedback before the code update is finished.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds. Re-read in late September 2026: August 4 minutes pp. 5-6 (the rest searched for Valar/nuclear/reactor/Wellington: none). Quote exact. The speaking commissioner is named in the minutes; here described by role.
company claimconfirmed The $1B plan in Valar's words: fleets 'en masse', then thousands a year; no site, model, factory or date is named
2026-08-04 · plan-020 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Series B equity, as announced by Valar: $1,000,000,000

Valar's Series B post (4 August 2026) says the money lets it move from demonstrating one integrated reactor to 'producing fleets of them en masse', with each reactor shortening the next until Valar produces 'tens, then hundreds, then thousands of reactors per year' in factories 'filled wall to wall' with small modular reactors, and that it will make its own fuel beside its reactors. It names no next reactor design or size, no factory site, no customer and no date. The concrete signs of the next step are elsewhere: a manager for 'one of Valar's first commercial projects' in Utah on the job board, a turbine program, the Carbon lease, a state tax-credit application projecting $1.3 billion of investment and 275 jobs in Emery County, and the 'Commercial Deployment by 2028' target in Valar's July 2025 Emery County slide deck (orig-045). DOE's July 2026 fact sheet, in its paragraph on Antares's Mark-0, says that demonstration set a baseline for 'subsequent reactors' to produce electricity 'in 2027 and the following years'; it gives no electricity date for Valar. Any reactor that sells power would need an NRC license under DOE's own terms; no NRC application or pre-application from Valar was found in public records as of late September 2026.

In plain termsValar raised a billion dollars on the promise of mass-producing reactors, eventually thousands a year. The announcement does not say what the next reactor is, where it will be built, or when. To sell power legally, a reactor needs a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and no application from Valar was found in public records as of late September 2026.
verified 2026-10-02: Checked in late September 2026: Series B post, DOE fact sheet and the July 2025 deck (1295975.pdf, 12 pages) re-read; quotes exact. Fixed: the fact sheet's 2027 sentence sits in its Antares paragraph and was described too broadly.
recordconfirmed Series B, Aug 2026: $1B led by Sequoia; Valar gave no valuation; Bloomberg's $6B is repeated by others
2026-08-03 · fund-007 · Valar Atomics, Sequoia Capital, Shaun Maguire, Liam Corrigan, Apandion, Atreides Management, Conviction, Dream Ventures · Series B equity (company-announced): $1,000,000,000; valuation (reported by Bloomberg; not disclosed by Valar): $6,000,000,000

Valar's post dated 4 Aug 2026 (TechCrunch reported it on Monday 3 Aug) announces 'the closing of a $1 billion Series B financing led by Sequoia Capital', with Apandion, Atreides Management, Conviction, Dream Ventures, HOF Capital, Point72, Riot Ventures, Snowpoint Ventures and Valor Equity Partners, plus unnamed investors, and says Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire joins the board. Valar's law firm, Goodwin Procter, published a matching deal announcement naming the same investors. Sequoia's own portfolio page lists Valar as 'Partnered 2026', names partners Shaun Maguire and Liam Corrigan, and says Valar 'sells power rather than reactors'. TechCrunch says the company did not disclose a valuation and that Bloomberg reported $6 billion; The Next Web gives $6 billion and calls it three times the $2 billion of the spring (fund-006). Sacra's page quotes Bloomberg as saying the deal 'values Valar at $6 billion, including the money being invested', that is, a post-money figure. The Bloomberg and Axios reports behind the $6 billion were not reviewed. Before the close, TechCrunch (17 July) reported, from three sources, that part of the $1 billion had been raised earlier at a lower valuation; Valar's post does not break the round into tranches, but Sacra's share-class table does. The post says the money moves Valar from one demonstrated reactor to 'producing fleets of them en masse', with its own fuel production.

In plain termsIn August 2026 Valar announced $1 billion from investors led by Sequoia, one of Silicon Valley's best-known venture firms, plus a $200 million loan facility. The company did not say what the deal valued it at; the widely repeated $6 billion figure comes from a Bloomberg report, and counts the new money in. Reporters were told that some of the '$1 billion' had actually been collected months earlier at a lower price, so the headline number may overlap with the spring raise.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-verified in late September 2026: Valar post, Goodwin, Sequoia, both TechCrunch items and TNW re-read; quotes exact. Removed 'Growth stage' (no stage label on Sequoia's page as read); added Sacra's relay of Bloomberg's post-money wording.
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.
recordconfirmed Orangeville is drafting an 'Advanced Energy and Manufacturing' zone for Valar's land; drafts to go through city and Valar attorneys
2026-07-16 · loc-013 · Orangeville City Council, Orangeville City Planning and Zoning, Valar Atomics, Jess Housekeeper, Emery County Commission, Castle Valley Special Service District

Orangeville City records: on 11 December 2025 the mayor told the council he would like to see Valar annexed into the city (minutes; he had first raised annexation in September 2025). On 17 March 2026 a special service district asked Emery County that Valar's parcel be annexed into Orangeville (gov-022), and on 19 May the county sent annexation notices (gov-022); on 21 May the Castle Valley Special Service District board reviewed pending annexations including property near Orangeville 'that may be developed by Valor', noting recent state law changes that allow a streamlined annexation by landowner petition (minutes). The city's 11 June minutes record staff 'working on annexation requirements' and the mayor meeting Valar about annexation. On 9 July council minutes record staff 'working on Nuclear Energy Ordinance', and that the city had sent a draft of 'the nuclear energy industry ordinance' being coded to allow Valar to be annexed; the annexation process was to begin at the August meeting with a Valar representative present. The Planning and Zoning Commission's 16 July minutes record an agenda item 'Ordinance I-2 Advanced Energy and Manufacturing District', with Valar's Jess Housekeeper present as its representative: 'There needs to be a plan for an ordinance for this company and future companies', he 'explained the wants and needs for this company', a public meeting would need to be posted by 30 July in draft form, and 'Everything needs to go through the attorneys from the City and Valar.' The commission's later agendas (11 August, 8 September, 17 September work meeting) do not list the I-2 ordinance, and no public hearing on it was found in the council's or the planning commission's notices through the 8 October 2026 council notice (a hearing on a cemetery fee). On 13 August the mayor said annexation could begin once the sale is final (loc-014). The planning commission's 8 September agenda and the council's 10 September agenda list an 'Updated Annexation Policy', the council's item 'to reflect legislative changes'. At the county, commissioners said on 21 July that annexation would put the land under Orangeville's authority for services and future land-use decisions, that it was meant to let Orangeville provide services such as water and sewer, and that it had been considered before Valar's current development plans (ETV, 28 July).

In plain termsValar's growing Emery site is set to be moved from county control into the town of Orangeville. The town is writing a new zoning district, called I-2 'Advanced Energy and Manufacturing', meant for this company and future companies, and its planning minutes say the draft goes through both the city's lawyers and Valar's. Zoning is what decides what can be built and where. No public hearing notice on the new zone was found in the city's or planning commission's posted notices as of late September 2026; when one is, it will be residents' chance to comment.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read all minutes, agendas and both notice lists: holds. Made the 8-10 Sept item exact (agenda listings, not recorded action), described Housekeeper as the minutes do, added the CVSSD May annexation discussion, and removed an uncited legal claim from the plain-language summary.
recordconfirmed The Wellington notice ran in ETV July 15-29 and named no use; of three other Trust Lands notices read from that paper, two named a use and one gave only a lease number
2026-07-15 · loc-032 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, ETV News, Valar Atomics · earnest money required of any competing bidder: $50,000

The newspaper notice the Trust Lands memo mentions without naming the paper (csite-005, mine-012) matches ETV News's 'TRUST LANDS OPPORTUNITY', published 15, 22 and 29 July 2026: Trust Lands 'has received an application on the following property near Wellington' (T14S R11E, Section 16, about 640 acres) and will take bids to lease, buy or exchange it by 5 p.m. on 7 August 2026; a bidder must submit a bid, a development plan and an application with $50,000 earnest money and $1,100 in fees; details by phone or at the Monticello office. It names no applicant, no use and no lease number (the lease was already numbered SULA 2095 and mapped by 9 April, mine-048). The first printing gave 23 days to prepare a competing bid and development plan; the web notice had gone up on 8 July (csite-005). The same agency's notices in the same paper do sometimes state the use: a 19 August 2026 notice for 319.55 acres of Carbon County trust land says the application is 'for a commercial photovoltaic solar power generation project', and a 24 June 2026 notice describes an application to remove sand and gravel; a December 2025 Emery notice gives no use but cites its lease number (SULA 2087). Those three notices ran under the heading 'PUBLIC NOTICE' and directed applications to the agency's Salt Lake City office; the Wellington notice ran under the heading 'TRUST LANDS OPPORTUNITY', directed bids to its Southeastern Area Office in Monticello, and was the only one of the four to ask for a development plan and earnest money. The one that gave no use, SULA 2087, is, like the Wellington lease (SULA 2095), a special use lease. Trust Lands' rule requires a notice to include other information that may create interest, so long as it does not breach the confidentiality of the application (csite-005); the record does not say whether the use was treated as confidential, or why the Wellington notice omitted it.

