DEEP DISPOSAL | TECHNICAL


GETTING TO THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM


Some researchers have recently indicated that the industry should ‘jumpstart’ a national dialogue by looking into a new deep wellbore high level waste (HLW) disposal programme. They advise drilling a single well to implement geological and petrophysical analysis. Their hope is to quantify the technical suitability of the selected site for high level waste disposal. This single well, another example of the ‘one shot’ approach, is incorrect, wasteful, and unnecessary. First, a single test well would provide minimal and statistically unreliable information on the applicability of the deep formation’s suitability for high level waste disposal. A large scale, detailed analysis must be regional to obtain usable quantitative formation data. A single wellbore is a costly misuse of funds as it provides minimal data on which to base billion-dollar decisions. Second, and more importantly, researchers have failed to


realise that a massive amount of geological data already exists. There is no need to drill a single new wellbore to obtain it. For example, in the US alone, there are more than 37 state core


libraries where rock core samples are available for inspection and analysis. These cores were collected from drilled wellbores, and represent drilling data from thousands of wells in hundreds of different rock formations. To demonstrate the data already available for inspection, the North Dakota core library alone has more than 304,800m of core samples. In Texas and other states, the availability of real core data for analysis of deep formations is even larger, and also readily available at almost no cost. With thousands of wells already drilled, proof of deep wellbores’ viability, and where to most safely and efficiently drill them, already exists. Commercial core libraries are another readily available source


of information. These private comprehensive libraries are well maintained, up-to-date, and are provided by both large and small exploration companies for their private use. The HLW industry can utilise these assets at a relatively low cost, and significantly more cheaply than that of drilling wells for the sole purpose of extracting samples.


It is a myth that mines and tunnels are better


repository sources because you can ‘see, feel, and monitor’ the rock face. Such erroneous, archaic thinking flies entirely and blatantly in the face of the massive knowledge base of petrophysical and exploratory analytical technologies and systems which have been developed in the oil and gas industry. The industry uses extremely advanced downhole tools and sophisticated AI computational systems. These tools allow scientists, engineers, and researchers to look into and scientifically examine rocks over large distances in and around wellbores. They provide rock and fluid properties in 2D, 3D and sometimes 4D, with exacting precision. This analysis allows billion-dollar exploration decisions to be made without ever personally ‘looking at’ the rock face thousands of metres below the surface. These analytical systems work. It should be emphasised that the waste capsule


should not be considered the ultimate protector of the waste but rather a 10,000-year container device whose primary purpose is to safely handle the waste on the surface and to safely transport it to the deep geological repository. The ultimate protector of the waste is the impermeable rock. The intrinsic properties of the rock, its size, depth, and low permeability is the actual long- term protective system.


IMPACT, HIGH REWARD There are many reasons why massive near-surface operations are not the best, nor even appropriate solution for nuclear waste disposal. These operations require thousands of workers on the surface, as well as hundreds working underground with built-in safety, ventilation, transport, and escape systems. These large and fully staffed, ‘mining’ type operations are expensive, dangerous, inefficient, and long-term undertakings.


Furthermore, such complex operations are prone to catastrophic human error which can stop a project in its tracks. A recent ‘incident’ in a near-surface disposal operation occurred at the US Dept. of Energy’s WIPP facility in New Mexico. An air-shaft malfunction and radioactive leak problem shut down operations for years, necessitating a billion-dollar fix. Conversely, SuperLATTM


of thousands of tonnes of high-level waste capsules in a single deep horizontal wellbore. It forms a safe deep repository for waste in deep impermeable rock formations. Waste in cylindrical capsular form can be quickly


and easily placed in these deep repositories which can be drilled in mere months. Such repositories would be ready for the safe disposal of all the waste produced by small modular reactors (SMR) as soon as the waste sufficiently cools at the cooling ponds. Not only are SuperLATTM


systems significantly less


prone to human error, the resources to resolve any issue and restart are miniscule compared to existing DGR operations. Robust, well developed, and available today, it costs millions, not billions. A typical SuperLATTM operation can involve less than 30 workers on the surface to drill, load, and dispose of more than 1 million pounds of encapsulated waste at a cost of less than $50 million and a repository can be implemented in less than six months. Very, very deep disposal repositories provide a timely


solution to today’s high level waste problem and they should form the basis for revitalising the nuclear power industry worldwide.


This feature was previously published in T&T’s sister title Nuclear Engineering International and is republished with kind permission


July 2023 | 47


technology allows the disposal


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53