“THE DISPOSAL

Report ot the |<) eee

+

Committee on Waste Disposal _
ae : of the |
ie Division of Earth Sciences

April 1957.

National Academy of Sciences—

National Research Council

Publication 519%

THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON LAND

Report of the
Committee on Waste Disposal
Ont he
Division of Earth Sciences

Committee Members

Harry H. Hess, Chairman
John N. Adkins William B. Heroy
William E. Benson M. King Hubbert
John C. Frye Richard J. Russell

Charles V. Theis

Publication 519
Price $1.00
National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council
Washington, D. C.
September 1957

Library of Congress catalog card number: 57-60047

Abstract

Report

Appendices
AO
Bre
Cus

D-

CONTENTS

Page
coecee eee Poteded cfovrata lo eleiiails)'s)'e) sVelsicie sin) slchelelin is ‘a)je\eieisiae 1
eo e oeesoeeeoe eeoc3so540o5ee GPCR OLS 50) 618871078) 6.) e: e e eo e 2
His tomyrotecnenG OnatiitlLee! ls ale) eles) <llele ole)e) eels) oie) *1<) += 8
Proceedings of the Princeton Conference ....... 12

Committee on Deep Disposal .......ccececececs 82
Committee on Shallow Disposal ....... Bens iSnceheve,| Miteos
Participants in the Conference ............--+- 104

Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Salt Cavities,..
report by W. B. Heroy ........ Pp cleperajsieel OS

Lii

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES
COMMITTEE ON WASTE DISPOSAL

REPORT ON DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON LAND

Abstract

A committee of geologists and geophysicists was established
by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council at
the request of the Atomic Energy Commission to consider the possi-
bilities of disposing of high level radioactive wastes in quantity
within the continental limits of the United States. The group was
charged with assembling the existing geologic information pertinent
to disposal, delineating the unanswered problems associated with the
disposal schemes proposed, and point out areas of research and de-
velopment meriting first attention; the committee is to serve as con-
tinuing adviser on the geological and geophysical aspects of disposal
and the research and development program.

The Committee with the cooperation of the Johns Hopkins
University organized a conference at Princeton in September 1955.
After the Princeton Conference members of the committee inspected
disposal installations and made individual studies. Two years' con-
sideration of the disposal problems leads to certain general conclu-
sions. Wastes may be disposed of safely at many sites in the United
States but, conversely, there are many large areas in which it is
unlikely that disposal sites can be found, for example, the Atlantic
Seaboard. The research to ascertain feasibility of disposal has for
the most part not yet been done. Disposal in cavities mined in salt
beds and salt domes is suggested as the possibility promising the
most practical immediate solution of the problem. Disposal could
be greatly simplified if the waste could be gotten into solid form of
relatively insoluble character. In the future the injection of large

- volumes of dilute liquid waste into porous rock strata at depths in
excess of 5,000 feet may become feasible but means of rendering the
waste solutions compatible with the mineral and fluid components of
the rock must first be developed. The main difficulties to the injec-
tion method recognized at present are to prevent clogging of pore
space as the solutions are pumped into the rock and the prediction or
control of the rate and direction of movement.

This initial report is presented in advance of research and
development having been done to determine many scientific, engi-
neering and economic factors, and, in the absence of essential data,
represents considered judgments subject to verification.

REPORT ON DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON LAND

The Committee on Waste Disposal was set up at the request of
the Atomic Energy Commission to study the possibilities of dispos-
ing of radioactive waste materials on land and to indicate what re-
search was needed to determine feasibility.

In September 1955 a conference was held at Princeton which
included representatives of AEC, members of the Department of
Sanitary Engineering of Johns Hopkins, representatives of the U.S.
Geological Survey, industry and many individual scientists compe-
tent in relevant fields. Informed opinions were rendered at the con-
ference on the questions asked by AEC so the present general report
can be a brief summary of the main conclusions. The factual data
resulting from the conference are included in this report as ap-
pendices.

As an outgrowth of the conferences (the preliminary ones at
Johns Hopkins and the comprehensive one at Princeton) numerous
reports have been made by individuals and committees dealing with
the waste problem. In particular the summary by Drs. Hatch and
Lieberman for the NAS-NRC "Study Group on Dispersal and Disposal
of Radioactive Wastes"! covers in adequate form much of what might
have been included in a report of the present committee.

The Conference and the subsequent studies of the Committee
made it obvious that there is no specific answer to such a question
as "How shall we dispose of radioactive waste?'' On the other hand,
given a specific geographic site and specific type of waste, a spe-
cific answer as to feasibility and cost of waste disposal becomes pos-
sible. It is then a chemical engineering, geological and economic
investigation with definite parameters for which a definite answer or
series of answers can be sought.

The Committee has considered the complex and varied prob-
lems of waste disposal on land and can express considered opinions
on various of the problems and the research needed to deal with the
problems. The Committee has in no sense done the research so that
such expressions of opinion as are contained herein are predicated on
- the assumption that the research will be done before any final conclu-
sion is reached on any type of waste disposal.

Unlike the disposal of any other type of waste, the hazard
related to radioactive waste is so great that no element of doubt
should be allowed to exist regarding safety. Stringent rules must
be set up and a system of inspection and monitoring instituted. Safe
disposal means that the waste shall not come in contact with any liv-
ing thing. Gopateerine half- HNee of the isotopes in waste this means
for 600 years if Cs and Sr?" are present or for about one-tenth
as many years if these two isotopes are removed.

The Committee has heard a number of descriptions of the
waste disposal operations at Hanford and Oak Ridge and several com-
mittee members have visited the Oak Ridge Installation. Some ques-
tions exist at this time in the minds of most members concerning the
long-term safety of waste disposal as practiced on these sites if con-
tinued for the indefinite future. A great deal of work has been done
at each of them by competent men, but it is not possible to say ex-
actly what may happen to the waste and how its component elements
may disperse. The above statements should in no sense be regarded
as criticism of officials responsible for the operation of these instal-
lations. They were constructed during the exigencies of a war so
that plant location with respect to waste disposal could not be an
over-riding consideration. They are in isolated localities far from
population centers so that the hazard has been minimized in this re-
spect, and in addition, continuing control is being maintained by the
operators.

The Committee is convinced that radioactive waste can be
disposed of safely in a variety of ways and at a large number of
sites in the United States. It may require several years of research
and pilot testing before the first such disposal system can be put
into operation. Until such time storage in tanks will be required for
waste.

The cost of safe waste disposal will probably be relatively
high until a great deal of research has been done and experience
gained. Transportation costs have to be added to over-all disposal
costs. For this reason site selection for any chemical processing
plant where large quantities of highly radioactive waste will be pro-
duced, must be based on availability of a disposal area within eco-
nomic transportation distance. Economic balance will exist between
length of cooling time in tanks at the site of waste production vs.
cost of transportation in shielded carriers -- the thickness of the
shielding required being dependent on cooling time.

It will not be possible to dispose safely of large quantities of
high-level waste in many large sections of the country. This cir-
cumstance may dictate that it will not be economically feasible to
place those types of power reactors or other nuclear facilities which
produce liquid wastes in large quantity in such unfavorable sections
of the country. We have on several occasions been asked such ques-
tions as ''Where can waste be disposed of within 25 miles of Tarry-
town, New York?" The answer almost certainly is that waste cannot
be disposed of safely anywhere near this site. We stress that the
necessary geologic investigation of any proposed site must be com-
pleted and the decision as to a safe disposal means established before
authorization for construction is given. Unfortunately such an inves-
tigation might take several years and cause embarrassing delays in
the issuing of permits for construction. This situation can only be
handled by starting investigation now of a large number of potential
future sites as well as the complementary laboratory investigations
of disposal methods.

With the example of Tarrytown mentioned above it might be re-
marked that the probability of finding a safe ultimate disposal means
at the Savannah River plant appears equally gloomy. This only
serves to emphasize the need for consideration of disposal before a
site is chosen.

A discussion of the various possibilities for waste disposal may
be found in Appendices C and D, the Reports of the Committees for
"deep" and "'shallow'' disposal, respectively.

The most promising method of disposal of high level waste at
the present time seems to be in salt deposits (see Appendix F by
Heroy). The great advantage here is that no water can pass through
salt. Fractures are self-sealing. Abandoned salt mines or cavities
especially mined to hold waste are, in essence, long-enduring tanks.
The possibility of making cavities in salt by pumping in water and
removing brine is not favored (except for waste in solid form) unless
the size and shape of such a cavity can be accurately controlled. The
major element of potential risk in disposal in salt is that the cavity
will collapse, structurally, in time. Salt is a weak material and will
flow. Hence research is needed on size and shape of openings which
can be relied upon to be structurally stable. The cavities should be
at relatively shallow depth to avoid high confining pressures. Salt
beds and mines are abundantly available along the south side of the
Great Lakes from New York to Michigan and also in the form of salt
domes along much of the Gulf Coast. Smaller salt deposits are

available at a number of other sites.

The second most promising method seems to be in forming a
silicate brick or slag which would hold all elements of the waste in
virtually insoluble blocks. These could be stored in sheds on the
surface in arid areas or in dry mines.

Separation of the Cs and Sr isotopes from the waste and their
storage in small packages or surface tanks would of course greatly
simplify the general problem of waste disposal. Research on the
feasibility of such separation should be pushed.

Finally, disposal of waste in porous media such as sandstones
at comparatively great depth may eventually be possible. Unlike
oil, the waste would be denser than the normal saline water contained
in such beds provided the heat generated by radioactive decay after
emplacement is not sufficient to reverse the density relationship.
Instead of concentrating in and being immobilized in tops of anticlines
it would sink to floors of synclines. Deep synclines with closure
would be preferred as disposal structures inasmuch as they would
largely immobilize the waste if it was not allowed to become too hot.
The great difficulty with this potential method is that the character
of the waste fluid would have to be drastically changed to permit it to
disperse in the porous medium without clogging the pore space!
Acid aluminum nitrate wastes would almost certainly form a gel-like
substance if pumped into a sandstone. Extraction of the radioactive
elements from the much larger bulk of aluminum nitrate appears at
present to be a prohibitively expensive process. If processes were
changed to produce waste without this unfavorable character deep
disposal would become much more reasonable. The possibility that
great dilution of aluminum nitrate waste fluid might alleviate pore
space clogging should be investigated though it does not seem likely
that the problem will be solved in this way. Folded rocks containing
porous beds in which suitable structures could be located are widely
distributed in the United States.

The above remarks indicate the most promising avenues on
which research should be pressed. Besides these, it is necessary
to train a number of geologists in the attributes of the wastes and the
possible solution of the problems of their disposal. Geological in-
vestigation of a large number of potential sites for processing plants
i/ Edwin Roedder (USGS) (1956) Disposal of high aluminum radioac-

tive waste solutions by injection into aquifers.

6.

or reactors producing liquid waste should be undertaken without delay.
The question should not be phrased: ''How can we dispose of waste at
X site?" but should be: ''Can or cannot waste be disposed of at X
site?" The possibility of the negative answer should always be con-
sidered.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON DISPOSAL

1. Storage in tanks is at present the safest and possibly the
most economical method of containing waste.

2. Disposal in salt is the most promising method for the near
future. Research should be pushed immediately on the structural
problem of stability vs. size of cavities at a given depth; on the
thermal problem - getting rid of the heat or keeping it down to ac-
ceptable levels - and on the economics of such disposal. (Appendix F
by Heroy)

3. Next most promising seems to be stabilization of the waste
in a slag or ceramic material forming a relatively insoluble product.
This could be placed in dry mines, surface sheds or large cavities
in salt.

4. Disposal of waste in porous beds interstratified with im-
permeable beds in a synclinal structure is a possibility for the more
distant future. This is of particular interest for disposal of the
large volumes of waste to be expected in the future. Very difficult
and complex problems have to be solved before it will become feasi-
ble. The reaction of the waste with connate waters or constituents
of the rocks soluble in the waste solution will have to be studied.

The composition of the rocks and the connate waters are both variable
as will be the composition of the waste solutions so that an almost in-
finite variety of circumstances result. In general acid aluminous
waste would almost certainly tend to form precipitates which would
clog pore spaces. The problem would have to be solved first for a
given bed at a given site for a given waste solution at a given dilution.

5. The removal] of Cs!3" ana sr?? from the waste would make
disposal somewhat easier for the waste free of these isotopes but
does not change qualitatively the recommendations made in the report.

6. In the complex relations between (a) storage time of waste
for cooling, (b) transportation cost in shielded carriers and (c) dis-
tance to disposal site, the last of these factors must be considered

before location of any plant producing large quantities of waste,
remembering that there are large sectors of the country where dis-
posal is not possible.

7. Continuing disposal of certain /large volume / low level
waste in the vadose water zone, above the water table, is of limited
application and probably involves unacceptable long term risks.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON COROLLARY PROBLEMS

1. The movement of gross quantities of fluids through porous
media is reasonably well understood by hydrologists and geologists,
but whether this is accomplished by forward movement of the whole
fluid mass at low velocity or whether the transfer is accomplished
by rapid flow in ''ribbons'', is not known. In deep disposal of waste
in porous media it will in many cases be essential to know which of
these conditions exists. This will be a difficult problem to solve.

2. The education of a considerable number of geologists and
hydrologists in the characteristics of radioactive wastes and its
disposal problems is going to be necessary.

APPENDIX A

HISTORY OF
COMMITTEE ON DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE ON LAND

Following discussions between representatives of the Atomic
Energy Commission and the National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council, contract number AT(30-1)-1788 was signed on
February 28, 1955. The scope of the agreement was stated as
follows:

1, The Contractor shall furnish personnel, facilities, and
equipment, and do all things necessary for the purpose of conducting
a program of research pertinent to the methods of disposing of radio-
active waste materials in geologic structures. The work shall con-
sist of the following:

a. Setting up a Steering Committee of leading scientists
who will prepare and arrange for conferences on
disposal methods;

b. Conducting the conferences;

c. Reporting to the Cornmmission on the proceedings and
comments of these conferences;

d. Evaluating all suggestions and research to date on
disposal methods that involve land surface or under-
ground sites, including the surface and underground
water on the continents but excluding the oceans.

e. Recommending programs of research that should be
carried out.

The Steering Committee appointed in March 1955 consisted of
Harry H. Hess, Chairman, John N. Adkins, John C. Frye, M. King
Hubbert, Chester R. Longwell, Richard J. Russell, and Charles V.
Theis. In the fall of 1955, Dr. Longwell resigned because of the dif-
ficulties in attending committee meetings from his location in
California, and William E. Benson and William B. Heroy were ap-
pointed.

9.

At the first meeting of the Steering Committee, held April 15,
1955, at Ames Hall of the Johns Hopkins University, seven members
of the Committee met with eight members of the Sanitary Engineering
Department and one representative of the Reactor Development Divi-
sion, AEC. The entire problem was described and the previous gen-
eral studies of disposal reviewed: a conference had been held in
August 1954 at Woods Hole to explore with oceanographers the possi-
bility of disposal in the oceans, and another had been held in
Washington in November 1954 with geologists to consider underground
disposal.

At the November 1954 conference the following plan was pro-
posed anticipating the signing of a contract with AEC: a steering
committee was to secure a proper definition of the problem (includ-
ing as much technological data as was possible within the restrictions
of security classification) and conduct two conferences with the guid-
ance and assistance of the AEC and Hopkins group. The first meeting
would have as its objective the generation of ideas and cataloging of
suggestions for underground disposal of wastes, and the second would
be to appraise critically the ideas, documenting the advantages and
disadvantages, arranging the suggestions in order of apparent feasi-
bility, and indicating the lines of research needed to arrive at reliable
answers to the more pressing problems. The willingness of the
Hopkins group to perform staff functions for the Committee was stated
especially as regards compiling the unclassified technological data.
The AEC relationships were summarized, and the desirability of the
Committee visiting Oak Ridge was discussed. The minutes of this
meeting were prepared by the Hopkins group.

During the summer of 1955 arrangements were made to hold
the first conference at the Graduate School of Princeton University,
Princeton, N. J., on September 10-12. Participants were selected
and invited, and those who accepted the invitation were sent a digest
of the essential data entitled ''Radioactive wastes in the atomic energy
industry'' compiled by A. B. Joseph and J. M. Morgan, Jr., of the
Hopkins group. The ''graybook"' summarized the information gener-
ally available up to March 31, 1955 on the kinds of waste, treatment
and disposal methods, and the projected magnitudes of high level
wastes and their disposal problems.

The Princeton Conference was attended by 65 persons repre-
senting many scientific and engineering disciplines, active in a vari-
ety of capacities in universities, research institutions, private

HOR

companies, and government scientific agencies. The participants
are listed in Appendix E.

During the afternoon and evening of September 10th, the con-
ferees heard and discussed eleven informal talks which presented
in considerable detail the various technological, economic, and the-
oretical problems of waste disposal. During and after the Geneva
Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy (July 1955) a
great deal of heretofore classified information was released: the
Princeton Conference benefited from the unexpected availability of
data on chemical processing and nature of waste solutions pertinent
to the conference topic. After the conclusion of the eleventh talk on
the morning of September 1lth, a lengthy period of general discus-
sion and review followed. Two committees were then appointed to
examine carefully the waste problem from two points of view; see
Appendix B, page 75. The committees worked independently through
the balance of the morning, the afternoon and evening of September
lith. The conference reconvened on September 12th and heard sum-
mary reports from the Chairman of each committee. (See Appendix
B, pages 76-81.) The Committee reports are given in Appendices C
and D. This completed the work of the conference and it was ad-
journed at 11:30 a.m.

The conference deliberations were recorded by the stenotypist,
Miss Jean Burleigh, and by a tape recorder provided by the Hopkins
groups and operated by Mr. A. B. Joseph. The edited condensation
is presented in Appendix B. The minutes of the Committee meetings
were prepared by volunteers and are given in Appendices C and D.

The Steering Committee met on September 12th to consider the
next steps to take in the light of the results of the conference. It was
decided that it was not necessary to hold a second conference because
the first had succeeded in both generating and evaluating ideas as
well as could be expected within the limitations of existing knowledge
-- significant improvements on the ideas expressed could be made
only by direct investigation, not by additional exchanges of opinions.
Until the deliberations of the Conference were available, the Commit-
tee could do little to document the suggestions or prepare a report:
the preparation of proceedings from the stenotype record was given
first priority, and the manner in which the talks were to be edited,
verified by the speakers, and distributed to the Committee was out-
lined.

Wal

The next meeting of the Steering Committee was held in New
Orleans on November 9, 1955. By that time the proceedings were
complete with one exception. (See Appendix B, page 27). The con-
sensus of the Committee was arrived at on the main points to be
embodied in the report, and general premises on which it was to be
based.

Some members of the Committee made independent inquiries
on such topics as (a) the distribution, location, and annual incre-
ments to mine workings in salt deposits, (b) economics and tech-
nology of power transmission, (c) engineering procedures in oil field
injection, (d) hydrology of deep aquifers, and (e) effect of carbonate
wallrock on simulated waste solution. It was found generally that a
great deal more specific information is available than was presented
at the Conference but that the additional data do not simplify the prob-
lems nor point to possible solutions that had not been mentioned
heretofore. The utilization of cavities in salt deposits for storage
and disposal of wastes aroused considerable interest at the Conference
so the location of the main salt mines and distribution of the principal
salt deposits were documented by Mr. Heroy along with his study of
the production and availability of mine workings in salt.

In this period the name "Steering Committee'' became inappro-
priate, so the Division of Earth Sciences referred to the group at the
Committee on Waste Disposal. Members of the Committee visited
the AEC installations at Oak Ridge and Brookhaven, as follows:

Oak Ridge - Feb. 15-16, 1956: W.E. Benson, W. B. Heroy, M. K.
Hubbert, R. J. Russell, C. V. Theis, andW.R.
Thurston, Secretary.

Brookhaven - March 29, 1956: R. J. Russell and W. R. Thurston,
Secretary; April 19, 1956: J. N. Adkins, W. E.
Benson, W. B. Heroy, and M. K. Hubbert.

WAR Appendix B

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES
PROCEEDINGS of the PRINCETON CONFERENCE
on

DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE PRODUCTS

Edited condensation from the record of the
stenotype reporter.

September 10-12, 1955
Graduate College, Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey

Appendix B

September 10, 1955
Afternoon Session

R. J. Russell
Eee lesis

A. E. Gorman
Charles Renn
J. 0. Ghristy

ee Guillen. jin

Evening Session

H. H. Hess

J. A. Lieberman
A.M. Piper

R. J. Morton

E. G. Struxness

September 11, 1955

CONTENTS

Opening remarks......

Remarks

Address and discussion ..

Address and discussion
Address and discussion
Address and discussion

RVerma RS) ose, site sele 6 epee

Address and discussion .

Address and discussion
Address and discussion

Address and discussion .

Sunday Morning Session

E.G. Struxness

General Discussion ...... :

- Continuation of address

and discussion

ANOOsUAHaGSIe Ole (CCiaavemMhnreos oom aoaoracuaoor

September 12, 1955

Monday Morning Session

Reports of Committees:

M. K. Hubbert

Gre Biel snares (cel she) c's alateicuclic ittoroKere
IS(5 Jels JElsag & (CHOghe selene Gob ooodaD oD OBO sooo

eseeoseseet eo eo

Wee

58
64
i

76
78
81

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 in 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, I am happy to welcome you to this Conference and to see
this meeting so well 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 disciplines with a cumulative total of a tremendous amount
of experience.

The main objective in this Conference, as far as the Division of
Earth Sciences is concerned, is to generate and list ideas for the
underground disposal of high level wastes. That is our mission.

The ground rules have changed from time to time on the problem,
and 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 in this conference you will get a hint
of the varied nature of the problems before us.

The preparation of this conference and the organization of the
report which we will 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 will preside at these meetings.

. Dr. H. HM. Mess assumed the Chair ...

CHAIRMAN HESS: I would like to welcome you here on behalf of
Princeton University. I am very happy, as Chairman of the Steering

IN) ¢

Committee, to see how many of you responded to our request to
participate in this conference. I know it is a serious matter to leave
your normal activities and devote several days to our problem, and
I 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 will be spent determining what the components are: they
change rather rapidly; the whole problem has changed since 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 I hope before
the meeting is over there will be some specific suggestions that can
be looked into and that will lead at least in the direction of the solu-
tion or several solutions, however it may develop.

Mr. Gorman, of the A.E.C., has agreed to make the introduc-
tory remarks describing the Reactor Division's concept of the problem.

Mr. Gorman!

Mr. A. E. Gorman,

Reactor Development Division
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Building T5,

1901 Constitution Avenue,
Washington 25, D.C.

MR. GORMAN: On behalf of the Reactor Division of the A.E.C.,
I want to take this occasion to thank you all for giving us your time
and valuable assistance to discuss one of our acute problems, and
also to thank the University for its courtesy in providing such excel-
lent accommodations for us.

The Reactor Division is sponsoring the contracts with the
National Academy of Sciences and Johns Hopkins University 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 and 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,

16.

under the rapid growth of opportunities under the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 for privately-owned competitive industries to enter the field
of atomic energy, some real problems are being posed. It seems
inevitable that the industry will move toward more populated areas.

Our discussions with representatives of industry make it evi-
dent that they envision building reactors and fuel processing plants
near their markets. When a new industry moves into a community
which is already well integrated and well organized, it finds that its
predecessors have certain established rights. The new industry
wants to be a good neighbor. In the field of atomic energy we have
to face the problem that the established 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," and that
means having harmonious relations with the rest of the community
and the regulatory agencies.

