High level waste is highly radioactive waste, up to 100 million years to decay, and has two forms: Spent (used) reactor fuel when it is accepted for disposal and waste materials remaining after spent fuel is reprocessed. It is very different from low level waste which consists of used medical equipment, wiping rags, mops, filters, reactor water treatment residues, equipment and tools, luminous dials, medical tubes, swabs, injection needles, and syringes.
What is spent nuclear fuel (SNF)?
The terms used nuclear fuel and spent nuclear fuel are both used to describe nuclear fuel that has been used in a nuclear reactor. Used nuclear fuel is a solid material, in the form of ceramic pellets. Each pellet is about the size of a pencil eraser. Spent fuel is very hot and very radioactive. The atoms created by the fission process are unstable at first and emit particles that create heat. Therefore, spent fuel must be handled and stored carefully, and under controlled conditions.
How will the used nuclear fuel be stored at the Interim Storage Partners site?
They will store the canisters bearing the used fuel in a dry, below-grade configuration. The SNF canisters are stored stacked one on top of each other about 20 feet below the ground. This “cell” is covered in concrete in an attempt to help stabilize the cell and prevent water from entering (since water is the main culprit in corrosion of the canisters). Unfortunately, what WCS doesn’t tell you is that they have to regularly pump water out of the cells (most likely groundwater intrusion), and concrete is no barrier for the seismic activity that occurs in the area from basement faults.
Are the canister walls thick enough for durability and radiation protection? Is there risk of an explosion or external hazard from used nuclear fuel?
Canisters in the U.S. are different from SNF canisters in Europe and Japan. Here, the only canisters available use welded thin-wall stainless steel canisters, 1/2” to 5/8” thick. Compare that to European models spent fuel canisters that are 10” to 19” thick.
Yes, there is a risk of external hazard from used nuclear fuel, despite what WCS or Holtec try to tell everyone. Vibrations from transportation, seismic activity, and CISCC can all easily expose workers and the environment to radiation poisoning. The SNF pellets, if vibrated together, can cause explosions.
How will the storage site be kept secure? Wouldn’t this become a prime target for terrorism?
Energy terrorism seeks to disrupt supply capabilities and trigger economic losses. High-level waste shipped via rail and stored at the surface creates a soft target for terrorism
Is storing SNF at the sites in West Texas and SE New Mexico legal?
Several lawsuits have been filed against the NRC. One suit was filed in February 2021: “[The] Petition charges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission knowingly violated the U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy Act and up-ended settled law which prohibits transfer of ownership of commercial irradiated fuel to the federal government unless and until a permanent geologic repository is ready to receive it.”
There is also the fact that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act currently constrains the development of an interim storage facility by limiting the start of construction until after the NRC has issued a license for construction of a permanent repository. Yet there is no permanent repository in the works as of February 2021.
How will the used nuclear fuel be transported?
Canisters weighing approx. 150 - 180 tons will travel by rail and road through major-American cities and by barge upon our rivers, like the Mississippi and into ports like Houston, Texas.
How many shipments are expected each year?
Up to 210,000 metric tons will be transported and 200 casks transported annually. That is 200 different journeys that high level nuclear waste will be on our railways, roads, and bodies of water.
What are the expected transportation routes?
The transportation routes of the high level waste criss cross the United States. There are 118 commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. The transportation routes go through major cities, rural areas, tribal lands, public lands, near hospitals, and schools.
Is there a radiation risk to people and communities during the transport of casks containing used nuclear fuel? What about people who get stuck next to a stopped train that’s transporting fuel?
Yes.
What if an accident causes a used fuel transport cask to come off the rails? Why move the fuel at all?
Basically it comes down to the failure of the government to meet its contractual obligations. According to the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act the government would assume responsibility for permanent disposal in exchange for the payment of fees. But the government did not do this by 1998 which put them in breach of contract. Now the federal government is liable for damages to some utilities to cover the costs of on-site, at-reactor storage.
The communities and land developers surrounding the current storage sites (at the nuclear generators) want the high level nuclear waste to be removed as well so that they can redevelop the acres of land where stored canisters still sit.
Could the proposed CISF contaminate the Ogallala Aquifer or other groundwater?
Yes. West Texas and SE New Mexico rely on aquifers for fresh water. The Ogallala Aquifer, Anter Sands, and Pecos Valley (or Gatuna) Aquifers consist of the OAG Unit. In 2020, the Texas Water Development Board published groundwater maps that clearly show the OAG Unity sits directly under the WCS site. Originally the Nuclear Regulatory Commission used data that WCS collected about groundwater to approve the initial project plans. They claimed that there was no groundwater in the area. In addition to the Ogallala Aquifer being present, if you look at water well maps, there are over 400 water wells near the location of the storage sites. Even the hill adjacent to the WCS property is called Windmill Hill.
Are earthquakes a threat to the area where this SNF is planned to be stored?
Yes. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was reviewed and release by the NRC in 2020 says that “This study 4 concluded that existing faults located in the western Delaware Basin and the Central Basin 5 Platform where the proposed project area is located are unlikely (more than 10 percent probability) to slip 6 in response to fluid-pressure increase, and therefore the potential for induced seismicity in this 7 area is low (Snee and Zoback, 2018)”
Yet we can look at their map of seismic activity from the DEIS and see that they have not included basement faultlines in their studies. In 2021, a study showed that “The Delaware Basin, western Texas, has experienced a surge in the number of earthquakes.”
Even more contrary evidence comes from the same scientist that was quoted in Interim Storage Partners’ initial environmental report that stated low seismic activity in the area of ISP, “...around 2009, the rate of earthquakes increased sharply further west in the Delaware Basin, with clusters of relatively small (mostly M less than 4.0) events occurring throughout Reeves and Pecos Counties. As shown in Figure 2, the area near this week’s M5.0 was previously quiet, but a cluster of M > 1.5 events developed beginning late October last year (one M0.9 event was also detected in the same area in May).” This report was published in 2020, two years after the study used in the DEIS.
Seismic activity has been increasing in the last few years in the Permian Basin. The storage location in West Texas is a concrete pad at surface level. Cracks have already been found in the “protective” pad that nuclear waste sits upon.
How is this an environmental justice issue?
Studies have shown that the racial makeup of communities surrounding U.S. hazardous waste facilities is the most important factor of these facilities’ locations. This is no different from the communities nearest the nuclear waste disposal sites. Andrews, Texas is 60% Hispanic and 16% of Andrews residents are foreign born. Eunice, New Mexico is 54% Hispanic and the Holtec project is opposed by nearly all the indigenous nations in New Mexico and the All Pueblo Council of Governors adopted a resolution opposing the project, citing lack of tribal consultation as a key concern.
According to the federal government, there was supposed to be a clear consent of local communities to bid for these disposal sites, yet the Summary of Public Input Report was published December 29, 2016 – seven months after Waste Control Specialists submitted their application for interim storage of high-level nuclear waste in West Texas. If meant to inform the design of consent-based siting and if meant to gather input from the public and interested parties, then Texas stakeholders and the public should have participated. None of the public meetings were held in Texas or New Mexico.
What can I, as a concerned citizen, do about this?
The most important action you can take is to contact your local and state representatives and senators. They need to know the public does NOT consent to the risks that transportation of radioactive material in thin walled canisters raises to those along transportation routes.
These leaders also need you to voice your interest in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. This is the best way to recycle a radioactive material so that large scale storage operations can be reduced in the United States.