The Department of Energy’s plan to conduct a feasibility study for deep-borehole storage of high-level radioactive waste has been put on hold in North Dakota, as the Pierce County Commission this week placed a moratorium on drilling amid growing concern from area residents.
The estimated five-year, $35 million project, proposed across 20 acres of state land near the city of Rugby, would deliver data on whether 16,000-foot boreholes drilled into crystalline rock formations are appropriate for DOE-managed waste. Pierce County Commission Chairman Dave Migler said Wednesday that the moratorium will allow DOE, the commission, and residents to slow the process down and exchange information. The project is scheduled to break ground on Sept. 1.
“There’s a lot of concerned residents,” Migler said, adding that he learned of the borehole project in a newspaper article in January. “We just feel that we need to let the public know what’s going on, what the undertaking’s going to be, what could possibly happen if everything moves forward.”
Lead contractor Battelle Memorial Institute has partnered with the University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks for the project. Rod Osborne, Battelle’s energy business line manager, said Thursday the contractor team is working to inform local jurisdictions about the project, which he emphasized does not involve any nuclear waste. Representatives from Battelle and EERC are scheduled to appear before the commission on Feb. 16.
“Our plan is to give (local stakeholders) the information that they request,” Osborne said. “Certainly there is concern from local people in the community about nuclear waste, radioactive waste, and there is none for this project. … This project will look at new drilling methods. … The emphasis is: No nuclear waste in North Dakota.”
He noted that the crystalline basement found in North Dakota is underneath “the entire United States,” and the results from the test can be applied to whatever site DOE deems feasible for the method, if testing is successful and if DOE chooses to move forward.
The International Atomic Energy Agency also recently highlighted the borehole method as a promising means for storage of low-level radioactive waste around the world.
Pierce County Commissioner Duane Johnston, who said he also learned of the DOE project via a newspaper article, said he doesn’t want to see nuclear waste buried in Pierce County and neither do the majority of his constituents. Migler said he is not against the experiment, but he is 100 percent against the storage of nuclear waste in Pierce County.
“That’s what floors me the most,” Migler said. “Say this thing carries on and all of sudden, ‘Hey, North Dakota has some rock formations that are perfect for this.’ I just hope that the county has some say in this whole thing where we can really voice our opinion.”
When asked about DOE’s response to those who felt out of the loop in North Dakota, agency spokesman Bart Jackson said by email that the agreement with Battelle dictates that communication with state and local stakeholders is the responsibility of the contract team. He said DOE followed procedure, issuing standard notifications of the contract award and a Jan. 5 announcement, which was followed by a public news release. In the January announcement, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the proposed drilling method could serve as an option for storing about 2,000 cesium and strontium capsules from the Hanford Site in Washington state.
Battelle and EERC will be required to gain two state approvals for the project: a lease agreement from the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands and a drilling permit from the state Industrial Commission.
State Assemblyman Jon Nelson (R), whose district includes Rugby, said Wednesday that he learned of the project in mid-January, when he received a phone call from EERC.
“There’s huge outcry of opposition because of a lack of knowledge about what is taking place in this stage,” Nelson said. “(We want) everyone on the same page about what this project is all about and what it isn’t all about. Right now there are a number of people concerned that once the boring is complete that spent fuel will be stored at this site, and I think we need to dispel that rumor and move forward in a logical and scientific manner.”
Jackson said the scientific information gathered from the field test will inform DOE’s understanding of the potential uses for crystalline rock formations in general.
“If DOE decides to pursue deep borehole disposal of radioactive waste, we are committed to choosing potential storage sites – whether in North Dakota or anywhere else – through a consent-based process that would involve local and state governments, and any affected tribes,” Jackson wrote. “But that process will be separate and apart from this conceptual field test.”
Advisory Board: Borehole Drilling Would Provide Limited Info
The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, in a report submitted to DOE last week, concluded the deep borehole field test will only provide limited information, given the absence of nuclear waste material.
The authors also concluded, among other things, that even if disposal of radioactive waste in deep boreholes is determined to be feasible, the need for a geologic repository like the one planned at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is not eliminated, and both concepts might require similar amounts of time and effort.
The review board is a group of scientists from various universities that advises the Department of Energy on technical matters. The board’s research included an October technical workshop in Washington, where DOE officials presented the North Dakota concept. In 1987, amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act designated Yucca Mountain as the only national geologic repository for high-level waste. Nearly three decades later the U.S. is still without a repository. The Obama administration cut funding for the project in fiscal 2011, and a subsequent blue-ribbon panel report emphasized a need for legally binding consent-based siting in willing states for spent fuel and other waste.
The board report described the borehole concept as “challenging and time consuming,” suggesting that the effort would be comparable to that of a mined, geologic repository.
“The Deep Borehole Field Test will provide only limited information on which to base an evaluation of the feasibility of the deep borehole disposal concept and the selection of a deep borehole disposal site,” the authors wrote. “The operational implications and limitations of handling and emplacing highly radioactive waste at depth are very different from those for operations involving non-radioactive material; however, evaluating and understanding those implications and limitations are of utmost importance for the design of a deep borehole disposal facility and for the feasibility assessment of the deep borehole disposal concept.”