The group at Johns Hopkins University and the A.E.C. staff
have been struggling with this waste problem for a number of 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. I am sure that
when you hear the details of the situation from those who follow me on
today's program you also will be convinced.

When we tried to evaluate the problem in the early phases of the
atomic energy program, we called 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 being resolved. It is one which
causes deep concern because of the danger of contaminating local
water supply, or having an unfavorable affect on natural resources.
The volumes of waste are large but they are not excessive, compared
with other industries. The main concern is the fact that some of the
constituents of the wastes have long half-lives which require that the
waste be kept under control for many, many years.

In addition to the consideration of safety there is also the ques-
tion of cost. The handling of waste in our installations is costing tens
of millions of dollars a year. The magnitude of this item is such that

ite

it could be a serious deterrent to the development of a competitive
industry, therefore, it merits a good deal of attention. In effect, in
A.E.C. we feel it is our responsibility to find economical solutions
before we can expect an industry to be developed, and to do so, we
know we need a lot of help.

The problem has really two major categories: 1) where and
how can we put wastes into the ground economically and under con-
ditions which will 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 in under-
ground tanks at the Hanford Works in the State of Washington. Al-
most every year appropriations must be made to build more and
larger tanks, but this cannot go on forever. At least, we hope it will
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 oceanog-
raphers and marine biologists in meetings which Dr. Renn will re-
view. They have given us good advice: much of that advice 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 and our operations
and field officers have briefed you on the character of the wastes
and the current and foreseeable problems, we hope you will be able
to make recommendations to us as to what methods have hope of
being reasonably effective, and what type of research and development
should be carried out in order to evaluate these potentialities.

The problem is extremely complex. It takes team work over
a wide spectrum in 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 in which we should encourage research and develop-
ment, 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 the early phases
of the growth of a new industry. Looking backward we know of the
mistakes that many industries made in assuming that disposal of

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 will lead to final and eco-
nomic disposal of high level radioactive wastes. By final, I mean
returning those wastes to nature in some place where they can be
held for very, very long periods of time without jeopardy to our en-
vironment or property. We know that we can extract from some of
these wastes certain long half-life radioisotopes, 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 I want to say by way of in-
troduction, because I know all of you are anxious to get down to the
meat of the problem which those who follow me will be able to pre-
sent to you.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Dr. Renn, of Johns Hopkins will continue
the introduction.

Dr. Charles Renn,

Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water Resources,
Johns Hopkins University,

Baltimore 18, Md.

DR. CHARLES RENN: Five points were made at the most re-
cent conference on ocean disposal of radioactive wastes which I think
will interest you. This meeting was held on June 22-24, at Woods
Hole, Massachusetts.

First, it is important to define the problem in terms of the
volumes and 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 middle Atlantic
continental shelf exchange, roughly, in a year anda half. This pro-
vides a relatively long growth interval for any crop to be in 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.

Nt)

That brings up the question of dilution. A popular idea is that
dilution is easy to obtain if you have large masses of water. How-
ever, the larger the masses of water, the more unpredictable the
mechanism of dilution becomes. According to some evidence, saline
wastes dumped in the ocean will move as thin horizontal layers thou-
sands of times as rapidly as on the vertical plane, so that concentra-
tion of high order will 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 make available for dilution
the full volume of a large mass of water. There are large gaps in
our knowledge of the mixing mechanisms in oceanic masses.

The question of sequestering waste in the ocean came up.
Where it is important to note the value of detailed knowledge of the
ocean floor and of the water column. We have in the last ten years
acquired a very extensive history of the vertical stratification of
water, but there are very few areas where the stations have been suf-
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
of the Carrivean deeps, and include recent, very precise measure-
ments. 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 confinement, and it
should be possible to predict the rate of eventual exchange within this
confined mass.

A special hazard had to be considered: when the heat content
of possible waste loads was examined, the thermal stability of this
area was found to be -- as far as we know -- very close to the limit
required for containment. It will require a more careful analysis of
the situation to be certain whether we can introduce the heat at the
bottom of the stratified water or not.

A very important point was brought up in the discussion of the
tendency of planktonic organisms and their predators to concentrate
the more active and troublesome fractions of waste. For example,
the long-life elements are taken up quite appreciably by filter-feeding
plankton. We simply don't know what the rate of concentration beyond

ZO.

the planktonic forms would be. Presumably, at each stage of pro-
duction we would gain concentrations of activity where initial con-
centrations are high, and lose where initial concentrations are low.
This represents a very considerable gap in our knowledge of the
course of events following dilution and dispersion of dissolved and
suspended wastes in the ocean. But this is not an insoluble problem.
The oceanographer and the marine ecologist can make approxima-
tions to determine theoretical standards for the allowable concentra-
tion of isotopes. This would force the ecologist to examine all the
important variables that enter into the marine environment.

The geologists presented an interesting 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 would be much more
convenient than transport by ocean vessel.

The question of packaged waste was considered. A common
concept that many specialists in the field of atomic waste disposal
have, and which has been considered at one time or another, is that
packaged waste can be dumped in the deep, and that it will sink in
the bottom oozes. A careful survey of such dumping ground would
be required. The ideal condition a naturally enclosed area in which
there is a deep bed of mud. Oceanographic and marine geological
research indicates that suitable pockets of mud exist not far from
shore on the Atlantic shelf, these would not involve deep sea opera-
tions, but might affect commercial fisheries, for example, those in
the Gulf of Maine.

The oceanographers are not in agreement on rates of exchange
between surface and deep waters. One group represents the view
that the deep waters are roughly 2000 years old. The supporting data
depend largely on carbon 14 measurements which are not wholly con-
sistent. Another group contends that the rate of turnover of the deep
is much more rapid, that the data from the oxygen distribution pattern
and thermal stratification indicates relatively rapid movement.

This is a summary of the thinking in the field. We were very
happy indeed to find that the 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
vigorously, and generated well developed philosophics on the waste
disposal problem.

Zee

DR. M. KING HUBBERT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer
to the 'graybook'' of March 31, 1955. In view of the oceanographic
discussions, I would like to comment on one statement that struck
my attention: it was stated 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 trips.

That statement struck me as being odd, and I checked with the
Schlumberger Company, who regularly lower things on cables down
oil wells as much as four miles deep, and I asked them what the life
of a cable is, and they said they are good for about 200 round-trips.

DR. RENN: I am glad you brought that up, Dr. Hubbert, be-
cause one of the points made by a small group of men was this: that
the situation as far as monitoring is concerned has improved greatly.
First of all, plastics have been developed which have low adsorption
characteristics for fission products. Methods of signalling that per-
mit a high degree of leakage have been developed, so that deep water
systems would not become vulnerable to small leaks of sea water.
Instrumentation is improving rapidly and the present emphasis is on
increasing the sensitivity of the equipment. The conditions for hand-
ling sampling gear at sea differ from those of oil well logging. The
weights are greater, and there are sudden strains due to ship and
boom heaving, with the newer signal systems, longer effective life of
cables is possible, however.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any other questions you would like
to bring up while Dr. Renn is still here?

DR. TRUMAN P. KOHMAN: I would like to ask a little more
about getting material into the ocean fiom coastal installations. Were
you referring to underwater?

DR. RENN: This point was discussed more in 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 exist a number of strata which incline seaward, below the sur-
face of the continental shelf, and intercepting the continental slope.
The density of the introduced waste being higher than salt water, it
would force the stream ahead and would eventually seep out below the
edge of the shelf.

Z2.

DR. KOHMAN: In other words, there are no such existing
rivers that flow underground in the sea against the more dense salt
water, but the idea is they would create one?

DR.RENN: No, the implication was that these structures do
exist. For example, in the Chesapeake Bay we have artesian springs,
and the picture I get is that such inclined strata probably exist and
break through the sloping faces of the shelf.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any other questions ?

If not, Dr. Christy, of Hanford, will tell us some of the prob-
lems they have out there in waste disposal.

I have to apologize to Dr. Christy. He did not know he was
coming to discuss these problems until a few days ago, and he didn't
know he was going to be a speaker until lunchtime.

Dr. Joseph T. Christy,
Hanford.

DR. JOSEPH T. CHRISTY: Hanford is the name of an Atomic
Energy Commission site in the northwestern part of this country, on
the Columbia River in southeastern Washington. A schematic break-
down of the operations will permit the presentation of a generalized
view of the plants, within the limitations of security classifications.

The Columbia River forms one boundary of our site, and the
reactors are along the river. The major radioactive waste problem
at Hanford does not involve the waters of the Columbia River which
is tapped for flow through the reactors, and is returned to the river
to dissipate heat generated in the reactor. The radioactivity is negli-
gible because the water is not recirculated and there is no concentra-
tion of activity; furthermore, there is no significant contamination by
fuel elements from rupture. The major waste problems are in the
chemical separations plants.

Early Hanford consisted of reactors and three major chemical
processing plants, of which only two were operated initially. A
fourth plant was not completed except for waste tanks, and the third
plant became a stand-by. At each one of these plants, separate stor-
age facilities were provided for many thousands of gallons of waste.
Essentially all of the waste from the initial plants was stored, because

23.

no other safe disposal method was known. In time, under an accel-
erated program, storage space was exhausted so another set of tanks
was installed. Included in initial wastes was a considerable amount
of material for which there was use and which required recovery.
The stand-by plant was re-equipped and placed into operation and the
waste from most of the tanks was processed. In the chemical proc-
essing for recovery the waste fed to the recovery plant was added to,
resulting in more waste to store.

The handling of radioactive wastes at Hanford involved stored
quantities measured in many millions of gallons, in underground
tank farms separated from two to six miles, and extensive transfer
pipe shielding. In initial plant operation, there were several types
of waste to handle: a) a high level waste from which a valuable con-
stituent was recovered by reprocessing; b) an intermediate waste,
active enough to necessitate storing; and c) a low level waste which,
after being passed through a series of tanks arranged in a "'cascade"'
system, could be fed into a cribbed excavation and allowed to seep
into the ground; by this arrangement, most of the radioactivity of the
low level waste is concentrated in sediments that fall out in the tanks.
The radioactive material appears to adhere to certain types of solids.
If the initial solution is of relatively low activity it can be disposed of
through cribs in the ground. A plant producing this type of waste is
still operating and the waste is being handled essentially in this fash-
ion. The high-level waste is being reprocessed after storage in tanks
for a period of a year and a half to two years. After recovery, nickel
ferrocyanide is used as a scavenging agent on the resultant wastes to
remove two major fission products, cesium 137 and strontium 90.
The nickel ferrocyanide is added to the waste before it leaves the
plant. The nickel ferrocyanide forms a precipitate, and the presence
of the phosphate ion aids in soil retention for cribbing the supernatant.
The low level supernatant is allowed to seep into the ground but tanks
are required to hold the sludges. The intermediate-type waste has
been concentrated in the past by evaporation but the ferrocyanide
treatment has proved effective and is now being used in lieu of evapo-
ration.

DR. DAVID T. GRIGGS: Was the reason for the evaporation
because the sludge settled and put the water on top?

DR. CHRISTY: The evaporator was actually a concentrator.
All the evaporator would do is evaporate, the ''overheads'" were crib-
bed and the "bottoms" were transferred to storage tanks. The same

24.

results can be gotten by the simple addition of some small quantities
of a cheap chemical, eliminating the costs of steam and manpower
in evaporation.

DR. T. P. KOHMAN: Does the ferrocyanide combine?

DR. CHRISTY: The nickel ferrocyanide forms 'floc' and pro-
motes sedimentation.

DR. KOHMAN: Is the nickel salt added separately?
DR. CHRISTY: The nickel and the salt are added separately.

DR.H.C.THOMAS: Are you at liberty to say what the rela-
tive values of these wastes are?

DR. CHRISTY: This is the sort of thing I would rather not com-
ment on.

DR. KOHMAN: Was this precipitation method the result of a
hundred different tests?

DR. CHRISTY: No. The original compound developed in the
laboratory was copper ferrocyanide. Hanford optimized the technique,
and learned that nickel was a lot better than copper. More is being
learned. It has been found that calcium nitrate added to the mixture
gives more efficient clean-up of liquors.

MR. WILLIAM LINDSEY: I think, while Hanford had a very
low water table, the waste was permitted to overflow and the soil held
all other fission products.

This precipitation only retains some fission-products. Some
fission products flow over the tops of the tanks and into the soil.
This would be a serious matter except for the soil conditions at
Hanford which permitted it. As time went by, this process proved to
have quite a few limitations, one being the fact that we couldn't re-
cover the desired element. So another plant was built and is being
operated today, which we will call the S plant. This plant had a tank
farm and quite recently another large farm had to be added. (Mr.
Gorman mentioned tens of millions of dollars in tanks.)

DR. CHRISTY: The thermal heat generated by the radioactive
decay of fission products is used to some degree successfully to

25.

self-concentrate currently the Hanford wastes. Heat, however,

builds up in the accumulated sludges of these huge tanks and there is
periodic burping. This burping creates pressurized conditions which
must be taken into account in future tank construction. Burping is
being controlled by agitation. There is an agitation system in the de-
velopment stage, which, combined with stronger vessels, shows prom-
ise of being able to control the burping.

I might point out that waste storage tanks are all underground,
and that they are concrete tanks, mild steel lined and capped.

Another new process has been developed and a new plant built
which permits recovery of the desired elements without secondary
processing; this greatly reduces the quantity of wastes produced.
This improvement makes it possible to be optimistic about develop-
ing a self-concentration program.

I want to emphasize this point: the new process gives better
recovery and lessens the quantity of waste but it does not eliminate
the disposal problem; the difficulties and expenses of storage are
still great.

DR. J.W. WATKINS: Was it your statement that this waste
shouldn't be processed for around three years without the addition of
nickel ferrocyanide?

DR. CHRISTY: We were discussing a process which is in use
today but is becoming obsolete. The waste from one particular proc-
ess has to be aged, mainly so that the recovery process will work.
This process was developed for an aged waste, and then it was found
that the nickel ferrocyanide could be used on this particular waste
after recovery. With these other (unaged) wastes it appears that
self-concentration will be the answer.

MR. WILLIAM B. HEROY: Your diagram shows a waste line
from one plant feeding into another plant; as one plant becomes obso-
lete does the other automatically become obsolete?

DR. CHRISTY: After recovery is complete the subject plant
will be obsolete?

MR. HEROY: In the series of tanks where the overflow from
one cascades into the next, what happens to the sludge of precipitated

26.
ferroycanide? Does that just accumulate in the bottom of the tank?
IDR, (GlaGRUISIENCS Wave aS} COSC 5

DR.R.H. WILHELM: On self-evaporation what type of waste
do you get in the distillate, the ''overhead?"

DR. CHRISTY: It is essentially water.

DR. T. P. KOHMAN: Does the uranium get into one of those
three wastes?

DR. CHRISTY: An insignificant amount.
DR. KOHMAN: But not the bulk of the uranium?
DR. CHRISTY: No, not the bulk.

DR. KOHMAN: Is the amount of nickel ferrocyanide sufficient
to carry out all of the strontium ?

DR. CHRISTY: I would say, essentially all. Nickel ferrocya-
nide is a highly efficient scavenging agent.

DR. KOHMAN: There is always aluminum.

DR. CHRISTY: This is something I didn't mention. Coating
wastes in the early days used to be added to the intermediate wastes.
When this process was developed, the coating wastes were diverted
into separate tanks so that it wouldn't interfere with the chemistry
which makes this process possible. Today there is no alternative
but to store the coating wastes.

DR. KOHMAN: Fission products too?

DR. CHRISTY: Fission products too. So we have to store all
our jackets or coating wastes.

DR. H. C. THOMAS: Isn't it like the Irishman building a hole
to put the dirt into. Now what are you going to do with all the nickel
ferrocyanide?

DR. CHRISTY: That is a part of the problem being considered
by this group, I understand.

27.

DR. DAVID T. GRIGGS: I would like to ask a question about
costs. We are given in the Johns Hopkins report a cost of 35 cents
to $2 a gallon for waste of this general type. Of course, you named
a great variety of waste, and I wonder if we could have a cost on the
last two that you talked about.

DR. CHRISTY: Nickel ferrocyanide?

DR. GRIGGS: Nickel ferrocyanide, and then you spoke of a
new plant.

DR. CHRISTY: On the cost of tank installation, the more tanks
that are built the lower are the unit cost. There are also ways to in-
crease the capacity of the tanks, and in doing this, the cost is reduced
as the tank design and the number of tanks are constructed are opti-
mized.

DR. GRIGGS: Then I ask about concentration. You talked about
a new process that results in greater concentration.

DR. CHRISTY: I don't have with me the cost of the essential
material which would be needed for the nickel ferrocyanide. But on
storage, unit volume waste storage costs are down in the range of
20 cents a gallon. However, when you self-concentrate as is the cur-
rent development, condensor equipment and cribs are added costs.

So I would say there is some increase in that 20 cents a gallon which
would be possibly five to ten cents.

DR. GRIGGS: On the other hand, you have less gallons to store
because you have concentrated it.

DR. CHRISTY: That is right.

DR. GRIGGS: Could you say what final waste storage costs will
be per gallon using self-concentration and nickel ferrocyanide.

DR. CHRISTY: I would like to repeat that both of these develop-
ments are in their infancy, and anything said will be very preliminary.
But I would guess that something on the order of 25 to 35 cents per
waste space gallon will be the cost by utilizing self-concentration.
There is yet to be developed an ideal way of agitating the sludges in
these huge tanks, so we can't calculate what the final cost will be.

(AS)

DR. GRIGGS: This seems to be a small cost compared to the
one given in the Johns Hopkins report.

DR. CHRISTY: This looks like a most promising development.

DR. GRIGGS: Suppose all the radioactive products in the
stored material had completed their disintegration, what would be
the recoverable value per gallon for the aluminum nitrate and other
salts if you could simply mine these deposits as though they were
natural deposits? Is it desirable to dispose of the waste so they
could be recovered at a later date?

DR. TRUMAN P. KOHMAN: First of all, you couldn't possibly
wait for all the radioactive materials to decay. Sometimes it is mil-
lions of years. But I think there are some elements for which it
might be worthwhile to mine these deposits. There are two other
elements besides plutonium -- technetium and neptunium.

DR. CHRISTY: The mining operation undertaken recently to
recover an element from the sludge proved to be difficult and hazard-
ous. These underground tanks had to be entered with remote equip-
ment such as pumps to sluice out that material to transfer it to another
tank, and it is a difficult operation. Only the extremely high value of
the element involved made it economically possible to support the op-
eration. The mining of anything in these tanks became more difficult
as time passes because it develops into fairly solid material.

Our hope is to make use of the nickel ferrocyanide treatment
and make self-concentration fully effective so that eventually we won't
have to be too concerned about how long these tanks will last. It is
felt that a slurry will be produced, then a semi-solid mass in each
vessel, and then, if tank space is again required, the supernatant
above the sludge may be treated with something which should not be
difficult for the chemists to come up with, something which would
give a result similar to nickel ferrocyanide.

DR. J.W. WATKINS: Can you tell us anymore about the char-
acteristics of cribs and units that prevent contamination of the river?

DR. CHRISTY: The cribs are rather simple. They started out
to be just a hole in the ground below surface. Our ground water table
is quite deep -- on the order of 350 feet -- and these cribs were con-
structed close to the surface. The top was just a timbered structure,

29.

so that the waste was pumped into the crib and seeped into the soil.
Considerable safety factors have been added to limit activity seep-
age. Over a hundred wells were drilled for monitoring plants, soil,
and the underground regions.

The cribs under construction are filled with rock, and gravel
of varying sizes, and then a waterproof paper covered with a topping
of soil. The waste is discharged into the central zone. The rock
and gravel fill is simply a cheap way to maintain a cavern; timbering
is costlier.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there two long-life elements going into
the cribs in any appreciable amount?

DR. CHRISTY: No, not in any appreciable amount.

MR. LINDSEY: I would like to elucidate this a little more.
Those fission products that do go overboard have this column of soil,
250 or 300 feet high, to filter through before they get to the water
table, and the tests that we have run indicate that this soil has very
good absorption properties for picking out all the elements remaining.
The crib is used until the monitoring picks up the first trace of the
first salt coming through in the water table; the use of that crib is
then discontinued. In some cases a concrete cap is put on top of the
crib area so no surface water can percolate down through this column
of soil to absorb fission products.

At Hanford we have a deep column of soil with excellent absorp-
tion qualities and we can dispose therefore of large quantities of low
level waste as a routine procedure. What we need now is a process
which will dispose of the high level wastes, and that will remove the
elements that have long life, and remove those that are not absorbed
readily by the soil.

DR. HENRY C. THOMAS: Have any studies been made of the
distribution of the absorbed elements under the crib? To do this,
would you have to sample every six feet and determine the change in
the composition of the material?

MR. LINDSEY: I would like Mr. Lieberman to answer that.

MR. JOSEPH A. LIEBERMAN: There has been a little of that
done. We are dealing only with the low level waste from which the

30.

cesium and strontium has not been removed completely. The ferro-
cynide method is excellent, it is relatively new, and is more effec-
tive with cesium and strontium than other methods. The process and
procedure used in disposing of the supernatants containing the rest

of the fission products is based on laboratory experiments: soil col-
umns are made up to simulate the soil profile and then the actual
waste is passed through; from this is determined how much waste can
be passed through the column before a contaminant will "break
through"! at the specific deposits under consideration. Strontium is
usually the critical element. Let's say five column volumes of this
waste are in the laboratory column out in the field. We will put in the
equivalent say, of two columns of waste. (These are not necessarily
the figures or proportions actually used.) I understand there is some
strontium put in the ground in Hanford, however, no strontium has
been detected in the ground water. If, by chance, some contaminant
passed through the exchange columns and down to ground water, its
half-life must have been short and by the time it traveled to the
Columbia River its effectiveness must have disappeared.

To answer your question specifically, there is laboratory infor-
mation on the point you make, but in the field, it is very difficult to
get comparable data. It is more a case of detecting activity at differ-
ent levels rather than getting the spectrum. Ruthenium is expected to
be at the bottom, strontium close to the top, and the others appear

between; this distribution has been established as a result of laboratory

work.

DR. DAVID T. GRIGGS: There has been mention of longer life
elements: does that refer to the fission products that were mentioned?

DR. CHRISTY: Consider plutonium.

DR. GRIGGS: Are there any longer life fission products ?
DR. CHRISTY: Plutonium is of most concern.

DR. GRIGGS: Will that information be available?

DR. CULLER: Sure. There are a lot of them. The list is quite
long.

DR. CHRISTY: Other chemicals present in these wastes, in ad-
dition to the fission products, are the following:

Si hic

Na,U,07 Na2CrO4
Na,CO, NaAlO>
NaNO3 NaOH
Fe(OH)3 NaNO,
Na,SO 4 NaSiO,

DR. A. RODGER DENISON: You mentioned solids in some of
these wastes. Do all the wastes have solids as they go into the tanks?

DR. CHRISTY: Yes, they do.

DR. MURRAY HAWKINS: Are these Type 1 wastes you are
talking about?

DR. CHRISTY: Certain of these will be found in each of the
wastes that we have. For example, some will in the coating wastes,
some in the first cycle, second cycle, and third cycle and some in the
wastes from the new plants.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any further questions?

DR. J.W. WATKINS: I would like to ask if you are not con-
cerned with technetium because of the low energy.

