International stakeholder survey shows 8-of-10 nuclear stakeholders support full-scale borehole demonstration project

Editor’s note: This is an excerpt of an article that was originally published in the March edition of Nuclear Engineering International’s magazine, which is available via a subscription here. You can view our paper, “Implementing Deep Borehole Disposal: Study of International Stakeholder Views from Regulatory, Policy & WMO Communities,” presented at the March Waste Management Symposia, here.

By Chris Parker

Deep Isolation EMEA Ltd, Managing Director

New research affirms that there is growing interest worldwide in the advancement of deep boreholes as an option for the disposal of nuclear waste.

Deep boreholes offer a scalable, modular, and more economical disposal solution for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, particularly for countries with smaller waste inventories that may make the safety case for a mined facility costlier to demonstrate.

A study Deep Isolation conducted last year analyzed international stakeholder views across 18 countries in the Americas, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region to determine perceptions about deep borehole repositories for nuclear waste disposal. The results show that those surveyed agree overwhelmingly that the next best step for learning more about this solution is an end-to-end technology demonstration.

The deep borehole opinion research, which was preliminarily shared at the IAEA 2021 International Conference on Radioactive Waste Management and was presented in full at Waste Management Symposia 2022, is based on interviews and surveys with members of the regulatory, policy and waste management organizations. The majority of those surveyed said they believe boreholes potentially have a significant role to play and cited benefits including choice and flexibility thanks to a reduced physical footprint coupled with cost and time savings compared to centralized mined repositories. 

Given that proposed changes to the EU taxonomy would dictate that nuclear waste and decommissioning funds must be in place and that there must be operational facilities for the disposal of low and intermediate-level waste streams, with a plan in place for a high-level waste disposal facility to be operational by 2050, the benefits of being able to potentially deploy a borehole repository in a fraction of the time of a mined repository could make this option even more attractive. Deep boreholes also could potentially be co-located with a mined repository if needed.

Research followed rigorous 7-step qualitative and quantitative process

The target research group was senior-level stakeholders with specific responsibilities for geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste disposition, selected from the following six categories: National government policymakers; waste management organizations; nuclear and environmental regulators; international agencies that influence national policies; university researchers; and national laboratories and other research institutions specifically focused on radioactive waste disposal.

Following a seven-step qualitative and quantitative research methodology, 37 people completed an online survey, with 10 also participating in in-depth interviews; two additional subjects completed in-person interviews only.

The study was conducted by Deep Isolation internal experts as well as one external researcher, Prof. Neil A. Chapman of the University of Sheffield. Chapman is a leading expert in the geological disposal of radioactive wastes, with four decades of experience in environmental, strategic and waste management in the international nuclear industry.

“After years of seeing largely unstructured commentary on the potential role of deep borehole disposal in national waste management programs, this work has at last focused light on what a wide range of policy and decision-makers really think,” Chapman said. “The general consensus that (deep borehole disposal) could be incorporated into a suite of safe disposal solutions, considerably improving strategic and economic flexibility, ought to encourage countries to get together now and support an early multi-national demonstration project. This is becoming increasingly important as the world moves closer to a low-carbon nuclear power future.”

Graphic on International Stakeholder Perspectives on Deep Borehole Disposal of Nuclear Waste
Graphic on International Stakeholder Perspectives on Deep Borehole Disposal of Nuclear Waste

Benefits of deep boreholes

Survey participants were queried about the key potential opportunities and benefits that they believe deep boreholes can offer; and the policy/regulatory, technical/operational and societal challenges that remain to be addressed.

When it comes to benefits, 74 percent of respondents tended to “agree” or “strongly agree” that deep boreholes have a potential role to play in ensuring the safe geological disposal of the world’s higher activity radioactive waste.

The benefits highlighted by those surveyed included: Increased choice and siting flexibility, including the reduced physical footprint compared to traditional mined repositories; the potential for cost reductions across national waste disposal programs; potentially attractive features from the perspective of community consent; and potential for economies of scale when it comes to regulatory processes.

Deep Isolation’s borehole designs have potential for providing additional siting flexibility because they leverage directional drilling and geo-steering techniques to emplace disposal canisters in either vertical, inclined, or horizontal orientations in stable rock formations that have been isolated from the biosphere for millions of years.

The great majority of those interviewed said boreholes would likely be “suitable” or “highly suitable” for small waste inventories of spent fuel, for example fuel from research reactors, and/or for vitrified high-level waste that could be disposed of at or near a nuclear power plant.

As one regulator stated: “Some countries have to deal with wastes that are long-lived and hazardous for a long time, but maybe don’t have a major nuclear program and volumes are relatively small…. [borehole disposal] would be an attractive option because building a mined repository for relatively small volumes can seem unfeasible.”

But borehole disposal is not only an option for small inventory countries. More than half of the respondents believe that it is likely to be suitable, at least to some extent, for both small and large inventories.  As one survey respondent said, “There’s a lot of work that demonstrates that potential usefulness is there for the U.S.A, for Germany — and therefore obviously for all nations.”

All told, 8-of-10 stakeholders said they want to see greater international collaboration on borehole disposal, with the No. 1 priority being a full-scale (non-radioactive) demonstration.

“Even if you had a hundred percent confidence that it would work as designed, I don’t think people would be comfortable until it actually has been used,” said one study participant. “So I think you would have to actually demonstrate the technology in order to gain acceptance by the entire community.”

Demonstrating technical readiness

Although spent fuel handling and deep drilling technologies are mature, Deep Isolation understands there are aspects of the deep borehole technology that will require additional technology maturation prior to industrial-scale deployment. 

Deep Isolation recently completed its first preliminary technology readiness level assessment, and borehole expert Dr. Ethan Bates, Deep Isolation Director of Systems Engineering, presented a paper on this topic at Waste Management Symposia.