In plain termsThe state did advertise the Wellington land in the local paper, three times in July 2026. But the ad said only that someone had applied for the square mile and that others could bid, with no word of who, or that the plan was a nuclear campus. A month later the same agency, in the same paper, told readers another application was for a solar farm; that notice came from a different Trust Lands office, and a December 2025 notice for an Emery lease gave no use either. Trust Lands' rule let the Wellington ad leave out who and what (csite-005), but a reader could not have known from it what was coming.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read all four legal notices: holds (fees $700+$250+$150; 23 days to the 7 Aug deadline). Plain field no longer asserts the notice 'met the rules' as our finding; it cites the rule record.
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 Ambulance cover near the reactor: Orangeville's was available 13% of the time in June 2026, per a council report
2026-07-09 · loc-008 · Orangeville City Council, Emery Emergency Medical Special Service District, Emery County Commission · yearly state PILT money directed to Emery EMS for five years (21 July 2026): $200,000

ETV News (16 July 2026) reported that at the Orangeville City Council meeting of 9 July 2026 a councilman said Orangeville ambulance availability was 13% during the past month, against 24% the month before; that closure of the Orangeville-Castle Dale ambulance garage was being considered if staffing could not be fixed; and that the county had tabled the EMS district's funding request. On 21 July the Emery County Commission voted to direct the first $200,000 of state payment-in-lieu-of-taxes money each year for five years to the emergency medical district, to raise on-call pay by $2 an hour (ETV, 28 July). Valar's safety agreement asks to plan for on-site emergencies only and relies on coordination with Emery County Emergency Management, Emery County Fire and local responders (safe-016); no public emergency plan or drill record for Ward 250 was found (safe-016). How often an ambulance would be available for the Valar site, which lies on Coal Haul Road west of Orangeville (Castle Dale minutes, 12 March 2026), is not in any record read. The city's own minutes confirm the 13% figure for June (9 July); record on 11 June the fire chief saying the ambulance had been 'only available 14% of the time' and a council report that county ambulance arrival times were averaging 25 minutes and that stations might be combined; and record the city fire chief saying on 19 February that he would meet Valar on its fire safety plan and reporting on 12 March that he had gone through Valar's safety protocols and 'everything is looking well'.

In plain termsThe reactor's safety plan leans on local fire and ambulance crews for anything beyond the site's own staff. In June 2026 the Orangeville ambulance was staffed and available only about one-eighth of the time, according to a council member's report recorded in the city's minutes, and the county was moving money to fix that. The risk from the reactor is not measured here; the point is that the local emergency services it counts on are stretched.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read ETV 16 July and 28 July and the Orangeville minutes: holds. Fixed 19 Feb (the fire chief said he would meet Valar; the 12 March minutes record that he had). Replaced two quotes that did not bear on this fact. Sourced the site's location.
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.
official statementreported As reported, Carbon commissioners called Ward 250 a 'commercial reactor' and the planned data center waterless; Valar calls Ward 250 a research reactor and has called the data center both waterless and low-water
2026-07-01 · loc-005 · Jared Haddock, Tony Martines, Carbon County Commission, Valar Atomics, NVIDIA

ETV News (3 July 2026) reported the Carbon County Commission meeting of Wednesday 1 July 2026 (ETV's text gives 'June 2' and 'June 1', but its publication date, the fire restrictions ahead of the Fourth of July and the NVIDIA announcement place it on 1 July; the commission's 1 July minutes record the same celebration (csite-026) and record Commissioner Haddock saying Valar had announced a data center partnership, one 'that will run without any water'). As ETV reported it, Commissioner Jared Haddock described Ward 250 as having recently become 'the first government-approved commercial reactor' to achieve a self-sustaining reaction outside a federal lab, and Commissioner Tony Martines said that because Valar's reactor is gas-cooled and NVIDIA's chips are air-cooled, the planned data center won't need water. Set beside the record: Valar's own February 2026 release says Ward 250 is a research reactor and 'not a commercial power plant'; DOE's pilot is for research and 'not' to demonstrate commercial suitability; DOE's 'first DOE authorized reactor built outside of a national laboratory' holds (orig-010). On water, Valar's account as ETV reported it was that the data center would use a closed-loop cooling system 'designed for low water consumption' and that it already had the water it needs, while seeking up to 1,000 more shares for other projects (ETV, 28 July). The part about being first outside a federal lab holds; 'commercial' goes beyond what Valar and DOE say. The commissioners' no-water description matches Valar's own 4 August 2026 release, which calls the planned data center 'a waterless 30 MW AI factory'.

In plain termsTwo Carbon County commissioners, speaking at a public meeting as the local paper reported it, described Valar's test reactor as a 'commercial' reactor and its planned data center as needing no water. The officials' description, as reported, differs from Valar's own on the reactor: Valar calls Ward 250 a research reactor that is not a commercial power plant. On water, Valar has described the data center both as waterless (in its own August 2026 announcement) and as designed for low water use (as the local paper reported in late July).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read ETV 3 July, the Feb 2026 Valar release and ETV 28 July: holds as ETV's paraphrase. Plain field now says 'as reported'. Revised before publication (late September 2026): the comparison is restated as a plain difference.
recordreported July 1, 2026 Orangeville event: Valar and NVIDIA announce they are exploring a 30 MW nuclear-powered data center
2026-07-01 · orig-042 · Valar Atomics, NVIDIA, Isaiah Taylor, Emy Lesofski, David Hinkins, Deseret News

Deseret News (Eva Terry, July 1, 2026) reported an event at Valar's Orangeville site with Taylor, an NVIDIA energy-policy director, Utah energy office director Emy Lesofski and State Sen. David Hinkins, where the companies said they are exploring a 30 megawatt data center fully powered by Valar's reactors. The article says Ward 250 was 'now generating 100 kilowatts of electricity'; that wording cannot match the 100 kW continuous thermal limit in Valar's safety agreement, which allows 250 kW only for up to an hour: a reactor limited to 100 kW of heat cannot deliver 100 kW of electricity, because turning heat into electricity always loses part of it. The figure is most likely the thermal rating reported as electric.

In plain termsOn July 1, 2026 at the Emery County site, Valar and NVIDIA said they are exploring a 30-megawatt data center run on Valar reactors. The newspaper's '100 kilowatts of electricity' cannot be right for a reactor limited to 100 kilowatts of heat in continuous running, because only part of the heat can become electricity.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: Deseret re-read: event, speakers (an NVIDIA energy-policy director, Lesofski, Hinkins), 30 MW data-center study and '100 kilowatts of electricity' all present. The inference is now stated with its reason.
recordconfirmed Carbon commissioners signed a June 29 support letter; no Carbon County agenda from May to mid-Sept shows it or the site
2026-06-29 · mine-013 · Carbon County Commission, Larry Jensen, Tony Martines, Jared Haddock, Valar Atomics

The Trust Lands packets include a letter on Carbon County Board of Commissioners letterhead dated 29 June 2026, addressed to the 'SITLA Board of Trustees' and signed by Commissioners Tony Martines, Jared Haddock and Larry Jensen, supporting Valar's desire to locate 'north of Wellington on SITLA lands' and saying the county had worked with Valar for over a year; it does not mention nuclear power or a reactor. The commission's agendas and minutes posted on the Utah Public Notice Website for its meetings of 6 May through 16 September 2026 (most are scanned images; the 5 August meeting was canceled; 16 September minutes not yet posted as of 1 October 2026) contain no item approving that letter and no item on the Wellington site. Valar appears in commissioners' remarks on 1 July 2026 (celebrating the Emery reactor and a data-center partnership), in a 19 August 2026 'Valor Atomics presentation' about the Orangeville operation and planned public events (the minutes add that commissioners highlighted the tax benefits 'the plant will bring', without saying where), and in a 2 September 2026 announcement of an Orangeville open house and a planned Carbon County town hall. By contrast, Emery County put its support letter for Valar on a public agenda (17 February 2026, orig-046).

In plain termsThe county's support for the Carbon site was put in writing and sent to the state, but we found no public county meeting where it was discussed or voted on before it was sent. Minutes of the meetings of 7 January to 15 April 2026, also read, show no such item either. Whether a vote was needed is a legal question for the county; the county clerk's records would show how the letter was approved.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-checked in late September 2026: letter read in the September packet (p. 28); all 17 Carbon agendas and minutes on file re-read for Valar/Valor/atomic/nuclear/Wellington/SITLA/trust/letter; only the items described appear. The archived Aug 19 minutes match the live file. carbon.utah.gov was not searched for the letter.
company claimconfirmed Valar calls itself 'very open and transparent', pointing to its photos and video; of its Ward 250 safety papers, two were found published, and the others, most listed for DOE review, were not found in public records
2026-06-28 · safe-040 · Valar Atomics

In its unlisted 'Ward 250 By the Numbers' page (28 June 2026), Valar says its beliefs have led it to be 'a very open and transparent company', that its reactor has been more photographed and filmed than any other in history, and that it is sharing raw data to be refined by internal and external peer review over the following weeks. The page still contains placeholders ('July XX', '[xxx]') and one chart, 'Reactor Power Ascension', which plots an unlabeled 'Q_Total' on a 0-100 scale and thermocouple readings of about 30-80 F against a 'sample index', with no power units, dates or time scale, so it cannot be used to check the power reached. Of the safety documents the NSDA and DOE records name for Ward 250, two were found published by Valar: the NSDA (marked 'Draft', though the Valar page that posts it says DOE has approved it) and the QA Program Description. Not found among Valar's published documents as of late September 2026: the PDSA, final DSA and Technical Safety Requirements, the Code of Record (document 100437), the startup and commissioning plan, the radiation protection program (DOE's categorical exclusion summarizes its dose limits), the transport QA program (document 100719, which DOE approved) and any emergency plan (the NSDA proposes on-site emergency response only, with no off-site planning, coordinated with local responders). The NSDA lists the safety analyses, operating limits, startup plan and safety programs as submittals to DOE; no requirement to post them publicly was found in the NSDA or in DOE's authorization standard, DOE-STD-1271. The Physical Security Plan and Material Control and Accountability Plan are security documents, which the NSDA calls separate controlled documents. County and state officials praised Valar's openness at the Trust Lands hearings.

