|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 12
12.
Appcudix B
NATIONAL AC ADEMY OF SCIENCE - NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES
PROCEEDINGS of Me PRINCETON CONFERENCE
on
DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE PRODUCTS
)
~ .
. -
6
Edited condensation from the record of the
stenotype reporter.
September 10- IZ, 1955
Graduate College, Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey
OCR for page 13
Appendix B
September 10, 1955
Afternoon Se s sion
R. J. Russell
H. H. Hess
A. E. Gorman
Charies Renn
J. T. Christ~r
F. L. Cu~er, Jr. -
E'ren~ng Se8sion
CONTENTS
-
O~en~ng remarks~eeeee..e.
Remarks ~ e ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~
Addre ~ s and discus sion . . . e
Acldre s ~ and dis cus sion e ~ ~ ~
Address ~d ctiscussion ee.e
Address and cliscus sion ....
H. H. Hess - Remarks e e e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e e ~ ~ e ~ ~ e e ~ e e ~ e e
;r. Ae tieberm~ - Address and discussion e e ~ ~ e ~ e ~ e
A e M . Piper - AcI - ess a=d discus sion e ~ ~ ~ ~
Re;Fe Morton - Acidress and discussion
E. G. Stru~mess - Ac3dress and discussion
September 11, 1955
~,
Sunday Morning Session
Ee Ge Stru~mess - C;ontinuation of address
and discussion oeeeeeee.eeee
General Discussion eeeeeeeeeeeeeee.-~---~-eee-ee-.ee
Appo~tment of Commi~ees eeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
-- September 12, 1955
Monday Morning Session
13.
Page
, ..
_eeeeeee 14
14
eeeeee. 15
.~. 18
----e-~. 22
e.~e 32
~4
34
40
50
55
58
64
75
Reports of Committees:
M . K. Hubbert eeeeee.~eeee.~ee~e~ee.~e 7 6
78
81
J. C. Frye eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeee
H. H. Hess - Clos~ng remarks
OCR for page 14
14.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCETON CONFERENCE
ON THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE PRODUCTS
SATURDAY AFTERNOON SESSION
September 10, 1955
The Conference on Disposal of Radioactive Waste Products
convened ~ the Commons Room of the Graduate College, Princeton
University, at 2 o'clock.
DR. RICHARD J. RUSSELL: On behalf of the Division of Earth
Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences - National Research
Council, ~ am happy to welcome you to this Conference and to see
this meeting so weU attended. We have been working with people at
Johns Hopkins and with people from the A.E.C. since last November
to prepare for this conference and plan for another one. We have
called together a heterogeneous group of people from many different
fields and cliscipl~es with a cumulative total of a tremendous amount
. .
O. experience .
The main objective In this Conference, as far as the Division of
Earn Sciences is concerned, is to generate and list ideas for the
~idergrou~c] disposal of high level wastes. That is our mission.
-
The ground rules have chimed from time to time on the problem,
d it has been very difficult for those associated with it to keep up
.
with developments in the chemical processing which determine the
nature of the materials we have to deal with. We have had the feeling
several times that the problem has shifted completely from one area
over to another; we believe that set this conference you win get a hint
of the varier] nature of the problems before us.
The preparation of this conference and the organization of the
report which we win submit under the contract with the A.E.C., is
under the direction of Harry Hess, who has served as Chairman of
the Steering Committee, and who win presicle at these meetings.
. .. Dr. H. H. Hess assumed the Chair .. .
CHAIRMAN HESS: ~ would lilce to welcome you here on behalf of
Princeton University. ~ am very happy, as Chairman of the Steering
OCR for page 15
15.
Committee, to see how many of you responded to our request to
participate in this conference. ~ know it is a serious matter to leave
your normal activities and Rewrote several clays to our problem, en c]
am delighted to see that so many of you have come.
The problem we have to deal with is a very complex one. This
first day ~nllbe spent determining what the components are: they
change rather rapidly; the whole problem has changed Mace our first
meeting of last spring. We will have to get the necessary background
to know what sort of a problem we are dealing with, and ~ hope before
the meeting is over there will be some specific suggestions that can
be looked into and that win lead at least ~ the direction of the solu-
tion or several solutions, however it may develop.
Hi:
.~
Mr. Corms, of the A.E.C., has agreed to make the introduc-
tory remarks describing the Reactor Di~nsion's concept of the problem.
Mr . Gorman!
Mr. A. E. Gorman,
Reactor Development Diwsion
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Bu;~;"g T5,
~ 9 0 ~ Constitution Avenue,
Washington 25, D. C.
MR. GORMAN: On behalf of the Reactor Division of the
want to take this occasion to theory you Al for giving us your time
and valuable assistance to discuss one of our acute problems, and
also to thank the Un~versit~r for its courtesy ~ providing such excel-
lent accommodations for us.
A.E.C .,
The Reactor Division is sponsoring the contracts wit e
National Academy of Sciences add Johns Hopkins Unz~rersity to evalu-
ate problems connected with the disposal of high and low level radio-
active wastes.
