By John McFerrin, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
West Virginia has made a brief, if mostly behind-the-scenes, foray into nuclear energy. The effort produced a lot of talk, charges and countercharges, and acrimony, but not much else.
The step West Virginia took was to seek to participate in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus program. The department describes the program this way: “Proposed campuses could support activities across the full nuclear fuel lifecycle, including fuel fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing used nuclear fuel, and disposition of waste. Depending on state priorities and regional capabilities, the sites could also host advanced reactor deployment, power generation, advanced manufacturing, and co located data centers.”
In the name of jobs and economic development, West Virginia was one of six states that sought to have one of these campuses located within its borders. As soon as that became public, feathers flew.
The Charleston Gazette-Mail reported that West Virginia had sought one of these Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, including the possibility that such a campus would involve nuclear waste storage. This made the governor’s office indignant, insisting that West Virginia would never be a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
The Gazette-Mail followed up with documentation. It quoted West Virginia’s application, which included the possibility of storing nuclear waste: “West Virginia proposes to serve as the nation’s central hub for nuclear fuel recycling, interim storage, and long-term materials stewardship.”
The application even identified potential sites for a campus, although it did not specifically say where the nuclear waste would be stored. It said only, “West Virginia is currently considering a range of sites.” It went on to identify eight sites under consideration.
Soon afterward, West Virginia abandoned its efforts to secure a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus.
To be selected by the U.S. Department of Energy for one of these campuses, West Virginia had to make certain commitments. Selection was not guaranteed. West Virginia had to persuade the department that it was a suitable candidate. To do this, it combined partial truths and wishful thinking. A review of those commitments reveals something about the state’s approach to the process.
As part of its application, West Virginia stated, “The State’s existing energy infrastructure and technical workforce have historically served as a critical pillar for all methods of domestic energy production, including nuclear energy.” The part about existing energy infrastructure may be true; the claim that West Virginia’s experience includes nuclear energy reduces the statement to about a one-sixteenth truth.
The application also contains some wishful thinking: “West Virginia is approaching nuclear energy with enthusiasm, recognizing its potential to become a national leader in the sector. The state is strategically positioning itself to develop the infrastructure needed to support a full, end-to-end Innovation Campus in the future.”
That enthusiasm seemed to dissipate as soon as the plan became public. The application also describes “bi-partisan support for advanced nuclear energy facilities.” It does not cite any source for this conclusion.
West Virginia’s pitch was built around two things. First, there is regulatory flexibility. The application promises “a regulatory environment primed for flexible nuclear development.” Second, it offers what it calls “financial incentives.”
“Through mechanisms like loan guarantees, direct loans, tax credits, and public-private partnerships, the government shares risks with investors, mobilizing large-scale private capital for infrastructure development.”
A loose translation: West Virginia will pay the nuclear industry to come here and will not scrutinize it too closely once it arrives.
The application also points to Senate Bill 2014, the law that facilitated data centers and limited opportunities for public participation and local control. West Virginia’s argument is that if it made such changes to accommodate data centers, it could do the same for a nuclear campus.
The application recognizes that local opposition could arise and would need to be addressed. It talks extensively about the need for community participation, communication with local stakeholders and other forms of engagement.
The framing of this discussion is enlightening. As part of its discussion of community involvement, West Virginia observes that West Virginians are accustomed to large-scale energy development. Having become accustomed to large-scale energy developments, West Virginians would presumably be agreeable to another large-scale energy development, this time nuclear.
Another loose translation: These people put up with mountaintop removal; they will put up with anything.
The application does consider, and reject, the idea of storing nuclear waste in old underground coal mines. It mentions favorably the possibility of using old strip mines but rejects the idea of storing waste in abandoned underground mines. Although West Virginia has plenty of these, the application says they are unsuitable for waste storage because they are too unstable, may contain methane and can hold water, among other concerns.
The idea of storing nuclear waste in abandoned coal mines resurfaces every few years, so it is worth noting that West Virginia’s own application rejected that possibility.