VALAR WATCH
Key findingsTheir claims, annotatedEvidenceTake action
374 facts · 512 sources · updated 2026-09-30

Fact ppl-021

newofficial statementreported Emery County, April 2026: 'the fence line is all the buffer zone needed'; Valar's own analysis uses 400 m
2026-04 · ppl-021 · Dennis Worwood, Jordan Leonard, Keven Jensen, Jaron Wallace, Emery County Commission, Valar Atomics

Emery County's commissioners in 2026 are Dennis Worwood (chair), Jordan Leonard and Keven Jensen (ETV News). On 17 February 2026 they commended Valar 'for their transparency' when the reactor arrived and approved a support letter (orig-046); Jensen said 'your visions and values line-up with ours'. At an April 2026 public hearing on selling county land next to the lab to Valar (ETV, 9 Apr 2026), state lab director Jaron Wallace, answering a concern about truck traffic, spoke of the economic benefits and noted the land was zoned as an industrial park for such expansion; when residents asked about a buffer zone, the reply, as ETV put it, was that 'with these small reactors the fence line is all the buffer zone needed' (ETV does not say who replied), and Worwood and Leonard, who had toured the nuclear project at Kemmerer, Wyoming, 'concurred with Valar'. Jensen noted permits would still come from the county; a letter of commitment to sell was approved subject to two appraisals, and a 10-acre staging-area agreement with a liability waiver. Set beside the record: Valar's own safety agreement puts the accident-analysis boundary 400 m from the reactor, farther than the 20.6-acre lab's fence reaches (safe-014), and estimates up to 5 rem for a worker 100 m away in its worst-case accident (safe-013). The buffer-zone answer, as reported, is not what Valar's own analysis assumes.

In plain termsWhen the need for a buffer zone around the reactor was raised at Emery County's hearing, the answer given was that the fence is enough, and two commissioners agreed. Valar's own safety analysis measures public exposure at 400 meters out, beyond the lab's fence. The answer given at the hearing, as reported, differs from what the company's own paperwork assumes.
verified 2026-09-29: Re-read ETV (9 Apr 2026 hearing; 19 Feb 2026 meeting of 17 Feb). Holds. Fixed: Wallace's remarks described as ETV gives them (economic benefits, industrial zoning) rather than 'spoke for the sale'; the 5 rem figure is for a co-located worker at 100 m (safe-013), which the first draft left unstated; plain no longer says residents asked about 'homes or businesses'. The support-letter item rests on orig-046 (county agenda), not on ETV. Correction 2026-09-29 (wording review): comparison restated as a difference; 'Against the record' now 'Set beside the record'.

In tabs: people, government, local, safety · file people