MR. J. A. LIEBERMAN: I don't know that I can answer that
question specifically; maybe some of the other men can give a hand.
As a biological hazard it is of much lower magnitude than strontium
or cesium. Whether it has intrinsic value as an element I don't know;
I think there has been some mention of recovering it for its value.
But from the biological standpoint, to my knowledge it has never been
given as a neuclid to be concerned about.

DR. H. C. THOMAS: I was just looking in the book to see if I
can find it. I don't believe that there is any biological hazard given
with it.

DR. T. P. KOHMAN: Because of its long half-life, its activity
is quite low. It forms a minor fraction of the total fission product
activity.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any other questions?

DR. L. B. RILEY: What is the rate of heat production from the
nickel sludge, the high level sludge? Is it 1 to 3 Btu/hr/gallon given

30

in the handbook? And how does heat output vary with the half-life or
with the life of radioactivity? Is it maximum at the start and does
it fall off with time?

DR. CHRISTY: The heat follows the same trend as the radia-
tion. It declines along the same curve, essentially.

MR. W. LINDSEY: Regarding the heat figures: the high level
wastes that we allow to boil, will continue to boil for a period, of
roughly ten years before the heat generation falls to a point where
heat losses to the ground will stop the boiling -- and the boiling is
fairly brisk.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any further questions?

We have one more speaker this afternoon, but we have gone for
an hour and a half. Let's take a ten-minute breather and come back.

iets WRIECESIS! a) 0

CHAIRMAN HESS: I would like to call on Dr. Culler of Oak
Ridge, as our next speaker.

Dr. Floyd L. Culler, Jr., Director
Chemical Technology Division

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

P, O. Box P

Oak Ridge, Tenn.

(Dr. Culler presented an informal review of principles
and processes involved in reactors and chemical proces-
sing. The types of reactors and fuel purification processes
are numerous and yield a varied assortment of waste solu-
tions, each with somewhat different disposal characteristics.
The relationship between the predicted optimum sizes of
power reactors and fuel processing plants suggests that the
most economical arrangement would be for one chemical
plant to process the material from 5 - 15 reactors; this would
localize the principal production of waste but require well-
shielded transportation of fuel elements.)

(The information given by Dr. Culler has been covered in
the references given below, and in the works referred to in
bibliographies contained in these references.)

Culler, F. L., Jr., The nature and magnitude of radio-
active wastes as influenced by types of reactors and
fuel processing - present and prospective, ORNL
Central Files Number 56-5-2, May 4, 1956, Oak
Ridge, Tenn.

Report of the Committee on the Disposal and Dispersal
of Atomic Wastes to be published by the NAS-NRC as
one of its series of scientific and technical mono-
graphs.

Culler, Eliot. sand Bruce, i.) Rk lhe processing
of uranium-aluminum fuel elements, International
Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,
A/CONF .8/P/541 USA 20 July 1955.

Zeitlini Lasky Arnolds sh Des) anc Willman di aie,
Processing requirements, buildup of fission product
activity, and liquid radiochemical waste volumes in
a predicted nuclear power economy, ORNL Central
Files Number 56-1-162, January 30, 1956, Oak
Ridge, Tenn.

25)

34,
SATURDAY EVENING SESSION

September 10, 1955

The meeting reconvened at eight o'clock, Dr. Hess presiding.

CHAIRMAN HESS: We start the evening session with a good
many people, judging from what I have heard since the last session,
who are doubtful whether we have very much of a problem or any
problem at all. Many of the things that seemed to be problems have
disappeared as the chemical processing of wastes has improved.

Dr. Lieberman of the AEC is the next speaker and he will
point out what problems we really have to solve here and how serious
they are.

Dr. Joseph A. Lieberman
Sanitary Engineer

Atomic Energy Commission
Washington 25, D.C.

DR. LIEBERMAN: I certainly hope that I can disabuse you of
the idea that we have any solution that will solve immediately the prob-
lems of waste disposal. We feel hopeful that improvements in tech-
nology will, as the nuclear industry develops, reduce the complexity
of the problem, perhaps through following some of the approaches al-
ready described or perhaps along lines on which research is just start-
ing. The whole problem is divisible into two major categories, one of
immediate concern, lasting at least five, ten, or maybe more years,
and the other, a longer range problem subject to much estimating of
future power requirements and production, much speculation about the
proportion of power we will be getting from nuclear fission, and much
debate about what kind of reactors will be the best.

The amount of fission products produced is a rather simple
arithmetical calculation. When a gram of uranium fissions, 24,000
kilowatt hours, or one megawatt day, of heat energy are produced and
about one gram of fission products result. The total quantity of fission
products accumulated at any time depends on the output of energy being
produced by nuclear fission, how long the nuclear reactors have been
operating, and other factors related to chemical processing of nuclear
fuels. Mr. Davis, Director of the Reactor Division, has estimated

53)

that by 1980 there would be 175,000 megawatts of electrical energy
produced by nuclear fission. There are other estimates based on
other assumptions. The basic data for calculation given in the
"graybook'', prepared by the Hopkins group, are probably as good as
we can get. Obviously, the quantities change as processes change,
but from what we now know, it looks as though we have to consider
the fission product wastes of the immediate future with activity con-
centrations ranging in the hundreds of curies per gallon. The heat
content is of the order of 1 to 3 BTU's per gallon-hour. In Idaho
there are waste tanks where, roughly, 100,000 gallons of high level
wastes are stored, and a cooling system must be provided capable of
removing something like 300,000 BTU's per hour. That is just for
the first tank. If we can't do anything else with these wastes, we have
to plan for the time when we may have to build additional tanks to con-
tain wastes that will continue to be produced.

We are still building tanks, and as far as anyone can see, more
will have to be built. These tanks are physical structures and have a
finite life. A tank manufacturer may guarantee the integrity of the
tank for ten years, maybe twenty, maybe fifty years but there is a
limit and things can go wrong. If we put these fission products ina
tank and since they have an effective half-life reckoned in terms of
hundreds of years, we or the people that come after us have to be con-
cerned about that tank and its environment for a long time. In other
words, as presently practiced, tank storage of high-level wastes is
not actually disposing of these materials.

As sanitary engineers familiar with experiences in other indus-
tries, we know that things don't always go the way the flow sheets in-
dicate they should. Day-to-day operations of a plant are sometimes
affected by practices that do not enter into consideration of the labora-
tory procedures. It is not a case of anything being overlooked; it is
merely that many steps and stages do not exist in the laboratory that
are essential parts of industrial operation.

One thing that should be emphasized has to do with the utiliza-
tion of the fission products. I think it is worth pointing out, that, to
my knowledge, there has been no practical fabrication of fission prod-
uct sources. Much has been and is being done in the laboratories by
many people on the effect of radiations on foods, in chemical reactions,
cold sterilization of antibiotics, and all sorts of possible uses; all
this work is extremely important. If we find ways of extracting and
utilizing radioactive cesium and strontium, we merely postpone the
date of disposal of these two fission products. After being used they

36.

return, somewhat decayed, for eventual disposal. We are going to
have to put those some place and have somebody concerned about
them for an extended period of time.

This focuses attention on the processes described earlier which
may be characterized as ''pulling the teeth" of these wastes. This
refers to the selective and essentially quantitative removal of the
Cesium 137 and the Strontium 90 isotopes. If and when the "'teeth"'
can be removed, practically and economically, from the mixtures of
fission products, two different problems are created. The first has
been mentioned. The effective half-life of the mixed products obtained
from fissioned uranium has been estimated to be of the order of hun-
dreds of years. If strontium and cesium are removed, the effective
half-life of the remaining mixture is reduced by perhaps a factor of
ten; thus the remaining material might have an effective half-life fig-
ured only in tens of years but indiscriminate return to the environment
of material with such radioactivity is, nevertheless, unthinkable.

The possibility of fixing these radioactive materials on an earth
carrier is being studied. At Brookhaven the radioactive ions have
been fixed on montmorillonite clay primarily by ion exchange; then,
by heating the clay, the exchange reaction is made irreversible.

This "hot" clay could be stored in special locations that would prevent
the radioactive material re-entering the human environment.

A.E.C. employees who labor daily with this problem are faced
with the constant question, ''When can we stop building tanks? or,
When can we do something with these wastes other than putting them
in tanks?'' The chemical technologists, the physical chemists, the
biologists, and many other disciplines have a part to plan in finding
the solutions. What are the facts in the earth sciences field that bears
on the possibility of putting these wastes in the ground? Then, just
how do we go about deciding whether it is possible to put this stuff in
the ground and at which locations? Then, just how do we go about put-
ting these wastes in the ground? Specifically, the questions to be an-
swered are as follows:

a. What are the problems, environmental and geological, asso-
ciated with putting this material in the ground?

b. Assuming that underground disposal is feasible, where can
we do this, and under what conditions?

Silia

And then perhaps c: If there are questions that are still unan-
swered, what do we have to do to get answers to them?

Because of the restrictions of classification and because of
certain detailed technological data that have not yet been pinned down,
there may be at the moment a lack of clear definition. This does not,
however, make the problem any less real or less serious. It is not
an academic problem.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Thank you.
Does anybody have a question he would like to ask?

DR. M. HAWKINS: I wonder if it would be possible to have a
description of the cooling system in the tanks in Idaho which Dr.
Lieberman refers to.

DR. LIEBERMAN: Itis simply a cooling coil which is put into
the tank. Mr. Culler can give a more detailed answer.

DR. F.L. CULLER: There are two systems. When the tanks
were first built it was not known that aluminum nitrate would attack
the weld in type 347 stainless steel, and it was supposed that the heat
would be removed during boiling by refluxing the water. The tank was
a standard API tank with a lower course going up to an umbrella type
roof. Inside it was an octagonal concrete structure. After about a
year and a half of exhaustive solution tests in the laboratory, it was
tentatively concluded that a knife line would form along the center of
the type 347 stainless steel, unless the temperature of the solution in
the tank was kept below 150 degrees Fahrenheit. This meant that boil-
ing cannot be tolerated and cooling must be accomplished with reflux-
ers. Man-holes around the periphery of the tank provide access for
dropping type 347 2-inch coils into the tank. Water was circulated
through the coils, pumped through an external cooling structure, down
the umbrella, and then allowed to trickle down the outside of the tank.
This kept the walls cool even if the center of the tank was hot. There
was a recirculating water system to pump extra water into the cooling
system if a leak occurred. There was no connection with the water
supply. So, it is a plain secondary heating circuit, somewhat unfortu-
nately designed, but effective and operating.

QUESTION: How thick are the concrete walls?

38.

DR. CULLER: About two feet; they are uniformly 18 inches
in some places.

DR. W.B.HEROY: What is going to be the life of that tank?
DR. CULLER: It is at least five years, and probably longer.

DR. HEROY: What is the rate of corrosion of the tank by the
nitrate solution?

DR. CULLER: The loss is allin the welds. If you average out
the coils, or if you interpret inches per year to total area, itisa
negligible loss.

DR. HEROY: In other words, if it were a seamless tank and
cooling coils were provided, the tank might last indefinitely ?

DR. CULLER: If you could get a tank with no welds you would
have no serious trouble that we know of. Some new material we have
received may have adequate resistance but it has not been tested yet.
The press notices say it is pretty good.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any further questions?

DR. H. C. THOMAS: As I understand it, one of the most suc-
cessful ways of dealing with the moderately high level waste is by
pumping to the ground. The reason it is successful at Hanford, is
that you have a homogeneous soil with no peculiar structures, no di-
rect or rapid discharge to the river, and favorable ion exchange prop-
erties. It would be nice to do this in other places. How difficult is
it to survey the region immediately around the percolation crib and
determine the nature and extent of the changes in the soil? If you
pumped 100,000 gallons of active material would you get uniform and
predictable expansion of waste in the hole? It is possible to decide
that such would take place?

MR. LIEBERMAN: The wastes being put to the ground at Hanford
are not moderately high level; I would say they are relatively low level
wastes and the steps used in their disposal are being taken very slowly
and cautiously.

Diagrammatically, the procedure is as follows: the wastes to
to a 30 by 30-foot crib. The crib and associated piping is 300 to 400

39.

feet above the zround water table. The volume of waste that goes
into this crib is determined by laboratory tests, and the tests are _
extrapolated, with adequate safety factors, to an actual field instal-
lation. There is an elaborate system of wells around the crib to
detect the presence of radioactivity away from the crib installation.

DR. JAMES GILLULY: What about under it?

DR. LIEBERMAN: Well, they can tell what is getting in the
ground water.

DR. GILLULY: I wouldn't expect anything to move laterally
300 feet above the water table. I would expect the changes to take
place under the crib.

DR. LIEBERMAN: The monitor wells might be on the order
of 30 or 50 feet away from the crib, and activity has been detected
in these wells. When field installation is made, only the volume of
soil in the 30 by 30-foot column under the crib down to the water table
is considered; the operators feel they are getting the benefit of a big-
ger volume as far as exchange capacity is concerned. It is known that
an element like ruthenium will go right through the column, but it is
also known that ruthenium has a half-life of one year and that the travel
time of the water from the bottom of the crib to the Columbia River
is of the order of magnitude of tens of years or hundreds of years.
The rate of flow is the subject of debate among the ground water geol-
ogists, but in any case, they are sure that before this water which
might be contaminated with ruthenium gets to a place where somebody
can use it, it will have decayed to the point where it is no longer harm-
ful.

I am sure that the people who are involved in this work at Hanford
would be the first ones to say that we can't take the results that we are
getting here and apply them to any other place. Obviously, itisa
question of environment, every location on its own merits.

DR. H. C. THOMAS: It is true, then, that no spot other than
Hanford has actually been investigated from this point of view?

DR. LIEBERMAN: That isn't quite true. This afternoon Dr.
Struxness and Mr. Morton will summarize the investigative work being
done at Oak Ridge in connection with surface pits that Floyd Culler
mentioned earlier. But on a routine production basis, shallI say, at

40.

no place within the Commission jurisdiction are high level wastes
being discharged to the ground. Relatively low level wastes are
going to cribs at Hanford.

DR. KOHMAN: I wonder if someone would please define a
crib.

DR. LIEBERMAN: We call them cribs or caverns. They are
simply excavations that might be 30-foot squares in plan, and as
much as 30 or 40 feet deep. They are filled with coarse broken rock.

DR. KOHMAN: Is it lined?

DR. LIEBERMAN: No. Previously there was a crib-like
structure of timbers to hold the excavation. The purpose of the
rock is to distribute the waste so as to take advantage of the full
cross-section of the column when the waste is pumped in. The top
of the pit is covered with some impervious membrane which is in
turn covered with the natural soil; the piping into the pit may be cov-
ered so it is safe to walk over, and the membrane sheds what little
precipitation there is in the area.

It is a very rough structure, but it is surprising how expensive
it is to build a lot of these cribs. It costs from a tenth of a cent to
one cent per gallon to discharge the relatively low level wastes into
the ground at Hanford.

DR. GILLULY: The statement has been made several times
that this is soil. It is difficult to persuade me that there are 350 or
400 feet of soil at Hanford: there is an abundance of Columbia River
lava, there are gravels, and there are jointed rocks, all of which
provide channels to carry the solution through or diffuse it.. I would
like to have Dr. Piper explain the hydrology.

Mr. A.M. Piper, Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest
U.S. Geological Survey

Box 3418

Portland 8, Ore.

CHAIRMAN HESS: I was going to call on you later, Mr. Piper.
Would you like to present your views now?

MR. PIPER: A crib is merely a shallow excavation supported

41.

by rough timbers into which selected end products are discharged
/products with only a low level of radioactivity/. The water table

is 250 or more feet below land surface, and over most of the Hanford
area the unsaturated interval is occupied mainly by glacial outwash
-- silt, sand, and some gravel. A few areas adjacent to old cribs
(where discharge of wastes has been terminated) have been tested by
sinking holes at intervals around them, sampling the earth material,
and analyzing it. This has delineated, beneath the cribs, roughly
pear-shaped zones in which fission products have been adsorbed by
the earth materials. I know of no case where the total quantity of
fission products fixed in the pear-shaped zone can be shown to be a
major part of the products that were in the total volume of fluid dis-
charged into the overlying crib.

MR. M. HAWKINS: Where did the rest of it go?

DR. D. GRIGGS: Is that statement based on the water removed
in the survey? You didn't find fission products in solution-- is that
what you meant?

MR. PIPER: The earth material was not saturated when test-
drilled. It was not dry in the sense that it contained no water. Ex-
cept for a thin zone near the land surface, probably all this material
naturally contains that amount of water which it can retain against the
force of gravity, and essentially all the fluid added to the cribs must
go on down and ultimately reach the water table. We can conclude
that all the fission products put into a crib either are trapped in the
underlying area or have gone down somewhere.

Before some of the later cribs were put into use, observation
wells were drilled adjacent to them and some holes were angled be-
neath the axis of the crib.

DR. J. GILLULY: What sort of a drill did you use?

MR. PIPER: Cable tool. The mast was canted, a guide casing
was set, and the hole was drilled carefully and with fair success in
getting under the axis.

DR. T.P.KOHMAN: What kind of material?

MR. PIPER: Glacial outwash largely. Over most of the area
no basalt highs were cut above the water table.

42.

DR. KOHMAN: How was the water table related to the
Columbia River ?

DR. L.F. CURTISS: Is it different from the level of the
river?

MR. PIPER: If you wish to defer that for a moment, I would
like to come to it later. I would like to caution against any interpre-
tation that we can show conclusively in wells of this sort what happens
to the fluid: it passes down largely in an unsaturated state and a test
hole may penetrate the zone of.percolation and not collect a single
drop of fluid. Similarly with well sampling of the water at the ground
water table: contaminated water may be caught or it may go by un-
detected.

I doubt that the present practice of discharging low-level wastes
could be continued over the centuries, and wouldn't for a moment
consider adopting this practice in a populous area. I feel the problem
of waste-product disposal is far from solved.

There is another aspect to disposal in cribs at Hanford. Most
of the waste cribs are roughly in the center of the area bounded by
a large bend of the Columbia River. The diagonal across this area
measures about 40 miles. The water table does not slope uniformly
across the area. A couple of intermittent streams discharge into the
area from the hills to the west, and have formed a natural ground
water ridge. The ridge merges with a rather gentle ground-water
slope and induces a general radial movement of ground water in the
central area, toward the river. This natural pattern has been com-
plicated by disposal of cooling water in the plant area, which has
built a couple of rude ground-water mounds, possibly several tens of
feet higher than the natural water table. These two mounds act es-
sentially as dams to the movement of water and, for the moment, they
hold back the water that is beneath the cribbed area. We can't say
definitely what the condition may be 25 years from now.

DR. CURTISS: What is the nature of the ground? Can you give
us a cross-section or rough sketch.

MR. PIPER: On the west side of the area there is a ridge of
basalt, 1500 or 2000 feet high. From its base, a rudely terraced
plain descends to the river. The water table is relatively steep at
the west side, then flattens beneath the central plain.

43).

DR. M.HAWKINS: Do materials forming the terraced plain
rest on basalt?

MR. PIPER: The basalt passes underneath, and there are
some irregularities in its upper surface. We haven't the data to plot
the rock profile. The overburden is outwash and some material that
may be non-glacial.

DR. HAWKINS: What would be the normal rate of water move-
ment toward the river if the mounds were not present?

MR. PIPER: That is the sort of question a ground-water man
never answers. (Laughter) Regardless of the average rate of move-
ment, we know that in other areas contaminating (but non-radio-
active) fluid moves largely by displacement, as though floating. The
great uncertainty is that there is no indication of impending trouble
until the contaminant suddenly appears. The average rate of move-
ment is no measure of the movement in the most permeable threads.

DR. GILLULY: Ina laboratory test of the soil column, solu-
tions can be passed through samples in a beaker or diffusion column
without duplicating the conditions in nature; in nature there are going
to be high permeable channels through which the flow will be concen-
trated. The natural conditions are far from homogeneous and very
different from the conditions and results one is apt to get in a test in
a laboratory.

MR. PIPER: Thatis very true. Any test in a cylinder of re-
stricted size is difficult to extrapolate to natural conditions. For one
reason there is a boundary effect in any cylinder of laboratory size
that may greatly distort the results. The lack of homogeneity is shown
by the tests made around some of the cribs: I sketched a smoothly
bounded zone /of fission-product adsorption/ but they are not all that
way by any means. In the ideal case the solutions moved down through
uniformly permeable material; where the permeability is discontinuous
there is considerable irregular lateral spreading. You can get all
sorts of queer details reflecting local inhomogeneity. Yet, on the
whole, the material is permeable throughout.

MR.S.G. LASKY: Why do you say that the test holes at the
ground water table may not pick up any radioactive material?

MR. PIPER: A well is drilled to the water table for the purpose
of detecting the passage of a contaminated fluid. There is water in

44,

the bottom of the well. How much pumping is necessary to be sure
that you exhaust the fluid in the bore hole of the well and that you do
get a sample of what is going by? It is not nearly as simple as it
seems to be.

DR. HUBBERT. How are you going to get a sample in the
wells around the cribs?

MR. PIPER: There may or may not be some seepage from the
percolating waste. But you can have fluid go right by the end of a
well and not collect a drop. It is the hardest thing in the world to
sample fluid moving in unsaturated material.

DR. GILLULY: You said this pear-shaped area of poisoned
soil doesn't contain anywhere near a major fraction of the material
that was fed into it. What happened to the rest of it? Where did it
go?

MR. PIPER: Some of the missing material may be tied up in
sludge in the bottom of the crib, and it is physically impossible to
drill and sample the crib bottom to get a good quantitative measure-
ment of that sludge. But even making allowance for that, we haven't
demonstrated at Hanford that there is anything like complete inter-
ception by adsorption.

DR. E. W. ROEDDER: Could you have relatively uncontami-
nated material underneath the pear-shaped mass?

MR. PIPER: Yes. The bottom of the mass is substantially
above the water table.

DR. ROEDDER: Completely uncontaminated?
MR. PIPER: Yes.

DR. GRIGGS: I asked a question as to whether contamination
occurs in the ground water.

MR. PIPER: Not directly under the areas of absorption that
have been tested by drilling. Contamination has been found in a few
ground-water samples.

DR. HAWKINS: Where were they located?

45.

MR, PIPER: Those that I am familiar with go back to war-time
operation that was not well documented. Just where it came from I
hesitate to say.

QUESTION: Is there a pattern in the amount of radioactive ma-
terial you found in the hole?

MR. PIPER: You mean areas of absorption. They are quite
unlike. I sketched a pear-shaped mass, but actually each one is
rather irregular.

DR. A.B. JOSEPH: Is the sampling adequate?

MR. PIPER: Not entirely, no. These masses aren't too large.
A 200-foot cylinder would probably enclose one. Near its margins
you get into material of so low concentration that analytical methods
are not sufficiently delicate to be sure of the total quantity of adsorbed
fission products.

DR. R.H. WILHELM: Can one get activity by putting an ab-
sorber over the hole?

MR. PIPER: An effort was made to assemble apparatus that
would re-enter some of the drill holes, and take samples through the
casings. I am not familiar with the results.

DR. GRIGGS: I don't know if anybody mentioned it, but some-
body may have gotten the impression that some /waste products / may
have gotten down to the ground water. How do you reconcile the fact
that there is no contamination beneath this pear-shaped area?

MR. PIPER: I am not sure that any reached the ground-water
level immediately beneath any of the absorption zones that were drilled
out. I don't think we could prove so from [the existing/ sampling.

DR. GILLULY: What happened to the stuff then?

MR. PIPER: Some could have gone down to the water table.
We can't prove that it didn't.

