Gov. Bill Lee says it is too early to identify where Tennessee might store spent nuclear fuel if the state is selected to host a major federal nuclear energy campus, even as a Democratic lawmaker presses his administration to disclose communities being considered for waste facilities.

Tennessee is one of five states selected by the U.S. Department of Energy for possible Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses. Louisiana, Oklahoma, Utah and Idaho are also participating in nonbinding agreements with the federal government.

The proposed campuses could support nearly every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment, fuel production, reactor construction, electricity generation, recycling of spent fuel and long-term waste storage. The Department of Energy says a campus could attract as much as $50 billion in private investment, generate billions of dollars in state and local tax revenue and create thousands of jobs.

Lee has promoted the proposal as an opportunity to establish Tennessee as a national center for nuclear energy and advanced manufacturing.

“This is really a big deal. I’m very excited about it. We should pursue it to the end,” Lee said during an Aug. 3 appearance before the Nashville Rotary Club. “But we have a lot of questions to ask about what the details look like before we make a decision.”

The governor described Tennessee as a “global epicenter” of what he called a new nuclear renaissance, pointing to the state’s history with the Manhattan Project, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

“Tennessee has a long history in nuclear energy,” Lee said. “From the days of the Manhattan Project, we’ve been a state that’s led in that issue.”

Tennessee’s proposal identifies Oak Ridge as the primary location for the innovation campus. The site could include reactor development, uranium enrichment, power generation, fuel recycling, advanced manufacturing and data centers.

The state’s response to the Department of Energy also discusses interim and long-term storage for spent nuclear fuel, although Lee said Tennessee may not ultimately be asked to provide every component of the proposed nuclear system. The official state summary says the proposal includes candidate sites and an ongoing evaluation of interim and long-term storage opportunities.

“We don’t even know that they’re asking us for a site,” Lee said. “As those things develop, we clearly will engage stakeholders, and there’ll be a transparent process around that before any decisions are made.”

Lee said the responsibilities could be divided among the five participating states, with one state potentially hosting reactors or fuel-production facilities while another accepts spent fuel.

“There have been nuclear waste repositories for decades in this country, and they’re not in every state,” Lee said. “So, we’ll see what happens there. It’s just too early to know yet.”

The administration’s reluctance to release possible storage locations has drawn criticism from state Sen. Heidi Campbell, D-Nashville.

Campbell sent Lee a letter July 31 requesting the full, unredacted version of Tennessee’s federal proposal and the names of every community being evaluated for nuclear waste storage.

“Gov. Lee’s administration says it has identified communities to become nuclear waste storage sites,” Campbell said. “Those communities have a right to know the governor has volunteered their town to hold the nation’s nuclear waste.”

A public version of the state’s proposal identifies Oak Ridge as the central campus but withholds some information about other potential locations. Materials reviewed as part of the proposal identified Pickett, Fentress, Morgan and Scott counties as possible areas for evaluating long-term underground storage, although no final location has been selected.

Campbell said residents and local officials should be involved before the state signs any binding agreement with the Department of Energy.

“This is one of the most consequential decisions in our state’s history, and it shouldn’t be made behind closed doors before citizens have a chance to make their voices heard,” she said. “Tennesseans are watching, and they deserve a seat at the table before, not after, these decisions are final.”

Her letter presents 16 questions about the state’s plans, including how potential sites were selected, when nearby residents would be notified, what health and environmental reviews would be required and whether the General Assembly would vote on a final agreement.

Campbell also asked whether the project would lower electricity bills for Tennessee residents.

“Tennessee taxpayers are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in these companies, and our families are still paying more for electricity than ever before,” she said. “The governor needs to explain, in plain terms, if this will deliver lower-cost power to Tennesseans, or whether we’re just subsidizing private companies and their shareholders.”

Lee has worked with the General Assembly to create a state Nuclear Energy Advisory Council and a fund intended to attract nuclear energy companies and research projects. He argues that growing demand from manufacturers, data centers and other large users makes the development of new power sources increasingly urgent.

The Department of Energy launched the campus initiative in January, inviting states to propose voluntary partnerships covering nuclear fuel production, reactor deployment, energy generation and waste management. The agency said the program is intended to strengthen domestic energy security and modernize the country’s nuclear fuel system.

The General Assembly also considered a resolution supporting Tennessee’s response to the federal request. The Senate adopted the resolution in April by a vote of 29-1.

Any campus would still require congressional authorization, federal oversight, environmental reviews and agreements involving state and local governments. The current agreements do not guarantee that a campus will be constructed or commit Tennessee to a particular waste site.

Lee said Tennessee should continue pursuing the project but should proceed only if environmental protections can be maintained.

“You make certain that you protect the environment and protect the natural resources that we have, and at the same time bring the economic benefit as a result of that,” Lee said. “This campus is coming if and only if you can do both.”

With Lee’s term ending in January, much of the negotiation and implementation could fall to Tennessee’s next governor. For now, Lee said the state is seeking the opportunity to participate while retaining the ability to reject the final terms.

“It is an incredible opportunity that we should pursue,” he said, adding that Tennessee is currently seeking “the opportunity to accept or not.”