A moratorium halting the Department of Energy’s plan to drill a nuclear waste storage test borehole in North Dakota will remain in place, according to Pierce County Commission Chairman Dave Migler.
The Pierce County Commission established the drilling ban in early February after officials and residents voiced concern that the study will lead to eventual storage of nuclear waste in North Dakota.
The estimated five-year, $35 million project, proposed across 20 acres of state land near the city of Rugby, would deliver data on whether drilling 16,000-foot boreholes into rock formations is feasible for storage of DOE-managed waste. DOE has contracted Battelle Memorial Institute, which has partnered with the University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, for the project.
Representatives from all three organizations joined the commissioners on Tuesday for a special meeting in Rugby, where about 250 people gathered. Migler said Wednesday that the overwhelming majority want to stop the project, which was scheduled to break ground Sept. 1.
“The experiment is fine, but the government has failed with this nuclear waste stuff, and they are looking for sites,” Migler said. “And if this site is favorable for (drilling), I might not see it in my lifetime, but the consensus was that people don’t trust the government, and it’s possibly going to come, so their feeling was, as well as the commissioners, stop it now. Do it somewhere else.”
Battelle spokesman T.R. Massey agreed that the majority of attendees opposed the project, but he said that’s not necessarily fully representative of Pierce County, an area populated by about 4,400 people in north-central North Dakota. Still, he said, representatives were happy to inform attendees about the project.
“We know the scope of the project, and we know what we’re doing, and we know that there will not be any radioactive waste being disposed of or stored in the deep borehole that we’re going to drill,” Massey said.
Project representatives at the meeting included Battelle energy business line manager Rod Osborne, EERC Vice President for Strategic Partnerships John Harju, and DOE Office of Nuclear Energy Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel Cycle Technologies Andy Griffith.
In January, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the proposed drilling method in North Dakota could serve as an option for storing about 2,000 cesium and strontium capsules from the Hanford Site in Washington state.
Assistant Energy Secretary for Nuclear Energy John Kotek addressed the situation in North Dakota on Thursday at the Platts Nuclear Energy Conference in Washington, D.C. He is helping lead the agency’s search for consent-based interim sites that would house spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from around the country. He said the situation unfolding in North Dakota is “not a demonstration of consent-based siting.” The department’s intention, he said, is to speak broadly about nuclear waste, raising the level of awareness so that states, local governments, and tribal communities can decide if they want to host such facilities. Two companies, Waste Control Specialists and Holtec International, have proposed building spent-fuel storage facilities in, respectively, Texas and New Mexico. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has for fiscal 2017 requested about $1.4 million for the WCS application review.
“Folks (in North Dakota) are a bit concerned about what it could mean in terms of nuclear waste disposal down the road,” Kotek said. “We’ll ensure that we learn from the concerns that have been expressed there, but the consent-based siting approach will look very different from the experience there.”
Battelle will need a drilling permit and lease from the state for the project. Massey said both applications are on hold until the matter is resolved with the county. Migler said the commission is still digesting the information, but a temporary moratorium can remain in place for five years or longer. Massey said his team will need to reassess its plans if there is potential for long-term delays.