At this conference we are confining our attention to disposal of
the high level wastes, which in A.E.C. we feel is a real serious
problem. Because atomic energy work was begun during the war
period, our plants were established in more or less distant ~d iso-
lated places, and as problems of waste disposal arose they were not
too difficult to take care of because of this isolation. Now, however
... ... ..
OCR for page 16
16.
under the rapid growth of opportunities under the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 for privately-owned competitive industries to enter the Held
of atomic energy, some real problems are being posed. It seems
inevitable that the industry win move toward more populated areas.
Our cliscussions with representatives of industry make it evi-
dent that they env~;ic,= building reactors as`d fuel processing plats
near their markets. When a new ~nclustry moves into a community
which is aireacly well ~tegratecI and weH organized, it finds that its
pre de c e ~ so rs have ce ran e stabli shed right s . The new industry
wants to be a good neighbor. ~ the field of atomic energy we have
to face the problem that the establisheci regulatory agencies (which
could take almost any industry and its waste problems in its stride),
are not familiar with radiation as a contaminant, nor with the mate-
rials and the technology of the industry. Obviously, if the industry
is to grow in a healthy way, it must be a "good neighbor,'' ancl that
means having harmonious relations with the rest of the community
and the regulatory agencie s .
The group at Johns Hopkins U:uveraity and the A.E.C. staff
have been struggling With this waste problem for a number calf years.
To some extent, because of our geographically isolated locations;, it
has been possible ''to sweep the problem under the rug," so to speak.
But those of us who are close to it are convinced that we must face up
to the fact that we are confronted by a real problem. ~ am sure that
when you hear the details of the situation from those who follow me on
today's program you Mao will be convince d.
When we tries] to evaluate the problem ~ Me early phases of the
atomic energy program, we caned upon the U. S. Geological Survey,
the Weather Bureau, and many other governmental agencies, and
many Universities for assistance, but the problem of the disposal of
high level waste is a long way from berg resolved. It is one which
causes deep concern because of the ranger of contaminating local
water supply, or having an unfavorable affect on nature resources.
The volumes of waste are large but they are not excessive, compared
with other industries. The main concern is Me fact that some of the
constituents of the wastes have long half-li~res which require that the
waste be kept under control for many, many years .
L-
~ addition to the consideration of safety there is aide the ques-
tion of cost. The handling of waste ~ our Nations is costing tens
of nonillions of dollars a year. The magnitude of this item is such that
5
OCR for page 17
17.
it cold be a serious deterrent to the development of a competitive
~nclustry, therefore, it merits a good deal of attention. ~ effect, in
A.E.C. we feel it is our responsibility to find economical solutions
before we can elect an industry to be developed, and to do so, we
know we need a lot of help.
The problem has really two major categories: t) where and
how can we put wastes into the ground economically and Ever con-
clitions which win not jeopardize the rights of Others, especially in
populated areas) and 2} what can we do with the large volume of
wastes that have been and are yet to be produced at our production
plants, particularly those which are being accumulated ~ urlder-
ground tactics at the Hanford Works ~ the State of Washington. Al-
n~ost every year appropriations must be made to build more and
larger tanks, but this cannot go on forever. At least, we hope it w~11
not go on forever. We are looking to this group for more rational
schemes directed toward disposal to the ground.
Some of our difficulties have been described to the ocea~og-
raphers and Marie biologists ~ meetings which Dr. Rena win re-
~new. They have given us good avarice: much of that Vivace indicates
that we ought to consider further means of underground disposal.
(Laughter) It seems to us, purely on the basis of economics, that
ground disposal should be much cheaper than ocean disposal.
After the representatives of our contractor once our operations
and field officers have briefed you on the character of the wastes
and the current arch foreseeable problems, we hope you win be able
to make recommendations to us as to what methods have hope of
berg reasonably elective, and what type of research and development
should be carried out In order to evaluate these potentialities.
. . j .
The problem is extremely complex. It takes team work over
a wide spectrum ~ order to put the problem before you In the proper
light so that you may evaluate all aspects. If you can indicate to us
the directions ~ which we should encourage research and develop-
mez~t, we would be in a sound position to go to our budget people and
ask for appropriations to study those approaches that have some
probability of yielding positive solutions.
It is no ordinary responsibility to take part In Me early phases
of the growth of a new industry. :Looking backward] we know of the
mistakes that may industries made ~ assuming that disposal of
OCR for page 18
~ -
q
18.
wastes was simply a backdoor problem that anybody could handle.
But in this new atomic energy industry hazards are magnified greatly
by the unique potentialities of the wastes.
We have great hopes that as a result of your deliberations we
can start an evaluation of the problem that w:H lead to final and eco-
nomic disposal of high level radioactive wastes. Byf~nal, ~ mean
returning those wastes to nature in some place where they can be
held for very, very lon.g periods of time without jeopardy to our en-
vironment or property. We know that we can extract from some of
these waltzes certain long half-life raclioisotopes, but if this is done,
you still have to keep a reasonable control over the use and storage
of these materials. So the problem cannot be evaded by simply milk-
ing the wastes of their highly objectionable constituents.