QUESTION: Were any samples taken below the surface of the
ground-water table?

MR. PIPER: I don't recall. Can you answer, C.V.?

46.

DR. C. V. THEIS: There were samples taken in wells going
down below the water table in this area and they haven't shown any
radioactive contamination. I believe I am right.

QUESTION: How far below the water table?

DR. THEIS: Not deep enough, as far as I am concerned,
These waste materials at Hanford are not shown to be of any higher
specific gravity than water. So you have more opportunity near the
water table. And I might add to what Mr. Piper said that they have
taken soil samples below these cribs, and one of my difficulties has
been that they have gotten too much activity in a small zone.

DR.S. LASKY: I would like to know, once strontium and ce-
sium have been removed, how long it takes for the remaining stuff
to get within tolerable limits.

DR.J.A. LIEBERMAN: Tens of years, I think, would be the
order of magnitude.

DR. HAWKINS: Is there any concern of possibly wanting to get
at these materials once they are put in the ground? Is anybody con-
cerned over that?

DR. LIEBERMAN: I think the only basis on which one could
answer at this time is that strontium and cesium can be extracted
readily. They are sources of radio energy which may have value in
the future. But the problem is not whether we can get the stuff back
but what can we do with it now that we have it.

MR. RALPH HUNTER: I wonder if the acid material going down
into the crib might be precipitating in the alkaline soil some strontium
carbonate or some of the other carbonates or phosphates which are
holding fission products. Has that been aswered?

MR, PIPER: I don't know that it has been answered.

DR. HUBBERT: Mr. Chairman, the question just asked is one
that several of us have been discussing between sessions. Mr. Culler
this afternoon mentioned that all of these wastes could be put into a
liquid form by the various methods of extraction. When the possibility
is considered of taking the liquid waste and putting it underground, the
question arises of whether or not a reaction between the material in-
jected and the minerals in the ground might immediately block all the

47.

pores. Of course, the injection of liquids in the ground is quite com-
mon and one of the practices that is quite essential in oil work is to

put up a plant so that the water is chemically treated in advance of in-
jection. However, in the disposal of brines from oil wells, the whole
object is to get the stuff in the ground. One of the most recent devel-
opments in underground mechanics is the deliberate fracturing of rocks
by pressure and the injection of sand in the fractures to hold them
open. Instead of having just the well bore, you have perhaps hundreds
of square feet of exposed surface. Plugged pores can be dealth with
by using enough pressure in a properly designed and executed maneuver
to give controlled fracturing. Would it be necessary to reprocess the
waste fluids to remove the constituents that might subsequently precip-
itate on contact with the rock material to form plugs in the pores?

I think we have to dilute the materials enough to avoid forming
"hot spots.'' To obtain dilution and at the same time keep the density
high, we can use natural brines. If the waste is placed in the bottom
of the basin, diluted to disperse the hot stuff, and the density is kept
higher than the surrounding water, we then have mechanical stability.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Would you like to make a comment, Dr.
Culler?

DR. CULLER: It is going to be difficult to define a typical kind
of waste. The kind of waste you get is high in aluminum nitrate, or
in neutralized aluminum nitrate and contains as much as 40 per cent
by weight of dissolved solids. Certain conditions in the rock might
precipitate the aluminum nitrate as a heavy sludge and plug up the bore
hole. If you dissolve stainless steel in nitric acid and inject it into an
alkaline layer, the bed will plug with ferrous oxide, which would be
hard to unplug. However, I suspect the chemical processing people
could remove certain materials or the conditions of the systems ad-
justed so the waste could be injected. It is a matter of deciding where
the material is to be injected, what the conditions are, and what would
be detrimental to the process, and then having the solutions prepared
to fit the requirements.

It is really difficult. Precipitation will be = problem. Heat
will be a problem. It might be necessary to cool for periods of three
or four years, especially in the case of wastes from the processing
of stainless steel which otherwise would require very expensive neu-
tralization. If there is concentration along restricted bands in the |
rock or soil the heat concentration might be very serious; montmoril-
lonite clay may act as a trap and prevent distribution. Removal of

48.
cesium and strontium will help reduce the problem.

DR. HUBBERT: In these remarks I am thinking about putting
wastes down in a well which may be 10,000 feet deep. It will be
structurally a basin in shape. The rocks at that depth are always
full of water. If we inject into a sandstone at this depth, all the in-
jected fluid will do is flow out radially from the well. It is quite im-
portant it does not block the pores of the sandstone. Now, ina dilute
form as far as the hot constituents are concerned, many of them won't
accumulate to form concentrations.

DR. CULLER: But if the soil through which it passes has the
capacity for an ion exchange it will solidify. You will have solids.

DR. HUBBERT: At a depth of ten thousand feet, we do not have
soil; we have rocks, and it is rocks I am thinking about. There may
be rocks composed of montmorillonite clay. We don't inject into
those. But we may have sandstones that have a percentage of clays
which may have important ion exchange properties. We might pos-
sibly be injecting into a limestone. The most desirable rock would be
sandstone; the clays we would avoid. The rocks occur inlayers. The
sandstone is probably bounded above and below by clay stone, and the
sandstone may be several hundred feet thick. If we inject into the
thick, clean sandstone, there will be comparatively little ion exchange.
So, a part of the chemistry would be to get the waste ready for that
kind of an injection.

DR. A.R. DENISON: I should like to inquire if there has been
any plugging in these cribs. Have any of these cribs at Hanford been
abandoned?

MR. PIPER: One or two of the earlier ones have been discon-
tinued because of probable sludge in the base of the crib that may have
been suspended in the fluid when it entered the crib. Escape of fluid
was considered hazardous and the cribs were abandoned for that
reason. I am not familiar with the operation of some of the later cribs.

DR. DENISON: Is there a plugging effect in the cribs?

MR. PIPER: There definitely was in one or two of the earlier
ones.

DR. DENISON: Of something not going into the present cribs?

49.
MR. PIPER: Yes.

DR. THEIS: Tanks collect most of the sludge, so the experi-
ence you may have with these cribs would not be a very good indica-
tion of what might happen in the wells. The Hanford low level wastes
are not typical of the wastes we are talking about.

DR. J. W. WATKINS: In the petroleum industry we have a
half-million barrels of brine to dispose of this year. There are dis-
posal wells in western states taking thousands of barrels per day
without treatment at all. So it depends on the location-- whether
there is permeable rock or not.

DR. DENISON: I think in east Texas they put back one barrel
of water for each barrel of oil they take out. It all goes by gravity.
No fracturing is needed.

DR. HUBBERT: This still depends on the fluid not blocking the
holes in the sand.

DR. DENISON: You have to be sure not to let the algae grow;
they will block it up quickly. But keep the water clean and keep the
air from it and it goes back in any quantity you want to put-in.

DR. HUBBERT: Another thing, Dr. Culler mentioned colloidal
solids suspended in this material. That is not tolerable if you are
going to inject it in the ground. It has to go in as a pure liquid, no
solids.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any other questions:

We have two more speakers that we would like to get in in the
next forty minutes.

MR. F. A. HEDMAN: I would like to get a comment from Dr.
Lieberman. From the distribution of Hanford wastes, is it likely to
be practical to put up a plant that will generate high level wastes at
some place where you would have to transport the waste?

DR. LIEBERMAN: I think it is very likely that problems would
confront us, and the feasibility of putting the waste in the ground might
well determine the type of process we would plan to use.

BO

DR. HUBBERT: It may ultimately determine where you put
the reactors.

DR. LIEBERMAN: We have had experience in transporting
solid fuel elements to a chemical processing plant, but the handling
of the liquid waste from the chemical processing plant, assuming we
want to put the waste in the ground, might determine the location of
the process.

MR. HEDMAN: Millions of gallons of waste is something I
wouldn't want to handle.

DR. LIEBERMAN: Neither would I.

CHAIRMAN HESS: If there are no other questions, I would like
to ask Mr. Morton, of Oak Ridge, to talk to us.

Mr. Roy J. Morton

Health Physics Division

Oak Ridge National Laboratory
125 (0) § 18x 12)

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

MR. MORTON: Dr. Lieberman asked that Mr. Struxness and
I discuss our experience and our study program at Oak Ridge. As
background information for Mr. Struxness's discussion of high level
waste problems, I will give a brief resume of past activities and de-
velopments, and a summary of the present studies.

At Oak Ridge National Laboratory the waste studies are carried
on in the Health Physics Division and were organized in 1948. Until
1953 we were concerned principally with low level wastes, with water
decontamination problems, with stream surveys, and the needs, cri-
teria, and techniques of laboratory analysis. Those problems have
not been solved completely but they have been given considerable at-
tention and reported. The high level waste disposal problem became
urgent, and in early 1954 the section was reorganized as the Sanitary
Engineering Research Section. Since that time our efforts have been
devoted almost entirely to this problem in anticipation of the peace-
time uses of nuclear energy, particularly by the power industry.

The early studies had to do with the wastes which could be dis-
charged from the Laboratory into White Oak Creek and thence into

Bilis

Clinch River, and be disposed of by dilution. There are several
types of wastes. The principal types are: sanitary sewage which is
treated separately; cooling water which has no opportunity for being
contaminated with radioactivity and can be discharged directly to
White Oak Creek; the slightly-contaminated process water from lab-
oratory sinks, and the like, which, after brief retention, is discharged
into White Oak Creek; chemical wastes; and metal wastes. Chemical
wastes, which we call intermediate, containing 1/300th to 1/30th of a
curie per gallon, have to be disposed of with care; and metal wastes
have to be stored in tanks until reprocessed for recovery of the fuel
materials.

About 1951 the intermediate radiochemical wastes were filling
up the available concrete storage tanks, despite the use of the waste
evaporator, and the construction of new tanks had to be considered.
Prior to that a survey by a geologist had indicated that a nearby bed
of Conasauga shale had a thickness of at least 1500 feet. The shale
is relatively impervious and laboratory tests showed that it might be
suitable for containing wastes of this kind. We first excavated an ex-
perimental pit with a capacity of 200,000 gallons (Pit No. 1). After
introducing 130,000 gallons of evaporator concentrate a break-through
to the surface occurred because it was on a steep hillside. Subsequent
excavations have been located more carefully. Two additional pits
have been dug, and another is to be started in October 1955, each hav-
ing one million gallons capacity (Pit No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4). The
use of Pit 1 was discontinued after a few months.

Pit 2 and Pit 3 are stillin operation. Pit 3 is nearly full, Pit 2
is two-thirds full, and Pit 4 will be in operation in time to relieve these
when they are full. We are trying to evolve a safe but economical de-
sign to get the maximum possible efficiency from pits. Since June
1952, we have put two and a quarter million gallons of intermediate
level waste containing nearly 30,000 curies of activity into these pits.
About 75 per cent of the activity is due to ruthenium, and about 20 to
22 per cent is due to cesium. Three or four monitoring wells were in-
stalled around each pit for making radiologs and taking samples in an
effort to detect the underground movement of the waste. Sampling at
a distance of 80 to 85 feet showed, after about a month and a half,
ruthenium and nitrates in the well. In the highest concentration, the
activity was about 70,000 counts per minute per milliliter and the
nitrates about 3,000 parts per million. The activity of the waste as
originally put into the pit was about a million counts per minute per
milliliter, at 10 per cent counting efficiency, or about 10? disintegra-
tions per minute per milliliter.

52.

After about a year and a half there was some breakthrough of
ruthenium and nitrates to the surface and into a small stream ata
distance of 500 feet. This was detected by the monitoring program
which included an occasional scanning of the ground surface and the
vegetation. Only ruthenium activity was found in any of the wells or
seeps despite the fact that cesium and small amounts of other radio-
isotopes were present in the waste. During a very dry period when
the stream was being fed solely by ground water seepage, 15,000
parts per million of nitrates were found in the creek. During that
summer of 1954 turtles were found dead or in distress in this creek
apparently affected by the nitrates. It was known from the beginning
that investigations of the problems of sanitation would have to include
studies of both the radioactive constituents and the chemical constitu-
ents because the wastes are salted and the nitrates, and perhaps other
chemicals, may be toxic.

The construction costs was about $15,000 per million gallons
of pit capacity, including the monitoring wells. This does not include
the expense of the special studies, the time of the health physicists,
the monitoring program, the collection of samples, and the analytical
cost. The monitoring cost is a continuing expense not related to the
cost of construction. It has been estimated conservatively that the
discontinuance of the evaporator and the other economies, made pos-
sible by the use of pits, have saved the laboratory approximately
$63,000 a year. The contribution of waste fluids to the natural drain-
age has not caused local hazards nor an appreciable increase in the
content of radioactive material in the river.

DR. KOHMAN: What is the size of the pit?

MR.MORTON: Each pit is approximately 200 feet long, 100
feet wide, and 15 feet deep, with a slope from the outside edges to
the bottom.

QUESTION: They will be above the water level?

MR. MORTON: For the most part they are above the water
table which varies in depth with the location and may fluctuate 5 or 6
feet. In dry seasons the water level is below the pit but the bottom
of the pit may be in the water some of the time. The surcharge up
to 15 feet of liquid in the pit has to be considered, of course, because
of its effect upon the water level.

Dan
DR. C. V. THEIS: Do you keep putting liquids in the pits?

MR. MORTON: Yes. They were transferred formerly by tank
truck, but a pipeline has been built and about 75,000 gallons are
pumped to the pits every two weeks. The chemistry of the wastes is
different from those described by previous speakers. These wastes
contain 25 to 35 per cent of dissolved solids by weight. The principal
bulk constituents are sodium and ammonium nitrate. The principal
radioisotopes are ruthenium andcesium. There is only a small per-
centage of aluminum.

DR. GILLULY: What happens to the stuff? Is it diffused?

MR. MORTON: It appears to diffuse gradually through the soil,
the nitrates preceding everything else. The ruthenium diffuses, but
none of the other isotopes have been found in wells 50 to 75 feet from
the pit. We have not detected strontium as yet, although strontium
has been present in the waste going into Pit No. 3 since January 1955.

DR. KOHMAN: What fraction of what you put in has seeped out?

MR. MORTON: The total input to the pits has been over two and
a quarter million gallons, and there are about one and a half million
gallons in them now. There has been loss by seepage but the exact
amount is not known. In connection with these pits we have tried to
collect data which will be of value in studies on high level waste dis-
posal and on further use of pits for intermediate level wastes. One
subject for investigation is the amount of seepage in this particular
formation. Detailed explorations have been made by the Geological
Survey of the character of the formation, the structure, and the hy-
drology in this area to help determine the amount of seepage. A care-
fully planned series of observations will be made during the next year
to determine the evaporation from a pit of this configuration. If we
know the waste input and the rainfall contribution, and can estimate
the loss by evaporation, then we have a measure of the seepage. An
approximate estimate is that the evaporation loss is about 30 to 35
inches a year and that rainfall contributes about 50 to 55 inches a
year. The liquid wastes added are about 35,000 gallons per week into
the two pits.

DR. KOHMAN: The original intention was to have no seepage?

MR. MORTON: No. These pits were intended primarily to pro-
vide increased storage volume. It was assumed there would be some

54.

seepage and the plan was to study it carefully to determine whether
the seepage created a hazard. So far we think ithas not. The
Operations Division is considering the use of, say, a total of five pits,
the idea being that an operating seepage system would contribute fluids
continuously to the soil over a large area and that the seepage of fluid
would balance the production of waste. That is the general concept.

If we find that it creates a hazard, we can put liners in the new pits

to minimize seepage, or again start building storage tanks. Some
people in the more arid areas are quite interested in this concept be-
cause they do not have the unfavorable balance between rainfall and
evaporation which we have. We have more rainfall than evaporation
but in many places it is the reverse.

DR. KOHMAN: Why not build shed roofs over the pits?

MR.MORTON: That is a possibility that has been discussed
with the Weather Bureau, but a roof will restrict evaporation as well
as the entrance of rainwater and we might not gain much.

The work of estimating the evaporation loss is being done with
the collaboration of the Weather Bureau, the U. S. Geological Survey,
and others. It includes measuring liquid temperatures at the surface
and below the surface, air temperatures and wind velocities, the chem-
ical content of the waste liquid, and other measurements that the
Weather Bureau people tell us are necessary in order to calculate
evaporation losses.

DR. HUBBERT: What is the temperature of this material? Is
it hot?

MR. MORTON: No, it is not hot? le may be above ordinary tap
water temperatures, but not much.

Waste disposal research at ORNL is a cooperative program in-
volving several agencies: the Public Health Service, the U.S.
Weather Bureau, the U. S. Geological Survey, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the U. S. Engineers. The program takes into consid-
eration the interests of many agencies besides our own. For example,
the U. S. Geological Survey and our own workers are studying in de-
tail the geologic structures and the hydrology at the sites which we
propose to use for high level wastes disposal facilities. The objective
is to see whether or not the behavior of wastes below ground can be
correlated with the movement of underground water. The evidence

3) )

gathered to date indicates that it may be possible to correlate the
data on waste with the data on water. If this proves valid, a reliable
picture of the ground water movement may make it possible to pre-
dict in a given situation whether or not a hazard would be created by
the release or escape of wastes into the ground.

DR. DENISON: Did you say your first two pits were built on
a knoll and you had a breakthrough at the base?

MR.MORTON: Yes.

DR. DENISON: And you are now building one which won't have
that hazard?

MR.MORTON: No, that is also being built on somewhat of a
knoll in order to keep the pit above the water table as much as pos-
sible. We plan to put fresh water into this pit and make observations
on seepage into the ground. The water can be pumped out and the
waste put in later. We suspect that it will break out but we feel that
in dealing with intermediate or low level waste we should take advan-
tage of the capacity of the soil so long as we don't get a breakout that
is excessive of hazardous.

CHAIRMAN HESS: We will now hear from Mr. Struxness.

Mr. E.G. Struxness, Director
Waste Disposal Project

Health Physics Division

Oak Ridge National Laboratory
iPie©y, Box ,P

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

MR. STRUXNESS: In late 1954, after extensive discussions,
we set out to formulate a practical concept of the reactor waste dis-
posal problem. Calculations based on the Putnam predictions of
power development in the next forty years yielded figures that were
invariably large. After a year of study, we decided to let others
worry about the U. S. problem and we would be content to develop a
method of disposing of ORNL wastes. Highly-radioactive power-
reactor waste may be disposed of in pits, provided there is complete
retention and immobilization of radionuclides in the pits. For the
disposal of low-level and intermediate-level waste, some combination
of retention plus seepage might be useful.

56.

The disposal of high-level wastes includes pre-treatment to
make them suitable for ground disposal. This may be considered
chemical processing in the sense that fission products having indus-
trial and medical use may be of sufficient intenesr to recover. The
critical peo topes are: Sr90, y70, sr89, y?l Cs 137 , Ba , Ce Mae
Pr 144, Haase 95 , Nb?? ; Bal40. taleo and Pm 3h lee ieee can be re-
moved the peouleey a heat will largely disappear. Chemical precip-
itation and solvent extraction methods for removing some of these
isoto pes are being developed and the value of one or two isotopes
might pay for the removal of the rest of them.

To increase the effective use of pits, the geologic and hydro-
logic conditions that seem to be most favorable for the location of
the pits are being studied. In addition, the possibility of developing
impervious liners is being explored: this includes mineral liners and
asphalt liners, and also possible self-sealing as the result of inter-
action between the wastes and the soil. In searching for a suitable
liner, we have studied concrete, limestone and asphalt in the contain-
ment of acid waste; high temperatures and radiation have a deleterious
effect on asphalt, but the concrete seems as though it might hold up
long enough once we have developed a method of permanently fixing
and fusing the waste. Asphalt has been tested with highly alkaline
waste and it has been in the pit for over a year without showing any
leakage. Even though an impervious liner is developed, it will be
necessary to immobilize the waste in the pit. The ceramists have
ideas which may prove helpful in permanently fixing and fusing the ma-
terial in the pit after the water has evaporated and the nitrogen oxides
have been driven off.

Even if we have an impervious liner, and the material is per-
manently fixed and fused in the pit, it is important for purposes of
monitoring to understand the exchange properties of the soil in which
you locate the pit. The surface disposal of wastes is as much a prob-
lem of geochemistry as it is geology. We are concerned also about
the techniques of monitoring in wells and in the soil to determine the
underground movement.

The acid aluminum nitrate wastes have been studied in the past
year to devise means of fixing the isotopes permanently. This is
acid-deficient waste which might form a gel or slurry when mixed with
cheap and readily available materials such as clay silicates, phoshate
tailings, and soda ash. The volumes added should be kept as low as
possible and should aid in fusion. To avoid creating a hazard from

Bis

airborne radioactivity during the evaporation and fusion processes,

it may be feasible to use river sand as an entrainment bed and shield.
It may be possible to sinter the dried mass into a ceramic body, from
which, we hope, the radioisotopes will not escape. There may be
enough heat generated in the residue to bring about self-fusion or self-
sintering but ceramists and others feel that the amount of heat energy
available is on its borderline. It might be necessary to use a calcin-
ing or sintering machine. It is important to keep the sintering temper-
ature low in order to minimize the volatilization of the radio isotopes.
Something like twelve or fifteen clay flux mixtures containing synthetic
waste and tracers were prepared by Dr. McVay. One mixture con-
sisted of the following: 250 milliliters of acid waste solution, 30 grams
of soda ash, 30 grams of about 200-mesh limestone, and 100 grams of
16-mesh calcareous shale from the Volunteer Cement Co.

The mixture sinters at 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit; after 50 days,
leach tests in tap and salt water showed that only Cesium 137 is
leached. This was unusual in our experience, because the wastes in
the present pits contain cesium, ruthenium, and strontium, but only
ruthenium has moved through the shale.

DR. GRIGGS: You listed a group of critical nuclides that you
are going to get rid of but you include one of them in your tests of
fusion fixation?

MR. STRUXNESS: The idealized concept supposes that cesium
will be removed from the waste, but Dr. McVay is including Cesium
in his synthetic wastes because the cesium separation process has not
been worked out.

CHAIRMAN HESS: We will have to limit the questions because |
the Steering Committee has to work after this meeting. I propose that
we have the questions the first thing in the morning.

MR. STRUXNESS: Would you like for me to continue? I am
afraid I have a half-hour more.

CHAIRMAN HESS: We don't want to rush, I think we will close
this session now and start off at this point at nine o'clock tomorrow
morning.

-.. Lhe meeting adjourned at 10:15 o'clock... }

58.
SUNDAY MORNING SESSION

September 11, 1955

The meeting reconvened at 9:15 o'clock, Dr. Hess presiding.
CHAIRMAN HESS: Mr. Struxness will continue.

