Unprecedented liquid high-level radioactive waste shipments delayed by congressional demand for security assessment

The Peace Bridge at Buffalo, NY, the route by which unprecented shipments of liquid high-level radioactive waste are most likely expected to rollAs reported by WKBW/ABC-Buffalo, NY, unprecedented shipments, by truck, of liquid high-level radioactive waste, from Chalk River, Ontario, Canada to Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina, U.S.A., could be postponed.

The U.S. Department of Energy wants to import the liquid high-level radioactive wastes, for the revenue it would be paid by Canadian nuclear agencies. DOE also hopes to keep its reprocessing capabilities on life-support at SRS. For these reasons, it has sought radioactive wastes not only from Canada, but also from other countries (such as Germany), to import.

The delay is due to:

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide a complete threat assessment the transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological materials through U.S. land borders and within the United States.

The bill was sponsored by U.S. Representative Brian Higgins (D-NY). Companion legislation is expected to clear the U.S. Senate, and the companion bills to be enacted into law with President Obama's signature.

The article quotes Congressman Higgins:

"Terrorists and militant groups have expressed an interest in using highly dangerous weapons, especially those utilizing chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear, known as CBRN agents or materials,” said Higgins. “This bill gives federal agencies the information they need to make decisions and develop policies that are informed by the terrorism threat picture.”

DOE racing to "test" Deep Borehole Disposal of highly radioactive wastes

As revealed at a two-day long meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) on Oct. 21 & 22, 2015 in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is racing to begin "testing" the concept of Deep Borehole Disposal of highly radioactive wastes, even though most people -- including those whose communities could be targeted to "host" such facilities -- have not even heard about it yet.

Links to the agenda, NWTRB press release, numerous presentations, and additional materials are now posted at the NWTRB website.

Also, a transcript is supposed to be posted, but it has not been yet. (It is unclear if a video recording of the Webcast will be made available, in addition, or whether that was only viewable in real time.)

By "Deep Borehole Disposal," the DOE proponents are referring to the concept of drilling a relatively small diameter hole, 3 to 5 kilometers (1.9 to 3.1 miles) straight down into the Earth's crust, in order to insert radioactive waste containers in the bottom. A common figure discussed at the meeting was 40 containers of radioactive waste, stacked one on top of the other, in the bottom of each Deep Borehole. A field of Deep Boreholes -- enough to accommodate all the radioactive waste to be buried -- would be drilled in close proximity to each other, in order to economize on the very expensive drilling equipment and skilled personnel required. The Deep Boreholes would then likely (but not for sure -- this hasn't been decided yet) be back-filled with sealant materials, yet to be designed/determined.

While most of the explicit discussion revolved around the potential to bury radioactive cesium and strontium capsules (themselves highly radioactive and long-lasting -- Cs-137 and Sr-90 remain hazardous for around 300 to 600 years, as but two examples), the clear implication is that other categories of radioactive wastes, including irradiated nuclear fuel, could also be disposed of this way.

DOE has not only solid irradiated nuclear fuel, but also post-reprocessing high-level radioactive waste, as well as other categories of highly radioactive waste, under its own jurisdiction (from the nuclear weapons complex, research reactors, etc.), to be dealt with. Even disposing of weapons-grade plutonium in Deep Borehole Disposal was discussed.

In addition, DOE is still being looked to at this time as the agency responsible for carrying out commercial nuclear power irradiated nuclear fuel disposal, as well as commercial Greater Than Class C (GTCC) "low-level" radioactive waste disposal (GTCC is considered as radioactively hazardous as high-level radioactive waste, and is in line for deep geologic disposal).

Since all of the categories of radioactive waste lack ultimate disposal sites, it is fair to be concerned that DOE could be considering Deep Borehole Disposal as an option for one or more of those wastes streams.

Such Deep Borehole Disposal could take place on-site, where the radioactive wastes were generated in the first place, or at unspecified "remote locations."

While DOE hastened to say that the initial testing would not involve radioactive materials, DOE spokesmen did admit that a suitable site, initially only involved in non-radioactive testing, could then proceed to become an actual Deep Borehole Disposal radioactive waste dump.