I think, Dr. Hess, that is about all ~ want to say by way of ~n-
troduction, because ~ know all of you are anxious to get down to the
meat of the problem which those who follow me ~H be able to pre-
sent to you.
CHAIRMAN HESS Dr. Rem, of Joel Hopkins ~~l continue
the introduction.
Dr . Charie s Renn,
Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water Resources,
Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore IS, Mci.
DR. CHARLES REND: Five points were made at the most re-
cent conference on ocean disposal of radioactive wastes which ~ think
wall interest you. This meeting was held on June 22-24, at Woods
Hole, MaS sachusetts.
First, it is important to define the problem In terms of the
volumes en c} characteristics of the different wastes so that the ocea-
. .
nographer can consider the variety of ways of disposing of materials
In the seas.
For example, the coastal waters above the midcile Atlantic
continental shelf exchange, roughly, in a year and a half. This pro-
v~des a relatively long growth interval for any crop to be ~ contact
with wastes; there is a substantial hazard] to commercial fisheries if
the waste material is released even In dilute form over the continental
shelf .
OCR for page 19
19.
That bungs up the question of dilution. A popular idea is that
dilution is easy to obtain if you have large masses of water. How-
if you have large masses of water.
ever, the larger the masses of water. the more unpredictable the
me charism of dilution b e come ~ .
. ~ . · . .
.——
According to some evidence, saline
wasted; ctumpect ~ me ocean wad move as thin horizontal layers thou-
sands of times as rapidly as on the vertical pane, so that concentra-
tion of high order win be maintained over this horizontal band. There
is a great hazard of isotopic movement and concentration along these
bands. Those who are familiar with the dilution of industrial waste
in larger rivers and harbors know the tendency of these wastes to
move In narrow and uncontrolled streams, particularly along the
edges. It takes a special circumstance to malce available for dilution
the I ill volume of a large mass of water. A' ' O a,
our knowledge of the mum mechanisms ~ oceanic masses.
a
-lnere are fame cars In
The question of sequestering waste ~ the ocean came up.
Where it is important to note the value of detailed knowledge of the
ocean Door and of the water column.
· ~ . e ~ ~ . ~ . ~
We have in the last ten years
acqu~rect a very extensive Descry ot one vertical stratification of
, , ~
water, but there are very few areas where the stations have been 8Ut-
ficiently close together, and the measurements made with sufficient
precision to accurately bound the water mass and determine the rate
. , - .
Of water exchange. The measurements are close together In the study
~ . ~ _ .~ ~ ~ · t ~ . —
ot tone ~arrlnean ceeps, and Include recent, very precise measure-
men1~s. These deeps have some ideal characteristics. The deep is
bounded by a natural escarpment, and has a single entrance and exit.
It allows the oceanographer to assay the rate at which water enters
and leaves the area. There is possibility of complement, Ad it
shouic3 be possible to predict the rate of eventual exchange ~ n this
confined mass .
.
.
A special hazard hack to be consiclered: when the heat content
of pos sible waste. loads was exarn~ecI, the thermal stability of this
area was form to be -- as far as we know -- very close to the limit
required for containment. It win require a more careful analysis of
the situation to be certain whether we can ~trocluce the heat at the
bottom of the stratified water or not.
-
A very important point was brought up in Me discussion of the
tendency of pl~ktoD!c organisms and their predators to concentrate
.. .. . . ~ ~ ~ .. ~ . .
the more active and troublesome sections at waste . For example,
the long-life elements are taken up quite appreciably by filter-fee~ing
plankton. We simply don't lmow what the rate of concentration beyond
. . .
;:
OCR for page 20
20.
the plankton forms would be. Presumably, at each stage of pro-
cluction we would gab concentrations of acting r where initial con-
centra;tions are high, and lose where initial concentrations are low.
This represents a very considerable gap ~ our knowledge of the
course of events following Dilution and dispersion of dissolved and
suspended wastes ~ the ocean. But this is not ast insoluble problem.
The oceanographer and the marine ecologist can make appro~ma-
tions to determine theoretical standards for the allowable concentra-
tion of isotopes. This would force the ecologist to examine aU the
important variables Mat enter into the Marie en~riromnent.
Me geologists presented an ~teresffng discussion of ground
water: it was suggested that it might be possible to enter some ar-
tesian aquifer that discharged at sea on the edge of the continental
shelf. This would make it possible to introduce waste off the shelf
into deep water without large disturbances. It woMd be much more
convenient than transport by ocean vessel.
The question of packaged waste was considered. A common
concept that many specialists ~ the field of atomic waste disposal
hare, and which has been considered at one time or another, is that
packaged waste can be camped ~ the deep, and mat it Ant sink in
,% ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~
the bottom oozes. A careful survey of 8UCh dung ground would
be required. T'ne ideal condition a naturally enclosed area ~ which
Acre is a deep bed of mud. Oceanographic ~d marsue geological
research~dicates that suitable pockets of mud exact not far from
shore on the Atlantic shelf, these would not involve deep sea opera-
nons, but might affect commercial tifIneries. for example. those in
. . . . · ~ ~— , .
_
the Gulf of Mae.