In plain termsValar describes itself as unusually open, and it has published many photos and videos. The safety documents are a different matter: of the documents that define how the reactor is kept safe, we found two the public can read, and one is labeled a draft, though Valar says DOE approved it; the others were prepared for DOE's review. Some documents, like security plans, are normally kept private. The safety analysis and operating limits are not security plans; they can be requested from DOE under FOIA (safe-007).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read 'By the Numbers' (single embedded image, the 'Reactor Power Ascension' chart, read from the image: Q_Total 0-100 with no units, thermocouples about 30-80 F, x-axis 'Sample index'), NSDA and QA Approval 0049 in late September 2026. Holds. Softened 'has published two' to 'two were found published': Valar's docs library page as posted lists five posts and no safety documents, so a complete inventory could not be made. Corrected 2026-09-30: reworded the plain-language text.
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 May 2026: Carbon County voted to enter 'the beginning stages' of a BLM gas-pipeline right-of-way for Altigen plants east of Wellington
2026-05-20 · mine-050 · Carbon County Commission, Altigen, Bureau of Land Management

The Carbon County Commission's 20 May 2026 agenda listed, for possible approval, a partnership with ALTIGEN ('Jurassic Spark Project') on a natural gas pipeline right-of-way across BLM land. The minutes (scanned) say Altigen intends to build natural gas power plants on private property east of Wellington; that BLM offered Carbon County the option to hold the right-of-way for a pipeline across the North Coal Creek area; that Altigen will bear all environmental work, costs, maintenance and erosion control, and the county is not paying; and that the commission voted to enter 'the beginning stages' of the right-of-way. No BLM right-of-way case naming Altigen or Carbon County created since June 2025 appears in BLM's public layer as of late September 2026. No record read links this project to Valar.

In plain termsA separate energy project, gas-fired power plants east of Wellington with a pipeline across federal land, got early county approval in an open public meeting in May 2026.
verified 2026-10-02: Found during verification in late September 2026 while re-reading the May-September Carbon minutes for mine-013; archived copies checked again and unchanged. Updated in late September 2026.
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 On paper Ward 250 is temporary: 12 months of running, then cooldown and teardown; its two papers differ on length
2026-04-22 · plan-003 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy

Valar's Nuclear Safety Design Agreement (October 2025) describes a lifecycle of about 18 months from authorization through decommissioning: a pre-operational phase, 12 months of nuclear operations in test campaigns, then defueling and decommissioning that returns the site to unrestricted use. DOE's environmental determination (22 April 2026) describes a 24-month research program: about 12 months of reactor operation, 6 months of in-vessel cooldown and 6 months of decommissioning, after which the single core of spent fuel goes in dry casks to an unnamed 'DOE-approved facility'. DOE's agreement with Valar runs from October 2025 to 4 July 2027. If operations are counted from criticality in June 2026, the 12 months end around June 2027, and DOE's schedule puts the end of decommissioning around mid-2028; no record read gives the actual planned end date. Set beside this, Valar now describes the Utah site as home, not just a test site: its head of projects told the state trust-lands board the lab is 'no longer just a test facility', it is buying the neighboring 112-acre parcel (gov-022), it was approved for a state tax credit that requires it to stay 10 years, and its Castle Country page says 'we're ready to build more'. At the 1 July 2026 event Taylor said the fuel inside Ward 250 would let it keep running for 165 years (KSL/Deseret, 6 July); that describes the fuel's capacity at very low power, not the approved plan, which is about 12 months of operation with no refueling (DOE). The two are not necessarily in conflict (the test reactor can be removed while the company stays), but no document found in public records as of late September 2026 says what replaces Ward 250 or whether Ward 250 will actually be torn down on the stated schedule.

In plain termsThe official paperwork treats Ward 250 like a science experiment with an end date: run it for about a year, let it cool, take it apart, ship the used fuel away and leave clean ground. Valar's own safety document says the whole thing takes about 18 months; DOE's environmental paper says 24. Meanwhile the company tells local officials it is here to stay, and at a public event its CEO said the fuel could last 165 years; the approved plan is about one year of running. Both can be true, but no plan for what comes after the test reactor, and no firm date for taking it down, was found in public records as of late September 2026. The safety agreement's 18 months does not fit its own schedule: from the end of its review, the Table 7 pre-operational period plus 12 months of operation already runs about 19.75 months, before any decommissioning, unless the 18 months is counted from startup. DOE's 24 months fits that startup reading.
verified 2026-10-02: Checked in late September 2026: NSDA p. 8 (18 months; 12 months of operations) and DOE CX (24 months: 12+6+6; spent fuel to a 'DOE-approved facility') re-read and hold. 'Took' a tax credit changed to 'was approved for' (the record shows board approval). Taylor's 165-year remark added from KSL. Corrected in late September 2026: the plain-language text adds that the NSDA's 18 months does not fit its own schedule.
analysisconfirmed Valar's draft accident math puts the nearest public access 400 m away; the host lab is 20.6 acres, too small to hold a 400 m radius
2026-04-22 · safe-014 · Valar Atomics, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab

The NSDA's accident doses are calculated for a site boundary 400 m from the reactor, described as 'the nearest point of public access', with the nearest residence at about 800 m and the nearest group at 1,200 m. DOE's categorical exclusion describes USREL as 'a 20.6-acre site', with Ward 250's reactor complex and fuel laboratory inside a security-fenced area of about 2 acres; ETV News (October 2025) reported Valar's allotment at the lab as 11 acres. A circle of 400 m radius covers about 124 acres (pi x 400 m squared = 502,655 square meters), so no point on a 20.6-acre site can be 400 m from every edge of it. The 400 m boundary must therefore run over land outside the lab, and no record read says who controls public access there. The NSDA's own dispersion factors show why it matters: the one it uses at 100 m is 16 times the one at 400 m (4.0e-3 versus 2.5e-4 s/m3), and its worst-case dose at 100 m is under 5 rem. Our check: the 100 m factor meets DOE's prescribed default, but the 400 m factor is 3.1 to 12.3 times lower than standard rural methods give for the paper's stated weather, so its 400 m bounds may be low by that factor (still far below 25 rem). In August 2026 Valar said it was buying about 110 acres north of the lab from Emery County, and later state records describe the land as purchased (mine-018); that could put more nearby land under Valar's control, but it post-dates the October 2025 NSDA and no record read says whether it covers the 400 m circle. No public copy of the approved DSA's site description, which would define the boundary, was found. DOE's categorical exclusion says 'Radiation monitoring and controlled access are maintained during operations', without saying where. No DOE document read sets 400 m as a required exclusion boundary for Ward 250; it is the distance at which Valar's draft paper calculates public doses.

In plain termsAccident calculations assume the closest a member of the public can get to the reactor. Valar's figure is 400 meters. But the whole state lab it sits on is only about 20 acres, and a circle reaching 400 meters out in every direction would cover about 124 acres. So either public access to land beyond the lab is controlled, which no record read describes (Valar has since bought, or is buying, about 110 acres north of the lab, mine-018, but no record read says whether that covers the circle), or people can get closer than 400 meters, where the calculated doses would be higher. The final safety analysis would show which.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read NSDA pp. 10, 36 and CX pp. 1-2 and ETV in late September 2026; geometry re-checked (pi x 400^2 m2 = 124.2 acres). Holds. Added Valar's reported 110-acre purchase (mine-018) as a possible partial explanation; no record ties it to the boundary. Revised before publication (late September 2026): dispersion factors not called concentrations; 'up to 5 rem' now 'under 5 rem'; added the 100 m and 400 m checks. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the plain-language text; reworded the headline. 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.
  • RDCC Project Public View (feature layer behind rdcc.utah.gov; project 87203 'SULA 2095 - Lease Agreement with possible option to purchase') (Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, Resource Development Coordinating Committee, 2026-04-20) primary government “a large-scale industrial project”
  • Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC Project Management System) (State of Utah, Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office) primary government
  • RDCC project register (public view), project 588: SULA 1321, Utah National Guard Training Area, Sec. 16, T14S R11E (Utah Trust Lands Administration (RDCC project map service)) primary government “SULA 1321 - Utah National Guard Training Area”
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.
newrecordconfirmed A February permit application (applicant not named) covered nearly all of Section 16, where the state approved leasing 480 acres to Valar in September
2026-04-09 · dir-036 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics, Utah National Guard

Right-of-entry permit application 7675 (Trust Lands permit map, 18 February 2026) covers nearly all of Section 16, T14S R11E, SLB&M, north of Wellington: 634.32 acres (the map leaves out a small southeast corner). Trust Lands' map for Special Use Lease Agreement No. 2095, produced 9 April 2026 and posted by the RDCC on 20 April 2026 as a 'Lease Agreement with possible option to purchase' (project 87203), covers the north half and southwest quarter of the same section: 480 acres. The Trust Lands board memorandum says the Utah National Guard's lease, SULA 1321, occupies the section's southeast quarter (160 acres). The board approved SULA 2095 with Valar Atomics on 17 September 2026, per the meeting transcript (mine-011). No record read names the applicant for 7675 or shows the permit was issued.