MR. STRUXNESS: We have made four "'hot pot'' experiments
that are designed to tell us whether or not self-fusion is possible.
The calculations of heat capacity and heat dissipation of various wastes
and different containers were tested empirically. The pot is built as
follows: the innermost container holds clay that had been calcined
previously at 600 degrees, with a heater in the center; the heater is a
pressed mica sheet wound with nichrome wire; surrounding the clay
container is an insulating container of 4 inches of lamp black, and
this, in turn, is surrounded by 8 inches of vermiculite. In the three
experiments depicted in the table the dimensions of the inner container
were changed. We tried to maintain the same insulation surrounding
the inner container. T, represents the temperature at the center of
the inner container. T 2 represents the temperature of the clay at the
exterior of the inner container. T2 is the temperature at the exterior
wall of the lamp black container. The outside container is a galvanized
can, the dimensions of which are 4 feet in height and 3 feet in diameter.
In "hot pot'' No. 1 the inner container was 4 inches high and 12 inches
in diameter. In experiment No. 2 the inner container was 6 inches in
diameter and 2 inches high. In experiment 4 the inner container was
24 inches in diameter and 8 inches deep. At 40 watts input the temper-
ature rose to about 385 degrees in approximately 4 days. With in-
creased power, the temperature rose rapidly and stablized at about 560
degrees Centigrade on approximately the 9th day. With further increase
in power, the temperature rose rapidly and stablized at approximately
730 degrees after the 14th day. If we plot the input in watts as a func-
tion of temperature, the curve suggests to the ceramists that a reason-
able temperature to attempt to achieve for fusion is 900 degrees Cc,

Experiments 2 and 4 were performed to determine the effect of
areas to volume ratio on the energy required to heat the clay mass.
In experiment 1 this ratio is .8, and the calculated power is midway
between .01 and .02 watts per c.c. In experiment No. Z this ratio is
slightly over 1.5, and the power input calculated is midway between
.06 and .07 watts per c.c. In experiment No. 4, where the dimensions

bon

TABLE I

HEAT EXPERIMENT DATA

Time Watts T 1 (Center) T (Exterior) T3(Carbon Insulation

oC oC oC Exterior)
(days)

EXPERIMENT 1
0 40 28 25 25
il 40 280 157 46
2 40 338 208 72
id 60 383 254 98
15 60 554 373 140
17 80 636 414 144
25 80 122 490 176

EXPERIMENT 2
0 10 25 25) 5)
2 10 226 176 54
ql 20 414 324 86
9 49 764 616 143
10 60 884 - 152

(failed before equilibrium)

EXPERIMENT 4
0 400 25 25 75)
2 400 800 428 Ly 7)
3 400 876 (628) BNP

(heater failed)

60.

were increased to 8 inches deep and 24 inches in diameter, this ratio
is slightly above .4, and the calculated input is slightly above .01
watts per c.c.

DR. KOHMAN: Is this the power necessary to get 900 degrees ?

MR. STRUXNESS: This is the power required to fuse this clay
mass.

MR.MORTON: You will get 900 degrees if you have enough in-
sulation at the boundary.

MR. STRUXNESS. However, Dr. Johnson, who did these ex-
periments, feels that these power requirements are conservative.
He says that with reasonable insulation in the ground, and with a pit
about 20 feet deep and 20 feet in diameter, one might be able to fuse
this clay flux material.

DR. HUBBERT: Wouldn't it be more important if you stated
how much energy was required to reach that level?

DR. CULLER: It would have to be energy-time, wouldn't it, to
reduce that temperature?

DR. HUBBERT: In order to produce fusion the temperature
must be raised the required amount. This, in turn, involves the ad-
dition of an amount of heat equal to the heat capacity of the material
at the melting temperature with respect to that of the initial tempera-
ture, and then an additional amount of heat to product fusion. The
power required, it seems to me, is fundamentally ambiguous because
the heat produced by any given power is proportional to the time.
Since there are heat losses by conduction, these can be kept small
only by keeping the time as short as possible, which implies rapid
heating at a high power level. The object, therefore, should be not
to find the least power that would permit fusing temperature to be
reached, but rather to produce fusion at the least energy cost. At low
power levels the energy expenditure could be without limit because of
heat leakage; at high power levels the energy required would approach
that for fusion without leakage.

MR. STRUXNESS: Further work is needed to extend the points
on the curve, and I will certainly talk to him about it.

61.

DR. LINDSEY: At Hanford most of the energy would be re-
leased in boiling and in the ground.

DR. HUBBERT: The primary concern is how much energy is
needed to make these brickettes.

MR. STRUXNESS: Yes.

DR. HUBBERT: Is this heating element shaped like a doughnut,
hollow inside ?

MR. STRUXNESS: Yes.

In experiment No. 4, the set up is as follows: in the inner con-
tainer is acid aluminum nitrate waste plus the clay flux mixture, sur-
rounded with foam glass, and with vermiculite in the outer container.
The diameter of the inner container is 12 inches, the foam glass con-
tainer is 20 inches, the hot pot outer container is 36 inches, the height
is 48 inches, and the inner liquid is 24 inches. With an input of 40

watts the temperature rose to almost 100 degrees Centigrade in 3 days.

Then the power was increased to 100 watts and the temperature rose
rapidly, and at about the fifth day it was somewhere between 110 and
120 degrees. Beginning at about the third day, and extending to the
tenth day, it bubbled and steamed. Beginning about the sixth day the
temperature began to increase slowly and NO> fumes began to appear.
This continued until the nineteenth day, the temperature gradually in-
creasing -- on the fifteenth day, the temperature had risen to about
250.

By the twentieth day the temperature had risen to 300°C. , at
which point practically all the nitrogen oxide had been released. Then
the temperature began to rise more abruptly, so that by the thirtieth
day the temperature had risen to 460°C.; the reason for this was that
after the liquid had been evaporated and the nitrogen oxide fumes had
been evolved, an insulating material was added above the dry mass.

Now a word about what happens in the inner container: the level
of the liquid was 24 inches, the diameter 12 inches. As the level
dropped 10 inches nothing clung to the walls. Then dropping from 10
to 17 inches the material did cling to the walls. The reduction of the
waste and clay flux mixture was from 24 inches to something on the
order of 8 inches. The heater failed, so temperatures could not be
raised further but the mass seemed to be fairly well fused. Dr.
Johnson's description of the consolidation is as follows:

62.

"No violent bubbling, surging or 'burping' were observed and
as the mass shrank it did not adhere to the container walls during
the first 2/3 of its consolidation. Only small amounts of the cake
adhered after that. The mass appeared to be fairly uniformly heated.
Although the temperature finally attained was insufficient for good sin-
tering, the mass was hard with relatively small bubbles trapped within."

The plans are to continue the experiments using a pit perhaps
6 feet in diameter and 6 feet deep, and possibly progressing to a pit
approximately 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet deep. The final stage,
presumably, would be to build another pit of this approximate size
and add to our clay flux mixture hot reactor wastes to see if self-fusion
can be obtained.

DR. HUBBERT: How large is the first pit going to be?

MR. STRUXNESS: The first will be 6 feet deep and 6 feet in
diameter. The second will be 20 feet deep and 20 feet in diameter
with an internally installed heater. The third step is the same size
pit, approximately, adding our mixture to the hot waste.

DR. L. R. ZUMWALT: I take it that this aluminum nitrate
waste that you used in this experiment did not have the fission prod-
ucts init. It was merely the chemical equivalent of the bulk.

MR. STRUXNESS: Right.

DR. ZUMWALT: In other words, there has been no opportunity
to take the solid mass and subject it to leaching tests.

MR. STRUXNESS: Right. Furthermore, we have learned in
some of the experiments that the ruthenium comes off in the gases.
Not all of it, but quantities enough to worry us, and we are building
equipment to collect it.

DR. THEIS: Where are the heaters located? Are they actually
in the radioactive liquid?

MR. STRUXNESS: It is simulated waste.

DR. THEIS: They are in the reactors, and actually to have
overheating the mixture must entirely overlie the heater surface.

63.

MR. STRUXNESS: Well, I don't know. Dr. Johnson says that
the dry mass was uniformly heated.

DR. BENSON: I suppose you suspected that you would be very
closely simulating it when you have the heat released by ra:lioisotope
decay.

MR. STRUXNESS: Yes. I suppose if the heat were not evenly
distributed we would have gotten burping.

DR. HUBBERT: Coming back to power versus energy: if to
reach an equilibrium based on the curve would take a long time, it
will take a very large amount of energy. If, on the other hand, you
put in larger power you produce that temperature in much shorter
time and I suspect you would bring about much lower energy cost. I
think the energy is important, not the power.

MR. STRUXNESS: I will have to get the information.

DR. KOHMAN: When you do this by self-fusing you won't get
any power failure. Your heater won't burn out. You would be able
to turn it off when you want to. But it is difficult to get it solidified
if itis hot enough so it will liquify, and this brings up the general
problem of the heat that will be produced by insoluble waste.

MR. STRUXNESS: There are other difficulties connected with
this experiment. It requires wastes with an activity of the order of
500 curies per litre to produce enough heat.

DR. HUBBERT: The problem involved is the energy problem.
You can melt anything with that amount of heat coming off continually
at the center.

DR. P. H. ABELSON: What is the object of using self-heating
or self-fusing as against using other sources of heat?

MR. STRUXNESS: At the moment we don't know whether self-
fusion will work or not. The heat is there.

DR. ABELSON: Obviously the self-fusion will work if you have
enough heat per unit of volume and if you don't allow too much to es-
cape. I mean, suppose that you can have self-fusion, why use it?

64.

MEMBER: I think it would be a lot easier to handle this stuff.
It is going to be awfully hot from the gamma radiation standpoint.

DR. ABELSON: Once you have got this red hot brick, what are
you going to do with it?

DR. ZUMWALT: You can have a remote operation and let it
heat itself.

MEMBER: I assume you are going to keep it right there.

MR. STRUXNESS: Part of our answer is self-fusion and low-
firing temperature, and there is a feeling that uses will be found for
some of these fission products, and it would be nice if we could im-
mobilize them until then rather than pump them into an inaccessible
place.

DR. HUBBERT: Isn't it probable the production of fission prod-
ucts is likely to keep pace with the development of the needs? Suppose
we throw everything away right now. There is more coming along.
The way this thing is promising to develop it looks to me like we are
always going to have ample supplies of hot material for all current
needs. If so, a little waste is not important.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Struxness.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

DR. LOOFBOUROW: Is it correct to say that reactors will
generate moderate to low intensity wastes, and those reactors must
be located for reasons of operating economy near where the power is
required, but the problem of disposal at those sites is not a serious
one because of the type of waste. But the highly concentrated wastes
generated at chemical plants, which can only be shipped with serious
costs or hazards, can be shipped farther, so that the site of those
plants can be chosen where disposal is most simple?

DR. ABELSON: No. It would be most economical to process
at the spot. The radiation hazard would be very great.

65.

DR. LIEBERMAN: I don't believe that question can be answered
categorically. For example: if you have an aqueous type of reactor
and process it at the spot you would have high level waste right at the
reactor site. On the other hand, with the heterogenous reactors, fuel
elements can be shipped to the chemical processing plant. The answer
differs with the type of reactor decided upon,

DR. LOOFBOUROW: Are we limited in the consideration of the
immediate problem to one or the other of these situations?

CHAIRMAN HESS: No. The committee debated whether to limit
discussion to the possibility of establishing two disposal areas in the
United States, or whether the disposal should be around every reactor.
So many variables had to be considered that it was decided each com-
mittee should be allowed to work out its own course.

DR. CULLER: The processing of the homogeneous waste does
occur right at the site, in the sense that the fission products are the
fuel. But the plant that separates thorium from uranium does not have
to be there. In fact, the economics of the processing and of the con-
struction of processing plants indicates it would be desirable to operate
at maximum capacity. It appears at the moment most economical to
have 5 to 15 reactors served by one processing plant.

DR. H. C. THOMAS: Is it possible to remove the aluminum
from waste solutions?

DR. CULLER: Yes, depending on the type of fuel element. It
is impossible to get rid of the aluminum in an aluminum-uranium alloy.
Aluminum may be dissolved in caustic, but the uranium is not soluble,
so a caustic separation process may be developed. The alloys for high
temperature elements are difficult to separate and are highly salted
in some cases.

DR. KOHMAN: I would like to ask a question about the ratio of
ten reactors to one processing plant. Isn't it possible that all these
reactors might be in one area for a central power station?

DR CUlE tee ies'.
DR. KOHMAN: So you wouldn't necessarily need transportation.

DR. CULLER: There would be some transport, and that means
building a carrier and getting equipment. If you transport two miles,

66.

it is almost as economical, considering all the loading and unloading,
to transport it 200 miles. The transportation cost per mile is impor-
tant, but it is not necessarily the major item.

DR. HEDMAN: It seems to me there is a great difference be-
tween transportation between points in your own installation and points
in different installations. Some citizens object to having radioactive
wastes hauled across their water supply.

DR. LINDSEY: The slugs are moved generally in large casks
that have 9 to 11 inches of lead. The cask weighs approximately ten
tons, and the slugs weigh one to two thousand pounds. We have to
transport a tremendous amount of lead to carry a limited amount of
the fuel element. The cost is less for the fuel element then for the
shielding, particularly under the present regulations, where we almost
always have an escrot guarding a shipment of this sort. There is an
incentive to reduce the transportation if there is a way to do it.

DR. WATKINS: I want to ask whether it is feasible at all to
transport ion-active liquid waste by common carrier, and if so, how
much could you haul it for?

DR. R. J. RUSSELL: May I add something to that question.
The transportation of radioactive material in this country by common
carrier is controlled by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and
they have very definite rules, and anybody can read them.

DR. HEDMAN: I might add one thing to that. I have recently
looked over the 1.C.C. regulations, and they specifically state that
you must transport according to the 1.C.C. regulations unless it is
done by or for the A.E.C. under escort, in which case the 1.C.C.
doesn't seem to care.

DR. HAWKINS: It seems to me the proper design of a pipline
has some possibility, and there has been some experience on pipelines.
I wonder if somebody would say something about that.

DR. LINDSEY: The pipelines at Hanford consist generally of a
concrete encasement in which are laid two or three stainless steel
lines, and covered by a concrete cap. The encasement and space
around the pipe is carefully constructed so it drains, and the drainage
is monitored to be certain there is no leakage from the pipes. The in-
stallation is extremely expensive.

67.

We have given thought to making pipe of carbon steel, but the
difficulties always seem to be resolved by using stainless steel. The
lines are built of about 3-inch pipe, but there is no reason they cannot
be made larger.

DR. HUBBERT: How much does it cost per mile?

DR. LINDSEY: I don't know the accurate figure, but it is some-
thing on the order of one hundred thousand dollars.

DR. ROEDDER: If you have disposal at just a few places you
have to transport either the waste to those sites or you have to set up
your processing plants at disposal sites. I would imagine that the
cost of transporting slugs would be far less than the cost of transport-
ing waste. Is that not true?

DR. LINDSEY: We have not transported liquid wastes. We are
afraid to. We have transported slugs on a large scale and for quite a
while. There is no reason why we couldn't work out a way to trans-
port liquids. It just doesn't seem as safe as transporting the slugs.

DR. RUSSELL: May I remark that the A.E.C. can get away with
a great many things in this country that a private corporation operating
a power plant would not be permitted to do.

DR. KOHMAN: With regard to transportation I think one would
have to consider the relative cost of transporting the materials and
transporting the power. In other words, whether the power plant is to
be near an area where the material is to be disposed of, or near the
area where the power is to be used, or not near either one.

DR. HUBBERT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a further
comment on that. It is a truism of sorts that with any technology de-
velopment, you begin to tie on where you are now, but as time goes on
you sometimes abandon the initial premise. It seems to me this is a
strong possibility in the case at hand. At the moment, we are talking
about building atomic power plants for industrial power where we al-
ready have coal power plants. The reason for that is perfectly obvious:
we use 60 cycle AC current and the economic transmission is about 400
miles. Many of you know that there have been theoretical discussions
and a fair amount of experimental work that dates back thirty or forty
years on high tension DC long distance transmission. It is physically
possible but it has never been done. In principle, you generate AC to
high voltage, rectify DC, and transmit it great distances; then convert

68.
to AC and step the voltage down to that of your power plants.

Initially we assume building atomic reactors in lieu of coal
plants in consumer areas. But if this industry becomes as large as
has been discussed there, I think we will have to re-examine the prem-
ise. It may be, because of transportation costs of the hot material,
that we might eventually decide that it is better to put the power plants
in an uninhabited area, and transmit the power to centers of consump-
tion by methods that are considered unorthodox at the moment. That
is not something that this committee is called upon to solve or to rec-
ommend. It is not within the premise of the contemplated power plant,
but it is in the background.

DR. MORTON: I don't have any specific data with regard to
transportation of high level wastes, but our experiments with low or
intermediate level lead us to think that transportation in a container is
going to be uneconomic and not feasible for more than very short dis-
tances. Our wastes were 1 to 30 curies per gallon, transported in 500-
gallon tanks on specially constructed trucks, hoisted with a lift some
feet back of the driver, and with lead shields behind the cab. The ex-
posure time for the driver was very short but exposure time created
a bottleneck in getting waste out to the pit despite its low level. A pipe-
line 7000 feet long now does the work of the trucks.

‘Multiply the hazard by several hundred to a thousand curies per
gallon, and it requires transportation in a container shielded with seven
to nine inches of lead all around, weighing many tons, and carrying
several gallons at atime. It is impractical.

DR. ZUMWALT: Dr. Culler mentioned that economics require
one chemical plant for several reactors. But I wondered how about the
economics of field transportation. Is that considered in there?

DR. CULLER: There have been several studies of the probable
cost of transportation of various kinds of carriers, but I don't think it
has been worked out and integrated into the economics of power. I am
saying that a central chemical plant is necessary from the standpoint
of the chemical plant alone, and within a DC structure it is economic
to ship fuel certain distances to a plant that already has the capacity
rather than building a new plant. An individual kind of analysis has to
be made and it isn't very clear at the moment, because the specifica-
tions have not been written on the reactor, the processing, the locations,
the power, etc.

|
|
|

69.

DR. HEDMAN: Could I get some idea of the volume that is
transported between a power reactor and a plant?

DR. CULLER: Let's say the fuel elements are made out of a
metal like zirconium, and zirconium slag or stainless steel built in
a similar manner. It might be necessary to transport an element 15
feet long and 5 inches in diameter. In order to shield this after a rea-
sonable cooling period it would require about 8 or 10 inches of lead.

DR. HEDMAN: That is within the realm of being practical. I
thought maybe you would have to transport large volumes of liquid be-
sides.

DR. CULLER: No. If you shipped the fuel element within thirty
days after it comes out the reactor you would have to provide cooling
water to take out the fission products. You can put a number of such
fuel elements in the cask, and I suspect the size of the cask is deter-
mined by the limits of the carrier. If you have an 80,000 pound flat
car you make the cask 80,000 pounds.

There is another factor that enters into it. If the fuel elements
are highly enriched you have to limit the number that go into the cask.
But I suspect if you have more cylinders of shielded lead on a flat car
you could transport a reasonable number of fuel elements at one time.

The transportation is going to become a business like the power
business, I suspect, and it has never been looked at in this light. Reg-
ulations may have to be changed to take care of it. Right now itis a
big hazard and we are doing everything we can to make sure there is no
danger.

DR. L. MacMURRAY: Dr. Morgan at Johns Hopkins has some
specifications on this question of transporting liquid wastes. Would you
like to have him present it?

CHAIRMAN HESS: Yes.

DR.J.N. MORGAN: After the first Woods Hole meeting, at
Johns Hopkins we made a few observations based on Dr. Culler's paper
concerning the transportation of liquid wastes. These figures are based
upon the information concerning shipment of slugs throughout the United
States. The cost of the cask, the transportation cost, the carrier cost,
the salaries, and amortization of the cask, total 9 cents per ton mile to

10.

ship the lead, i.e., the shield that contains the slugs. Calculations
were made for a hollow sphere about 4 1/2 feet internal diameter

with a capacity of about 500 gallons as envisioned at Oak Ridge for
transporting liquid waste. With a 12-inch wall, skids, base, and
structural steel, the cask would probably weigh approximately 50 tons.
Some of the weight was the waste itself. The liquid waste that presum-
ably would go into this contained the maximum activity mentioned by
Dr. Culler in his first discussion, namely, 2000 curies per gallon.

At 9 cents per ton mile, it would cost about $14 per gallon to ship 1000
miles.

Remember that these calculations were on data obtained from the
shipment of slugs, which are the only data available. There has been
no shipment of liquid waste; possibly on a modified basis of 200 gallons
in a container of 4 inches of lead shielding it would appear more eco-
nomical.

DR. LINDSEY: What about cooling for something as hot as that?
DR. MORGAN: It was not considered.

DR. HUBBERT: Is 2000 curies the maximum you can handle?
DR. MORGAN: That is the maximum Dr. Culler mentioned.
DR. HUBBERT: Well, those can be further concentrated.

DR. MORGAN: Yes. We took these from his initial work, based
on 2000 curies per gallon.

DR. HUBBERT: None the less, if you are shipping that much
lead we can fill the cask with more concentrated material if there are
no reasons for not doing it. In other words, how many curies could
you put in that container and stay short of critical?

DR. CULLER: There is no criticality on the waste.

DR. HUBBERT: Good. Then we could concentrate this to
dryness.

DR. CULLER: As this gets more concentrated you have to pro-
vide cooling: 1000 curies per gallon is pretty hot and will boil itself
without a little cooling.

Cds

DR. HUBBERT: What I meant is that we are paying $14 per
gallon for hauling lead. Now, if we can hold 100 times as many curies
with 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.

DR. CULLER: This particular waste is already 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. CULLER: Yes. That $14 per gallon made us get rid of it.
(Laughter)

DR. MacMURRAY: I would like to come to the rescue of Dr.
Morgan: liquid reactor waste costs $14 a gallonto ship. The discus-
sion has moved on to talk of concentration and refrigeration, and to
the removal of aluminum.

DR. MORGAN: To carry it further, this was based on a freight
car 40 feet in length, and it would hold three of these units. So the
freight car load was about 150 tons.

DR. ROEDDER: If you loaded that same freight car with slugs
what would be the equivalent?

DR. MORGAN: I don't think you can make a comparison.

DR. ROEDDER: As to curies and slugs, I wondered the relative
cost.

DR. MORGAN: I cannot give you that. Perhaps the answer lies
along the lines of developing a specially constructed railroad car in
the shape of an oil tanker, completely shielded, with a tube through the
center and shielded at either end.

DR. RUSSELL: Have you ever considered what would happen to
the car in a train wreck?

DR. MORGAN: Iam sure that the possibility of an accident has
been on Mr. Gorman's mind.

16
DR. HEDMAN: What is the basis for your 50 tons?
DR. MORGAN: Conformity with the existing 1.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: I don't think that is true. The homogeneous re-
actor materials can be shipped just as can the heterogeneous elements.
The processing on the heterogeneous system consists of drawing a
small amount off the reactor, and shipping it as the reactor fuel ele-
ment, I 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 litres. The
liquid might be transported in relatively small volumes, or as a dry
solid, It is necessary to boil off heavy water and return it to the homo-
geneous system before the stuff drawn off the reactor leaves the plant.
We probably would be transporting dry sodium oxide.

DR. RUSSELL: That would be at high temperature ?
DR. CULLER: At a high temperature in a cooling system.

DR. HUBBERT: It seems to me we have been very premature
indeed if we come to any conclusion that the waste cannot be trans-
ported. The difficulties are great and the costs appear high but ad-
mittedly the estimates are subject to many modifications and are based

-on inadequate data. There are endless opportunities for corrections
and improvements, therefore, the imposition of limiting suppositions
may seriously jeopardize the usefulness of the committee.

DR. CLAUS: In our committee work should we consider prima-
rily our immediate problem, and by immediate I mean the next ten to
twenty years, or should we consider it in terms of the vast quantities
that have been discussed in connection with possible production by the
year 2000? Furthermore, should we think primarily in terms of prob-
lems in the United States, or should we take a wider view? England,
for example, expects to have a large number of reactors and some are
under construction. Their waste disposal plans are unknown to most

(I

of us at the conference, and it should be kept in 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: I think it would be difficult to consider con-
struction outside the United States. 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 I don't know
that we are competent to tackle the geology of England from our pro-
fessional experience, and whatever we do here, except for England,
will probably be followed in other countries. We can find solutions for
the conditions in the United States and we can work out analogous solu-
tions for other areas in the future. I think we have sufficient diversity
within the United States to meet any conditions any other country would
face. I don't think we should discuss outside areas.