~ ,
The ace ~ographere are not ~~ agreement on rates of exchange
between surface and deep ~ tere. One group represents The clew
That the deep waters are roughly 2000 years old. The supposing data
depend largely on carbon 14 measurements which are not wholly con-
sistent. Another group contends that the rate of tourer of the deep
is much more rapid, that the data from the oxygen distribution pattern
d thermal stratification Silicates relatively rapid movement.
This is a summary of the thinking in tile field. We were very
happy Bleed to find that Me oceanographers had seriously worked
over the material that was presented as raw data, and that a large
amount of Diligent work had been done. They discussed the problems
Rigorously, anti gene ratetl well developed philosophic s on the waste
disposal problem.
OCR for page 21
21.
DR. M. KING HUBBERT: Mr. Chairman, ~ wonts! like to refer
to the "graybook" of March al, 1955. In New of the oceanographic
discussions, ~ would like to comment on one statement that struck
my attention: it was states] that if wastes were put in the deep water
that they would have to be monitored by periodic observations, but
that no major cable company would guarantee a cable two miles long
for more than one or two tripe.
.
..
. -
That statement struck me as berg odd, and ~ checked with the
Schiumberger Company, who regularly lower things on cable s down
of] weds as much as four miles deep, and ~ asked them what Me life
of a cable is, and they s=d they are good for about 200 rou=~-trips.
DR. RENT: ~ am glad you brought that up, Dr. Hubbert, be-
cause one of the points made by a small group of r``en was this: that
the situation as far as mo~tor~g is concerned has improved greatly.
Fir at of aH, plastics have been developed which have low adsorption
characteristics for fission products. Decode of signaling that per-
mit a high degree of leakage have been developed, so that deep water
systems would not become vulnerable to smaHIeake of seawater.
Instrumentation is improving rapidly and the present emphasis is on
Increasing the sensitivity of tile equipment. The conditions for hand-
li~g sampling gear at sea differ from Close of of} well logging. The
weights are greater, and there are sudden strams due to ship ;~6
boom heaving, with the newer signal systems, longer effective life of
cables is possible, however.
~ ..
CLAN HESS: Are Mere any other questions you would like
to brag up while Dr . Rem is stiU here ~
DR. TRUMAN P. KOHMAN: ~ would like to ask a little more
about getting material into We ocean from coasts Satiations. Were
you referring to underwater?
DR. RENT: This powt was discussed more ~ detail by Dr.
Ewing. He offered it purely as a possibility. The question under dis-
cussion at that time was how to get the waste across the continental
shelf and out into deep ocean. His suggestion was simply that there
must emit a number of strata which incline sea - "rd. below the sur-
face of the continental shelf, and intercepting He continental slope.
The density of the introduced waste being higher than salt water, it
would force the stream mead and would eventually seep out below the
edge of the shelf.
OCR for page 22
1
22.
DR. KOHMAN: ~ other words, Were are no such erg
rivers that flow underground ~ Me sea against the more dense salt
water, but the idea is they would create one?
DR. PENN: No, the implication was Mat these structures do
exist. For example, ~ the Chesapeake Bay we have artesian sprigs,
and the picture ~ get is that such inclined strata probably east and
break through the siop~g faces of the shelf.
CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any other questions?
If not, Dr. Christy, of Hanford, wiO teU us some of the prob-
~ems they have out there ~ waste disposal.
~ have to apologize to Dr. Christy. He did not loom he was
conning to discuse Mere problems until a few days ago, and he didn't
Ludlow he was going to be a speaker until lunchtime.
Dr. Joseph T. Christy,
Hanford.
DR. JOSEPH T. CHRISTY: Hanford is Me name of an Atomic
Energy Commission site ~ the nor~we~ern part of his country, on
the..Columbia River . ~ southeastern Washington . A schematic break-
. . . ..
down of the operations wit! permit the presentation of a generalized
New of She plants, withy the limitations of security classifications.
.
The Columbia hider forme one boundary of our site, and the
reactors are along Me river. The major radioactive waste problem
at Hanford does not involve We waters of the Columbia River which
is sapped for nOwff`rough the reactors, and is returned to the river
to dissipate heat generated ~ the reactor. The radic~~cti~ y is negli-
gible because the water is not recirculated and there is no concentra-
time of acti' r; fuzthermora, there is no significant contaniination by
fuel elements from rupture. The major waste problems are ~ the
chemical separations plants.
Early Hanford consisted of reactors and three major chemical
processing plants, of which only No were operated initially. A
foyers plant was not completed except for waste tangle, and the third
plant became a stand-by. At eac:h one of Mere plats, separate stor-
age facilities were provided for many thousands of gallons of waste.
Essentially Al of the waste from the initial plants -was stored, because
... .......
OCR for page 71
71.
DR. HUBBERT: What I meant is that we are paying $14 per
gallon for hauling lead. Now, if we cat" hold 100 times as many curies
tenth the same load of lead we can cut this $14 per gallon. Even if we
have to add a refrigerating unit we cut that down to a fraction of a dol-
lar .
cost .
.