In plain termsAn application for a permit to study nearly all of a square mile north of Wellington was logged in February; the applicant's name was not found in the public records read. In September the state approved leasing three quarters of that square mile (480 acres) to Valar. The fourth quarter is leased to the Utah National Guard.
  • Right of Entry No. 7675 - Geotechnical Survey (permit map) (Utah Trust Lands Administration (via the RDCC project register), 2026-02-18) primary government “Right of Entry No. 7675 - 634.32 Acres”
  • Special Use Lease Agreement No. 2095 (lease map) (Utah Trust Lands Administration (via the RDCC project register), 2026-04-09) primary government “N2, SW4 - Section 16 - 480 Acres”
  • RDCC project register: projects 87096-87099 (Right-of-Entry Permits #7672, #7674, #7675, #7676) and 87203 (SULA 2095) (Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee (Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office), 2026-02-19) primary government “to evaluate the feasibility of a potential industrial and manufacturing development”
  • 09.17.2026 TLA Board Packet (Notification Item 10A: SULA 2095 OBA memorandum) (Utah Trust Lands Administration, 2026-09-14) primary government “The UNG lease (SULA 1321) occupies 160 acres of the 640-acre section”
verified 2026-10-02: Read 30 Sept 2026: the permit 7675 map, the SULA 2095 lease map and its RDCC record, and the 17 Sept 2026 board memorandum (packet pages 17-29). From BLM's survey grid the section computes to about 652 acres and the N2+SW4 to about 489 acres; the figures in the text are Trust Lands' own. Second check, 2026-09-30 (two independent checks): no record that the permits were issued was found; 'nearly all' of Section 16; areas recomputed on the ellipsoid.
recordconfirmed The state's lease map for SULA 2095 was produced on 9 April 2026, four months before the bid deadline
2026-04-09 · mine-048 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics

The 'Special Use Lease Agreement No. 2095' map attached to both Trust Lands board packets (August packet p. 35, September packet p. 29) outlines the 480-acre N1/2 and SW1/4 of Sec. 16, T14S R11E, and its footer reads 'Produced: April 09, 2026'. So by 9 April 2026 Trust Lands had given the lease a number and mapped its area. That is about four months before the 7 August 2026 deadline in the agency's public notice, which named no applicant and no use (mine-012), and about eleven and a half weeks before the Carbon County Commission's 29 June support letter (mine-013). The records read do not show when Valar's application was filed or when the public notice was first posted.

In plain termsA map's 'produced' date is the day the state made it. This one shows the state was already preparing this particular lease, under its lease number, by early April 2026. The public notice inviting competing offers came later and did not say who had applied or what the land was for. When the application arrived and when the notice first ran are in Trust Lands' files, which a records request can get.
verified 2026-10-02: Found during verification in late September 2026: map footers read from both packets.
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.
recordreported March 2026: $450M ($340M equity, $110M debt) at a $2B valuation, known only from Bloomberg as relayed by others
2026-03-31 · fund-006 · Valar Atomics, Bloomberg · March 2026 raise (reported): $450,000,000; equity part (reported): $340,000,000; debt part (reported; lender not named): $110,000,000; valuation (reported by Bloomberg): $2,000,000,000

The Next Web (Cristian Dina, 1 Apr 2026) wrote that on Tuesday (31 March) Valar announced it had raised $450 million at a $2 billion valuation, 'according to Bloomberg', made up of $340 million in equity and $110 million in debt; it named Luckey and Sankar as investors. TechCrunch (17 July 2026) repeats the same figures 'per a Bloomberg report in March', and says three sources told it that 'part of that capital', meaning the $1 billion round then being raised, had been raised earlier at a lower valuation. The Bloomberg article itself was not reviewed, no post about this raise was found in Valar's online library (read in late September 2026), and no lender, investor or filing read names who provided the $110 million of debt or who led the equity. Records from the same weeks fit a raise in progress: six investment pools named for Valar filed Form D notices between 13 March and 23 April 2026 (fund-010). Confidence stays 'reported': every figure traces to one original report.

In plain termsIn spring 2026 Valar was reported to have raised another $450 million, part of it borrowed, at a price that valued the whole company at $2 billion. All of these numbers come from one Bloomberg story that others repeated; no publication of them by Valar itself was found, and who lent the $110 million was not found in public records.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-verified in late September 2026: TNW and TechCrunch re-read; TechCrunch says 'a Bloomberg report in March' (not dated 31 March), corrected; TNW title corrected to the page's own; EDGAR Form D dates re-checked (six 2026 pool filings, 13 Mar to 23 Apr).
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 Utility district minutes: Valar 'tied into the county sewer system without prior authorization'; state permit needed
2026-03-19 · loc-015 · Castle Valley Special Service District, Valar Atomics, Utah Division of Water Quality, Jess Housekeeper, Willem Kriel

Castle Valley Special Service District (CVSSD) runs water and sewer for Castle Valley towns including Orangeville. Its approved minutes of 19 February 2026 record Valar's Jess Housekeeper presenting Valar's plans (by video), the board approving a $20,000 outside-district water connection for Valar contingent on all water shares being submitted to Orangeville, and the manager reporting that Valar 'will be required to apply to' the state Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for a sewer discharge permit, which DWQ would administer for four years, and that no sewer connection would be approved until DWQ approved the permit. The approved minutes of 19 March 2026 (whose opening line misdates the meeting to 19 February) record the manager's update: sewer plans 'were not submitted to the State as required', water service work was paused pending DWQ approval, 'Valar tied into the county sewer system without prior authorization', Valar was asking for ordinary sanitary sewer service for restrooms only with no process water, a site visit with the regional DEQ engineer was planned, and water service would not be provided until all sewer permits and approvals were in place; no action was taken. The district's May, July and August 2026 minutes (read; the June minutes, approved on 16 July, were not found on the state public notice website as of 30 September 2026) do not return to the sewer issue, though the May minutes discuss annexing property near Orangeville 'that may be developed by Valor', and its 17 September agenda lists no Valar item. DOE's categorical exclusion puts water use under 1,000 gallons a day for domestic use, with no process-water discharges, which matches the restrooms-only request. As of 30 September 2026, no record read shows whether DWQ issued a permit, or how the tie-in the minutes report was resolved.

In plain termsThe local water-and-sewer district recorded in March 2026 a staff report that Valar had 'tied into the county sewer system without prior authorization', and had not sent its sewer plans to the state as required. The request itself was ordinary, toilets and sinks only, not reactor water. It matters less for danger than for process: the district's minutes are the only record of it found, and no Valar response or later resolution appears in the records read. Whether the state permit was later issued was not found in the records read as of 30 September 2026; a GRAMA request to the Division of Water Quality and to the district would show it.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the Feb and Mar minutes (text) and the May and July minutes (scanned): holds. Corrected 'June minutes read' (June's are not posted). Plain-language text: 'habit' implied a pattern from one record, now 'process'. Revised before publication (late September 2026): the plain-language text attributes the tie-in to the staff report and drops a conclusion. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the detail.
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.
newrecordconfirmed Four applications for state site-study permits on about 8,300 acres for 'industrial and manufacturing development' were posted Feb. 19, 2026; none names the applicant
2026-02-19 · dir-035 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Resource Development Coordinating Committee, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

On 19 February 2026 the state's Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC) posted four applications for Trust Lands right-of-entry (site-study) permits as projects 87096 to 87099, numbered 7672, 7674, 7675 and 7676. Comments were due 3 March and the stated start was 6 March. Each notice says that Trust Lands 'has received a Right-of-Entry (ROE) permit application' for cultural-resource surveys, geotechnical investigations and similar studies 'to evaluate the feasibility of a potential industrial and manufacturing development', and that 'No permanent development is proposed under the Right-of-Entry authorization.' Trust Lands' permit maps, dated 18 February 2026, give the areas: 7672, 1,812.94 acres near Green River (T20S R15E and T21S R15-16E, Emery County); 7674, 5,381.59 acres south and west of Price (T14-15S R9-10E, Carbon County); 7675, 634.32 acres, nearly all of Section 16, T14S R11E, north of Wellington (Carbon County; the map leaves out a small southeast corner); 7676, 487.83 acres in Sections 2 and 16, T16S R13E (Emery County). That is 8,316.68 acres in all. The notices record that local governments were contacted on 19 February. The only state comments were Division of Wildlife Resources recommendations of 3 March 2026: three of the areas are crucial year-long pronghorn habitat; white-tailed prairie dogs, burrowing owls and kit foxes could occur; and hawks are known to nest near two of the areas. No applicant is named in the four notices, the four maps or the comment letters, and no record read shows the permits were issued: the register lists all four as 'State Comment Published'.

In plain termsIn February the state logged four applications for permits to survey and test about 8,300 acres of state land in Carbon and Emery counties for possible industrial development. Who applied, and whether the permits were issued, was not found in the public records read (as of 30 September 2026). One of the four covers nearly all of the square mile where the state later approved leasing 480 acres to Valar.
verified 2026-10-02: Read 30 Sept 2026: the RDCC records (all fields; dates given in UTC and Mountain time), all four permit maps (scanned; acreage legends read at full size) and the four comment letters in full. The acreages sum to 8,316.68. Copies are archived. Second check, 2026-09-30 (two independent checks): no record that the permits were issued was found; 'nearly all' of Section 16; areas recomputed on the ellipsoid.
newrecordconfirmed Near Green River, one of permit application 7672's sections (applicant not named) is state land that Valar's BLM application surrounds
2026-02-18 · dir-037 · Utah Trust Lands Administration, Bureau of Land Management, Valar Atomics

Right-of-entry permit application 7672 (1,812.94 acres; Trust Lands permit map, 18 February 2026) lies within Sections 32 and 36 of T20S R15E, Sections 10 and 11 of T21S R15E and Section 6 of T21S R16E, near Green River in Emery County. The permit map file is named for, and draws beside it, Special Use Lease Agreement No. 1622 (2,441.03 acres); no record read names that lease's holder. Overlaid on BLM's case map for Valar's pending 'Green River Gigasite' right-of-way application (UTUT106784007), Section 32 of T20S R15E lies wholly inside the application's outer boundary and is the only hole in the case map (about 637 acres): state land the application surrounds. The case map also covers about 467 acres of Section 6, T21S R16E (the part that is not state land); the permit application's state land there lies outside it. Sections 36, 10 and 11 lie outside it; they border it, but no part falls inside it. No record read (to 30 Sept 2026) names the applicant for 7672 or shows the permit was issued. BLM's case record, as saved in late September 2026, listed Valar's application as pending; Valar told a reporter it has decided not to pursue the site (mine-008).

