Jefferson County, WV (2026 Sep 28) — Governor Patrick Morrisey is pushing back hard on an unfolding story about the proposal West Virginia submitted for a nuclear campus program planned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The proposal includes a site in Jefferson County.
Yesterday, the Governor posted on Facebook and X to dispute reporting by the Charleston Gazette-Mail, saying that West Virginia will not be a dumping ground for nuclear waste. The Observer’s review of the details in the state’s proposal suggests otherwise.
The state’s proposal to the DOE also referenced West Virginia’s approach to data center development, as enabled by HB 2014, as a model to be used for the nuclear program.
Timeline: A Personal Push By The Governor
Governor Morrisey held a press conference on September 8 to announce that West Virginia would be joining the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus initiative planned by the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE). Five other states — Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah — had been selected to participate in the initiative in July 2026. During the September 8 press conference, the Governor said that West Virginia was added after his office “started working the phones.”
Brad McElhinny of WV MetroNews reported on September 20 that the Governor had signed a “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) with the DOE titled “Establishment of a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus in the State of West Virginia.” McElhinny’s story included a link to the MOU he received via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
On September 25, Mike Tony of the Charleston Gazette-Mail reported on the response to his FOIA request to the WV Department of Commerce, which included both the September 2026 MOU document as well as the state’s April 2026 response to the US DOE’s “Request for Information on Establishment of Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses.”
West Virginia Proposes Four Sites
The April 2026 document prepared by the West Virginia Office of Energy (a division of the WV Department of Commerce), includes four proposed sites:
- Site 1 (“Hobet”), described as 1,000 acres in Boone County. The coordinates provided for this site include a portion of the former Hobet mine, which closed in 2015. The entire mine site spans 12,000 acres in Boone and Lincoln Counties.
- Site 2 (“Century), described as 380 acres in Jackson County. The coordinates provided for this site match the location of a former Century Aluminum smelter site located along the Ohio River. The site is currently owned by the West Virginia Development Authority.
- Site 3 (“Casto”), described as 508 acres in Jackson County. The coordinates provided for this site show four parcels that are a mix of woodland and farm fields that are privately owned.
- Site 4 (“Old Standard”), described as 407 acres in Jefferson County. The coordinates provided for this site match the Old Standard Quarry property located south of US 340 outside of Harpers Ferry. The site includes a 35-acre flooded quarry pit.
Governor Morrisey Claims “Fake News”
On Sunday, September 27, Governor Morrisey posted a statement on his official Facebook account (image above) attacking the Gazette-Mail’s reporting. In his post, the Governor said “The Gazette got it wrong. This Friday’s story intentionally misrepresented my administration’s energy plans….”
The Observer reviewed the documents obtained by Gazette-Mail reporter Mike Tony from his FOIA request, both the 46-page RFI response and the signed MOU. Contrary to the Governor’s social media post, the Gazette-Mail story appears to be an accurate review of these documents.
The Observer also compared Governor Morrisey’s statements in his September 27 social media posts with the information included in the April 2026 proposal to the DOE and the September 2026 MOU signed by the Governor. There appear to be several discrepancies:
What the Governor said: “West Virginia will not be a dumping ground for nuclear waste. Period.”
What the documents say:
The April 2026 response submitted to the DOE specifically focuses on spent fuel storage:
- Figure 1 on page 7 (image below) of the West Virginia response document ranks a “Consolidated Interim Storage Facility” (CISF) as the state’s first priority.
- West Virginia explicitly offered to host a private CISF to store spent and partially spent nuclear fuel from 16 operating reactors across Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Ohio.
- West Virginia also proposes research into deep borehole disposal and engineered underground caverns for permanent nuclear fuel disposition on state lands.
In the September 2026 MOU, section 2.3 requires the final host agreement between West Virginia and the US DOE 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.”
What the Governor said: “I have directed my Office of Energy to ensure that every site identified in our final Nuclear Campus application is considered only for nuclear generation or manufacturing – not as a dump.”
What the documents say:
While nuclear power generation (including small nuclear reactors for data centers) and component manufacturing are included in the state’s proposal, West Virginia’s April 2026 response to the DOE specifically categorized front-end operations, manufacturing, and generation as secondary or long-term phases (Years 10–30), while anchoring Phase 1 (Years 1–10) around spent fuel storage and back-end stewardship.
Here’s an excerpt from the April 2026 document (page 7) that provides detail on West Virginia’s proposal:
West Virginia has identified partially spent and spent nuclear fuel streams management as a near-term actionable strategic opportunity. West Virginia proposes anchoring the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus around advanced fuel recycling, materials recovery, and responsible long-term nuclear materials stewardship. This opportunity would anchor the early phase of its Innovation Campus’ lifecycle functions. A key component is obtaining a license for and developing a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF), hosted at the Innovation Campus and operated by a private‑sector partner. The CISF would enable storing partially spent and spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned or active nuclear power plant sites at one location.