Overall, the technical assessment concludes that spent nuclear fuel handling above ground is the most mature technical industry process and that demonstrating borehole stability and canister emplacement is the highest priority in terms of technology development planning. 

Other processes such as pre-closure monitoring, canister retrieval, and borehole sealing may also require additional development and demonstration, but the extent will depend on regulatory and risk-informed engineering requirements that are still being developed.

Given the readiness levels of Deep Isolation’s technology and processes, the company agrees with stakeholder study participants that an end-to-end demonstration should be a top priority.

We are committed to working with the international community to launch the planning process for a long-term collaborative permanent borehole demonstration.

Working with industry partners and government research institutions, we hope to assemble an independent, science-driven, non-profit task force of experts and citizens to oversee the effort. It would be the first ever public-private partnership devoted to researching how deep boreholes can be used to permanently and safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel and other types of high-level radioactive waste.

The goal of the project is to advance the technical readiness levels of deep borehole disposal in a progressive, cost-effective and strategic manner, accelerating the preparation for global deployment of this as a licensed disposal technology.

Since Deep Isolation was founded more than five years ago we’ve sought to assemble an advisory board that includes preeminent experts, Nobel laureates, leaders in nuclear energy science, technology, and policy, and entrepreneurs who value innovation.

In addition to those leadership qualities, inclusion and diversity is also important to us as a company. We were co-founded by and are led by a woman — historically not the norm in nuclear — and last year we launched an internal Inclusion and Diversity Committee to help support and educate our employees. So we were pleased to recently welcome an expert in this field, Monica Mwanje, to our advisory board.

Mwanje entered the nuclear sector in 2003 and in 2015 founded a consultancy company, Liverpool, England-based MM Creative Services, to provide strategic consultancy services for organizations seeking growth and transformation in nuclear and other regulated sectors. Specializing in inclusion and diversity, she works with multi-disciplined technical teams, boards, and leadership teams, advising them on how to develop, implement and maintain inclusive working cultures.

We posed a few questions to her to learn more about her experiences and what advice she shares with companies as well as those beginning their careers in nuclear.

Q. You started out as a chemical engineer, doing graduate work at Sellafield, the former nuclear energy plant in England. What was it like working at a decommissioning plant, and how did your experience influence the development of your career in nuclear?

It was very interesting and informative. I had the opportunity to work on facilities projects and go to view them too. This gave me a better appreciation of the realities and challenges associated with implementing and deploying designed solutions into those sorts of environments.  I was able to draw on this experience as my career advanced and keep it in mind when I was working on design projects or facilitating technical workshops.

Q. As of 2019, women only comprised 22.4 percent of the nuclear workforce, according to the IAEA, so you were clearly a trailblazer when you got your start 18 years ago. What challenges did you personally face when it came to feeling included in the workplace? How did those experiences inspire you to teach employers to provide a more welcoming work environment for people who may be in the minority due to their race, gender or sexual orientation?

I have a lot of admiration and respect for those from minoritized groups who entered the nuclear sector before me and who broke down some barriers. They were the trailblazers. Being honest, my experiences are very mixed when it comes to feeling and being included in the workplace. Early in my career I faced challenges around my race, gender and age. Knowing what it’s like to feel and be excluded, seeing peers experiencing exclusion at times, too, and being frustrated by limited (sometimes non-existent) progress on the matters, inspired me to see what I can do to help improve experiences for others.

Monica Mwanje Headshot

Q. Last summer your consultancy service MM Creative Services co-organized the third annual Inclusion & Diversity in Nuclear conference, which Deep Isolation attended for the first time. What were your goals in founding this event and perhaps share some highlights and what you’ve learned from it so far.

When I first proposed we hold a conference, my goals were simple. I wanted to bring people together so we could talk, understand issues, share and learn from one another. Without this feedback, how would we know what people are experiencing, or what they need, or what organizations are doing well that should be amplified? Personally, I also wanted to learn from the experts we engaged to speak and lead workshops, and further broaden and deepen my knowledge so I can be a more inclusive colleague when working in and with different teams. Highlights were all the different keynote speakers we have had, the different panelists we’ve engaged, and the speakers who shared their lived experiences. The workshops I attended were also really informative and prompted me to reflect and think about what I will do differently.  Different parts of each conference stick out for me. I go back and rewatch recordings from the conferences ( ) as I pick up on different things each time. A conversation I remember from the first conference in 2019, was during some networking, two individuals formed a connection and agreed to share best practices and exchange information around inclusion policies. It was really good to see people talking and helping each other out.

Q. As a consultant to nuclear companies, what does it take to succeed in this industry? Can you share some wisdom that you try to impart upon your clients?

I recommend patience and being prepared that it may take a while before things come to fruition. Like any industry, it’s important to understand the market and any requirements or qualifications needed that will enable a client to place a contract with your organization. I like to conduct reviews with my clients so we can understand their current status and identify and implement an action plan to close any gaps and put them in an improved position to win those contracts.    

Q. Knowing what you know now, what career advice would you give your younger self?

Seek mentors and a career sponsor sooner.

Q. Following up on that, what advice do you give nuclear industry employers seeking to diversify their workforce?

Check how inclusive your organization currently is and be honest about retention issues and any feedback you’ve received from marginalized or minoritized employees. Work on improving that element of performance and improving the work environment so that everyone feels included and able to do their best work. Hiring people into an environment that isn’t welcoming, will likely result in any hiring gains being undone, due to people leaving and going to work elsewhere.

Q. And finally, what advice can you give to those starting out in their careers, when it comes to navigating an industry that lacks diversity.

Develop your network and don’t be afraid to ask for help. For me, having some peers in my network who understood some of the challenges I faced, because they faced some of them, too, helped me work out ways around or through some of the barriers. Seek mentors and sponsors who are supportive of you, your development and your career goals. If your organization has an inclusion and diversity plan and you’ve not heard about nor seen any progress reported, if you have the confidence to — ask for an update.  

