Committee hears proposal to permit conversion and enrichment facilities; environmental groups urge caution

Chair Gary Perry introduced House Bill 696, which would authorize uranium conversion and enrichment facilities either for uranium mined and milled in Montana or for material transported into the state for processing. Perry described the bill as forward‑looking and part of a broader effort to secure critical minerals and nuclear fuel supply chains.

Opponents raised environmental, economic and community concerns. Nick Fitzmaurice, energy transition engineer with the Montana Environmental Information Center, argued that the bill as written would invite Montana to be a processing route for uranium produced elsewhere and could expose roads and communities to transport risks. Fitzmaurice also questioned the economic case for new domestic enrichment facilities, noting historical cost overruns for large nuclear projects and uncertainty around small modular reactors’ economics.

Stephanie Viel of the American Indian Movement of Montana testified in opposition, raising concerns about impacts to tribal lands and communities and general health and cultural effects from past extractive projects. Hal Schmidt and other opponents urged more public discussion and stronger community engagement before authorizing large‑scale uranium processing in the state.

Supporters included construction unions and other witnesses who pointed to job opportunities and strategic benefits. Representative Perry and proponents emphasized this is an exploratory, early‑stage authorization to allow Montana to be considered for future facilities and to start conversations about potential sites and safeguards.

DEQ public policy director Rebecca Harbage participated as an informational witness and reiterated that DEQ could provide a state recommendation and would oversee permitting and siting under the state’s major facility process, enlisting outside expertise when paid for by applicants.

Committee questions focused on transport distances, whether facilities would be on private or public land, financial assurances and whether applicant fees would cover state oversight. Chair Perry said no specific sites had been selected; the sponsor cited Saskatchewan as a potential source of uranium feedstock and said the intent was to make Montana an option for enrichment and conversion activities.

The committee adopted a technical amendment tying the bill to the Major Facility Siting Act and recorded committee action in the session. Committee members asked for additional technical information and engagement with potentially affected communities.