In plain termsNear Green River, one of the four February permit applications covers a square mile of state land that Valar's federal application surrounds on all sides. No record read names the applicant. BLM's case record, as saved in late September 2026, listed Valar's application as pending, though Valar told a reporter it has decided not to pursue the site.
  • Right of Entry No. 7672 - Geotechnical Survey (permit map, file ROE_7672_SULA_1622_02182026.pdf) (Utah Trust Lands Administration (via the RDCC project register), 2026-02-18) primary government “Right of Entry No. 7672 - 1,812.94 Acres”
  • BLM Natl MLRS Rights of Way: case UTUT106784007, 'Green River Gigasite Small Modular Reactor/Data Center' (case map) (Bureau of Land Management (MLRS)) primary filing “Green River Gigasite Small Modular Reactor/Data Center”
  • BLM PLSS CadNSDI first division (sections) for the listed townships (Bureau of Land Management (Cadastral National Spatial Data Infrastructure)) primary government
  • RDCC project register: projects 87096-87099 (Right-of-Entry Permits #7672, #7674, #7675, #7676) and 87203 (SULA 2095) (Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee (Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office), 2026-02-19) primary government “to evaluate the feasibility of a potential industrial and manufacturing development”
  • Trump Is Considering More Data Centers on Public Lands Than Previously Known (The Washington Sun (Mara Hoplamazian and Jade Lozada), 2026-09-18) news “After considering the site, the company has decided to no longer pursue the project”
verified 2026-10-02: Computed 30 Sept 2026 from BLM's survey-grid sections and BLM's case map for UTUT106784007 as saved in late September 2026; BLM's case map was not re-checked on 30 Sept. On an ellipsoidal equal-area computation the case map has three outer parts (about 13,780, 199 and 82 acres) and one hole, Section 32 (about 637 acres). Sections 36 (T20S R15E) and 2 (T21S R15E) are notches in its edge, not holes. Every figure and sentence was checked twice, independently, against the records. Second check, 30 Sept 2026: no record read shows the permit issued; areas recomputed on the ellipsoid.
recordconfirmed Fire review of the reactor building: the State Fire Marshal declined; there is no county fire inspector
2026-02-17 · loc-018 · Emery County Fire Protection Special Service District, Utah State Fire Marshal, Valar Atomics, Emery County Commission

Minutes of the Emery County Fire Protection Special Service District: 17 November 2025, item 'Getting 3rd Party to Review Plans for Nuclear Power Plant': the district was asked to approve fire plans for the 'Nuclear test plant' at Orangeville; the chair had called the State Fire Marshal's office, which 'didn't want to touch it'; the board tabled it to get information on the fire code and whether there was adequate water flow (GPM) for the building classification. 15 December 2025: the chair said he would sign the fire protection plans as soon as the paperwork arrived (safe-016). 17 February 2026 (the minutes' header reads 'Tuesday, February 17th, 2025', misprinting the year), item 'Valar Atomics': fire chiefs were asked to review building plans; 'State agencies declined to perform plan review and recommended third-party review'; responsibility may fall to the district or a local fire authority because there is no county fire inspector; the review concerns building fire-code compliance, not reactor design. 16 March 2026: 'The issue has been addressed with chiefs and is not currently a concern.' The April, May and June 2026 minutes do not return to it. Separately, Emery County's commission voted Valar's building permit itself on 2 September 2025 because its building department had not issued one (gov-021), and Orangeville's fire chief reported on 12 March 2026 that he had gone through Valar's safety protocols (loc-008). As of 30 September 2026, no record read says whether a third-party plan review was done, who did it, or what it found.

In plain termsBefore a building opens, someone normally checks its plans against the fire code. For the building that houses the reactor, state agencies declined to do that check and recommended a third-party review, and the county has no fire inspector of its own, so the job may fall to the county fire district or a local fire department. The March 2026 minutes say it 'has been addressed with chiefs and is not currently a concern', but not how, or by whom. This is about ordinary fire safety of the building, not the nuclear safety of the reactor, which DOE reviews.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read all fire district minutes. Corrected the meeting date to 17 Feb 2026 (Tuesday; the header misprints the year). Fixed the Orangeville fire chief item and removed 'volunteer' from the plain-language text (not in the source). Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the plain-language text.
recordconfirmed Feb 2026 Emery County agenda: support letter for Valar and an MOU for site testing on a county parcel
2026-02-17 · orig-046 · Valar Atomics, Emery County Commission

The Emery County Commission's February 17, 2026 meeting notice lists two Valar items: approving or denying a county letter of support to Valar Atomics, and approving or denying an MOU letting Valar perform site suitability testing on parcel 04-0019-0030. This shows Valar was seeking to test county land next to the state lab by early 2026: county minutes of 20 January 2026 call the parcel 'the property next to the Research Center', and the county later approved selling it to Valar (gov-022). Valar's Castle Country page says the commission backed the project unanimously. The commission's minutes of the same day record the support letter approved 3-0, subject to the county attorney's review and approval, and the MOU item as 'Tabled'.

In plain termsIn February 2026 Emery County's agenda listed a support letter for Valar and a proposed agreement letting Valar test a county parcel next to the state lab; the commission approved the letter and tabled the agreement. The county later approved selling that parcel, about 112 acres, to Valar (gov-022).
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: Utah Public Notice page re-read: February 17, 2026 agenda with the support letter and the parcel 04-0019-0030 MOU. Castle Country page still says the commission backed the project unanimously. Match.
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 BLM records show three pending Valar land applications in its Price office, incl. a 10,270-acre 'Green River Gigasite'
2026-02-13 · mine-006 · Valar Atomics, Bureau of Land Management, BLM Price Field Office

BLM's public rights-of-way layer lists Valar Atomics on three pending cases; the first two name it 'Applicant' and were filed with the Price Field Office (the office that handles most rights-of-way cases in Carbon and Emery counties in the same layer): (1) UTUT106784007, 'Green River Gigasite Small Modular Reactor/Data Center', a FLPMA land-use case, 'Pending' since 13 February 2026 (last modified 26 May 2026), 10,270.61 acres in T20S-T21S, R14E-R16E, north-west of the town of Green River in Emery County; (2) UTUT106801248, 'Project Beehive Small Modular Reactor/Data Center', 'Pending' (disposition date 13 April 2026, record created 30 April, last modified 15 September 2026), with no land description or map in the public layer; (3) UTUT106833224, filed under BLM's 'Oil and Gas Pipelines' product with the commodity 'DISTRIBUTION LINE', created 23 July 2026, 'Pending', also with no land shown and no case name. None of the three involves mining claims. No Federal Register notice naming Valar for any of them was found. On 18 September 2026 Valar told The Washington Sun that the Green River filing was an application for survey access and that it had decided not to pursue that project; BLM's layer still listed the case as 'Pending' in late September 2026 (mine-008).

In plain termsBesides the reactor at the state lab, Valar has asked the federal government for the use of public land for at least one very large reactor-and-data-center site near Green River (about 16 square miles; in September 2026 Valar said it had decided not to pursue it, mine-008), for a second site called 'Project Beehive' whose location is not shown in BLM's public layer, and for a third case BLM files as a pipeline ('distribution line'), location not shown. These are applications, not approvals. They can be seen in BLM's public case map, but no public notice of them was found.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-checked in late September 2026: all three cases, dates, acreage, legal description and 'Pending' status match. BLM's Price Field Office web page does not list its counties, so the coverage wording now rests on the case layer itself; the third case is described by BLM's own category (pipeline), not guessed as power or gas.
recordconfirmed Between March and July 2026 Valar's NRC-suit post, 'CAT scan' claim intact, was tagged asking search engines not to list it
2026 · orig-061 · Valar Atomics

Valar's April 7, 2025 post 'Valar Atomics is Suing the NRC' contains the claim that holding Ward One's spent fuel for five minutes gives the same exposure as a CAT scan (orig-017). Read in late September 2026, the page carries a robots meta tag, 'noindex, nofollow', which asks search engines not to list it, and the site's page data marks it 'disableIndex: true'; no other Valar library post carries the tag. Internet Archive copies of the page from April 8, 2025 through March 23, 2026 have no such tag; copies from July 22 and August 25, 2026 have it. In every copy the claim's text is unchanged, and no correction or note has been added. The post is still listed in Valar's own library, so visitors to the site can still find it. The tag appeared some time after March 23, 2026. The record does not show who added it or why.

In plain termsValar's post with the 'CAT scan' claim is still on its website, word for word. Sometime between late March and late July 2026 the page was tagged asking search engines not to list it, while it stays on the company's own site. No correction or withdrawal of the claim was found. No statement of why the tag was added was found in public records as of late September 2026.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: live page and Internet Archive captures of 8 Apr 2025, 24 Aug 2025, 22 Dec 2025, 26 Feb 2026, 23 Mar 2026 (no robots tag) and 22 Jul 2026, 25 Aug 2026 (tag 'noindex, nofollow') re-read; the CAT-scan sentence is identical in all; library data marks only this post 'disableIndex: true'. Match. Corrected in late September 2026: the headline now says the tag asks search engines not to list the post, and the absence of a correction is stated as 'no correction found'. Reworded 30 Sep 2026: the detail and the plain-language text.