Can recruiting an ace volleyball player lead to a 17-year business partnership? Apparently so, says Steve Airhart, CEO of Freestone Environmental Services, the newly acquired wholly-owned subsidiary of Deep Isolation.

Airhart, who studied geology at the University of Montana and launched a career in environmental consulting at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, was playing in a city volleyball league in the early 1990s when he heard that local environmental scientist Dan Tyler had just moved to town and had played college volleyball at Purdue University. He figured Tyler would be a great addition to the league team, so he didn’t waste time to make an introduction and invited him to a tryout.

Tyler, who founded Freestone Environmental Services in 1998, lived up to his volleyball reputation and joined the roster. Soon he and Airhart began collaborating off the court on waste management projects. As Freestone took on additional contract work at the Department of Energy’s Hanford nuclear weapons clean-up site, it made sense to become business partners in 2004.

These days Tyler serves in a high-level advisory role while Airhart leads the day-to-day operations. The recently announced acquisition of Freestone by Deep Isolation marks the next chapter in Freestone’s 23-year history, so we sat down with Airhart to learn more about his passion for environmental services and nuclear waste management.

Q. What intrigues you most about your role as an environmental consultant?

A. Environmental consultants provide a broad range of services to ensure compliance with the myriad of complex federal and state regulations. I focused my early career on the characterization and remediation of contaminated sites which allowed me to apply my science and geology background. Contaminated site characterization is particularly intriguing because it involves unraveling the mystery and interconnections of the site geology, hydrology, and geochemistry. That’s what makes our job interesting and challenging. When the location involves a contaminant release, we have to overlay our understanding of the subsurface to determine how the contaminant has moved and how to remediate it to reduce the risk it poses. Our work incorporates science and technology to understand the problem, the risk, and the regulatory framework that governs the cleanup. The final objective and reward is to remove a problem that otherwise would pose an ongoing risk to humans, biota, and the environment. It’s very satisfying.

Q. It sounds like your expertise fits nicely with Deep Isolation’s mission — to permanently dispose of nuclear waste in deep boreholes.

A. Interestingly I studied geologic disposal of radioactive waste at the University of Montana. Digging tunnels in granite for mined repositories intrigued me at the time, and later through my connections, I got into the work at Hanford. I’ve worked around many borehole drilling operations, though not to the depth that Deep Isolation’s looking at and for different purposes.

Q. What are some particularly interesting projects you’ve worked on?

A. Although I’ve been fortunate to work on complex clean-up projects at Hanford, some other notable projects involved smaller clean-up projects that I conducted independently as a private consultant.  These involved cleaning up after fuel-truck and railroad spills in remote locations in eastern Oregon. The logistics of managing the cleanup and ultimately receiving approval from the regulators was very gratifying.  Also, I’ll never forget working in the Alaskan Pribilof Islands where a group of us provided site characterization work on behalf of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That project tested our abilities to work in a very remote and challenging environment.  Invariably, remote projects involve unexpected complications requiring creative field troubleshooting solutions — which at the time can be stressful but also become the most memorable and rewarding.  

Hanford-Freestone Boat
Freestone conducting field work in the Columbia River near the Hanford Nuclear Site in eastern Washington.

Q. What excites you about being acquired by Deep Isolation?

A. While sometimes acquisitions lead to one company being absorbed by another, that’s not the case here. The goal is for each company to leverage the other’s strengths. Freestone will continue operating independently but will have opportunities to share technical experience to inform Deep Isolation projects. For example, our geologists could provide useful insights into Deep Isolation’s feasibility studies, where they study how a deep borehole repository for nuclear waste will work in certain types of rock deep underground. And certainly our experience with government contracts — we also have a prime contract with NOAA and previously held a prime contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  — could help inform Deep Isolation’s future contracts. On the Deep Isolation side, they’ve gained worldwide recognition for their solution in a very short timeframe, and we foresee this giving Freestone an opportunity to expand its footprint beyond Washington state.

Q. Speaking of government contracts, your primary customer is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford site, where you provide scientific and regulatory support to the prime contractors. How would you characterize Freestone’s role with this project?

A. We have been very fortunate to establish ourselves as a go-to small business among the Hanford prime contractors.  We don’t take our responsibilities to our clients lightly, because ultimately their clean-up decisions must be effective and compliant and meet the expectations of their client, the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as a large number of stakeholder groups and regulators.  The Hanford site encompasses 586 square miles.  It is considered the largest environmental cleanup in the nation, involving a complex 50-year history of chemical storage and operations. Our work at the site varies and involves support to subsurface characterization activities, environmental data verification, and data management, site characterization reports, and preparation of regulatory planning and permitting documents.  Due to the variety of work we support, we work with staff with a variety of technical backgrounds and levels of experience. 

Q. Running a small business can be challenging. Describe your growth philosophy and what you see for your future.

A. To use a baseball analogy, our business philosophy is more in line with a small ball approach, where we emphasize slow incremental growth similar to advancing one base at a time.  We do this so as to not sacrifice our commitments and reputation with our current clients to achieve a more rapid gain. Over the years we have succeeded in maintaining a balance between maintaining our current client commitments while pursuing opportunities to diversify and grow. Something that we are less known for is our technology development. Using assistance from a series of Department of Energy-sponsored Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) grants, Freestone developed a sensor to measure hexavalent chromium in groundwater. We hope in the next five years to have the opportunity to deploy multiple sensors to provide continuous real-time monitoring of the diminishing hexavalent chromium groundwater plumes near the Columbia River. Last but certainly not least, in light of our recent acquisition by Deep Isolation, we are excited to collaborate to support nuclear waste disposal demonstration projects and look for new government and commercial contract opportunities. 

Blog by Sam Brinton and Jessica Chow, November 22, 2021

Solving the Nuclear Waste Problem Removes Barrier to Nuclear

At COP26 earlier this month, the glaring absence of nuclear energy as a central discussion topic highlights the uphill challenge this clean energy source has in being recognized as a key player in fighting global warming.