DR. LACEY: Such things as costs and amortization would be
considerations in competitive industry or would be handled by fairly
substantial government subsidy. I propose we omit these items and
think of the technological feasibility of the solutions to the problems
nearest to us. If solutions are found, the costs will be dealt with in
the normal development of the industry.

CHAIRMAN HESS: I think that is right, for we will not have cost
figures for the means of disposal that we suggest.

DR. ABELSON: On the other hand, if the cost of disposal is more
than the cost of storage in tanks, itis not a good solution.

DR. G. F. JENKINS: I would like to add that the Union Carbide
Company is deeply interested in these considerations as a private firm.
We are working with practically all the power reactor groups in designs
of chemical processing plants to purify reactor fuels. The variations
are certainly complex: in the government reactor program there are
about five kinds of reactors, and the A.E.C. is encouraging the devel-
opment of new types of reactors. There is no advantage in building
just one kind, so the physicists, the metallurgists, and the mechanical
engineers are being encouraged to develop new reactor designs, new
reactor arrangements, and new metallurgical alloys. For example,

Ar

the Detroit Edison Company is interested in the fast breeder reactor
using alloys containing only a small amount of fissionable material;

in order to run the system at the maximum efficiency, that is, to
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 rapidly
so as to minimize the inventory costs of fissionable uranium. It takes
a lot of reactors to make it economical to run a chemical processing
plant; but on the other hand, all of the different reactor plants must
have some on-the-site purification in order to cut down the amount of
idle uranium. Then the slags or the concentrated form of the fission
products containing a minimum of uranium will be shipped to a central
facility where it is economic to recover the remaining uranium.

The only reason we have the waste is because we are treating
the fission products to recover the U 235 or the U 233 or the Plutonium
239. If none of these materials were in the fission products then there
would be no interest in them at the present time. However, we are
interested in the radioisotopes because they are potentially valuable
raw materials. 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 alloys, gases, carbons, chemicals, plastics,
and resins, and we are trying to build up within our corporation an ap-
preciation of the need for the utilization of these materials, so that
instead of a waste disposal problem we are converting it into a raw ma-
terial problem. We are, therefore, in favor of disposal in such a way
that the material is not lost but is retained somewhere so that in the
next five or ten years it can be recovered and put to use; that is what
I 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 in not-too-dilute form so that the val-
uable components can be put to some future use.

DR. CLAUS: To what extent may we actually consider it feasible
to remove strontium and cesium? I think this was discussed very en-
thusiastically yesterday as something that might be done easily, and
yet I understand that we have not yet reached the stage where it can be
extracted from waste streams in a reasonable useable manner. It
makes a difference what kind of disposal can be applied to the remain-
ing 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-
maining wastes than if the cesium and strontium are present. I think
this ought to be clarified before we think seriously about what to do
with the remaining material.

(26

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.

I think I would agree there certainly is a disposal problem. The
waste we have on hand is not being disposed of, in any strict sense,
and it is something to worry about. There also will 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 future, extending to many years, wastes will constitute a
serious problem. It is an encouraging possibility that in the future
people can produce wastes that can be gotten rid of more easily than
the present material.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES

The Steering Committee wishes to study the waste problem from
two points of view and, therefore, this group should be separated into
subcommittees to consider each one. One approach involves disposal
at great depth using techniques like those used in disposing of oil field
brines; the other approach is relatively shallow disposal such as is
being employed at Oak Ridge and Hanford. The goal is an evaluation
of the efficiency, the hazards, and the practical methods of resolving
the individual problems. Dr. Hubbert has agreed to be the Chairman
of the Committee on deep disposal, and the Committee on near-surface
disposal will 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 list will be left to divide
themselves as they see fit, in keeping with their individual interests
and specializations.

Those selected for the Surface Committee are as follows: Benson,
Claus, Frye, Goldich, Hunt, Ingerson, Jenkins, Latta, Loofbourow,
Theis, Thomas.

Those selected for the Deep Committee are as follows: Culler,
Denison, Ferris, Garrels, Gilluly, Hubbert, Hunter, Thurston, and
Watkins.

The committees will meet and proceed immediately.

... Whereupon, at 10:50 o'clock, the meeting adjourned ...

76.
MONDAY MORNING SESSION

September 12, 1955

The meeting convened at 9:15 o'clock, Dr. Hess presiding.

CHAIRMAN HESS: This will probably be our final session of
this conference. We will hear the reports of the work done and con-
clusions reached yesterday by the two committees. At the end of the
reports we will have a general discussion, and then adjourn.

The first report will be by Dr. Hubbert.

Dr. M. King Hubbert

Chief Consultant, General Geology
Shell Oil Company

Box 2099

Houston 1, Texas

DR. HUBBERT: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The committee
to look into the possibility of deep waste disposal in permeable rocks
met yesterday afternoon and reviewed the problem. We decided on two
premises for our discussions: one, that the disposal should be safe;
and, two, that we would formulate basic principles governing disposal
during what we hope will be orderly and rational development of the
industry in the future.

In order to obtain a clearer idea of the magnitude of the waste-
disposal problem, the following calculation was made:

Suppose that beginning in 1960, nuclear power were produced at
a rate equal 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 fission products, were injected underground into a sandstone
100 feet thick, having 20 percent porosity, what would be the area of
the sand that would be filled 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 4.8 x 101! kw-hr/yr (108 kw at a load factor of 0.54).
The quantity of U-235 required would be 84 metric tons per year, and
the diluted wastes would amount to 100 million (42-gal) barrels per
year. By the year 2000 the area occupied by the wastes would be 40

alee

square miles, or a square of 6.3 miles to the side -- the size of a
large oil field,

For comparison, in the East Texas oil field, 100 million barrels
of water per year are currently being injected through 58 wells with
7-inch casings. Eight wells take over 10,000 barrels per day each
without pumping.

Since structural basins this size, or much larger, are abundant,
it is concluded that the deep underground disposal of wastes for a long
time to come would involve operations which are small as compared
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-
mittee drew up a summary of the conclusions which were approved and
read as follows:

The committee has accepted as premises the following:

A. That the nuclear waste, if stored underground, should be
isolated as permanently as possible from contact with living organisms;

B. That the nuclear waste may be stored under conditions where
it need not be recovered;

C. That the disposal of waste is a special problem for each par-
ticular installation.

However, it is concluded that certain general principles should
guide the selection of methods of disposal:

1. That the liquids containing the nuclear waste shall have a
greater specific gravity when introduced into the reservoir than the
liquids already present in the reservoir;

2. That the liquids shall be stored underground preferably where
they will remain under essentially static conditions;

3. That the introduction of the fluids into the bottom of structural
basins is one means of satisfying effectively this condition;

4. That adequate monitoring of the distribution of nuclear waste
within the reservoir be provided by appropriate observation wells,

78.
which could also serve as sources of diluent;

5. That prior to the introduction of nuclear waste liquids into
the reservoir, the 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 amendments ?

If not, I will call on Dr. John Frye to present the report of the
committee on surface disposal.

Dr. John C. Frye
Chief, State Geological Survey
Urbana, Illinois

DR. FRYE: The committee on the study of shallow disposal
recommends:

1. Disposal of waste materials in solid form is preferable to
any suggested methods of disposal of liquids. The most desirable
form appears to be a sinter or brick in which the fission products are
fixed. In this form the material can be disposed of in shallow covered
trenches in many places. Second choice would be waste materials
evaporated to dryness, solids but soluble. Such materials could be
packaged in metal containers and stored in shallow mines or under-
ground vaults that are relatively dry. If feasible, different elements
should be packaged separately. It seems highly desirable that research
along both of these lines be pursued as rapidly as possible.

2. Until concentration in solid form becomes feasible, disposal
of liquid wastes at relatively shallow depths may be possible under cer-
tain conditions.

"Shallow" proved to be a slight misnomer, because in considering
mines, depths as great as 6,000-7,000 feet were contemplated. How-
ever, most of the excavations are relatively shallow in comparison to
deep disposal methods considered by the other group.

The work of the committee was concentrated on item 2, anda
large range of geologic environments were studied. Many of these ge-
ologic environments were discarded by the committee as unsuited for
the disposal of liquids, but in order to record the possibilities that were

1.

discussed, it seems advisable to outline the various environments
considered.

1. Excavations

a. Incrystalline 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, Underground openings

a. Natural caverns
b. Abandoned ore mines
c. Specially prepared workings.

4. Salt beds, salt domes, abandoned salt mines, and related
geologic structures.

The consensus of the committee was that several of these envi-
onments might be feasible but more information was needed.

The order of feasibility in which the committee arranged these
various environments was as follows: (in determining this order we
did not get a unanimous vote and the consensus of the committee was
estimated)

First: salt domes, salt beds, abandoned salt mines, and storage
in cavities excavated in salt below the surface but not necessarily near
the base of the local stratigraphic section. This would use an environ-
ment that has relatively wide distribution in 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 three to six dollars per barrel for cavities for the storage of hy-
drocarbons. How these figures can be translated into specially 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 study of salt under conditions of heat and pressure in contact
with these liquids; and (b) heat-transfer considerations.

80.

The second priority was storage in especially prepared excava-
tions in shale at depth. The experience record comes from cavities
that have been prepared at a number of places for storage of hydro-
carbons 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 installations as well as potential future sites.
Furthermore, the cost is 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 cavity. The
research needed here is study of the stability of shale in the 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 a suitable high clay content for the
fixing of these materials in place. This infiltration above the water
table bears some similarity to the Hanford operation as it was des-
cribed, but with certain modifications. The needed research indicated
here was (a) study of the hydrodynamic profile of the system; (b) devel-
opment of proper tracer for water; (c) study of behavior of a suitably
simulated solution to determine exchange characteristics; and, of
course, (d) highly detailed investigations of water-table fluctuations in
any area that might be considered for this type of disposal. It should
be pointed out that only those areas with low water table, which would
largely limit this matter to some of the western areas, would be usable.

The fourth order of preference was deep, abandoned dry mines.
It was the consensus of opinion that if a proper dry mine could be lo-
cated it might be a very feasible method of disposal, but that such mines
would be extremely difficult to come by and might very well not be in
the vicinity of any site where they would be needed. If such a structure
could be located, it was indicated that some research would be needed
on heat-dissipation problems under the particular conditions obtaining
in that mine.

The fifth and last category that was judged to be worthy of consid-
eration was disposal in properly covered shale and clay pits on the sur-
face. The consensus was that at the present state of knowledge, itis
not a desirable means of disposing of high level wastes, but that it
would be desirable to have continued research on base exchange and
self-sealing characters in the hope that this method might become fea-
sible for high-level waste in the future. Research on self-sealing

81.

possibilities indicated in this area might also have applicability in
several other areas or methods of relatively shallow disposal.

CHAIRMAN HESS: Thank you, Dr. Frye.
Does anyone wish to comment on this report?

You will notice that the tasks as given out were chanzed 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 I would think it would mean 1000 to 10,000 feet for the dis-
posal of materials underground,

DR. HUBBERT: I think the consensus was that deep means as-
deep-as-possible. (Laughter)

CHAIRMAN HESS: 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 less, may be satisfactory.

The conference was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

82.
APPENDIX C
COMMITTEE ON DEEP DISPOSAL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1955

Called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Dr. M. King Hubbert, Chairman
of Committee.

ATTENDANCE

For full names and affiliations consult List of Participants.

Full-time attendance Part-time attendance
Christy Hedman Russell Bass
Culler Heroy Seal Brown
Denison Hess Thurston Curtiss
Ferris Holland Triplett Fuller
Garrels Hubbert Varnes Griggs
Gilluly Joseph Watkins Hunter
Gorman Lindsey Zumwalt Lieberman
Hawkins Morgan Piper

Renn
PROCEEDINGS

1. Dr. Hubbert started the discussion by diagramming two types of
geologic structures mentioned in previous conferences:

a. A synclinal basin of sedimentary rocks, the lower porous
strata containing brine.

b. Sedimentary rocks of uniform, low regional dip, in which
the water might be static or might be in motion, e.g.,
sedimentary rock sequence of a continental shelf.

1.1 Discussion of hazards lead to conclusion that safety was to be
primary concern, taking precedence over cost.

2. Mr. Ralph Hunter described the geology of that portion of the
Michigan Basin with which the Dow Chemical Company is con-
cerned. One of the producing horizons contains saturated brine
in the center of the basin but the margins near the outcrop area

83.

yield potable waters. Another producing horizon is the Sylvania
limestone at a depth of 5,000 feet; 40 feet of the limestone has 10
percent porosity and the remaining 80 feet is very dense. The
bromine-bearing brine is pumped out and waste brine pumped back
at a rate of 350 gallons per minute; it took 30 years for the actiy-
ities at one well to affect those at another well one and one-quarter
miles away. Brines are also extracted from a deep bed of salt.
The salt is dissolved by circulating water; after a cavern estimated
to be 750 to 800 feet in size is formed, there is a strong likelihood
that the roof will fracture and brines will be drained in from over-
lying beds.

Salient points of the general discussion.

Specific gravity of radioactive wastes ranges from 1.1 to 1.3,
and the more general types are about 1.20-1.25. (Lindsey)

A bed of sedimentary rock having the depth and structural con-
figuration deemed acceptable for waste storage is very likely to be
below the zone of potable water -- to be filled with brine -- the
flow of deep waters (whether potable or salty) is probably very
slow -- diffusion is probably slow. All these characteristics need
to be determined before waste is injected into a particular horizon.

Heat derived from fission in the waste can be dissipated by dilu-
tion. The volume of waste is small enough so that dilution ratios
ranging from 1:1 to 1,000:1 are feasible.

The boiling point for the given solution at the storage depth
should not be exceeded so as to avoid fracturing the roof.

Heating would be local and the rate of brine circulation would
be accelerated, thereby dissipating the heat -- a self-defeating
cycle. The gentle evolution of vapor would also speed up the trans-
fer of heat.

Permeability of a storage bed can be increased by standard
operating procedures of the oil fields, e.g., fracturing and sand
injection. The contact surface between ''aquifer'' and waste solu-
tion can be enormously increased, and plugged well-bottoms re-
opened by this means.

Pressures used in fracturing are commonly less than that due
to the weight of the overburden, so that it seems hardly possible,

84,

mechanically, that the overburden is being lifted. A far more
likely result is that vertical or high-angle fractures are formed.

Might an oil pool have to be sacrificed at some place, some
time, to provide a disposal site? This is most unlikely if the
disposal fluids are made more dense than the displaced ground
waters. In that case the wastes will remain in the lowest places,
whereas oil or gas, being lighter than water, are trapped in the
high places.

Many unproductive structures are known already.

In many fields operators are working on different strata at the
same time; it is conceivable that oil might be withdrawn from one
or more horizons while waste was being injected into deeper hori-
zons in the structure.

- - Lunch recess - -

Meeting reconvened at 2:00 p.m.
Possible geologic structural basins in the United States.

4.1 Inspection of ''Tectonic Map of the United States" disclosed
that there are numerous large basins scattered across the
country, many of which are known to contain brine-bearing
strata at depth; some are not sufficiently well known to be
sure of the nature of the deep waters but they may be fresh-
water bearing.

Basins of

Major brine-bearing basins uncertain potability
Michigan Basin Denver Basin, Colo.
various Appalachian synclines Powder River Basin, Wyo.
Northeastern Louisiana Bighorn Basin, Wyo.

Southcentral Oklahoma
Illinois Basin
various West Texas basins

4.2 Coastal plain areas offer an alternative method: introduction
of wastes into brine-bearing permeable sedimentary forma-
tions that dip gently seaward, and pass beneath the continental

royale

shelf; the contained waters are not static but move slowly
down dip.

The Atlantic Coastal Plain appears generally unfavorable
at this time because the known sedimentary section on land
is thin, and much potable water is involved.

In the Cape Hatteras region a sequence as much as 10,000
feet thick is known which includes brine-bearing sandstone
formations. The formations of the shelf slope seaward and
thicken seaward, and are potentially useful for the disposition
of waste. (Denison)

The Gulf Coastal Plain appears less unfavorable than the
Atlantic: here there are tens of thousands of feet of brine-
bearing sediments dipping Gulfward. However, in many of
these very high abnormal pressures (as much as 10,000 feet
of anomalous head) prevail. Such wells are always in danger
of blowing out. Very careful investigations would therefore
be necessary in this area. Moreover, the oil fields here,
both on land and in the Gulf, are quite closely spaced.

The Great Basin Province contains many potential disposal
sites in the form of deep gravel-filled topographic basins as
well as structural basins in deformed sedimentary rock. The
geology of this vast area is so little known, however, that
each possible site will have to be investigated extensively.
The chances appear high that a number of sites can be found.

The Columbia Plateau, a section over 5,000 feet thick of
basalts with many porous zones, appears to be an unlikely
place to find suitable disposal sites; in that area there is a
rapid discharge of enormous quantities of potable water.

Salient points of the general discussion.

When the iso-salinity lines are parallel to the structural con-

tour lines, the brine is static.

In west-central Kansas the stupendous quantities of brine from

petroleum operations are disposed of by allowing them to flow
(without need of pumping) into ''granite wash" at base of strati-

graphic section. The brines are not static but flowing through this

86.

highly permeable layer, and are below any possible productive
zone of oil or potable water.

A similar ''granite wash'' at Amarillo Ridge is below all
potable water and drains northward. It is uncertain whether or
not the fresh water farther to the north might be affected if ra-
dioactive wastes were introduced into this particular "granite
wash".

"Granite wash" or analogous permeable basal layers may
well exist in grabens of the Great Basin region.

Mr. Gorman reminded the group of the immediately urgent prob-
lems at the existing AEC installations.

It was recognized that the existing AEC installations, as
well as the first series of proposed power reactors, present
special problems since these seem to have been located without
much regard for the waste-disposal problem. In each instance
a competent geological review will have to be made to find the
least inconvenient waste-disposal site available. In all future
installations the accessibility to a safe disposal site should be a
major consideration in determining the plant location.

The motion was made
That waste be disposed of without concern for its recovery,
Seconded and passed.

Mr. John G. Ferris described some conditions obtaining in the
Michigan Basin and elsewhere, and posed several questions,
summarized as follows:

Experience with two permeable zones between confining beds
shows that long-term withdrawal of brine can draw water from
confining beds, as evidenced by changes in salinity, hardness,
and other data in industrial records.

In a submarine aquifer the contact between fresh and salt
water may be far off shore, as shown by fresh water wells and
springs; might radioactive wastes escape to ocean from leaks
in the aquifer?

HOR

Iie

87.

Contact of fresh and salt water in aquifer is in dynamic bal-
ance; man captures fresh water on surface so recharge is im-
peded and the contact migrates upward.

Injection of liquid into permeable formation raises pressure.
Cracks, faults, unplugged or poorly plugged drill holes (locations
in many cases unknown) would permit wastes to leak out of for-
mation intended for storage and enter formations containing valu-
able oil or water. Pressure increases might induce fracturing
and leakage.

Deliberate hydro-fracturing and sand-fracturing might break
the confining beds relied on to contain the waste.

Waste may move out slowly but the pressure wave would
move out rapidly: what effect would this have on the contact of
fresh and salt water? And on existing industrial and domestic
users?

To measure, minimize, and possibly control the pressure
effects, the brine to be used as diluent could be pumped from the
same formation the waste is to be injected into; the ''diluent wells"
could be spaced around the "injection well" so as to create a
closed system.

Crossbed leakage might be monitored and controlled by rings of
wells around injection well. (Holland)

If the waste solutions are heavy, the leaks will be downward, out
of environment; using basins means that the disposal of waste
would not be taking place in structures of present or potential in-
terest for petroleum; enormous basins are available and small
ones will suffice. Waste solutions could be made light for seques-
tering in anticlines but there are important objections: leaks would
be upward, toward the biologic environment, and toward zones of
potable water and possible oil; anticlines are generally small; the
oil industry already occupies a great number of anticlines making
for competition with disposal installations, an added difficulty for
AEC which is unnecessary in view of the abundance of basins.
(Hubbert)

After numerous attempts to formulate basic principles and recom-
mendations of policy, the motion was made, seconded, and passed,

88.

Zi

Lo

that a small group make the formulation and present it to the
Committee for discussion and action. Messrs. W. B. Heroy,
D. J. Varnes, and H. D. Holland were appointed the Subcommit-
tee on Resolutions. See item 14.

In order to obtain a clearer idea of the magnitude of the waste-
disposal problem, the following calculation was made:

Suppose that beginning in 1960, nuclear power were produced
at a rate equal 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 fission products, were injected underground
into a sandstone 100 feet thick, having 20 percent porosity, what
would be the area of the sand that would be filled with waste prod-
ucts 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 4.8 x 10lliw-
hr/yr (108 kw at a load factor of 0.54). The quantity of U-235
required would be 84 metric tons per year, and the diluted wastes
would amount to 100 million (42-gal) barrels per year. By the
year 2000 the area occupied by the wastes would be 40 square
miles, or a square of 6.3 miles to the side -- the size of a large
oil field.

For comparison, in the East Texas oil field, 100 million
barrels of water per year are currently being injected through
58 wells with 7-inch casings. Hight wells take over 10,000 bar-
rels per day each without pumping.

Since structural basins this size, or much larger are abun-
dant, it is concluded that the deep underground disposal of wastes
for a long time to come would involve operations which are small
as compared with those of the petroleum industry.

Salient points of the general discussion.

If the waste solution were to interact with either the rock
constituents or the contained brines, precipitates might form
which would clog the pores of the reservoir rock. Compatibility
of the waste with the rock and water would have to be determined
in advance; it will be necessary to treat the waste so it will be
compatible.

14,

a9%

The possibility should be considered that some or all of the
fission products may tend to be captured by the clays and other
mineral components of the reservoir rock near the well bore and
hence create an undesirable local "hot-spot.'' This contingency
needs prior investigation in order that it may be avoided.

The total volume of waste, at ten-fold dilution, produced by
a 100,000 megawatt power economy (assuming 5 gal/gmU#35) is
1% or less of the annual extraction of petroleum in the United
States.

Most of the fission heat is generated in the first 100 days to
one year, and tank cooling is feasible. Strontium and cesium
produce 99+% of the heat, and the calculations in item 12 allow
for Sr and Cs so the figures are realistic and conservative.
Strontium and cesium can be removed from the waste, concen-
trated to small volume, and given special handling and storage,
if necessary, such as sequestering in a deep, dry mine.

There undoubtedly will be problems in designing the injection
well equipment but there is no reason to fear that they will be
beyond the realm of established engineering sciences. (Gilluly)

- - Dinner recess - -

Meeting reconvened at 38:15 p.m.

Mr. Heroy read the formulation of the Subcommittee on Resolu-
tions; after discussion and modification, the motion was made,
seconded, and passed that the formulation be adopted as the con-
clusions and recommendations of this Committee, as follows:

The committee has accepted as premises the following:
A. That the nuclear waste, if stored underground, should
be isolated as permanently as possible from contact _

with living organisms;

B. That the nuclear waste may be stored under conditions
where it need not be recovered;

C. That the disposal of waste is a special problem for each
particular installation.

JON

It is concluded that these general principles should guide the
selection of methods of disposal:

That the liquids containing the nuclear waste, shall have
a greater specific gravity when introduced into the res-
ervoir than the liquids already present in the reservoir;

That the liquids shall be stored underground preferably
where they will remain under essentially static conditions;

That the introduction of the fluids into the bottom of struc-
tural basins is one means of satisfying effectively this
condition;

That adequate monitoring of the distribution of nuclear
waste within the reservoir be provided by appropriate
observation wells, which could also serve as sources of
siluent;

That, prior to the introduction of nuclear waste liquids
into the reservoir, the problems of heat dissipation,
clogging of reservoir space, and chemical reaction with
the reservoir rock and fluids be evaluated.

