Publications
Handling and Emplacement Options for Deep Borehole Disposal Conceptual Design
Cochran, John R.; Hardin, Ernest H.
This report presents conceptual design information for a system to handle and emplace packages containing radioactive waste, in boreholes 16,400 ft deep or possibly deeper. Its intended use is for a design selection study that compares the costs and risks associated with two emplacement methods: drill-string and wireline emplacement. The deep borehole disposal (DBD) concept calls for siting a borehole (or array of boreholes) that penetrate crystalline basement rock to a depth below surface of about 16,400 ft (5 km). Waste packages would be emplaced in the lower 6,560 ft (2 km) of the borehole, with sealing of appropriate portions of the upper 9,840 ft (3 km). A deep borehole field test (DBFT) is planned to test and refine the DBD concept. The DBFT is a scientific and engineering experiment, conducted at full-scale, in-situ, without radioactive waste. Waste handling operations are conceptualized to begin with the onsite receipt of a purpose-built Type B shipping cask, that contains a waste package. Emplacement operations begin when the cask is upended over the borehole, locked to a receiving flange or collar. The scope of emplacement includes activities to lower waste packages to total depth, and to retrieve them back to the surface when necessary for any reason. This report describes three concepts for the handling and emplacement of the waste packages: 1) a concept proposed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in 1983; 2) an updated version of the 1983 concept developed for the DBFT; and 3) a new concept in which individual waste packages would be lowered to depth using a wireline. The systems described here could be adapted to different waste forms, but for design of waste packaging, handling, and emplacement systems the reference waste forms are DOE-owned high- level waste including Cs/Sr capsules and bulk granular HLW from fuel processing. Handling and Emplacement Options for Deep Borehole Disposal Conceptual Design July 23, 2015 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has benefited greatly from review principally by Steve Pye, and also by Paul Eslinger, Dave Sevougian and Jiann Su.