Right before COP26 started, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi stated, “Nuclear energy provides more than a quarter of the world’s clean power. Over the last half-century, it has avoided the release of more than 70 gigatons of greenhouse gases. Without nuclear power, many of the world’s biggest economies would lack their main source of clean electricity.”

Media headlines lately have touched on California, Germany, and the U.K. struggling with skyrocketing natural gas prices and projected increases in power demand while simultaneously shuttering or considering closing their nuclear power plants.

Additionally, it’s not just first-world countries that are grappling with transitioning to a carbon-neutral energy base; as energy demand increases worldwide, all clean energy sources should be utilized to combat the climate crisis.

In another COP26-related article, Matt Bowen of Columbia University’s Center for Global Energy Policy said, “(Climate change)  will be much more daunting if we exclude new nuclear plants — or even more daunting if we decide to shut down nuclear plants altogether… Nuclear waste needs to be dealt with, (but) with fossil fuels, the waste is pumped into our atmosphere, which is threatening us from the risks of climate change and public health impacts from air pollution.”

So, if nuclear energy is seen as a way to fight climate change, why does it have such a bad rap? The reasons are many: fear of nuclear accidents, the potentially high costs and long construction timelines, and perhaps most relevantly, the fact that no country has yet to permanently dispose of its spent nuclear fuel.

Nuclear waste disposal isn’t as easy (or fun) to talk about as the deployment of renewable energy sources, but it is just as important. Because the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste proves to be a barrier to the deployment of new nuclear power plants, solving the nuclear waste disposal problem will help governments address public concerns about building new plants.

Although nuclear energy has its challenges and is often hampered by issues of public perception and deployment, it is still an incredibly necessary low-carbon energy source that can help reduce emissions that lead to global warming. While nuclear may not have been officially discussed enough by top decision-makers at COP26, we believe that solving the problem of nuclear waste will get the world one step closer to its climate goals.

Blog by Kari Hulac, July 28, 2021

Deep Borehole Expert Joins Deep Isolation

Deep Isolation is pleased to welcome its newest team member: Ethan Bates, Director of Systems Engineering.

Dr. Bates, a nuclear engineer who received his doctorate from MIT in 2015, is an expert in reactor safety and nuclear systems integration and has worked for more than five years with leading advanced nuclear companies. In 2014 he co-authored a short paper for the Energy Policy journal published by Elsevier titled “Can Deep Boreholes Solve America’s Nuclear Waste Problem?” The highly cited paper looked at how disposal in deep boreholes could ease siting issues, provide modularity, and lower costs.

At Deep Isolation Dr. Bates is responsible for systems engineering-based product development for the operations of the company’s deep borehole repository concept.

In this Q&A get to know Dr. Bates and learn about his passion for deep boreholes.

Q. What inspired you to choose nuclear engineering as your career path?

After growing up in Singapore and participating in Model United Nations in high school, I became familiar with international issues needing massive institutional and technological advancements. The one that concerned me the most and which I felt could benefit the most from my quantitative skills was climate change.  I applied to Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and was admitted along with my twin brother Richard, who shares my passion for preventing climate change. We saw a flyer for a new freshman class called “Energy, Environment, and Society” and were intrigued by its project-based format.  I chose a project analyzing ways to recover thermal energy from MIT’s 5 -megawatt research reactor and became increasingly fascinated by how elegant, clean, efficient, and compact nuclear reactors are.  Combined with the realization that nuclear power was one of — if not the only — mature clean energy technology that could be expanded rapidly to grid-scale, I dedicated my studies and career to advancing the technology.

Dr. Ethan Bates touring SKB’s Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory (HRL), a spent fuel repository demonstration facility near Oskarshamn, Sweden.
Dr. Ethan Bates touring SKB’s Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory (HRL), a spent fuel repository demonstration facility near Oskarshamn, Sweden. He is standing next to a display model of a KBS-3 repository concept copper canister, designed to corrode less than 1 mm in 100,000 years.

Q. After earning your nuclear science and engineering degree from MIT, you earned your doctorate there in which you developed a computational thermal and geologic model to simulate and optimize the design for a deep borehole waste disposal/spent nuclear fuel repository. Tell us how you became interested in deep boreholes and share some highlights of your doctoral research.

I saw an intriguing handwritten and photocopied flyer in the nuclear engineering department asking for an undergraduate researcher to conduct experiments on new concepts of emplacing nuclear waste in a deep borehole repository.  I discovered the flyer was composed by Professor Michael Driscoll, who had been pioneering borehole research (among other areas) for decades and had developed a reputation for tackling highly complex problems with elegant solutions he derived with pencil and paper.  This seemed like a great way to get more hands-on experience in a laboratory and to contribute to solving the nuclear waste problem.  Inspired by my advisors (Prof. Michael Driscoll and Prof. Jacopo Buongiorno), I made the research the focus of my bachelor’s and master’s degrees, which received an award from the Department of Energy in 2011 and led to a scholarship from the American Nuclear Society in 2013.

My doctoral research led to a published paper on sealing materials for borehole repositories.  I also investigated new filler materials for the canister and canister-to-borehole wall gap.  I realized that to quantify the benefit of these advancements, I’d need to develop an integrated safety and cost model.  This allowed me to provide justified answers to even more fundamental and unexplored questions of deep borehole design, such as the limits of waste loading and borehole spacing.

One of my favorite experiences was collaborating with accomplished scientists from national laboratories and having the chance to visit the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico.  It gave me a true sense of geologic time scales and proved to me that siting, building, and operating a deep borehole repository is possible.

A key finding of my research validated my initial draw to nuclear as a compact and efficient energy source.  I estimated that for the same amount of electricity, geologic disposal of nuclear waste will require up to 10,000 times less land area compared to the alternative of building advanced natural gas plants with carbon capture and sequestration into similarly isolated geologic formations.