2025

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 Series A, Nov 2025: $130M co-led by Snowpoint, Day One and Dream; total raised then 'more than $150 million'
2025-11-10 · fund-004 · Valar Atomics, Snowpoint Ventures, Day One Ventures, Dream Ventures, Doug Philippone, Palmer Luckey, Shyam Sankar, John Donovan · Series A (reported): $130,000,000; total funding after the Series A ('more than', as reported): $150,000,000

ANS Nuclear Newswire (13 Nov 2025) reported a $130 million Series A 'led by venture capital groups Snowpoint, Day One, and Dream', with Snowpoint co-founder Doug Philippone joining the board and total funding above $150 million. Tech Startups (10 Nov 2025) gives the same three leads, names Palmer Luckey (Anduril's founder) and Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar as backers, says Lockheed Martin director and former AT&T executive John Donovan joined the round, and says the raise pushed Valar's total funding to more than $150 million. Contrary Research (an investor, 11 Nov 2025) credits the lead to Philippone at Snowpoint and lists Luckey, Sankar, Dream, Day One and Contrary itself, with a 'Total Funding' figure of $150M. The sum of the earlier rounds ($1.5M + about $19M + $130M) matches the $150 million total. No valuation for this round appears in any source read; The Next Web later said only that the Series A valued Valar at 'a fraction' of its March 2026 price. No Series A article by Valar itself was found in its online library (read in late September 2026); its Series A items link to a LinkedIn post by Taylor (a TBPN clip), a paywalled Bloomberg story, an Axios Pro Rata item and an LA Times B2B story, none of which was reviewed.

In plain termsIn November 2025 Valar raised $130 million from three venture firms and several well-known defense-technology figures, bringing its total to about $150 million. No valuation for this round was found in the news and investor reports read. Its backers include the founders or top executives of Anduril and Palantir, two major defense contractors, and a Lockheed Martin board member.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-verified in late September 2026: ANS, Tech Startups, Contrary and The Next Web re-read; quotes exact. Fixed a quote-style rendering of Contrary's total and added the Axios item the library also links.
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 2025: the local paper printed Valar's 'gigasites' aim and a plan for a Carbon County factory hub; no site named
2025-10-10 · loc-034 · Valar Atomics, ETV News, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Utah Office of Energy Development, Jaron Wallace

Two ETV News items from 2025, eleven months or more before the Wellington lease vote, show that a Valar project in Carbon County was in the local paper in general terms. On 17 September 2025 ETV printed the state Office of Energy Development's groundbreaking release; its 'About Valar Atomics' paragraph says Valar 'is building America’s first nuclear gigasites', which it defines as clusters of thousands of high-temperature reactors. On 10 October 2025 an ETV article on the San Rafael lab, quoting lab director Jaron Wallace, reported that after about three years, once Valar completes its reactor and proves it can be run safely, 'their current plan is to build a manufacturing hub in Carbon County', which could bring hundreds of jobs to Carbon and Emery; it also said Valar was looking at powering data centers. The article does not say who told ETV about the Carbon plan, names no site, and says nothing about trust land or reactors in Carbon County. In sum, a Carbon County project by Valar was public in general terms from October 2025; no local record read from before the state vote tied Valar to the Wellington location, the trust-land lease or the plan for a reactor, fuel and industrial campus there; ETV's July 2026 trust-land notice for the section named no applicant or use (loc-032), while the state's own board packet and public meeting of 20 August 2026 named Valar and the site (mine-010). The lease was approved about eleven months after the article, sooner than the 'after three years' it described.

In plain termsIn the fall of 2025 the local paper printed that Valar aimed to build clusters of thousands of reactors, and that its plan was a manufacturing hub in Carbon County in about three years. What the paper's news reports did not say, until the day after the state approved it, was where: the square mile of state land north of Wellington (a July legal notice in the paper for that land named no applicant). So the general idea was public early; the specific place, and how soon it would come, were not.
verified 2026-10-02: New in an earlier check: both ETV pages read in full in late September 2026. Tests what was public before the vote: the general Carbon plan was public in 2025; the site was not. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the detail; reworded the plain-language text; corrected the description of ETV News (its source type and title).
analysisconfirmed Ward 250's safety papers lean on Ward Zero tests and reuse its hardware; no Ward Zero test data was found in public records as of late September 2026
2025-10 · orig-059 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy, Ward Zero, Ward 250

Valar's NSDA (October 2025) says Ward 250 directly uses hardware that has undergone full-scale testing, that design work focuses on nuclear-specific modifications to the proven WardZero configuration, and it credits Ward Zero testing for key safety points: natural circulation during a loss of coolant flow, and the capacity of the Reactor Cavity Cooling System. It also asks DOE to accept the final safety analysis at 90% design completion because the WardZero program has completed design, installation and testing of major safety-significant systems. Valar's QA Program Description, which Valar's October 13, 2025 post says DOE approved, has a section on using existing WardZero hardware: Ward Zero components may go into Ward 250 if they stay traceable and are evaluated, and Ward Zero operating data may count as design verification by comparison to 'similar proven systems'. Ward Zero was completed in February 2025, before that QA program was approved. Valar's June 2026 draft says the reactor underwent non-nuclear testing at its Hawthorne headquarters above 750 C and 6 MPa before shipment. No Ward Zero test report, data set or DOE review of it was found in public records as of late September 2026, and the page titled 'Ward Zero Whitepaper' holds no Ward Zero data (orig-058). Whether DOE examined the Ward Zero data would be shown by the PDSA and DSA, of which no public copy was found (safe-007).

In plain termsWard 250 was not built from scratch in Utah. By Valar's own safety papers it reuses parts of Ward Zero, the electric-heated prototype tested in California, and Ward Zero's tests are offered as proof that key safety features work, such as the reactor cooling itself by natural air flow. Some of that hardware was built before the quality program was approved by DOE, as Valar says it was; the program allows that if the parts are traced and checked. No Ward Zero test results were found in public records, so the public cannot check the evidence this part of the safety case rests on.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: NSDA (full-scale tested hardware; proven WardZero configuration; natural circulation and RCCS credited to WardZero; DSA at 90% design because WardZero tested major safety systems), QA plan (WardZero hardware section; 'similar proven systems'), QA post and draft page re-read. Match; approval wording attributed to Valar's post. Revised before publication (late September 2026): whitepaper line now 'holds no Ward Zero data'; source title parenthetical now 'not listed in Valar's library'. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the plain-language text.
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 The accident analysis assumed 3 megawatt-days of fuel use; the same document's limit allows 30, ten times more
2025-10 · safe-009 · Valar Atomics, U.S. Department of Energy

In the NSDA's Maximum Hypothetical Accident analysis (pages 34-36), the radioactive inventory is based on 'OpenMC neutronic analysis with 3 MWd total burnup' and 'Conservative 30 EFPD operation assumed for inventory buildup' (30 effective full-power days at 100 kW is 3 megawatt-days). Earlier (page 10) the NSDA says the analysis assumes operation at maximum licensed power long enough to reach equilibrium inventories. Its operating limits (page 25) set 'Fuel burnup limit: 30 megawatt-days', and its objectives call for 12 months of operation with availability above 80% and steady operation up to 250 kWth (page 8). The limit is ten times the burnup the accident inventory was built on. Valar's July 2025 county presentation (orig-045) and its June 2026 draft post both describe 30 effective full-power days, which matches the accident analysis rather than the 30 MWd limit. The lifecycle also differs: the NSDA gives about 18 months 'from authorization through decommissioning', DOE's categorical exclusion a 24-month program (12 months of operation, 6 of cooldown, 6 of decommissioning). No public copy of the approved DSA, which would fix the inventory and limits, was found as of late September 2026 (safe-007). Our check using standard half-lives: going from 3 to 30 MWd at the same power would raise iodine-131 by about 8% and the iodine and noble-gas dose by about 4%; cesium-137 and strontium-90 would grow about tenfold but stay about 4% of the iodine-131 activity. The NSDA's 18 months is also shorter than its own schedule: Table 7's dates plus 12 months of operation already exceed 18 months before any decommissioning, unless counted from startup.

In plain termsThe longer and harder a reactor runs, the more radioactive by-products build up in its fuel, and an accident analysis has to assume the worst amount. Valar's worst-case analysis assumed about 30 days at full power. The same document's own limit would allow roughly ten times as much fuel use, and its goals speak of a year of operation. The company's later statements point to 30 days, which would fit the analysis. No public record found as of late September 2026 shows which limit DOE approved.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read NSDA pp. 8-10, 25 and 34-37 and CX in late September 2026. Holds: '3 MWd total burnup' and '30 EFPD' (p. 34) against a 30 MWd limit (p. 25); I-131 named 'primary dose contributor'. Arithmetic checked (30 days x 0.1 MW = 3 MWd). Corrected in late September 2026: last sentence replaced with our half-life check (I-131 +8%, iodine and noble-gas dose +4%); added the 18-month schedule point.
company claimconfirmed Ward 250 groundbreaking: Valar's page says 17 Sep 2025; state records put the ceremony on 11 Sep 2025
2025-09-11 · orig-007 · Valar Atomics, Ward 250, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab

Valar's Ward 250 page lists 'Ward 250 Groundbreaking' on 09.17.2025, and its Castle Country page lists a local news item from September 2025 about breaking ground at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab. DOE's June 18, 2026 release quotes Taylor saying the site was empty nine months before criticality, consistent with a September 2025 start. State records settle the ceremony date: the Office of Energy Development's slide update to the Legislature's interim committee (15 October 2025) says Valar 'held groundbreaking' on September 11, 2025, Emery County's 2 September 2025 minutes say ground would be broken 'on September 11', and the county economic board's minutes schedule it for that Thursday (gov-021). 17 September 2025 is the day the joint state-Valar release was published, which is the date Valar's page shows.