DR. CULLER: This particular waste is Ready saturated with
aluminum, and the dry aluminum concentrate occupies the same volume
as the wet solution.
DR. HUBBERT: The aluminum is not radioactive. Can we get
rid of it?
DR. CUL.L`ER: Yes. That $14 per gallon made us get rid of it.
(L'aughter)
DR. MacMURRAY: ~ would like to come to the rescue-of Dr.
Morgan: liquid reactor waste costs $14 a gallon to ship. The discus-
sion has moved on to talk of concentration and refrigeration, and to
the removal of Humbug.
DR. MORGAN: To carry it further, this was based on a freight
car 40 feet ~ length, and it would hold three of these units. So the
freight car load was about ~ 50 tons .
DR. ROEDDER: If you loaded Mat Maine freight car with BlUgB
what Louis be the equipment?
DR. MORGAN: ~ don't think you can make a comparison.
DR. ROE DDER: As to curies and slugs, I wondered the relative
DR. MO-ROAN: ~ casmot give you that. Perhaps the answer lies
along the lines of developing a specially constructed railroad car in
the shape of ~ oilta~cer, completely shielded, with atube through the
center and shielded at either end.
DR. RUSSELL: Have you ever considered what would happen to
the car ~ a tram wreck?
DR. MORGAN: ~ am sure Hat the possibility of an accident has
been on Mr. Gorman's mind.
OCR for page 72
72.
DR . HE:DMAN: What is the basis- for your 50 tons ?
DR. MORGAN: Conformity Etch the existing I.C.C. regulations.
DR.-WATKINS: It seems probable that with a homogeneous re-
actor, the disposal facilities are to be at the site; with a heterogeneous
reactor, the processing plant can be at some distance from the reactor.
DR. CULLER: ~ don't think that is true. The homogeneous re-
actor materials can be shipper} just as can the heterogeneous elements.
The peaces sing on the heterogeneous system consists of drawing a
small amount off the reactor, arid shipped it as the reactor fuel ele-
ment, ~ suspect. It has a higher potential of spillage than does a metal
container, but you are not shipping thousands of gallons. In the homo-
geneous system you do not withdraw uranium; you withdraw fission
products, and from the external core. The cycle or turnover time for
the core is about 270 days, and the amount of material that we have to
take out per day may be in the neighborhood of 100 to 200 1itres. The
liquid might be transported ~ relatively small Volumes, or as a dry
solid. It is necessary to bow off heavy water Ad rehire it to the homo-
geneous system before the stuff drawn off the reactor leaves the plant.
We probably would be transporting dry sodium oracle.
DR. RUSSELL: That would be at high temperature ?
.
DR. CURVIER: At a high temperature in a coolly system.
DR. HUBBERT: It seems to me we have been very premature
indeed Awe come to any conclusion that the waste can~otbe trans-
ported. The difficulties are great and the costs appear high but ad-
niitte~ythe estimates are sub3ectto many modifications and are based
on "adequate data. There are enmesh ounortanities for corrections
.
and improvements, therefore, the imposition of limiting suppositions
may seriou';ly jeopardize the usefulness of the committee.
DR. CLAUS: ~ our committee work should we consider prima-
rily our immediate problem, and by immediate ~ mean the next ten to
twenty years, or should we consider it in terms of the vast quantities
that have been discussed in connection tenth possible production by the
year 2000? Furthermore, should we think primarily ~ terms of prob-
lems ~ the United States, or should we take a wider ~new? England,
for example, expects to have a large number of reactors and some are
us der construction. Their waste disposal plain; are unknown to most
, · - . .. . ..
OCR for page 73
- ;
:d
~ -
73 ~
of us at the conference, and it should be kept ~ mind that England's
problems are world problems just as ours are, and any thoughts we
might have on the disposal of waste from England will also be of bene-
fit to us.
:-
&
CHAIRMAN HESS: ~ think it would be difficult to consicler con-
struction outside the Uniter} State`;. Construction of reactors and dis-
posal of waste in most countries will probably follow the pattern set by
the originators. There is nobody here who knows enough of the geol-
ogy of out-of-the-way places to give intelligent data. A lot of people
here are familiar with many parts of the United States, so we can come
to rather specific conclusions about many places, whereas ~ don't know
that we are competent to tackle the geology of England from our pro-
fessiollal experience, and whatever we do here, except for Englantl,
will probably be followed in over countries. We can find solutions for
the condition'; ~ the United States and we can work out analogous solu-
tions for over areas ~ Me future. ~ think we have sufficient diversity
within the United States to meet any conditions any other country would
face. ~ don't tank we should discuss Outside meat.
DR. LACK Y: Such things as costs and amortization would be
considerations ~ competitive Emus try or would be handled by fairly
adbstanti~ go~rerament subsidy. ~ propose we omit these items ~d
think of the technolog'zc~ feasibility of the solutions to the problems
nearest to us. If solutions are found, Me costs win be clealt Off
Me norms development of the industry.
CHAIRMAN H11:SS: ~ think that is right, for we will not have cost
figures for the mews of disposal that we suggest.
DR. ABELSON: On the other hand, if the cost of disposal is more
- --t}~an the Court of storage in tanks, it is not a good solution..