Q. You also published a short paper examining whether deep boreholes could provide a means to address the nuclear waste problem. What did this paper conclude?

The primary conclusion is that deep boreholes provide access to stable rocks that have

been isolated from flowing groundwater and surface processes for millions of years.  This increases the number of potential sites where geologic disposal is possible, easing one of the biggest challenges to the nuclear industry.  The concept relies more on the natural barriers and features whose behavior can be extrapolated into the future more confidently compared to man-made and engineered barriers.  Since boreholes are modular (i.e., capacity can be expanded as needed), they’ll create less programmatic risk and could be valuable to countries with smaller inventories.

Q. You worked at two advanced nuclear reactor companies before coming to Deep Isolation. Please tell us about these experiences and why you’ve chosen to focus on the back end of the fuel cycle.

I had the rare opportunity to work at both TerraPower and Oklo and attended MIT alongside the founders of Transatomic.  In this way, I’ve lived the dream that a young engineer might have after watching the movie, “A New Fire,” a compelling and inspiring documentary about these three advanced nuclear companies.

I was strongly drawn to TerraPower’s vision of bringing bright nuclear engineers together to design and deploy an advanced sodium-cooled nuclear reactor in the near term.  There I analyzed the safety of their reactors and focused on validating the accuracy of accident simulation codes.  The most rewarding part of my time there was traveling to the International Atomic Energy Agency (in the real, not “model” United Nations) to present the findings of the work I had started as an intern.  That led to an invitation to present our findings at a conference in Yekaterinburg, Russia, where I was the only American in attendance and toured their sodium-cooled fast reactors. 

The challenge of nuclear waste disposal is shared by many countries and should be solved soon if there is to be a significant (and much needed) expansion in nuclear power.  Advanced nuclear reactors will still produce significant amounts of waste, and the front-runner concepts are not positioned to rapidly deal with the existing and growing inventory of spent fuel.  Thus, although I had opportunities to continue in the advanced nuclear industry, I ultimately decided to refocus on disposal.  I believe I can benefit the industry the most (and thus help combat climate change) by designing, testing, and deploying a borehole repository.  I was also attracted by the rewarding sense of empowerment, mutual respect, and mission of the Deep Isolation team.

Q. Any Deep Isolation accomplishments you’d like to highlight so far? What would success look like to you moving forward?

I’ve been able to pick up where I left off with my MIT research and begin fulfilling my goal of bringing it to reality.  Over the past five years, Deep Isolation has made great advancements in borehole design and performance analysis. By applying systems engineering principles, I’ve structured these efforts within an overarching concept of operations.  Breaking the large complex problem into organized and manageable pieces enables us to prioritize them and build more a detailed and robust technology commercialization pathway.  I’m also leading our collaboration with external industry experts to improve the deep borehole community’s collective understanding of long-term safety analysis assumptions.

Moving forward, success requires continuing development of technical partnerships, customer relationships, and government funding sources across the globe. We’ve assembled excellent teams to lead each of these areas and our progress so far is encouraging.

In the near term, techno-economic models which reveal performance trade-offs and limits as a function of various host rocks, waste types, loadings, and other design assumptions will enable optimization of design configurations.  Using these methods, we can also generate site selection criteria specifying where and under what conditions deep borehole repositories can be safely built.  Combining this with customer-specific requirements, the design can be refined, and a complete set of technical requirements can be established.

In parallel, a well-planned and executed demonstration program would be a major success for the industry, building broader confidence, establishing trust, and signaling that the technology will be ready to commercialize and scale.

Q. Tell our readers something about yourself that they might not expect to know about a nuclear engineer.

Most people wouldn’t associate nuclear engineers with music or dancing, but I really enjoy playing guitar and dancing Argentine tango.  Musically, I’d say my style is blues-rock with an infusion of jazz.  I performed for many years as a student at MIT’s “Battle of the Bands,” have danced in tango festivals all over the U.S., and even taught a series of tango classes at a university.

Blog by Kari Hulac, June 8, 2021

Our Podcast Celebrates its First Year

When I was hired at Deep Isolation in early 2020, I was eager to apply my experience in news, social media and renewable energy marketing to a new-to-me topic: nuclear waste disposal.

However, of the skills listed on my resume, “podcast host” was not among them. So when two weeks into my job I found out that, “Oh yes, the company was very much in need of a host for a new series about nuclear waste,” I won’t lie: I gulped.

Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story logo
Deep Isolation’s podcast was established in the spring of 2020.

But when I discovered that it would be my role to represent people similar to myself — nuclear industry outsiders mostly unaware of this hidden-in-plain-sight worldwide problem — I knew it was something I was willing to try.

The goal was for Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story to embody one of the most important elements of a successful nuclear waste disposal program: the ability to listen, to recognize, and to understand different perspectives on nuclear waste and all of its dimensions; as a former reporter and editor, those objectives were in my comfort zone.

Afterall, what better way is there to collect as much wisdom as possible on a complicated topic? Now, a year later, we have released 12 episodes with plenty more to come. We’ve also incorporated additional hosts (Liz Muller and Sam Brinton) to provide valuable insights to these conversations.

I’m happy (and relieved!) to say the podcast has earned a five-star rating on Apple, with listeners saying they appreciate its “to the point and direct vibe” and the expertise of our interviewees, who include citizen activists, nuclear industry veterans, government leaders and scientists.

I’ve learned so much from each and every one of these guests and am grateful for their willingness to speak openly about the challenges they face in their respective efforts to tackle this controversial problem.

Don’t Miss Our New Podcast Highlights Reel

There are too many highlights to mention, but we’ve assembled some of them into a short montage that I hope you’ll take a few minutes to watch or listen to.

The highlights reel includes Kara Colton, who points out that nuclear waste — often incorrectly portrayed as “green goo” ala “The Simpsons” — can be an object as seemingly innocuous as a glove or a broom.