What the Governor said: “We are pursuing nuclear generation and manufacturing to bring high-paying jobs to West Virginia.”
What the documents say:
On page 8, the April 2026 document discusses research and development:
[T]he Innovation Campus will be structured to contribute research aimed at developing commercially viable, proliferation‑resilient technologies that could support a more efficient closed-fuel cycle. The Innovation Campus will be a strong and welcoming host for research partnerships. These collaborations will advance research into the benefits of sustainable fuel cycles and address how to make them viable in the U.S. Among its highest priorities, the Innovation Campus will actively engage in the effort to evolve from once-through to closed cycle nuclear fuel use to repurpose spent nuclear fuel.
In the next paragraph on page 8, the April 2026 document returns to its focus on storage:
Recognizing that spent nuclear fuel is also targeted for long-term storage, West Virginia believes that it offers geological attributes suitable for the alternatives of borehole and engineered cavern facilities to meet such storage requirements. West Virginia is proposing an additional early phase Innovation Campus undertaking that will layer in research for the potential use of available state lands for final disposition of spent fuel. West Virginia would work to demonstrate the efficacy of the state’s geology (and similar geology in other states) within the scope of research performed by its universities and laboratories as a means of final spent fuel storage, emphasizing West Virginia’s capability to respond to comprehensive nuclear lifecycle needs. This proposed geological research would explore final fuel disposition options, positioning West Virginia to develop end-of-lifecycle infrastructure.
Recycling the HB 2014 Framework
The April 2026 proposal spells out the state’s approach to streamlining and expediting the permitting of these nuclear projects on page 20 of the document:
West Virginia is evaluating opportunities to streamline regulatory processes and offer expedited permitting, where appropriate. The State has documented success in accelerating industrial development through coordinated permitting, resolute project teams, and consolidated review processes. For example, upon passing House Bill 2014 (HB 2014), the State expedited the process for data center development. HB 2014 created a streamlined pathway for high‑impact data centers and microgrids, allowing the State to fast‑track siting, permitting, and utility‑related approvals. The law reduces regulatory friction for large‑scale digital infrastructure and has already prompted rulemaking to implement a Certified Microgrid Development Program explicitly for accelerating data‑center deployment.
The April 2026 proposal (page 20) states it would use the HB 2014 framework as a model for the nuclear campus permitting process:
West Virginia’s streamlined approach to data center development simplifies permitting, demonstrates the State’s ability to create an efficient regulatory environment for emerging industries, and provides a competitive incentive. West Virginia would use similar strategies for nuclear development to enable the State to provide predictable timelines and responsive regulatory support.
A Question Of Collaboration
The April 2026 proposal talks about the State’s approach to policy and legislative requirements, concluding with a paragraph about collaboration (on page 22):
The strategy for advancing any potential legislative or regulatory changes will follow the collaborative model that has guided West Virginia’s broader energy initiatives. Engagement with legislative leadership, industry partners, labor organizations, academic institutions, and local governments will help ensure that policy decisions reflect a wide range of perspectives. As community engagement and public transparency will be critical to advancing any statutory or regulatory changes, public communication will continue to emphasize the State’s commitment to safety, environmental responsibility, and long‑term economic development.
At this time, the administration does not appear to have followed through on this collaborative model to share information with county officials or state legislators representing the sites included in the April 2026 proposal (see image below).
Update (2026 Sep 29) — Lars Dalseide, Director of Communications for the WV Governor’s office, responded to The Observer’s request for comment with the following statement: “The Governor’s position is crystal clear: no nuclear waste. Period.” Dalsiede also provided a link to a social media post made by the Governor on September 27 (image below).
Additional Coverage
By Tuesday, September 29, other journalists had researched the story and confirmed the Gazette-Mail reporting:
Steve Pearson (The Observer) on WRNR/TV10 (vide0)
Mike Tony of the Gazette-Mail also expanded his reporting on the contradictions in the Governor’s statements in an additional story published on September 29.
Update (2026 Oct 1) — According to reporting by Steven Allan Adams in the Wheeling Intelligencer, West Virginia’s Office of Energy Director Nicholas Preservati informed the U.S. Department of Energy on September 30 that West Virginia would not be submitting a “Host Agreement” to continue its participation on the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus program.
Preservati’s letter states: “Department of Energy (DOE) for considering West Virginia to host the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC). While we are unable to execute the Hosting Agreement and commit fully to its requirements, West Virginia remains fully committed to supporting President Trump and Secretary Wright’s vision fora national nuclear renaissance. Please know that we stand ready and willing to support the DOE, its NLIC initiative and future NLIC recipients.”
Published 2026 Sep 28 in the Observer Weekly. Updated 2026 Sep 29 (response from the Governor’s office, additional coverage links). Updated 2026 Oct 1 (state withdraws proposal).
By Steve Pearson