-I- DR. G. F. JEANS: ~ would like to add that the Union Carbide
Companyis deeply~nterested On these consideration'; as a priorate firm.
We are working Inch practically Apache power reactor groups =~ designs
ofchen~calprocess~ng plants to purity reactor fuels. The variations
are certainly complex: Lathe government reactor prograxn Here are
-~about five kinds ofreactors, and He A.~.C.is encouraging He devel-
opmentofnew types oireactors. There is no advantage In building
-just one kind, so the physicists, the meta~ur~sts, and The mechanical
engineers are being encouraged to develop new reactor designs, new
reactor arrangements, and new metallurgical Buoys. For example,
OCR for page 74
74.
the Detroit Allison Company is interested ~ t he fast breeder reactor
using alloys containing only a small amount of fissionable material;
_
~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~~ . in. . ~ ~ ~ . ,
In order to run me system al one maximum ez~clency, Ryan 18, 10
breed, the fuel is to be purified at a high rate. The problem is not
just to rid the fuel of the fission products, but also to process rapidDy
so as to minimize the inventory costs of fissionable uranium. It takes
a lot of reactors to retake it economical to run a chemical processing
plant; but on the other hand, aU of the different reactor plants must
have some on-the-site purification ~ order to cut clown the amount of
ire uranium. Then the slags or the concentrated form of the fission
products containing a minimum of uranium will be shipped to a central
face ity where it is econorn~c lo recover one remaking uranium .
The only reason we have the waste is because we are treating
the fission products to recoverer the U 235 or Me U 233 or the Plutonium
239. If none of these material were ~ the fission products then there
would be no interest In them at the present time. However, we are
interested In Me radioisotopes because they are potentially valuable
raw materiels. Throughout our corporation we are encouraging re-
search in applications as a form of investigation distinct from research
In separation and recovery. We want to encourage research In applica-
tions to such fields as Ploys, gases, carbons, chemicals, plastics,
and rest, ~d we are trying to build up withy our corporation an ap-
preciation of the need for the utilization of Obese materials, so that
Bateau of a waste disposal problem we are con~rert~g it into a raw ma-
terial problem. We are, therefore, In favor of disposal ~ such a way
that the material is not lost but is retained somewhere so that ~ the
next Eve or ten years it can be recovered and put to use; that is what
would like to suggest at the present time. We have given a lot of
thought to the methods developed at Brookhaven and other laboratories
where the materials are treated ~ nc~t-too-<]ilute form so that the val-
uable components~caD be put to some future use.
..
. -
;~
,1
..!
DR. CLAUS: To what extent may we actually consider it feasible
to remove strontium and cesiurn? ~ think~chis was discussed very en-
thusiastically yesterday as something that might be done easily, and
yet ~ understand that we have not yet reached the stage where it can be
extracted from waste streams ~ a reasonable useable manner. It
makes a difference what kind of disperse can be applied to the rem~-
~g material. If these elements are not present, the degree of hazard
is so much less, that you have a different way of thinking about the re-
m~g wastes than if the cesium and strontium are present. ~ Clinic
this ought to be clarified before we Mink seriously about what to do
with the remaining material.
OCR for page 75
75.
CHAIRMAN HESS: It seems to me from the discussion that you
have a reasonable chance of taking these two elements out at some
future time, say five years hence, so it won't be much of a problem
after that period. But it certainly is a problem at present. I think
we should consider both alternatives and have multiple solutions.
~ think ~ would agree there certainly is a clisposal problem. The
waste we have on hand is not being disposed of, in ally strict sense,
and it is something to worry about. There also win be a waste prob-
lem with us until the chemical processing and reactor treatments have
been stabilized on a product that can be dealt with easily. But for the
. ·. .
Immediate tuture, extending lo many years, wastes wait constitute a
serious problem. It is an encouraging possibility that ~ the future
people can produce wastes that can be gotten rid of more easily than
the present material.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES
The Steering Comsnittee wishes to study the Waste problem from
two pouts of view and, therefore, this group should be separated into
subcommittees to consider each one. One approach involves disposal
at great depth us~gtech~iques like those used~ disposing of oil field
brined;; the other approach iB relatively shaHow disposal such as is
berg employed at Oak Ridge and Hanford. The goal is an evaluation
of the efficiency, the hazards, and the practical methods of resolving,
the mOi~ndual problems. Dr. Hubbert has agreed to be the Chairman
of the Committee on deep disposal, am] the Committee on near-surface
disposal wall be headed by Dr. Joh Frye. From the long List of Par-
ticipants, each committee chairman has selected a few names to make
up a nucleus; the remaining members on this fist wall be left to di~nde
themselves a'; they see fit, In keeping with their individual Steve sts
~c] specializations.
Those selected for the Surface Committee are as follows: Benson,
Claus, Frye , Goldich, Hunt, Ingerson, Jenlcins, IJatta, Coofbourow,
Theis, Thomas.
Those selected for the Deep Committee are as follows: Culler,
Den~son , Ferris, Garrels, GiOuly, Hubbert , Hunter, Thurston, acid
Wakens .
an.. ~
6
The committee s will meet ~d proceed immediately .