Or there’s the episode with Judy Treichel and Steve Frishman, two “ordinary” citizens who’ve spent 30 years informing the public about the U.S. government’s plan to build a mined waste repository in Nevada. They discuss how their effort eventually led to Yucca Mt. being put on hold because, as they said the states residents believe, “Nevada is not a wasteland.”

New episodes are added monthly. Watch or listen at or subscribe via Apple, Spotify, Amazon or Google. The series is also a playlist on our YouTube channel.

Please note: Although Deep Isolation is the producer, any opinions expressed by either the interviewers or their subjects do not represent our official company position.

And as always, we’d love to hear from you! Who should interview next? What questions about nuclear waste would you like answered? Just send an email to

Blog by Deep Isolation Staff, Aug. 10, 2020

Social Scientist Explains Community Consent

One reason why governments worldwide struggle with implementing a permanent nuclear waste disposal solution is that they don’t adequately engage affected communities, most of which don’t want it in their backyards.

In a recent episode of Deep Isolation’s podcast, Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story, social scientist Dr. Thomas Webler discusses the challenges of reaching community consensus when deciding where to dispose of nuclear waste.

Webler, Research Fellow at the Social and Environmental Research Institute (SERI) and Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Keene State College, is well-versed on the topic: He and his colleagues made recommendations to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future and have advised the U.S. Department of Energy on nuclear waste disposal sites.

Dr. Thomas Webler
Dr. Thomas Webler, Research Fellow at the Social and Environmental Research Institute (SERI) and Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Keene State College

In this episode, “Community Consent is Key to Resolving Disposal Impasse,” Webler says consent-based siting must respect the principle of self determination, meaning a community ought to have the power to accept or decline an offer to become a nuclear waste disposal site. 

“The most important thing that an institution could do to earn trust is to give the community the power and authority to close down, to turn off an operation, a facility, with no penalties or negative consequences,” Webler says.

He says it’s important that the entity seeking permission be open to listening, responding to concerns and discussing a variety of options rather than forcing a single solution or a particular disposal location.

He points to the 1996-1998 Seaborn panel in Canada as an example of a process that worked. The panel of experts visited different provinces and held public hearings to ensure that everyone had a chance to have their voices heard. Ultimately it was decided that a deep geologic repository was the best solution.

Consent is a concept that although challenging to define, is an admirable goal for any entity trying to find a site for a facility that could be perceived of as threatening. It is only through a process of engaging with a community and other stakeholders, as Webler describes, that informed consent can be achieved. When this process has been fair and transparent it can be a win for all involved. 

Watch Webler’s episode on video or listen to the podcast and let us know what you think!

While Deep Isolation is producing this series, any opinions expressed by either the interviewers or their subjects are not necessarily representative of our official position. 

Have a suggestion for someone we should interview? Email Learn more at

Related Posts

Waste Disposal Issues Plague Nuclear Energy Industry

Expert Discusses Nuclear Waste Dangers and Disposal Options

New Podcast-Vlog Series: Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story

Episode 4


James Taylor

General Manager of the environmental division of Bechtel's Nuclear, Security, & Environmental global business unit

Temporary Waste Storage Costs Keep Rising

In this episode, James Taylor speaks about the long term costs of temporarily storing nuclear waste above ground.

Note: This transcript is the raw transcript of this podcast. Minimal edits have been made only for clarity purposes.

James Taylor (00:10):

When I started out in college in 1987, the problem existed. And as I’ve worked the last 33 years, it’s still a problem for the country with no disposition in place.

Narrator (00:24):

Hello, and welcome to Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story, a series designed to explore perspectives of nuclear waste disposal. About half a million metric tons of high-level nuclear waste is temporarily stored at hundreds of sites worldwide. No country has established a permanent home for spent commercial fuel. In the US alone, one in three people live within 50 miles of a storage site. That fact may be surprising, but it’s not for lack of technical solutions. Experts worldwide agree that a deep geological repository would be the best final resting place for this hazardous substance. So what’s the delay you ask? The answers are complex and controversial. In this series, we’re interviewing experts and stakeholders representing pieces of this complicated puzzle to give you a clearer picture of Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story.

In this episode, Emmy award-winning documentary filmmaker and Deep Isolation adviser, David Hoffman talks to James Taylor, General Manager of the Environmental Division of Bechtel’s Nuclear Security and Environmental Global Business Unit about the long-term costs of temporarily storing nuclear waste above ground.

At Deep Isolation, we believe that listening is one of the most important elements of a successful nuclear waste disposal program. A core company value is to seek and listen to different perspectives on the matter of nuclear waste, nuclear energy, and disposal solutions.

Narrator (02:05):

The opinions expressed in this series are those of the participants and do not represent Deep Isolation’s position.

David Hoffman (02:13):

First question. Just give me a sense of your background, how you got to do this, and you’ve been in it a long time, right?

James Taylor (02:23):

I’ve been in the nuclear industry now for over 33 years. I spent my entire career around waste and nuclear waste, both commercially and with the Department of Energy. I’m currently the General Manager with Bechtel Corporation running our environmental business, which is basically all of the Department of Energy, environmental management contracts, and responsible for the work we’re doing in the UK for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. All of that work is related to waste and waste disposition.

David Hoffman (02:52):

It seems like the government said certain things. They were going to take care of this and the industry said, okay, government, you’re going to take care of this. But that hasn’t happened. What is the issue that’s causing the stuff to just stay above ground without any ultimate solution? Do you feel, what’s going on?

James Taylor (03:12):

Part of the problem is they canceled the program that was supposed to take care of the high-level waste and the spent nuclear fuel. Back in 1982, 83, timeframe, Congress passed the waste, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And that, in that act, it put the Department of Energy responsible for this material and its ultimate disposition. So right now, since they do not have a disposal path for this material, it’s sitting across the Department of Energy sites. That’s the site in Hanford, Washington. There’s a site in Savannah, Riverside in South Carolina, and there’s another site in Idaho. So currently, the spent nuclear fuel and the high-level waste generated from our nuclear weapons programs is sitting in storage. And the same thing has happened with the spent nuclear fuel that our commercial nuclear power plants use to produce, produce power for the nation or a significant amount of power. And that material is sitting at where it was generated, at about 70 different nuclear power plant sites in 30 different States.

