There’s an old saying: the devil is in the details. So very true.
When it comes to West Virginia’s effort to land a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus, there are a lot of details.
Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by Charleston Gazette-Mail reporter Mike Tony give us our clearest look yet at what West Virginia actually proposed when it responded earlier this year to a Request for Information from the U.S. Department of Energy.
And before going any further, let me be crystal clear about my purpose here: I’m not advocating for this project; I’m not advocating against it. My goal is education and analysis.
There may be enormous value for West Virginia in becoming a center of America’s emerging nuclear industry. We’re talking potentially about investment, high-paying jobs, advanced manufacturing, research, power generation and positioning West Virginia at the center of an industry this country appears determined to rebuild. Nuclear will certainly play a pivotal role in the nation’s energy future.
DOE describes these campuses as an attempt to put pieces of the nuclear fuel cycle together in one place — including fuel fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing used nuclear fuel and waste disposition, potentially alongside advanced reactors, manufacturing and data centers.
But there is another side of this proposal that West Virginians need to understand; they need to understand it before deciding whether this is something they want.
West Virginia’s response to DOE did not simply say, send us some nuclear reactors.
The state offered something considerably broader.
West Virginia proposed becoming what it described as a central hub for nuclear fuel recycling, interim storage and long-term materials stewardship.
One of the state’s first priorities would be something called a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility — or CISF.
So, what exactly is that?
First, let’s dispense with an image that the words nuclear waste might immediately put in someone’s mind.
We’re not talking about somebody digging a giant hole in West Virginia and dumping radioactive material into it.
That’s not what a CISF is.
Spent nuclear fuel currently sits at nuclear plants around the country. After fuel comes out of a reactor, it is initially stored in specially designed pools. It can later be transferred into dry-cask storage. The fuel is sealed inside a metal container, surrounded by substantial steel, concrete or other shielding. The NRC has regulated dry-cask storage for decades.
A consolidated facility essentially takes some of those individual storage locations and consolidates the material at one location away from the reactors while awaiting permanent disposal.
And West Virginia volunteered to explore being that location.
The state’s proposal specifically points to Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and Ohio, noting that those states collectively have 16 operating reactors and spent fuel stored at ten sites.
So, yes, we’re talking (maybe at some point) about spent nuclear fuel being transported into West Virginia from somewhere else.
There shouldn’t be any attempt to dance around that fact, just the opposite.
The memorandum between West Virginia and DOE specifically says a future Host Agreement would have to address the acceptance and management of out-of-state used nuclear fuel, spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste and greater-than Class-C radioactive waste.
But neither should we leap from that fact to the conclusion that this amounts to simply turning West Virginia into a nuclear dumping ground. That’s not what this is.
The proposal envisions storage as one component of a much larger nuclear industrial ecosystem: advanced reactors, nuclear research, recycling or reprocessing of used fuel, manufacturing and, eventually, potentially fuel fabrication and enrichment.
And there’s potentially real economic value in that.
DOE says a fully developed Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus could potentially attract tens of billions of dollars in capital investment and thousands of jobs. Those are DOE’s estimates for the campus concept nationally, not a guarantee of what West Virginia would receive.
But we also need to pay attention to one particularly important word in CISF… “Interim.”
Interim means the facility isn’t intended to be the permanent repository. But interim can be a very long time.
An NRC license for a consolidated interim storage facility can be issued for as long as 40 years, and spent-fuel storage licenses can potentially be renewed.
And West Virginia’s proposal indeed goes beyond interim storage.
It also discusses studying whether West Virginia’s geology could ultimately support deep boreholes or engineered caverns for the final disposition of spent nuclear fuel.
That’s a different question. And it’s one West Virginians ought to understand.
There are also four preliminary locations identified in the state’s response: Hobet in Boone County; Century and Casto in Jackson County; and Old Standard in Jefferson County. The state’s own submission makes clear those locations had not been fully vetted or geologically qualified.
That’s why I don’t think this discussion should descend into two competing end all statements, at least not yet.
“This will turn West Virginia into America’s nuclear dumping ground.”
or…
“This is the economic opportunity of a generation, so get out of the way.”
Neither tells West Virginians enough.
There is a legitimate economic proposition here.
If America is serious about expanding nuclear power – I believe it should be – then somebody has to manufacture the fuel. Somebody has to build the reactors. Somebody has to develop recycling technology. And, yes, somebody has to deal with the spent fuel.
West Virginia has told the federal government that it is interested in participating in all of it.
The question isn’t simply whether nuclear power is good or bad.
The question is: What exactly are we agreeing to?
What comes to West Virginia?
How much private investment?
How many permanent jobs?
What are those jobs going to pay?
What does the host community receive?
What infrastructure gets built?
How much material comes here?
Where does it come from?
How is it transported?
How long does it stay?
And perhaps most importantly: Who gets to decide?
Because there’s another important detail in the state’s response.
At the time it was submitted, West Virginia acknowledged that it had not yet broadly solicited public feedback on nuclear siting, storage and transportation.
Maybe getting feedback first should have been a priority? That’s done and over, no changing it.
But now, a full and broad conversation with the public needs to commence before this moves from an interesting proposal on paper to anything more than that. Governor Morrisey should be leading that conversation with local elected officials and their constituents.
Those making claims that the state will become a dumping ground aren’t helping either.
Nuclear technology is complicated. Nuclear waste is complicated. And shouting “nuclear dump” doesn’t educate anybody any more than pretending there are no legitimate questions about accepting spent nuclear fuel does.
If West Virginia is going to become a major player in America’s nuclear renaissance, West Virginians should understand both what we stand to gain and what we’re being asked to accept.
Then the people who would live with those decisions should have a meaningful role in making them.
That’s not being anti-nuclear.
And it’s not being pro-nuclear.
It’s understanding the deal before we sign it and working toward a consensus – the sweet spot – we can all live with and benefit from.