... Whereupon, at 10:50 o'clock, the meeting adjourned
OCR for page 76
76.
MONDAY MORNING SESSION
September 12, 1955
The meeting convened at 9:15 o'clock, Dr. Hess presiding.
CHAPMAN HESS: This will probably be our final session of
this conference. We wall hear the reports of Me work done and cos~-
clusions reached yesterday by the two committees. At the end of the
reports we win have a general discussion, anci then acI.,ourn.
The Grit report will be by DO. Hubbert.
Dr. M. King Hubbert
Chief Consultant, General Geology
&elf Oil Company
Box 2099
Houston I, Texas
DR. HUBBERT: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The committee
to look into the possibility of deep waste disposal ~ permeable rocks
met yesterday afternoon and reviewed He problem. We decided on two
premises for our discussions: one, that the disposal should be safe;
and, two, that we MUIR formulate basic principles governing disposal
during what we hope win be orclerly ~d rational development of the
Poultry ~ the future.
~ ogler to obtain a clearer idea of the magnitude of the waste-
dispos=1 problem, the following calculation was made:
Suppose that begiruiing ~ ~960, nuclear power-were produced at
~ rate eq~ to the present entire power output of the United States,
and the waste products diluted to the extent of 50 gallons of water per
gram of :Eission products, were injected] underground into a sandstone
100 feet thick, having 20 percent porosity, what would be the area of
the Band that would be fined with waste products by the year 2000? At
<~the meeting an approximate calculation was made, and the following
are the slightly revised results: The present power output of the United
States is about 4.~ x ~0~ kw-hr/yr (l 08 kw at a load factor of 0.54).
The quantity of U-235 requ~recl would be 84 metric tons per year, and
the diluted wastes would amount to 100 million (42-g~) barrels per
year. By the year 2000 the area occupied by tibe wastes would be 40
OCR for page 77
77.
square miles, or a square of 6,3 miles to the side -- the size of a
large oil field.
For comparison, ~ the East Texas oil field, 100 million barrels
of water per year are currently being injected through 58 wells with
7-~nch casings. Eight wells take over 10,000 barrels per day each
without pumping.
Since structural basins this size, or much larger, are abunciant,
it is concluded that the deep underground disposal of wastes for a long
time to come would involve operations which are small as compares]
with those of the petroleum industry.
The various other phases of the deep disposal question were dis-
cussed in considerable detail by the committee, and finally a subcom-
mi~ee drew up a summary of the conclusions which were approved and
read as follows:
The committee has accepted as premises Me following:
A. That the nuclear waste, if ';tored underground, should be
isolated as permanently as possible from contact with sieving organisms;
B. That the nuclear waste may be stored ocher conditions where
it nedd not be recovered;
C.
ticular ~nsta~ation.
That We disposal of waste is a specie problem for each par-
However, it is concluded that certain general principles should
guide the selection of methods of disposal:
- I. Thistle liquids containing the nuclear waste shallhave a
greater specific gravity when ~ntroclucec! into the reservoir the the
liquids already present ~ the reservoir;
2. That me liquids shall be stored underground preferably where
they will remain under essentially static conditions;
3 . That the introduction of the flus ds into Me bottom of structural
basins is one means of satisfying effectively this condition
4. That adequate monitoring of *te distribution of nuclear waste
within the reservoir be provided by appropriate observation wells,
OCR for page 78
78.
which could also serve as sources of diluent;
5. That prior to the introduction of nuclear waste liquids into
the reservoir, We problems of heat dissipation, clogging of reservoir
space, and chemical reaction with the reservoir rock and fluids be
evaluated.
CHAIRMAN HESS: Does anyone wish to discuss this report or
offer any amen~nents?
If not, ~ will caJ1 on Dr. John Frye to present the report of the
committee on surface disposal.
Dr. John C. Frye
Chief, State Geological Survey
Urbana, I~inois
DR. FRYE: The committee on the stucly of shallow disposal
recommends:
I. Disposal of waste materials ~ solic] form is preferable to
any suggested methods of disposal of liquids. The most desirable
form appears to be a stinter or brick ~ which the fission products are
faced. In this form the material can be disposed of ~ shaHow covered
trenches In many places. Seconc] choice would be waste materials
evaporated to dryness, solids but soluble. Such materials could be
packaged ~ metal containers and stored ~ shallow noises or under-
grounc] vaults that are relatively dry. If feasible, different elements
shouic! be packages} separately. It seems highly desirable that research
along both of Mere lines be pursuecl as rapidly as possible.
2. Until concentration In solid foam becomes" feasible, disposal
of Squid wastes at relatively shaHow depths may be possible under cer-
ta~r. conditions.
'Shadow" proved to be a slight misnomer, because in considering
mines, depths as great as 6,000-7,000 Ret were contemplated. How-
ever, most of Me exca~raHone are relatively shallow ~ comparison to
deep disposal methods considered by the over group.