OL

APPENDIA D
COMMITTEE ON SHALLOW DISPOSAL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1955

Called to order at 11:00 A.M. by Dr. John C. Frye, Chairman

of Committee.

ATTENDANCE

For full names and affiliations consult List of Participants.

Abelson Frye MacMurray

Benson Goldich Morton

Branson Hunt Newell

Brown Ingerson Piper

Bryant Jenkins Prescott

Clark Kohman Riley

Claus Lasky Roedder

Cramer Latta Struxness

Curtis Lieberman Theis

Curtiss Loofbourow Thomas, Harold A., Jr.

Thomas, Henry C.

PROCEEDINGS
1. It was agreed that the subject would be broken down into categor-

ies based on geologic environment, and the following four general
categories were set up:

. Surface excavations

. Infiltration into shallow permeable beds

- Natural and artificial excavations, including mines
. Artificial solution cavities (principally in salt)

(a, @) ter PY

During the proceedings it was decided to include the cavities
in salt (category D) in category C.

Surface excavations. The estimate of 1,000 gallons of waste per
day for a one megawatt reactor was used as a yardstick for all the
following discussions.

92.

A. Quarries in granite and other crystalline rocks.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Advantages
Availability. There are numerous abandoned granite
quarries in many parts of the country (e.g.,
Texas, Minnesota, etc.).
Low cost of acquiring and preparing disposal site.
Recoverability of material if it is wanted.
If the quarry is tight, the material will not move.

Hazards
Contamination of ground water or of atmosphere by
leakage or by sucking up of material in tornadoes.
Vulnerability to bombing.

Problems and unknown factors

a. Effectiveness of a grout curtain to prevent seepage
into ground water. It was doubted by the engineering
geologists present that any grout curtain is 100 per-
cent effective.

b. How could such a site be effectively monitored, an
apparent necessity in any jointed crystalline rock?

c. Can the wastes be made self-sealing and thus provide
their own ''grout'' curtain? Apparently this cannot be
answered at the present time. Current wastes are
high in aluminum salts, which might be useful in self-
sealing, but power reactors will undoubtedly have
wastes high in zirconium or stainless steel. More re-
search is needed on self-sealing possibilities.

Conclusions
It was the opinion of the majority that both grouting
and self-sealing are probably unreliable. Granite
quarries are feasible only if the wastes can be per-
manently immobilized.

Significant parts of discussion leading to above summary.

Goldich: There are a number of granite quarries which

might be used, especially in Texas or Minnesota. You

could combine surface disposal with self-sealing. I
favor surface disposal because you know where itis. A
pit 100 x 200 x 50 feet could hold a million gallons.

93.
I never saw a quarry that was water tight.

I know where it is and that it isn't going to move
around, It doesn't have to be granite, it can be any
firm rock,

The health agencies are going to insist on some spec-
ifications. It cannot leak into ground water which will be
used for drinking or irrigation. It cannot be a source of
contamination of the atmosphere. Winds have a way of
whipping up a lot of surface water into the atmosphere.
A tornado could suck up the total contents and spread
them over the landscape. A cover would be indicated.
(AEC)

What would be needed would be a test of the pit with
tracers, over a period of time equivalent to the length
of storage time.

Monitoring in jointed rock would be difficult. Some
method should be used to immobilize the wastes --
grouting, self-sealing, etc.

One of the first properties to be determined is the
leaching qualities of the sintered wastes.

Hatch at Brookhaven has information on leaching from
montmorillonite clay.

When we talk about self-sealing, we have to remember
that aluminum is in the picture because all reactors now
are research reactors; with the high temperatures in-
volved in the power field, the wastes will be zirconium or
stainless steel. (Union Carbide and Carbon).

Anything on the surface is going to make an attractive
military target.

The current system of storing in tanks presents the
same hazard.

Another surface basin might be a lake, or a large de-
pression like Death Valley.

94.

Death Valley is an active seismic area. There has
been a movement of about 350 feet in front of the Funeral
Range in the last thousand years.

Granite quarries seem to be open to the objection that
you never know whether it is actually tight.

How about grouting granite?

No grouting or facing job is perfect. If grouting were
the factor on which we were going to rely, I'd hate to be
the one to approve it. I have had lots of experience and
have no faith in it, beyond its specific capabilities.
(Prescott)

Chairman: Is the consensus on crystalline rock quarries
that the wastes should be self-sealing or immobilized?

If grouting isn't satisfactory, how can you rely on self-
sealing as satisfactory? (Prescott)

Consensus: Self-sealing and grouting are unreliable, and
granite quarries would be acceptable only if the waste is
permanently immobilized.

Excavations in permeable non-crystalline rocks such as sand-
stone, limestone, coal, etc. These sites appear to have all
the disadvantages of granite quarries in a magnified form. It
would be virtually impossible to seal them so that liquid
wastes would not contaminate ground water supplies. They
are not worth considering unless the waste can be permanently
immobilized in a solid form.

Excavations in non-permeable materials -- clays and shales.

(1) Shale pits appear to have all the advantages of granite
quarries plus the possibility that they might be made
"tignt'' more easily by self-sealing, adsorption, etc. It
was also suggested that a non-radioactive sealing mate-
rial might be found for clay or shale, thus producing a
membrane or lining for the pit.

(2) Hazards and Problems. All rocks, including snales, are
so variable that it would be difficult to guarantee the

(3)

95.

sealing of any pit. Adsorption by the clay minerals
seems to show signs of promise, but in the ground this
reaction is reversible and therefore not reliable as a
"sealing'’ method. Long monitoring of low-level wastes
may give valuable data on these problems.

Conclusions. Disposal in shale pits is too risky in our
present state of knowledge. The method, however, may
have promise, and continued research on adsorption and
sealers is recommended.

Significant parts of the discussion leading to above sum-
mary.

If the material is placed in shale pits, deposition of
solids will occur at the bottom and produce sealing there.
The clear supernatant with some high radioactivity will
pass out the sides.

Can we assume pH control?
Only at great cost and increase in volume. (ORNL)

The question has been raised of the effect of zirconium
and the possibility of zirconium recovery.

Zirconium is tetravalent and has a high replacement
value for other adsorbed ions and would displace the
strontium.

Couldn't we use nonradioactive material to seal and
then place in it the radioactive material? Then the mem-
brane would be self-sealing.

Ideal conditions are being assumed. There is a great
variation in rocks in their cementing abilities to the ex-
tent that probably no one would place his stamp of ap-
proval on it.

If the shale is thick and stable it might be a good
gamble, since it could be monitored.

Sealing depends on the interaction with the rock. Dilu-
tion may damage the gel.

96.

You may build up a concentration of radioactive mate-
rial in the gel and get a high heat.

Does anybody have any ideas on what would happen by
throwing some bentonite in this material to help it gel?

Bentonite loses its properties in acid solutions.

Is there a geologist present who knows of a clay de-
posit ten feet thick, without bedding planes and fractures?
(No volunteers)

In propane storage we can take a slight loss but here
we're talking about zero leakage. I don't trust any natural
material not to leak.

Everyone seems to agree that for any processing that
you do which depends on plugging pores, the period of
testing would be so long that it ceases to be of interest.

Consensus: Without research, shale is not safe.
3. Infiltration into shallow permeable beds.
A. Beds below the water table.

(1) Aquifers below the water table could be considered only
in isolated desert basin areas like those of Nevada, and
even here they have no advantages over deep aquifers.
In addition, they have more potential problems than the
deep strata, e.g.: (a) in closed basins the solutions
might rise to the surface and evaporate; (b) even in des-
ert areas, shallow aquifers are commonly used as water
supplies: (c) we don't know enough about the movement
of ground water in these basins.

(2) Current experiments on adsorption indicate that about 20
tons of montmorillonite claY may be enough to adsorb
1,000 gallons of waste, mostly by base exchange. The
reaction, however, is reversible.

(3) Conclusions. Disposal in shallow aquifers below the
water table is not recommended. It would be possible

Yilec

only if further tests on adsorption indicate that the radio-
active ions will not migrate any great distance. Even in
this event, disposal in deep aquifers would be safer.

(4) Significant parts of discussion leading to above summary.

Chairman: Infiltration of material close to the surface
into permeable and semipermeable formations:

A good estimate of adsorption capacities would be
twenty tons of clay for complete adsorption of one thou-
sand gallons. How much clay is there in the desert
basins? (Henry Thomas)

In deserts there are thousands of cubic miles of clay.

I would not trust desert basins which appear to have
no natural drainage.

Even if the basin is not closed, if the time is long
enough in getting over the rim, isn't this adequate?

In these basins there are gravel layers extending out
from the mountains like tongues (illustrated by interlock-
ing fingers pointing the tips downward). There are gravel
and clay in about fifty-foot layers. Each gravel layer has
perched water.

Has any estimate been made of the age of these waters?

There would be stratification and mixing from wells.
If you are thinking of tritium measurements, these would
be very difficult.

Consensus: We consider disposal in permeable beds
should not be done below the water table, unless subse-
quent information indicates that adsorption will protect
the aquifer above.

B. Beds above the water table.

(1) Possibilities. A part of the committee was of the opinion
that this might be worth trying in isolated desert areas

98.

(3)

where the test could be monitored effectively. Areas
suggested were: an isolated mesa on the Colorado
Plateau; the edge of a fanglomerate, where gravels in-
terfinger with clays; and an area underlain by loess.
During the discussion, it was apparent that the feasibil-
ity of these sites was predicated on the assumption that
clay minerals would adsorb the radioactive ions. Yard-
stick for the discussion was: A cubic mile of semi-
consolidated material contains about 1019 tons. If the
material has 1 percent montmorillonite, it would adsorb
1,000 gallons a day for 1,000 years.

a. The Colorado Plateau was deemed a poor place for
carrying on the experiment, because too little is
known about the movement of ground water in the
aquifers there. The material might find its way to
surface springs too quickly.

b. The fanglomerate at the edge of a desert mountain
range would be a suitable test site, if preliminary
laboratory tests are favorable.

c. A loess-covered area would be good if it is sufficiently
isolated, and if the preliminary tests are favorable.

Recommendations for tests and requirements.
a. ''Cool"' the waste for a period of several years.

b. Conduct specific retention studies on loess and other
materials.

c. Conduct research on tracers to determine rates of
ground water movement through unsaturated materials
and movement of cations in the water. Helium was
suggested as a tracer.

d. Laboratory studies on cation movement as related to
heat effect.

Conclusions. This method of disposal is worth investi-
gating, but cannot be recommended at the present time.
Extensive research will be needed, with no guarantee of
success.

99.

Natural caverns and artificial excavations, including artificial
solution cavities.

A. Natural Caverns. Natural Caverns are in the zone of potable
water and leak like sieves. They are totally unsuitable for
disposal of liquid wastes. They would be usable for dry im-
mobilized wastes. Also, a dry cavern above water table
would be suitable for dry wastes that were not immobilized
but that were suitably packaged.

B. Abandoned Mines.

(1) Shallow mines are similar to caverns in that most are
wet and even the dry ones would probably leak if filled
with liquid wastes. Evaporated solids in cans could be
stored in shallow dry mines.

(2) Deep mines are commonly below the water table and are
dry. A deep dry mine (not on a fissure vein deposit)
would definitely be suitable for storage of dry wastes in
containers and might be suitable for liquid wastes. Heat
would be a problem, but could probably be solved. One
difficulty would be to find a mine that the owners would
be willing to abandon,

(3) Significant parts of discussion.

Abandoned mines are very close in structure to natural
caverns,

Real deep mines are dry. Canned peaches have been
taken from mines after twenty years' storage and the cans
are still bright and shiny and free of rust.

Deep mines might be difficult to obtain because they
are expensive and, even if unused, the owners might be
reluctant to part with them.

There is a mine in Ontario in a pre-Cambrian formation
in the middle of a lake. No water has ever been pumped
from it.

If deep, dry, non-vein mines below the zone of ground
water table can be found, they may be suitable. If the

100.

site is satisfactory this would be worth looking into for
liquid wastes.

Mines are also very promising for solid storage.

C. Special Excavations, including solution cavities in salt.

(1)

(3)

General statement. Special excavations have all the ad-
vantages of mines except for their higher cost. In addi-
tion, we can choose the location, geologic horizon,
geometry, etc. The cost of special shafts would be about
$200 a foot for the main shaft with a 6 to 8-foot diameter,
$100/ft. for cross cuts, and $100/ft. for ventilation shafts.
As in mines, heat dissipation would be a problem, but the
excavation could be designed to aid this dissipation.

Excavation of solid rock. Deep shafts in crystalline rocks
might be practical -- they would have the same character-
istics as deep abandoned mines. Also, it seems worth
while investigating artificial excavations in shale. Al-
though surface pits in the shale are probably not leak-
proof, excavations in thick shale beds in Illinois have re-
mained bone-dry since they were made (Loofbourow). It
was the opinion of several engineering geologists that dry
chambers can be excavated at relatively shallow depths

in thick shale formations. A great deal of testing would
be necessary, however, before one of these cavities

could be endorsed for the disposal of liquid wastes. Type
of research needed is: mechanical strength tests of the
particular formation involved, stability of the shale in the
presence of the particular solutions, etc. The cost of
propane storage in this type of cavity runs from 7 to 14
dollars a barrel.

Dissolved cavities in salt. Solution cavities in salt are
probably the most promising sites for relatively shallow
disposal of liquid wastes. Both bedded salt and salt domes
are possible, although bedded salt would have more prob-
lems, such as the greater difficulty of controlling the size
and shape of the cavity and the additional testing of the
roof and floor rocks.

a. Advantages of salt cavities.

Ive

Qu

MONT

Availability. There are numerous beds of salt in
the mid-continent area and hundreds of domes
along the Gulf Coast, Acquisition cost would be
low.

Physical characteristics. Salt will flow under pres-
sure, and in the salt domes would be self-sealing
around cavities. Its high conductivity (about
twice that of most rocks) and relatively high
melting point (801° C at pressure of 760 mm Hg)
would help in heat dissipation. It was stated that
this type of storage could be developed at a cost
of $3.50 per barrel.

Hazards and uncertainties. Cavities and mines in
bedded salt might be subject to cave-ins; the strength
of the roof rock would have to be carefully tested.
Seismic activity might fracture salt of the domes and
permit the escape of some waste before the salt re-
sealed the fissure.

Research needed.

Extensive laboratory studies of salt under the
heat and pressure conditions that would exist.
Test also the idea of dissipating the heat by
making the salt cavity act as a reflux condenser.

Determine size, shape, and spacing of cavities to
allow heat dissipation.

Phase rule study of salt in presence of waste solu-
tions.

Migration of cavity along lines of stress by differ-
ential solution.

Conclusion. Solution cavities in salt domes are
probably the best potential sites for the disposal of
liquid wastes at shallow depths. Cavities in salt
beds are also good potential sites, but must be
viewed with more caution. Rather extensive labora-
tory tests will be necessary before disposal in salt
can be attempted, but this research is pretty
straightforward, and is pointed toward the question
of how to do it rather than whether it can be done.

e. Significant parts of discussion on salt.

102.

In Kansas six caverns were dissolved in bedded
salt fifty feet thick for LP storage. These hada
capacity of 25,000 barrels and were within 500 feet
of each other, but not connected. A well for the
disposal of the dissolved brine was drilled at a cost
of $80,000. The cost of the first cavern, including
the well, was $7.00 per barrel and for the remain-
ing five, $3.00 to $3.50 per barrel.

I think if conditions were favorable the cost could
go down to fifty cents to a dollar a barrel.

Do you have any idea of the shape of these caverns?
There's no way of knowing.

I don't think you can predict the shape because most
beds are shot full of fracture galleries. In Texas we
have dissolved two caverns in salt, not bedded, of 1.7
and 2 million cubic feet. The diameter is about 270
feet, as measured by sonar explorations. The depth
is controlled using gas or oil cushion. I think you
could probably get this for $20,000. In Canada there
is one which is eighteen feet deep, lens shaped, with
a limestone roof.

Salt domes can be written off as economically
worthless because of huge amounts of salt available.
Salt has twice the heat conductivity of soil, anda
melting point of 800° C. The liquid can be saturated
and probably would stay there for years.

Put holes down into a dome, say thirty feet in di-
ameter and one thousand feet deep. Keep them at _
fifty pounds' pressure and let them operate as reflux
condensers.

Reflux action may take material from the top and
place it at the bottom. Differential heating would re-
move material from the the sides.

Maybe the hole will crawl.

I think this will work and I'd sure look into it.

103.

Would there be an evolution of chlorine gas?
No calcium sulfate usually is present.
This can be tested in the laboratory.

I don't believe the reflux condenser idea is any-
thing more than a wild dream. Use water or brine
to dilute or any method to get the heat into the body
of the salt. However, there is an enormous calcu-
lation on heat to be made.

I'm lukewarm on salt beds but not on salt domes.
There are two hundred and forty-two domes from
Alabama to Texas. Some may be fifteen thousand
feet thick, or more.

Consensus: Salt storage is a preferred method for
liquid disposal.

Chairman: Will someone summarize the research
needed?

- It would be nice to know how it can be done -- how
many -- what spacing -- what control -- under what

conditions and how fast it would burrow with difference

in heat up, down, and sideways.

104.
APPENDIX E

PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFERENCE ON
DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE PRODUCTS

Princeton, New Jersey - September 10-12, 1955

Abelson, Dr. Philip H., Director, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie
Institution, 2801 Upton Street, Washington 8, D. C.

Benson, Dr. William E., Chief Geologist, Manidon Mining Corporation,
307 First Street, N. W., Mandan, N. D.

Bliss, Mr. Lyman A., Vice-President, Union Carbide Nuclear Com-
pany, 30 East 42nd Street, New York 17, N.Y.

Branson, Dr. Carl, Director, School of Geology, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, Okla.

Brown, Mrs. Helen, Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water Re-
sources, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 18, Md.

Bryant, Mr. George, Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water Re-
sources, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 18, Md.

Burleigh, Miss Jean, Stenotype Reporting, 10 East 43d Street, New
Wooselis Its No Yo

Christy, Dr. J. T., Atomic Energy Commission, Hanford Project,
Richland, Washington

Clark, Mr. Joseph R., The DuPont Company, Sucannen Project, Aiken,
So Go

Claus, Dr. Walter D., Chief, Biophysics Branch, Division of Biology
& Medicine, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington 25,
IDs (Gag

Cramer, Mr. T. M., U.S. Potash Company 30 Rockefeller Plaza,
New York, N. Y.

Culler, Mr. Floyd L., Jr., Director, Chemical Technology Division,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box P, Oak Ridge,
Tenn.

Curtis, Dr. Howard J., Chairman, Department of Biology, Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, N. Y. (Repr.
NAS-NRC Division of Biology & Agriculture)

Curtiss, Dr. L. F., Consultant, National Bureau of Standards, Wash-
ington 25, D. C. (Representing NAS-NRC Division of
Physical Sciences)

Denison, Dr. A. Rodger, Vice-President, Amerada Petroleum Corpo-
ration, Box 2040, Tulsa, Okla.

Ferris, Mr. JohnG., U.S. Geological Survey, 407 Capitol Savings &
Loan Bldg., Lansing 68, Mich.

105.

Frye, Dr. John C., Chief, State Geological Survey, Urbana, Ill.

Garrels, Dr. Robert M., Chief, Solid State Group, Geochemistry &
Petrology Branch, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington 25,
DesG.

Gilluly, Dr. James, Chief, General Geology Branch, U.S. Geological
Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver 14, Colo.

Goldich, Dr. S. S., Department of Geology and Mineralogy, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis 14, Minn.

Gorman, Mr. A. E., Reactor Development Division, U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission, Bldg. T5, 1901 Constitution Ave.,
Washington 25, D.C.

Griggs, Dr. David T., Institute of Geophysics, University of California,
Los Angeles 24, Calif.

Hawkins, Mr. Murray, Professor of Petroleum Engineering, School of
Geology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 3, La.

Hedman, Mr. Fritz A., Radiological Division, Chemical & Radiological
Laboratory, Army Chemical Center, Edgewood, Md.

Heroy, Mr. William B., 3712 Haggar Drive, Box 7166, Dallas 9, Texas

Hess, Dr. H. H., Professor of Geology, Princeton University, Prince-
ton, N. J. (Conference Chairman)

Holland, Dr. Heinrich D., Professor of Geology, Princeton University,
Princeton, N. J.

Hubbert, Dr. M. King, Chief Consultant, General Geology, Shell Oil
Company, Box 2099, Houston 1, Texas

Hunt, Mr. Chas. B., U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center,
Denver 14, Colo.

Hunter, Mr. Ralph, Dow Chemical Laboratory, Midland, Michigan

Ingerson, Dr. Earl, Chief, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C.

Jenkins, Mr. George F., Union Carbide & Carbon Research Adminis-
tration, 30 Hast 42nd Street, New York 17, N. Y.

Joseph, Mr. Arnold B., Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water
Resources, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 18, Md.

Kohman, Dr. Truman P., Department of Chemistry, Carnegie Institute
of Technology, Pittsburgh 13, Pa. (Repr. NAS-NRC Divi-
sion of Chemistry)

Lasky, Mr. S. G., Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior,
Washington 25, D. C.

Latta, Mr. B. F., District Geologist, Oil Field Section, Kansas State
Board of Health, County Court House, Dodge City, Kansas

Lieberman, Dr. Joseph A., Sanitary Engineer, Atomic Energy Com-
mission, Washington 25, D. C.

106.

Lindsey, Mr. Wilton J., Production Division, Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, Washington 25, D.C.

Loofbourow, Mr. R. L., Professional Engineer, 4032 Queen Avenue,
South Minneapolis 10, Minn.

MacMurray, Mr. Lloyd, Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water
Resources, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 18, Md.

Maxwell, Dr. John C., Department of Geology, Princeton University,
Princeton, N. J.

Melvin, Dr. John H., Chief, Division of Geological Survey, Orton Hall,
Ohio State University, Columbus 10, Ohio

Morgan, Mr. James M., Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water
Resources, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 18, Md.

Morton, Mr. Roy J., Health Physics Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, P. O. Box P, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Newell, Mr. J. F., Atomic Energy Commission, Washington 25, D. C.

Pecsok, Mr. Donald A., Senior Assistant Sanitary Engineer, U.S.
Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio

Piper, Mr. A. M., Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest, U. S. Geological
Survey, Box 3418, Portland 8, Ore.

Prescott, Mr. Gordon W., P. ©. Box 259, Hot Springs, S. D.

Renn, Mr. Charles, Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water Re-
sources, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 18, Md.

Riley, Mr. Leonard B., Geochemistry & Petrology Branch, U.S.
Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colo.

Roedder, Dr. Edwin W., Geochemical & Petrology Branch, U.S.
Geological Survey, Washington 25, D.C.

Russell, Dr. Richard J., Dean of the Graduate School, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge 3, La.

Seal, Mr. Morgan S., U.S. Public Health Service, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Washington 25, D.C.