In plain termsConstruction at the Emery County lab began in September 2025, about nine months before the reactor first went critical in June 2026. State records put the groundbreaking ceremony on 11 September 2025; Valar's page shows 17 September, the day the announcement was published.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: Ward 250 page date and DOE's quote of Taylor ('Nine months ago...') re-read; consistent. Further check, late September 2026: the event date had been taken from the company's page (17 Sept); state and county records read in late September 2026 (among them gov-021) put the ceremony on 11 Sept 2025, so the date field and headline now carry the recorded event date, with Valar's date kept as its claim.
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.
company claimconfirmed July 2025 Emery County town hall: Valar pitched a 12-month test, ~40 jobs, 'commercial development by 2028'
2025-07-08 · orig-045 · Valar Atomics, Emery County Commission, Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, Jaron Wallace, Jeremy Pearson

ETV News (Julie Johansen, July 9, 2025) reported the Emery County Commission's July 8, 2025 town hall in Castle Dale, requested by Valar after an MOU was signed and before its contract with the state lab was final. As reported, Valar said the company was about two years old, had a non-fueled test reactor near Los Angeles, aimed for July 4, 2026 (the nation's 250th birthday, hence 'Ward 250') with commercial development by 2028, expected about 40 employees for roughly 12 months of testing with local contractors for construction, and chose Utah because Carbon and Emery counties are the state's energy hub. A Valar slide deck posted on the state-run Utah Public Notice Website (file created July 8, 2025, server date 9 July 2025; 11 of its 12 pages are marked 'CONFIDENTIAL. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.', yet the file is publicly posted; the public body and notice it is attached to were not identified) says the same: under 250 kW, 30 effective full-power days over 12 months in a temporary facility, commercial deployment by 2028.

In plain termsAt a July 2025 town hall Valar told Emery County residents about a small 12-month test with about 40 jobs, and a goal of commercial reactors by 2028. By 2026 the company was planning far larger sites (mine-019).
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: ETV report and the slide PDF (created Jul 8, 2025; 'CONFIDENTIAL'; <250 kW, 30 EFPD, 12 months, temporary facility; commercial deployment by 2028) re-read. Match. Corrected 1 Oct 2026: wording made more exact against the cited records.
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.
company claimreported Design lineage: 'Ward One' was a 100 kWt TRISO HTGR planned for under a month of operation
2025-04-07 · orig-017 · Valar Atomics, Isaiah Taylor, Ward One

The April 2025 lawsuit post describes Ward One as a 100 kWt high-temperature gas reactor using TRISO fuel, named, the founder writes, after a Manhattan Project-era relative of his, with a planned operating life of less than a month. It says the design relies on strong negative thermal reactivity feedback and low power density for fully passive decay-heat removal, and claims that holding its spent fuel for five minutes would give the same radiation exposure as a CAT (CT) scan. The later Ward 250 carries the same 100 kWt figure, which suggests Ward 250 grew out of the Ward One concept, though no source read says so directly. Ward One itself was still unbuilt in the Philippines as of April 2026. For scale: a CT scan is about 1 to 10 millisieverts (FDA), so five minutes would need 12 to 120 millisieverts an hour; the post gives no amount of fuel, cooling time, distance or shielding.

In plain termsWard One was Valar's first planned uranium reactor: very small (100 kilowatts of heat) and meant to run for less than a month. It was to be built in the Philippines; as of April 2026 it had not been built there.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: post re-read; 100 kWt, TRISO, under-a-month life, passive decay-heat wording and the spent-fuel claim match (the post says 'CAT scan'). Quote exact; relative still unnamed. Revised before publication (late September 2026): added the CT-scan dose-rate scale (12-120 mSv/h over five minutes). Revised before publication (2026-09-30): reworded the detail in neutral terms.
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.
recordreported Feb 2025: Valar leaves stealth with an $18M-19M seed led by Riot Ventures and a Philippine pilot-site contract
2025-02-20 · orig-020 · Valar Atomics, Riot Ventures, AlleyCorp, Initialized Capital, Day One Ventures, Steel Atlas, Philippine Nuclear Research Institute · seed round (reported): $19,000,000

TechCrunch (Mike Butcher, February 20, 2025) reported Valar had raised a $19 million seed round led by Riot Ventures, with AlleyCorp, Initialized Capital, Day One Ventures and Steel Atlas, to develop its first test reactor. It reported an initial contract with the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute to build a reactor in that country, and quoted the company saying its thermal test unit took about 10 months to design and build. The article described the technology as helium-cooled and reaching up to 900 C. It did not say where the company is based. Initialized Capital, an investor, gave the round as $18 million.

In plain termsValar came out in public in February 2025 with $18-19 million from investors (published figures differ) and a deal to build a reactor in the Philippines.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: TechCrunch re-read: $19M seed, investors, PNRI contract, ~10-month thermal unit, helium to 900 C, no base city named. All match.

2024

recordconfirmed Valar's 'Ward Zero Whitepaper' page holds no Ward Zero data: its text is a 2019 essay by another author, word for word
2024-12-01 · orig-058 · Valar Atomics, Cairo Review of Global Affairs, Ward Zero

Valar's website has a page titled 'Ward Zero Whitepaper', subtitled as a detailed account of how its first prototype reactor works, dated December 1, 2024 and credited to Isaiah Taylor, Kip Mock and Mark Mitchell. It is not listed in the library but loads at its public URL (read in late September 2026), and its entry is carried in the data that the Ward 250 page loads. Its body says nothing about Ward Zero. Every one of its body sentences matches, word for word, 'A Nuclear Curse and a Nuclear Blessing', an essay on Russian and Chinese reactor exports to the Middle East by Selim Sazak in the Fall 2019 issue of the Cairo Review of Global Affairs; the page names no source and still says the UAE's Barakah plant is expected to be fully operational by 2020. Archived copies show the same text on the page in April 2025, beside three other unlisted posts whose bodies read only 'Lorem ipsum', and again in October 2025, by when the placeholder posts were gone. That fits leftover placeholder text rather than a finished paper (Valar has not said); the record does not show why it was used or why it remains. Either way, the one document Valar titled as a technical account of Ward Zero contains none (orig-059).

In plain termsValar's safety documents lean on tests of its non-nuclear prototype, Ward Zero. The only page on its website titled as a Ward Zero 'whitepaper' contains no Ward Zero information; its text matches, word for word, a 2019 magazine essay by another author about Middle East politics. The page is not listed in the site's menus and may be leftover placeholder text (Valar has not said), but it means no technical paper on Ward Zero was found in public records (as of late September 2026).
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: live page, Cairo Review essay (Selim Sazak, Fall 2019) and April and October 2025 archives re-read; all body sentences found verbatim in the essay. Cross-reference fixed and the October 2025 capture, which the detail relied on, added. Revised before publication (late September 2026): wording on the unlisted page and the 2019 essay restated; placeholder reading attributed as unconfirmed; source title parenthetical now 'not listed in Valar's library'.
recordconfirmed Utah law: a claim post must carry a notice naming the claim and locators, recorded with the county in 30 days
2024-05-01 · mine-026 · Utah State Legislature, Carbon County Recorder

Utah Code 40-1-2 requires the locator to erect a monument at the place of discovery and post on it a notice of location giving the claim's name, the names of the locators, the date of location, and its size and description tied to a natural object or permanent monument. Utah Code 40-1-3 requires the claim's boundaries to be distinctly marked on the ground so they can be readily traced. Utah Code 40-1-4 requires a substantial copy of the notice to be recorded with the county recorder of the county where the claim lies within 30 days of posting.

In plain termsIn Utah, a mining claim's discovery monument must carry a notice on the post: the claim's name, who staked it and when. A copy must be on file at the Carbon County Recorder within 30 days. A Notice of Location names Valar Atomics Inc and its lode claim RW 453 (mine-453).
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026 on le.utah.gov: 40-1-2 (effective 1 May 2024), 40-1-3 and 40-1-4 match; all three quotes exact. Updated in late September 2026 for the RW 453 notice (mine-453).
analysisconfirmed Valar says it met Carbon County and state offices in 2024, initially about making fuels from coal-plant exhaust; a public agenda first named Valar for the Wellington site in Aug 2026
2024 · ppl-027 · Max Ukropina, Jared Haddock, Carbon County Commission, Utah Office of Energy Development, Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity, Southeastern Regional Development Agency, Utah Trust Lands Administration, Valar Atomics

Testing whether the public knew, against what the people involved have said on the record. Officials and Valar: Valar's Max Ukropina told the Trust Lands board that in 2024 he met the Office of Energy Development, the Governor's economic office, SERDA and Carbon County (mine-018); Commissioner Jared Haddock said the county worked with Valar 'since the beginning, when they were looking at other states' (ppl-020); the county's 29 June 2026 letter says the county had worked with Valar for over a year (mine-013); Carbon's October 2024 minutes note that Commissioner Martines phoned in while traveling home from a trip to Idaho National Laboratory connected with the San Rafael lab; no mention of Valar was found in those minutes (csite-026). The New Republic reports that before the May 2025 executive orders Valar staff were exploring land in southern Utah for a first 'gigasite', and the lab director says a contract followed about two weeks after Valar said it wanted to build at the lab; in July 2025 the state called its agreement a non-binding MOU. Public: the state's lease map is dated 9 April 2026 (mine-048); the 20 April 2026 state notice called it an unnamed industrial and power project (csite-032); the first public agenda naming Valar for the site is 10 August 2026 (csite-018); the first ETV News report of the lease that was found came on 18 September, the day after approval. Finding: by the officials' and Valar's own accounts, county, state-agency and regional officials were in contact with Valar about Carbon County from 2024, roughly two years before a public agenda named Valar for the site. The 2024 contacts, as Ukropina described them, concerned making fuels from coal-plant flue gas; when the Wellington parcel itself entered the talks is not settled by the records read (Ukropina's line in the auto-transcript, 'the first property I looked at was actually property', is garbled, mine-018; the state's lease map is dated 9 April 2026; the county's 29 June 2026 letter says it had worked with Valar for over a year). This is a gap in time before public notice, not proof of any intent, and the board's notices met the meeting law's timing (csite-016); no record of what was said in those 2024-2026 contacts was found in public records.