David Hoffman (04:26):

That sounds like a mess. And the question I want to ask you is a long-term one. When you started, you must have been concerned about this issue. This is an environmental issue. What do we do with the waste from this incredible power that we get from nuclear power and military waste as well? And you’ve spent your whole life so far, 30 plus years without a resolution. Tell me, is that correct? And how does that feel for you as a person who obviously cares about this issue and knows a lot about it?

James Taylor (04:55):

Yes. When I started out of college in 1987 the problem existed and as I’ve worked the last 33 years, it’s still a problem for the country with no disposition in place. It certainly had programs and plans to establish these facilities, but they, but that was canceled when they canceled the Yucca project back in, I guess it was 2011, I think 2011. So we still are sitting here with no site and available for disposal of this material.

David Hoffman (05:36):

Bechtel supports a lot of companies, as well as the government in this issue. What effect is that having on the nuclear power companies who didn’t think they’d have this problem and just, how do they feel about this? Are they frustrated? Are they glad that the problem exists? Are they making money or losing money? What’s the situation for the companies?

James Taylor (05:58):

It’s a big business because the material has to be stored safely. So in the interim, this material is having to be placed in canisters and in canisters placed in safe storage above ground. And that’s big business because not only do you have to store the material in these canisters and at these sites, and that’s about a million dollars per canister to give you an idea. And then the annual costs to manage these facilities is about six to 8 million per year. So it’s big business. And of course the utilities since the Department of Energy and the government’s responsible for this material, they simply sue the government and it goes to court and they win. And then the government has to reimburse those costs. Then that’s currently at about 800 million per year. The taxpayers are paying to manage the storage of the material that’s generated today.

James Taylor (06:55):

Of course, there’s a lot more material that will be generated over the next 40 years that again, they’ll have to sue, the government will have to reimburse them. And it’s going to turn into something in the order of, let’s say 3 billion per year in annual costs. And of course, for the defense-related materials, materials that are Department of Energy sites, that has to be stored safely as well. And they’re having to build new facilities. They’re having to store this material in these facilities. They have to do the operation and maintenance of these facilities at similar costs. So when you really look at it, you know, the government’s collected a bunch of money and I probably need to talk about that. So since they put the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in place, the government collected about one 10th of a cent per kilowatt produced of power from these utilities. So that’s about one mile per kilowatt-hour. So, and they’ve collected now about 43 or so billion dollars to dispose of this material. And of course, the bad part about that is now that they’re having, they don’t have a disposal site to put the material. All these increased costs that I just talked about are building up and in my calculation, the fact that they don’t have disposal just doubled the cost of disposition, if they have to store it for the next 50 years in these safe interim locations.

David Hoffman (08:27):

Are we talking about an American problem or is it a global problem? I mean, Bechtel’s a global corporation. So I assume, is every country the same as us? So are they all dealing with the same thing all at the same time of disposal above ground and interim storage?

James Taylor (08:42):

All the countries that are having trouble finding a location to put the material, mainly because no one wants it in their backyard, you know, not in my backyard. That’s a fact. So every country who has several nuclear power plants and defense-related sites that generate high-level waste and spent fuel, they all need to dispose of this material safely. Right now, most of them are storing it and they have programs that are being developed just like the States, where they’re trying to locate a site, get consensus on where to site, where to put the site, and then build it and move the material to that site. So most countries are not very far along. I think the French are pretty far along. I think some of the other countries in Europe are moving their programs forward. And of course, in some of the countries in Asia, like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, they’re very, very early on in the process of getting a deep repository in place for disposal, this material. So all of the countries that have nuclear power and defense waste have this issue and are in various stages of getting a, you know, a disposal site in place. But, but just like the States, they’re all struggling.

David Hoffman (10:00):

You don’t hardly ever hear about nuclear waste in the general news, but in one of the industry news, I just was reading recently that it is less safe than it should be. We, we never think about the safety issue. Really. You do, I’m sure, but general public doesn’t in general. Does this make you nervous? Are we, is this uncomfortable, to say the least, to have this interim unresolved situation?

James Taylor (10:27):

I think the bigger issue is not the safety of the material, because whether it’s stored in fuel pools at these commercial reactors or whether they remove it and put it in dry storage above ground or in buildings, they have all been designed from a safety standpoint to keep that material secure and safe. So I don’t think that’s the issue. The bigger issue is if those facilities are only designed to last so many years, let’s say 50 years to maybe a hundred on the outside. So eventually you’re going to have to be able to build new facilities to put that material in or find a repository to place the material in a permanent location. And all that’s going to do is increase the cost of this, of managing this material, which ultimately increases the cost to the ratepayers and to the taxpayers. And, and that is what is really worrisome.

David Hoffman (11:24):

If you have children and you’re going to retire someday, you have a hope here that things will be different. Or do you suspect this is going to go on and on and on and on you’ll retire and the next guy will come into your job and he’ll face the same issue as you do, essentially unchanged on a global scale?

James Taylor (11:42):

Certainly from my standpoint, I do have a son. My son, Preston, and he’s, he’s at the Boston university now going to college. And I certainly guided him to stay away from the nuclear industry because it’s, it’s dying and that’s unfortunate. And I’d like to see that turned around. And I think the first thing that has to happen is we have to get rid of the backend problem with this waste. The waste, we need to have an answer for that. It needs to be disposed of, and it needs to be disposed of in a cost-effective way. And I think that’s the only thing that’s going to turn the nuclear industry around here in the US and so, you know, I, I think this is a big problem. I think this problem needs to be solved and it needs to be solved now because as I said, as time moves on we’re, we’re going to continue to pay an extreme amount of money.

