West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey has fumbled badly with the release of critical information about the state’s months-long pursuit of a federal nuclear energy hub. The missteps have contributed to concern and confusion over the state’s potential hosting of a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus.
What’s been missing is an open, up-front and consistent dialogue with the public about what the nuclear hubs are, including the responsibility for handling nuclear waste. What has happened instead has been self-congratulations, then a freak out and then gaslighting.
Morrisey initially made the announcement with much fanfare earlier this month that West Virginia had signed a memorandum of understanding to become one of six states under consideration for a facility that would “restore America’s nuclear industry… and unleash the next American nuclear renaissance.”
Morrisey pointed out that West Virginia was not initially among the sites for consideration, but he said, “We went to work” and rallied to become a finalist. He said, “It’s pretty cool.” The governor enthusiastically trumpeted what the campus could do for West Virginia in terms of economic growth and job creation, and, if the projections are correct, this would be a boon for the state.
However, in the nearly half-hour presentation and questions from reporters, Morrissey downplayed the one query about the storage of nuclear waste, even though that is a key provision of the federal proposal. “We’re having all those conversations because we obviously have to make sure we’re always protecting people… that’s of paramount concern,” he said.
But that was it.
Our Brad McElhinny was among the reporters who followed up on the story by reviewing the formal communications between West Virginia and the federal government to learn more about the project. He learned through the review of documents that one of the central components of the nuclear technology hub is the storage of spent nuclear fuel.
West Virginia’s Office of Energy said in its 48-page proposal to the federal government that the state could provide interim and long-term spent fuel storage, including “spent fuel generated out of state.”
No one seemed to notice until the Gazette-Mail newspaper published a story by Mike Tony on September 25th with the bold print headline above the fold that read, “W.Va. offers to store nuclear waste.” That triggered an outcry from political leaders and others who were caught off guard. They demanded more information.
Morrisey reacted angrily to the story. In a social media post Morrisey wrote, “The Gazette got it wrong,” and he said the paper intentionally misrepresented his administration’s energy plans. It is fair to say the story emphasized the nuclear waste issue, but Tony did not get it wrong.
His story and other media reports, including Brad McElhinny’s stories, quoted accurately from the state’s own documents, including a 48-page application that the state produced to participate and the memorandum of understanding that Morrisey himself signed.
The memorandum pointed toward the next step, a mandatory Host Agreement for states that want to participate. It makes clear the expectation that participating states would handle nuclear waste. “The Host Agreement shall 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.”
As the controversy roiled, Morrisey pivoted. “West Virginia will not be a dumping ground for nuclear waste,” he said. But wait a minute, the documents the state’s own Office of Energy crafted and he signed said West Virginia would have to agree to house spent fuel.
When McElhinny pressed the administration on this discrepancy, a spokesman said, the “Governor’s clear directive trumps (a) bureaucratic letter.” Bureaucratic letter? The nuclear storage provision is included in the federal government’s requirements, the state’s response to the requirements, and the memorandum of understanding.
It’s all there in black and white.
The federal call out to states said specifically that the benefits of the Innovation Campuses should be designed and implemented “alongside robust community engagement and clear communication [emphasis added] of risks and responsibilities associated with long-term waste management or site remediation.”
That is an unambiguous directive to states to have an open and honest dialogue about the waste storage issue.
Policymakers and their constituents can decide whether the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus would be a good thing for West Virginia. Unfortunately, the Morrisey administration botched the rollout by failing to address the storage issue head-on as required by the federal government and then ran from it when the controversy erupted.
(More here from T.J. Meadows on the issue.)