As with past proposed DOE high-level radioactive waste dumps, like at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or centralized interim storage (de facto permanent parking lot dumps), targeted sites for Deep Borehole Disposal could well include Native American lands and reservations, already badly contaminated DOE nuclear weapons complex facilities, and/or nuclear power plant sites themselves.

This is most disconcerting, especially considering DOE's rush to begin "testing" this largely to entirely unknown (to the public anyway) Deep Borehole Disposal concept. The two-day NWTRB meeting revealed clearly that many, even basic questions and concerns about the risks of Deep Borehole Disposal, have not yet been asked, let alone addressed.

As Beverly Fernandez of Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump put it at the Oct. 6, 2015 Toronto town hall meeting on Ontario Power Generation's proposal to bury radioactive wastes on the Great Lakes shoreline at Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Kincardine, Ontario, assurances made that so-called "deep geologic repositories" (DGR) at Asse II and Morsleben in Germany, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico, proved false. All three DGRs have leaked hazardous radioactivity into the environment. So DGR proponents' "trust us, we're experts" line has worn quite thin.

Note that the so-called "Deep" Geologic Repository at Bruce would be only 680 meters (2,230 feet) below ground. Significantly, if OPG's on-site radioactive waste "DGR" disposal is allowed to happen, it could set a precedent for Deep Borehole Disposal of radioactive wastes on-site at reactors to follow, as well.

New Canadian government could derail plans for nuclear waste dump near Lake Huron

The targeted location where the DGR would be built at OPG's Bruce NGS on the Lake Huron shore in Kincardine, ONAs reported by Michigan Radio and the AP, the Liberal Party's decisive election victory on Oct. 19th gives hope to opponents of Ontario Power Generation's proposed Deep Geologic Repository for burying radioactive waste on the Great Lakes shore at Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Kincardine, Ontario (see photo, left). They hope Prime Minister Trudeau will nip the DUD in the bud (DUD, short for Deep Underground Dump, is the abbreviation coined by David Martin of Greenpeace Canada for the insane scheme). More.

Beyond Nuclear testifies before Congress against Mobile Chernobyl, Yucca, and parking lot dumps

Detailed maps showing DOE's proposed Yucca dump bound high-level radioactive waste rail shipping routes in downtown Chicago.Beyond Nuclear's radioactive waste watchdog, Kevin Kamps, was invited as a witness at a hearing on "Transporting Nuclear Materials," held by the U.S. House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Environment and the Economy Subcommittee on Oct. 1st. See the hearing description, with links to the witnesses' written testimony, as well as a video recording of the hearing, here.

On the video recording, Kevin's opening remarks begin at the 1:09:50 mark, and end at 1:15:26. A question and answer exchange between Ranking Democrat, Paul Tonko of NY, and Kevin begins at 1:25:05, and ends at 1:27:42 (Kevin discusses the Baltimore train tunnel fire of July, 2001, and the reportedly large number of latent cancer fatalities and astronomical clean up costs that would have resulted, had high-level radioactive waste been on board).

(Note that the hearing began more than 30 minutes late, so the beginning of the video recording is blank. Also, the quality of the video recording is poor, with many skips.)

Read Kevin's introductory remarks, as well as his full written testimony. Working with David Kraft, executive director of Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago, Kevin also prepared this backgrounder, to set the record straight on high-level radioactive waste shipments targeted at downtown Chicago, under the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain dump transportation plan. Robert Halstead, now director of the State Agency for Nuclear Projects in the Nevada governor's office, also prepared detailed maps showing Chicago area Yucca dump shipping routes. (see map, above left)

Claims by a number of hearing witnesses that high-level radioactive waste shipping accidents in the past had never experienced radioactive releases or leaks has also been debunked by a 1996 Halstead report, citing federal government documents. Beyond Nuclear has also prepared a backgrounder rebutting this inaccurate testimony.

Learn more about the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's attempt to revive the cancelled Yucca dump, by visiting Beyond Nuclear's Yucca Mountain website section. There, you'll learn how you can submit public comments on NRC's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the dangerous Yucca dump proposal.