Spent nuclear fuel waste is a big problem with nuclear power. In the U.S., a permanent geological repository was supposed to be ready by 1999 but the Yucca Mountain Repository project was cancelled by 2009 and the best estimate for a repository at a new location is now 2050. There are over sixty million metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in cooling pools at reactor sites and in temporary dry casks in the United States. Spent pools are rapidly filling up and something has to done with that waste soon or it will require the shut down on some reactors within a few years.
One promising permanent disposal method is to drill five miles deep holes into Precambrian basement rock. This is far below the water table and would indeed be a permanent safe storage for spent nuclear fuel. Fuel assemblies would fill the bottom two miles and the rest of hole would be filled with rock, concrete and dirt. The surface could be landscaped and there would be no risk from and no sign of the buried nuclear waste. The technology for drilling deep holes exists.
The type of basement rock needed exists under the eastern half of the U.S. where most of the existing nuclear power plants are located. The holes could be drilled at each nuclear power plant and the spent nuclear fuel inserted without the need for transportation to a national disposal facility. The cost would be spread out over time and sites without the massive investment a national repository would require.
Early this year, the U.S. Department of Energy gave Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio a thirty five million dollar five year grant to drill a test hole into basement rock beneath either Pierce County, North Dakota or Spink County, South Dakota. There was no plan to place any radioactive material in the test hole. It was strictly intended to learn about the geology and technical problems associated with drilling this type of hole.
Unfortunately for the DoE and Battelle, the strong opposition of the citizens of the two counties to the project was unanticipated. After failing to gain public acceptance in North Dakota, efforts to secure support in South Dakota also included greater efforts to inform the public earlier in the process. The local community feared that if the test proved successful the site would eventually be used for disposal of spent nuclear fuel. They were also afraid that problems with the drilling could pollute local aquifers that the community depends on for drinking and irrigation water. The local government rejected the test drilling. This summer the DoE and Battelle agreed to cancel the project altogether.
A request for bids for a new test drilling project was put out in August. This time, the bids had to specifically allow for public involvement from the very beginning. Permanent project staff would have to be onsite from the start of the project to interact with the public and deal with public concerns. Part of that engagement would be an effort to convince the citizenry of the importance of the project and the benefits that would be realized by the local community. A variety of sites will be considered for the test drilling.