In plain termsBy Valar's account, Carbon County, two state offices and the regional development agency SERDA had been talking with Valar since 2024, at first about making fuels from coal-plant exhaust; a county commissioner said the county had worked with Valar 'since the beginning'. The Wellington parcel shows up in state records from April 2026 (a lease map), but the first public record found attaching Valar's name to it was an August 2026 meeting notice, about five weeks before the vote. The emails and meeting notes from those two years would show what was discussed, and they can be requested.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read the 20 Aug auto-transcript (Ukropina; Haddock), TNR (delivered part) and UIJP; quotes exact. Fixed: the finding said officials 'knew of Valar's interest in Carbon County' for two years; the record shows contact from 2024, first about coal flue-gas fuels, while the Wellington parcel appears in public-agency records only from April 2026 (map) and by name in August 2026. Plain's 'The people in charge knew' removed. Cross-refs mine-013, mine-018, mine-048, csite-018, csite-026, csite-032 checked. Quote marks removed from wording taken from the county letter and minutes (mine-013, csite-026), which were not re-opened in this check; the substance rests on those facts. Corrected in late September 2026: the closing sentence on intent shortened to 'not proof of any intent'. Corrected 2026-09-30: the October 2024 county minutes record only that Commissioner Martines phoned in while traveling home from Idaho National Laboratory.

2023

recordconfirmed Carbon County backed nuclear power in a public 2023 vote; no county agenda or minutes found name Valar's Wellington site
2023-12-20 · csite-026 · Carbon County Commission, Larry Jensen, Tony Martines, PacifiCorp

On 20 December 2023 the Carbon County Commission, on a posted agenda item, adopted Resolution 2023-06 'Supporting the energy industry, more specifically nuclear power'. Per the minutes, Commissioner Jensen said it was meant to tell PacifiCorp/Rocky Mountain Power the community favored nuclear plants and that 'we need to begin to educate the public about nuclear power'; it mirrored an Emery County resolution. The commission's minutes for January 2024 to April 2026 (50 sets; the examples below were read again for this check) mention nuclear only in brief remarks: a 3 January 2024 recap of that resolution; Commissioner Martines phoning in on 16 October 2024 while returning from Idaho National Laboratory 'in conjunction with' the San Rafael Energy Research Center; and, on 18 February 2026, Commissioners Martines' and Jensen's report on the Ward 250 reactor's delivery to the Orangeville test site, which Martines called the first of three prototypes. The one Trust Lands item, on 5 November 2025, renewed a county road easement on trust land along Ridge Road and Miller Creek, not the Wellington parcel. The commission's posted agendas from 6 December 2023 to 16 September 2026 (73 notices) name Valar once: a 'Valor Atomics presentation' on 19 August 2026. Its minutes record an update on the Emery lab, plans for a town hall in Price and a reactor open house within 30 to 45 days, and commissioners highlighting 'the tax benefits the plant will bring'; they do not name the Wellington site or the lease the state board heard the next day (mine-013). The 2026 minutes also record commissioners celebrating Valar's criticality (1 July) and Valar announcing a Carbon County town hall for late September or early October (2 September); none names the parcel or the letter. No commission agenda or minutes read for December 2023 to September 2026 name the Wellington parcel or the 29 June 2026 support letter, and none read shows a Valar zoning change, development agreement, road-use agreement, tax abatement or other county approval for the site.

In plain termsCarbon County's leaders told the public openly, in 2023, that they wanted nuclear power in the area, and voted on it in a public meeting. Valar gave a presentation at a county meeting in August 2026. In almost three years of county meeting records, none found shows the specific plan: the square mile north of Wellington, or the letter the commissioners signed backing it. The county may not have been legally required to vote on the letter (csite-016), but residents reading the commission's posted agendas and minutes would not have found the site there.
verified 2026-10-02: Holds, with the headline narrowed (the 19 Aug 2026 agenda does name Valar, though not the site). Re-checked in late September 2026: December 20, 2023, October 16, 2024 and November 5, 2025 minutes (quotes exact); all 47 commission notices on body 1148 from 4 Dec 2024 to 16 Sept 2026 searched by their agenda text (only 19 Aug 2026 names Valar/Valor). The full 50-set minutes check for January 2024 to April 2026 was not repeated in this check. Date set to the 2023 vote. Second check, late September 2026: all 73 commission notices on body 1148 from 6 Dec 2023 to 16 Sept 2026 searched by their agenda text (only 19 Aug 2026 names Valar/Valor); minutes re-read for 3 Jan 2024 and all 16 sets from 7 Jan to 2 Sept 2026 (Valar or nuclear appears on 18 Feb, 1 July, 19 Aug and 2 Sept; none names the parcel, Section 16 or the support letter). The 2024-2025 minutes rest on the first reading of all 50 sets, apart from the four sets re-read. Quotes are exact to the text read from the scans. Revised before publication (late September 2026): absence stated as 'no record found'. Revised before publication (2026-09-30): the minutes name Martines (Oct 2024 call-in) and Martines and Jensen (Feb 2026 report).
recordreported Deseret News: Taylor founded Valar on July 4, 2023; company is El Segundo-based with a Utah operations director
2023-07-04 · orig-029 · Valar Atomics, Isaiah Taylor, Jess Housekeeper, Deseret News

A Deseret News profile (Eva Terry, March 17, 2026) says Taylor founded Valar Atomics on the Fourth of July in 2023 and calls it an El Segundo-based startup; it names Jess Housekeeper as Valar's director of Utah operations and says the reactor's stackable concrete shielding blocks are made in Salt Lake City. This agrees with Contrary Research's July 2023 date and ANS's El Segundo headquarters; other records, including an unfinished June 2026 page on Valar's site and Valar's March 2026 trademark filing, give a Hawthorne, California address. The legal entity is confirmed elsewhere (a Delaware corporation), but no state record showing the formation date was found in the records read.

In plain termsA Utah newspaper reports that Valar was founded on July 4, 2023. The article does not say where the date comes from, and no state record showing the formation date was found in the records read.
verified 2026-10-02: Second check, late September 2026: Deseret profile re-read: July 4, 2023, El Segundo, Jess Housekeeper as director of Utah operations, shielding blocks made in Salt Lake City. All match. Plain no longer asserts the date's origin.

1976

recordconfirmed Federal law: a new claim must be filed with BLM within 90 days of staking, or it is treated as abandoned
1976-10-21 · mine-025 · U.S. Congress, Bureau of Land Management

43 U.S.C. 1744 (FLPMA sec. 314) requires the claimant, for any claim located after 21 October 1976, to file a copy of the recorded location notice with BLM within ninety days of location, and to file each year, before 31 December, in both the county office where the location notice is recorded and BLM's designated office. Failing to file is deemed conclusively to be abandonment of the claim.

In plain termsOnce a claim is staked, the claimant has 90 days to register it with BLM, or the claim is treated as abandoned. So claims staked recently may not show on BLM's map yet, and BLM can take longer still to map a claim after it is filed.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: (a)-(c) and the 21 Oct 1976 source credit match; quote exact. Plain field no longer says a claim must 'appear' on the map within 90 days (filing and mapping differ).

1955

recordconfirmed Surface Resources Act: an unpatented mining claim may be used only for prospecting, mining, processing and uses reasonably incident to them
1955-07-23 · mine-022 · U.S. Congress

30 U.S.C. 612(a) (Surface Resources Act of 23 July 1955) says a mining claim located after that date may not be used, before a patent is issued, for any purpose other than prospecting, mining or processing and uses reasonably incident to them. Subsection (b) keeps the United States' right to manage the surface and let others use it, so long as that does not materially interfere with mining.

In plain termsA mining claim is a right to dig for minerals, not a right to use the land for anything else. Building a reactor, a data center or a factory on an unpatented claim would be outside what the law allows.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026: 30 U.S.C. 612(a)-(b) and the 23 July 1955 source credit match; quote exact.

1872

recordconfirmed The 1872 Mining Law opens federal land, not state land, to mineral claims
1872-05-10 · mine-021 · U.S. Congress

30 U.S.C. 22, from the Mining Law of 10 May 1872, declares valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States free and open to exploration and purchase by citizens, under federal law and local mining customs, 'except as otherwise provided'. The statute reaches only land of the United States; the Wellington parcel (Sec. 16) is state trust land (mine-010), so a federal mining claim cannot be staked on it.

In plain termsA U.S. citizen can stake a mining claim on open federal land and look for minerals there without buying it first. But the law covers only federal land. The Carbon County parcel the state approved leasing to Valar is state school land, so a federal mining claim cannot be staked on it.
verified 2026-10-02: Re-read in late September 2026 on uscode.house.gov: text and 10 May 1872 source credit match; quote exact. Plain field corrected from 'anyone' to citizens, as the statute says. Revised before publication (late September 2026): lease wording now 'approved leasing'.