James Taylor (12:33):

And I think eventually in that, and soon the taxpayers and the government should step forward and realize that they’re spending vast amounts of money without solving the problem. And, you know, the 43 billion they’ve set aside, they still have to spend. And in between now and spending it, you know, they’re going to, you know, it’s doubling the cost. So it’s just not, not a healthy place to be. So I do think this problem needs to be solved and solved now, which is, which is why Bechtel supporting Deep Isolation because I think, you know, their main approach is consensus siting. So it, that solves the problem of not in my backyard, because most of the companies and the government that has all of this waste, they need to get rid of it. And, you know, we’ve done some work and it looks like you can actually dispose of this material at half of what DOE, Department of Energy, had estimated the cost to be.

James Taylor (13:35):

So, you know, I think it, it deserves a closer look. I think there’s a lot of work to be done, both in licensing and developing the facilities and maturing the technology. There’s a lot of work to be done, but I think in the next five to 10 years they can advance it to the point that it’s a viable solution that can be implemented and save everyone a lot of money and solve this back-end problem.

David Hoffman (14:00):

I want to thank you for James Taylor for the honesty and the clarity and the 30 some years you’ve put into this thing. And I do hope for your son Preston, that when he graduates and whenever he graduates with and steps into the world, that we’ve managed to put some of it down under the ground far under the ground in safe places. And we stopped spending the money as you say, and whatever risk there is, gets reduced by that process too. So thank you very much for doing this with me. You go on and have your day and good luck.

James Taylor (14:32):

Hi David. Thank you.

Narrator (14:35):

Thank you for listening. We hope you’ll share this podcast with others and feel free to send any comments or suggestions to You can visit to learn more. At Deep Isolation, we believe that listening is one of the most important elements of a successful nuclear waste disposal program. A core company value is to seek and listen to different perspectives on the matter of nuclear waste, nuclear energy, and disposal solutions. The opinions expressed in this series are those of the participants and do not represent Deep Isolation’s position.

101 Asset

Nuclear Waste 101

Understand more about nuclear waste and its implications for you and your community.

About Nuclear Waste


Deep Isolation answers frequently asked questions about our technology, our process, and safety.

Deep Isolation Answers

Subscribe to Receive Our Newsletter

Blog by Deep Isolation Staff, July 13, 2020

Temporary Nuclear Waste Storage Costs Keep Rising

In our fourth episode of Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story we delve deeper into the downside of not having a permanent storage solution for nuclear waste.

Our guest is James Taylor, General Manager of the environmental division of Bechtel’s Nuclear, Security and Environmental global business unit. Taylor talks about the long-term costs of the interim storage of nuclear waste.

James Taylor of Bechtel
James Taylor of Bechtel

According to an analysis by Deep Isolation, based on data from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Nuclear Association, more than half a million metric tons of high-level nuclear waste is temporarily stored at hundreds of sites worldwide. No country has yet implemented a disposal solution for spent commercial fuel.

Taylor explains the financial impacts of not having a permanent disposal solution for nuclear waste, pointing out that utility ratepayers and taxpayers are footing a bill that will continually amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually until a solution is implemented. This isn’t just an issue in the United States: This is a global challenge impacting countries worldwide.

With most of the waste sitting in storage pools or above-ground dry storage facilities, interim storage has become a big business, costing $6 million to $8 million per year to manage these facilities. 

Taylor brings a business-insider perspective to this issue. In his leadership role at Bechtel, Taylor has general management responsibility for the management and operation of high-hazard nuclear and chemical cleanup sites, facility decommissioning, field remediation, project management services and nuclear material management, treatment and disposition. This work includes managing projects for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) and the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). 

You can listen to this interview and others on our website or subscribe to the podcast series on your favorite player. Watch the videos on our YouTube playlist.

While Deep Isolation is producing this series, any opinions expressed by either the interviewers or their subjects are not necessarily representative of our official position.

Have a suggestion for a future podcast? Email us at Learn more at

Blog by Deep Isolation Staff, June 22, 2020

Waste Disposal Issues Plague Nuclear Energy Industry

In the second episode of our new podcast and vlog series, Nuclear Waste: The Whole Story, we talk to nuclear energy industry veteran and Senior Director at NEI Rod McCullum about why it’s critical that commercial nuclear power companies find a permanent disposal option.

Nuclear power plants provide one-fifth of the United States’ electricity annually, according to Department of Energy statistics. Proponents herald it as a reliable zero-emissions source of energy while detractors say the risks of nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. Currently, futuristic advanced reactor technologies are being developed to compliment present day technologies.

Deep Isolation as a company does not take a position on the use of nuclear power.  Our focus is on providing a solution for the accumulated radioactive waste that is currently temporarily stored in spent fuel cooling pools and above-ground storage facilities worldwide.

Nuclear Waste Dry Cask Storage Facility
A dry cask facility in Vermont.

“The good news with the nuclear industry is we contain all of our waste, all of our byproduct wastes,” says McCullum, Senior Director, Used Fuel and Decommissioning, for the Nuclear Energy Institute. “The bad news is we’ve still got them.”

In this episode, “Disposal Impasse Impacts Future of Next Generation Reactors,” McCullum explains why any failure to solve this problem could negatively affect the development of the next generation of nuclear energy reactors.

McCullum has 30 years of nuclear engineering, licensing, management and regulatory policy experience. Before joining NEI, he held positions with the U.S. Department of Energy and worked for several commercial nuclear power plants. 

You can listen to this interview and others on our website or subscribe to the series on your favorite player. Watch the videos on our YouTube playlist.

The opinions of the subjects interviewed do not represent Deep Isolation’s official position. Have a suggestion for a future topic? Email us at Learn more at


For more information about our solution, please contact us. 415 915 6506

Deep Isolation, Inc.
2120 University Avenue, Ste. 623
Berkeley, CA 94704