Woodbury County is considering changing zoning rules to allow nuclear energy. Supervisors passed the second of three readings after holding another public hearing Tuesday.
Before the public weighed in on the issue, Zoning Coordinator Daniel Priestley reminded all in attendance that the modification was only procedural.
“Just to be abundantly clear about this process, we don't have any specific projects. This is a permitting procedure that the county would have a framework in place should we ever get any potential future applications,” Priestley said.
County officials said the current ordinance doesn’t mention nuclear energy and needs to be clarified.
“Shelby County is dealing with lawsuits because they changed their ordinance mid-pipeline," said Woodbury County Chairman Dan Bittinger, referring to a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline opposed by some county boards. "And so, we're trying to be proactive in this, to say that the county has a right to deny or approve a permit. So, once again, everyone's clear — we're not looking to build anything tomorrow."
Public opposition to nuclear power
During the hearing process, supervisors heard from about a half dozen citizens who voiced their opposition.
Maria Rehnquist of Sioux City listed reasons she opposes nuclear energy, including highly volatile waste, the environmental impact and national security.
“Nuclear waste remains for hundreds and hundreds and thousands of years,” Rehnquist said. “Also, nuclear power plants are a potential target for terrorist operations. And human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and costly accidents — you all remember 1986 and Chernobyl.”
The nuclear accident in Chernobyl — considered one of the worst on record — released large amounts of radiation into the atmosphere.
Rita Iversen of Sioux City said that while nuclear power plants rarely have accidents, if they do, there are severe consequences.
“There would be death at the plant and terminal cancers in the following years,” Iverson said. “People living in 15 counties in the tri-state area would be affected and would need to be evacuated. Farmers would lose their crops. Their ground and crops would be infected with radioactive particles."
Iversen also worried about property values if a nuclear facility came to the area.
“Who wants to live close to a nuclear power plant?” she added.
The ordinance would require any nuclear facility to be constructed in industrial areas of Woodbury County and would also require notification for people living within a 10-mile radius.
Officials worried that without a concrete plan, they might have no say in how a project is developed.
“If the applicant shows up, and you have what we currently have, it truly is the Wild West. They can come in and the federal government will control the whole thing, and Woodbury County will have zero say,” said Doyle Turner, a member of the Woodbury County Board of Adjustment. “I understand that people have some concerns, but this is a way to give the public the ability to address those concerns if and when an applicant shows up. This is how we protect our local government. This is how we protect our rights.”
Tom Stock of Sioux City raised fears about severe weather and nuclear reactors. He once lived in the Cedar Rapids area, where the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant in Palo was significantly damaged by a derecho in August of 2020 and shut down. It was Iowa’s only nuclear facility and had already been scheduled for decommissioning a couple of months later. The plant's owner is looking to start operating again in 2028.
“Any consideration of a nuclear facility of any size really needs to look at not only the physical ground environment, the waterways, things like that, but also what our meteorological conditions are,” Stock said. “We have tornadoes, we have derechos, we have all kinds of 'fun' stuff here that could be possible ways that things would be compromised.”
A different viewpoint came from Kenneth Kroll of Sioux City. He supported the idea of nuclear power due to high industry standards. He claimed his father, a machinist, safely worked on nuclear reactors for years.
“When people talk about safety, obviously it needs to be held to the highest standard, and it is, and there’s no evidence that it won’t be,” Kroll said. “It’s not something that we should close off the possibility to, because this is the thing that industry is asking for. I work in tech. Tech companies are asking for nuclear power, for base load power, and that's what it takes to have more than just a packing plant in Sioux City.”
During a previous meeting a week earlier, supervisors discussed the increased need for energy due to MidAmerican Energy's plans to shutter two coal plants in the Sioux City metro area. A spokesperson said the company expected to retire its remaining coal-fired unit by 2049 and has no plans in the works to put a nuclear reactor in Woodbury County.
Jo Anne Sadler of Correctionville argued against the need for a nuclear power plant, citing the availability of energy from other states and the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy sources.
“We don’t just get our energy from our own county. We're not a little kingdom that we have to produce our own energy,” Sadler said. “I don’t think any landowner wants a nuclear power plant as their neighbor, it would most likely take agricultural land out of production.”
County leaders want more energy
Bittinger, the chair of the Board of Supervisors, previously disclosed that a major company decided to pass on coming to the county because there wasn’t enough electricity.
Vice Chair Mark Nelson has previously stated the county needs more power to support growth, and that could include a small water nuclear reactor.
“I think nuclear could maybe be that peace offering that kind of rides down the middle that the renewable people say, ‘Hey, if we can do this, you won't have renewables.’ And the coal people will say, ‘Hey, if we do this, we can get rid of the coal plant,’” Nelson said. “I'm hopeful that's kind of that olive branch to both sides.”
Nelson emphasized that any nuclear project would take at least 10 years to develop and would require approval by the federal government.
Another public hearing is scheduled for Aug. 5, and the Board of Supervisors could take the final vote in favor of the measure.