The work of the committee was conce~ratet1 on item 2, and a
large range of geologic en~nromnents were studied. Many of these ge-
ologic environments were discarded by the comzn~ttee as unsuited for
Me hippo sal of liquids, but ~ order to record the Poe sibiliti;e 8 that were
OCR for page 79
79.
discussed, it seems amusable to outline the various environments
· . .
conslaerea.
I. Excavations
a. ~ crystaD~ne rocks
b. In permeable sedimentary rocks
c. In argillaceous rocks, such as shale and clay pits.
2. Infiltration In permeable, near-surface beds
a. Above the water table
b. Below the water table.
- 3. Uncierground openings
a. Nature caverns
b. Abandoned ore mines
c. Specially prepared workings.
—O—
4. Sat beds, salt domes, abandoned salt mines, and related
geologic structures.
The consensus of the corurnittee was that several of these env,-
onrnents might be feasible but more information was needed.
The order of feasibility ~ which the committee arranged these
various en~nromnents was as follows: fin deterrnin~ng this order we
did not get a unanimous Rote Ed the consensus of the committee was
estimated)
First: mat domes ~ salt beds ~ abandoned salt mines ~ and storage
~ cavities excavated ~ salt below the surface but not necessarily near
the base of the local stratigraphic section. This would use an en~nron-
ment that has relatively wale distribution ~ the United States, both In
coastal areas and at many places In the interior. It was pointed out
that the development of cavities In salt is very cheap. The figure ranges
from Free to six dollars per barrel for cavities for the storage of hy-
drocarbons . How these figures can be translated into ~;pecia~y prepared
cavities for this type of waste disposal is another question. For this
general type of disposal several lines of research are indicated: (a)
laboratory stud' calf salt under conditions of heat and pressure in contact
with these liquids; ace {b) heat-transfer considerations.
OCR for page 80
80 ~
The second priority was storage ~ especially prepared excava_
tions ~ shale at depth. The experience record comes from cavities
that have been prepared at a number of places for storage of hydro-
carbosts in very recent years. Some of the advantages are that rela-
tively thick shale beds are scattered widely over the United States;
there are sites that probably could be obtained for this use near sev-
eral of the existing ~sSaHations as wed as potential future sites.
_ .. .. . . ~
Furthermore, the cost z~ low. When we use as a basis of cost evalua-
tion the operations now under way for the storage of hydrocarbons,
figures ranging from $3 to $7 per barrel were cited as representative
of the cost for the preparation of this type of underground cantor. The
research needed here is study of the stability of shale ~ Me presence
of these particular aqueous solutions.
The third order of preference -- and on this particular item
there was considerable diversity of opinion -- was infiltration into
particular low-permeable beds with ~ mutable high clay content for the
fixing of these materials in place. This infiltration above the grater
table bears some similarity to the Hanforc! operation as it was cles-
cribed, but with certain modifications. The needed research indicated
here was (a) study of the hydrodynamic profile of the systems (b) clevel-
opment of proper tracer for water; (c) study of behavior of a suitably
simulate c] 'solution to determine exchange characteristics; and, of
course, (~) highly detailed ~`re';tigations of water-table fluctuations in
any area that might be considered for his type of disposal. It shouic!
be pouter} out that only those areas with low water table, which would
largely limit his matter to some of the western areas, wouic] be usable.
. -
The fourth order of preference was deep, abancloned flay relines.
It was the consensus calf opinion that if a proper dry Mae couch be lo-
cated it niightbe a very feasible method of disposal, but that such mines
would be extremely difficult to come by and niight very weD not be In
file vicinity of any site where they would be needed. If such a structure
could be located, it was Chic ate d that some research would be needed
on heat-dissipa~don problems under the particular conditions obtaining
that Mae.
The fish and last category that was judged to be worthy of consid-
eratioD. was disposal in properly covered shale and clay pits on the sur-
face. The consensus was that at the present state of knowledge, it is
not a desirable means of di';pos~g of high petrel wasted;, but that it
would be desirable to have continued research on base exchange and
self-sealing characters :m the hope that tili8 method might become fea-
sible for high-level waste ~ the future e Research on self-seal~ng
6
., ., , #,, .
OCR for page 81
81.
possibilities indicated In this area midget also have applicability in
several other areas or methods of relatively shMIow disposal.
CHAIRMAN HESS: Thank you, Dr . Frye .
Does anyone wish to comment on this report^
You: win notice that the tasks as given out were changed some-
what after the committees got to work. "Deep'' and "shallow" do not
apply any more.
Someone wanted to know what we meant by deep and shallow.
The first committee did not comment on how deep they considered
deep, but ~ would Wink it would mean 1000 to lO, 000 feet for the dis-
pc~sal of materials underground.
DR. HUBBERT: ~ think Me consensus was that deep means as-
deep- as-pos sible . (L`aughter)
CHAIRMAN EDi:SS: What is deep to a geologist may seem very
deep to a non-geologist or not deep at all.
DR. HUBBERT: We can say ten or fifteen thousand feet is thor-
oughly practical, although in many cases depths of 5,000 to 10,000
feet ,- or even le ~ a, may be satisfactory .
The conference was adjourned at 1 1 :30 ae m
-
.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
water table