Struxness, Mr. E. G., Director, Waste Disposal Project, Health
Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Lab., P.O. BoxP,
Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Taylor, Mr. Ralph E., Production Department, Humble Oil & Refining
Company, Humble Building, Houston 1, Texas

Theis, Dr. Charles V., Staff Scientist, U. S. Geological Survey, Box
302, University Station, Albuquerque, N. M.

Thomas, Dr. Harold A., Jr., Associate Professor of Sanitary Engineer-
ing, Div. of Applied Science, 223 Pierce Hall, Harvard
University, Cambridge 38, Mass. (Repr. NAS-NRC Div.
Medical Sciences)

HOT.

Thomas, Dr. Henry C., Associate Professor of Chemistry, Yale Uni-
versity, Box 190 A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn.

Thurston, Dr. William R., Exec. Sec., Div. Earth Sciences, National
Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington
Aa De Gr

Triplett, Dr. William C., 1807 Alameda Blvd., Suite 234, Corpus
Christi, Texas

Varnes, Mr. David J., Engineering Geology Branch, U.S. Geological
Survey, Denver Federal Center, Denver 15, Colo.

Watkins, Mr. J. W., Petroleum Experiment Station, U. S. Bureau of
Mines, P. O. Box 1321, Bartlesville, Okla.

Wilhelm, Dr. R. H., Chairman, Department of Chemical Engineering,
Princeton University, Princeton, N. J.

Zumwalt, Mr. L. R., Nuclear Science & Engineering Corporation,
P. O. Box 10901, Pittsburgh 36, Pa.

Members of the Steering Committee

H. H. Hess, Chairman M. King Hubbert

John N. Adkins * Chester R. Longwell *

William E. Benson Charles V. Theis

John C. Frye Richard J. Russell, ex officio
Chairman, Division of Earth Sciences ;
NAS-NRC

* absent

Assistants at conference

M.N. Bass
A. O. Fuller

108.

APPENDIX F

DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN SALT CAVITIES

Report prepared for the
Committee on Waste Disposal in Geologic Structures
by

William B. Heroy

Milena, It, WS) 57 3712 Haggar Drive
Dallas 9, Texas

CONTENTS

Introduction

Characteristics of Salt Deposits
Distribution of Salt in the United States
Production of Salt in the United States
Mining of Rock Salt

Production of Radioactive Waste
Requirement for Nuclear Energy
Characteristics of Radioactive Waste
Waste Production in Nuclear Power ‘Plants
Transportation of Nuclear Waste
Accessibility of Salt Space for Waste Disposal
Utilization of Salt Space for Waste Disposal
Problems of Utilization of Mined-out Space

Recommended Studies

109.

136

138

FIGURE 1 -

FIGURE 2 -
FIGURE 3 -
FIGURE 4 -
FIGURE 5 -
FIGURE 6 -

FIGURE 7 -

TABLE I-

TABLE II -

ILLUSTRATIONS

Location of the Principal Deposits of Rock
Salt in the United States

Area in New York Underlain by Salt

Area in Pennsylvania Underlain by Salt

Area in Ohio Underlain by Salt

Area in Michigan Underlain by Salt

Area in Texas and New Mexico Underlain by Salt

Installed Capacity of Electric Utility
Generating Plants - United States - 1920-1954

Salt - Production by States - 1953 -
Short Tons

Rock Salt - Estimated Production by States -
1953 - Short Tons

Page

130

124

127

DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN SALT CAVITIES

1, INTRODUCTION

1,1 One of the possibilities for the disposal of radioactive waste prod-
ucts derived from the operation of nuclear power plants is its under-
ground storage in space formed within deposits of rock salt. This
report contains information concerning the characteristics of rock salt,
its occurrence in the United States, and the underground space result-
ing from mining operations. Consideration is then given to the feasi-
bility of using such space for waste disposal.

1.2 The Division of Earth Sciences, National Research Council, at the
request of the Atomic Energy Commission, has undertaken a study of
the underground disposal of atomic waste and the preparation of a re-
port and recommendations on the subject. A conference for the discus-
sion of the subject was held at Princeton University, September 10-12,
1955, and a Steering Committee was appointed to function in the prepa-
ration of a report. (1) During the period subsequent to the conference,
as a member of the Steering Committee, the writer of this memorandum
had an opportunity to investigate further the possibility of underground
disposal particularly in cavities formed by the mining of salt. The in-
formation obtained has been compiled in this paper as a matter of rec-
ord and for such value as it may have in further consideration of the
disposal problem. The paper is preliminary in character, and is not

a complete presentation of this phase of the problem.

1.3 Acknowledgment for information supplied concerning salt deposits
is gratefully made to Dr. Frank C. Foley, State Geologist of Kansas;
Dr. John H. Melvin, Chief, Division of Geological Survey, State of
Ohio; Dr. William L. Daoust, State Geologist of Michigan; Dr. Kenneth
K. Landes, Department of Geology, University of Michigan; to Messrs.
L. E. Read, Manager, Detroit Mine, and C. H. Jacoby, Chief Geolo-
gist, International Salt Company, Detroit, Michigan; and to Mr. Tom
M. Cramer, U.S. Potash Company, Carlsbad, New Mexico. The
writer has also used freely information contained in various publica-
tions, references to which are made at the end of this paper, and wishes
to acknowledge the assistance obtained therefrom. I am also grateful
to Dr. E. G. Struxness of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and to
Dr. L. P. Hatch of Brookhaven National Laboratory for courtesies ex-
tended during visits to these installations.

LINZ «

1.4 This report was first circulated under date of July 20, 1956. It
has since been reviewed by Dr. Floyd L. Culler, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Dr. M. King Hubbert, Shell Oil
Gompany, Inc. Houston’, Gexa's), andyDr. Gy Vi hheis,. Uo Geologe
ical Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico. I am greatly indebted to these
associates on the Princeton Committee for their critical comments on
the paper, which have generally been incorporated in the present re-
vision of the report. Any responsibility for errors or other inadequa-
cies and for opinions expressed in the report are, however, my own.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF SALT DEPOSITS

2.1 Rock salt in its crystalline form is the mineral halite (NaCl;
sodium 39.4, chlorine 60.6%). MHalite is isometric and occurs in crys-
tals with cubical cleavage, which are transparent or translucent.
Hardness is 2.5. Specific gravity of pure crystal salt is about 2.17
(136 lbs. per cu. ft.). Index of refraction is 1.5442. It is highly non-
conductive of electricity. The melting point of salt is 801° C. and the
boiling point, 1413° C. Solubility in water in grams per 100 ml. is
35.7 at 0° C. and 39.12 at 1000 c. (4) (2)

2.2 In its usual occurrence, rock salt contains impurities. As mined
for commercial purposes, it is generally not less than 97% pure, with
grades used in the chemical industry over 99% pure. As mined, the
specific gravity ranges from 2.1 to 2.6, depending upon the degree of
purity. It has a coarse granular to compact structure. Its toughness
makes it resistant to mining with power machines and explosives are
used in its production in solid form. Its solubility in water permits
its solution and extraction as brine.

2.3 From the geological standpoint, salt is plastic and flows under
pressure. In that respect it is similar to ice, but the pressure and
time required to produce observable plastic flow in salt are very much
greater. The pressure required for the rapid deformation of rock salt
is very great but, over long periods of time, much lower pressure may
be expected to result in flowage. Plastic movement of rock salt has
apparently not been observed in the pillars left in salt mines in the
United States, with the amount of overburden as much as Z,000 feet.

In mining potash in New Mexico, where the depth of the deposit is about
900 feet, the sylvinite ore (a mixture of halite, NaCl, and sylvite, KCl)
shows positive evidence of plastic flow. Horizontal drill holes in the
sylvinite ore show vertical compression of about 25% in about ten years.
Sylvite, the principal potash-bearing mineral in the ore, is apparently
more plastic than halite A

Si

2.4 Salt deposits are of sedimentary origin and commonly occur in-
terbedded with other rocks, such as limestone, dolomite, anhydrite

and shale. Under conditions of temperature and pressure present at
great depths and during geologic time, bedded salt has flowed along

lines of weakness and risen into overlying beds in the form of plugs

and domes.

3. DISTRIBUTION OF SALT IN THE UNITED STATES

3.1 The most commercially important deposits of bedded salt are
found in New York, Michigan, Ohio and Kansas. They underlie many
thousand square miles extending from the outcrop downward to depths
of more than 5,000 feet. Figure 1 shows the location of the principal
deposits of rock salt in the United States.

3.2 In New York, the salt occurs in the Salina formation of Silurian
age. (9) It crops out along a band extending from the Mohawk Valley

on the east to the Niagara River on the West. The salt is not present

at the outcrop because it has been dissolved. The Salina beds dip south-
ward at alow angle. The dip is variable, averaging from 50 to 100

feet per mile, depending on the local structural conditions. At its
maximum, the Salina is about 1,000 feet in thickness. The salt may

be present in several beds. Its total thickness is more than 300 feet

in central New York, south of Syracuse. In the western part of the
state, the salt becomes thinner and may be absent in the Buffalo area.
It continues southward under the increasing thickness of younger beds
into southern New York and northern Pennsylvania, where the thickness
of salt is over 600 feet in some deep wells. The total area in New York
underlain by salt is roughly 10,000 square miles, as shown on Figure 2.

3.3 The entire northwestern part of Pennsylvania is underlain by the
Salina formation and salt has been found in many wells drilled for oil
and gas, (6) Throughout most of the area the aggregate thickness of
the salt beds is at least 50 feet. In half the area the aggregate thick-
ness is over 100 feet and the aggregate thickness reaches a maximum
of over 500 feet. The salt beds are found at depths of from 1500 feet
in northwestern Pennsylvania to more than 8000 feet in the deepest
part of the syncline. Figure 3 shows the area in Pennsylvania under-
lain by salt and the depth below sea level of the top of the salt.

3.4 The salina beds continue westward into eastern Ohio and underlie
about one-third of the state.(7)(8) The salt occurs in beds of Silurian
age, which probably represent the westward extension of the Salina for-
mation of New York and Pennsylvania. This horizon is below the surface

114

QUIW }JDS-yOOY -x
1ivS Ad NIVIYSaNN
SV3YV IVdIONIYd - |

‘Old

=]
SJIWOF Of Of O1SO

N9O0Y AG NIVIYSGNN MYOA MIAN NI VAUV —2'9ld

15

SAILOVNI ‘SANIN LIVS 90¥
BAILOV ‘SANIN LIvS yo0u

73A47 Was MO1ad Gag livs
LSOWY3SddN 4O HldSad ONIMOHS SYMOLNOD

SlisOdad LVS 4O LIWIT

116

ee
SAIN Ov

73A4571 VW3S M0138 Gag LVS cola SlLISOd3q 11VS
(oe)

LSOWYSddN JO HidaGd SONIMOHS SYNOLNOD 4O LIWIT:

LVS M9OU AG NIVIYSCGNN VINVATASNN3d NI W3ayuV —€'9l4

Dire

throughout Ohio and its character is known only from wells, of which
more than 3,500 have been drilled through it. The salt thins westward
and disappears beyond a line extending from Lorain, on Lake Erie, to
Marietta, near the Ohio River. Over most of this area the salt beds
have an aggregate thickness of more than 100 feet. The maximum is
reached near Canton, Stark County, where well logs indicate the pres-
ence of several beds with an aggregate thickness estimated at more
than 200 feet. Along Lake Erie, recent borings for the purpose of
prospecting the salt beds indicate that their thicknesses total 60 to 70
feet in Cuyahoga, Lake and Ashtabula counties.

Near the Pennsylvania line, in Ashtabula County, the salt occurs ata
depth of about 2,300 feet below the water level of Lake Erie. The
depth decreases westward to a depth of about 1,300 feet near Lorain.
From Lake Erie the beds dip gently southward. At Barberton, about
40 miles south of Cleveland, the uppermost salt is at a depth of 2750
feet. In Harrison County, 50 miles farther southeast, the salt was
reached at over 4700 feet. The total area in Ohio underlain by salt de-
posits is over 15,000 square miles. Figure 4 shows the area in Ohio
underlain by rock salt and the depth below sea level of the top of the
salt.

3.5 Michigan has the largest reserves of salt of any state. Rock salt
underlies most of the state, within the Michigan basin. It is found in
the Salina formation, which is deposited in a saucer-like form, taper-
ing toward the margins of the basin, where it is overlapped by younger
formations and does not appear at the surface. Brine is found in sev-
eral other formations.

In the southeastern part of the state, along the Detroit River, the
aggregate thickness of rock salt is from 200 to 500 feet. The thick-
ness increases northwestward into the basin. In Bay County, about 90
miles northeast of Detroit, a maximum thickness of 1800 feet of salt
was penetrated. Around the periphery of the basin, the salt thickness
generally increases down dip from 0 at the edge of the Salina wedge to
a thickness of 1000 feet in about 50 miles.

In Wayne County, near Detroit, the depth to the first salt bed ranges
from 800 feet at Ecorse to 1150 feet at Oakwood (Detroit) and over 1600
feet at Port Huron. On the west si-ie of the basin, near Ludington and
Manistee, the salt has been reached at depths of about 2000-2300 feet.

The total area of the southern peninsula of Michigan that is probably
underlain by salt-bearing formations is 35,000 square miles. The

118

a CONTOURS SHOWING DEPTH OF UPPERMOST
a SALT BED BELOW SEA LEVEL

tele
area underlain by rock salt is shown on Figure 5,

3.6 In Kansas, beds of rock salt occur in several formations of Permian
age. (10) The Hutchison member of the Wellington formation and the
Ninnescah shale (both of Middle Permian age) are the most important
salt-bearing units, although salt is also found in the Harper, Salt Plain
and Flowerpit formations higher in the Permian section. The eastern
outcrop of the Hutchison salt member is along a line extending north
and south from Saline to Sumner county. The salt at the outcrop is dis-
solved but dips westward under cover, and is about 650 feet below the
surface at Hutchison; 1000 feet at Lyons; and 850 feet at Ellsworth.
Farther west, the top of this salt is about 1700 feet in Kiowa County and
2000 feet in Clark County, and its thickness is usually from 200 to 300
feet.

The higher salt horizons underlie the southwestern part of the state.
The Ninnescah salt is at a depth of about 1250 feet in Kiowa County,
1000-1500 feet in Clark County; and 1600 feet in Meade and Gray coun-
ties. The total thickness of salt in this part of the section ranges from
200 to 300 feet.

Altogether, about 30,000 square miles in the central and southeast
parts of Kansas are underlain by salt-bearing formations.

3.7 A large area on the Gulf Coast contains numerous structural uplifts
which are considered to have resulted from the flowage of salt.(11) In
many of these uplifts the salt has flowed upward through the overlying
beds to form salt domes. Exploratory drilling has proved the existence
of a large number of salt domes and, on the basis of geophysical evi-
dence, it is thought that salt forms the core of others. In northern
Louisiana, southern Arkansas and east Texas, bedded rock salt of
Jurassic (or Permian) age has been reached in widely separated wells.
The Eagle Mills (Louann) salt is seldom fully penetrated in wells but
thicknesses of 500 to 1500 feet are normal. It is estimated that this
horizon underlies an area of 180,000 square miles on the Gulf Coast.

The known salt domes are over 200 in number.'!4) In a few domes the
salt is very near the surface but in many others it is below 5000 feet,
and, in some instances, over 10,000 feet. The piercement-type domes
that come nearest to the surface range in size from nearly circular
domes a half-mile to two miles in diameter to elongated masses several
miles in length. The best known group of salt domes is the Five Islands
of southern Louisiana, characterized by surface uplifts overlying the

120

” LIMIT OF SALT DEPOSITS

CONTOURS SHOWING APPROXIMATE
—900 DEPTH OF UPPERMOST SALT BED
BELOW SEA LEVEL

X ROCK SALT MINE

eo oo
o=
g

FIG.5-AREA IN MICHIGAN UNDERLAIN BY ROCK SALT

0510 20 30 40 50 60MILES
best — et $s fed

2 yle.

salt masses, and by the shallowness of the salt, less than 300 feet
from the surface. At a depth of 1000 feet, these domes are a mile or
more in diameter.

3.8 Rock salt occurs in the western states in several areas. Salt of
Permian age is found in the Sevier Valley in Utah. Salt, believed to

be of Pennsylvanian age, occurs in the Colorado River drainage in
eastern Utah and western Colorado. The area is sometimes called the
Paradox salt basin.(13) The extent of the salt has not been fully deter-
mined but it apparently is not less than 10,000 square miles. The salt
has intruded into a considerable number of anticlines and domes and
has been penetrated in some test wells to a thickness of over 3,000 feet.

3.9 In the southwest, salt occurs in the Delaware Basin of New Mexico
and Texas. The margins of the area are known only approximately but
the total area underlain by salt may be as large as 70,000 square
miles. (14) The probable extent of the area is shown on Figure 6. Rock
salt is found in beds of Permian age belonging to the Upper Castile for-
mation, with an evaporite section ranging in thickness from 0 to about
3500 feet. In part of the area a zone of potash salts is present which
has been extensively developed near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The zone
is about 250 feet thick and contains four workable beds of potash. The
lowest bed is the thickest and averages about ten feet in thickness. A
large area has been mined out since operations began about 25 years
ago. Above the McNutt potash zone is a zone of halite about 500 feet
thick, which has been named the Salado. The top of this zone in the
Carlsbad district is about 500 feet below the surface, depending upon
the topography. Below the potash zone is another bed of halite, about
900 feet thick, broken by anhydrite partings.

Rock salt is not mined in this region except as a byproduct of the potash
ore, which contains 60% or more of halite. The salt extracted from the
potash ore is marketed to only a small extent. No space in the halite
beds is produced in the mining of the potash.

4, PRODUCTION OF SALT IN THE UNITED STATES

4.1 The total production of salt in the United States now exceeds 20
million tons per year, either as dry salt or in the form of brine. (15)
This amount is about 35% of the world's total production. Because salt
is widely distributed, the United States imports very little salt; it ex-
ports less than 2% of the production.

22

ft
| ia ea

PERMIAN SALT DEPOSITION

re
°o
>
a
<
(2)
Zz
=)
(eo)
oO
uJ
rS
_q
=
“«
fe)
oa
a
a
q

Oo 10 20 30 40 50

FIG.6-AREA IN NEW MEXICO AND WEST TEXAS

UNDERLAIN BY SALT~- BEARING FORMATIONS

2s.

4.2 About 60% of the salt is produced as brine, natural and artificial.
Natural brines, occurring in porous formations, are pumped to the
surface and evaporated. Artificial brines are formed by drilling wells
into beds of rock salt, pumping in water, which dissolves the salt, and
then pumping the resulting solution to the surface. Salt is more eco-
nomically produced by this method than by mining. But the process of
solution eventually causes cavities to be formed beneath the surface.
Where the salt is thick and underlies a large area, the overlying rocks
may eventually be left without support and caving follows.

4.3 Most of the brine brought to the surface is supplied directly to
chemical plants in which the sodium chloride is used as a raw material
for the manufacture of other sodium compounds and chlorine, useful as
reagents. A smaller part of the brine is evaporated to produce refined
salt for human consumption and for many industrial applications.

4,4 About 20% of the salt production is obtained by underground mining
of salt deposits. By careful selection of the source bed, salt of great
chemical purity is obtained for use in chemical applications. Large
amounts of rock salt are also used for highways, for stabilizing the
surface, and, in winter, for ice removal.

4.5 The accompanying Table I gives the salt production of the United
States in short tons, according to the form in which it is produced, and

by state. Values are also given. The amounts of rock salt and salt in
brine produced are estimated but are reasonably accurate approximations.

5. MINING OF ROCK SALT

5.1 Rock salt was mined at fourteen localities in the United States in
1953. The distribution of these mines by states is as follows: New
WMowlkwea; Machican, I; Kansas), 3; Loursiana, 4; Texas, 2; Utah; 2. The
location of these mines is shown on Figure 1.

5.2 The principal operating mine in New York is that of the International
Salt Company at Retsof, Livingston County, (1) The salt is produced
from a bed in the upper part of the Salina formation that has a thickness
of 9-10 feet. The mine shaft is 9'x26' and has a depth of 1063 feet from
the collar to the bottom of the salt bed. The salt dips approximately
1/2° to the south. The capacity is about 4,000 tons in 8 hours. The
mine commenced operation in 1923, About 60% of the salt is extracted
and 40% left as pillars. Assuming a production of 1,200,000 tons per

124,

199‘9LZ‘8L$ €00‘'68L‘0Z

O€6‘ ETL

L06 ‘61h
880 ‘FST
061 ‘SE8‘2
269 ET
LEZ‘ OFO'E
659‘77E‘¢
180‘29
LEE‘ LET'S
PET 19O'E

L772‘ S06

650°€92'9 $ S9EfEZT'T

DD, Ses
OO Lest
GS°€ 269‘06F'T
00°S SEO'?LL
9L*T ¥29‘O010'S
09°6 O06r‘TET
8h 72 G6L‘P8P'L
22°S WI USE = BX
Bi7-E PIE ‘ITZ
I€°? 886'IL1 ‘22
TO°€ 925‘681‘6
L2°8 955 ‘O8P‘L
8g°s$
U0} 1e9q [RIOD
ented

T8101

FOE” ZOL ES

«989 ‘TL

«880 ‘6F1
1G8‘TIl
269° E1
SEP ‘ 86F
$726‘ 2ES

*280°79
099 ‘028
Olena
695 ‘OLE

*000‘0G8

eS

poze rodeayq

869‘980‘LT

“PVE 2VS
*L06 ‘617

000°S

6E6 SEL Z

66L‘1FS‘Z

SL” Ow,“ Z

LZL‘90€ ‘PF

F728‘ 666'2Z

859‘'PESS

*G9ESELZ

TeI0L

€70‘809‘ZI

KDE 2bG

*L06‘61P

xO6EE ESE Z

x66L‘TPS‘Z

*SEL‘68S ‘T

*LZL‘90E°E

*L78‘009‘T

*KG9ESELZ

eutrg Ut 31eS

GS9‘S8SLE‘F

*000°S

*000‘00F

*000‘00Z‘T

*000‘'000‘T

*166 ‘SEE ‘*T

«B99 ‘PES

WES YOU

suo], 3104S - €G61 - SHLVLS Ad NOILONGOUd - LIVS

I aHTavi

(euUTIq UT 4yTes) eluTsATA ‘(euTrg UT Tes) EWOYeTYO ‘(pezerodeas) tremepy{ ‘eureqety (T)
PezyeUTyAS Hex

STV LOL

(ewe

eIUIS ITA ISOM

yen

SeX9 J,

OdTY OfL0Nng

or¥uO

YIOR MON

OOTXOVW MON

uestyotw
euertstinoy,
sesuey

BIULOFITED

N25),

year and 15 cubic feet of salt per ton, the space mined out would be
414 acre-feet. With a thickness of salt of 10 feet and 60% recovery,
about 68 acres would be mined out annually. The total production of
the mine has not been published, but, with 30 years of operation, it
is probably not less than 1500 acres.

At Portland Point, on the east side of Cayuga Lake, Tompkins County,
a mine has been operated for about 20 years. Details of production,
etc. are not known.

Several other rock-salt mines were formerly operated in New York

but have been closed down. The oldest mine was at Livonia, Livingston
County, and was operated from 1883 to 1890. It was 1430 feet in depth.
The mine is now filled with water and the condition of the shaft is now
known. About 50 acres was mined out. Another mine at Lehigh,
Genessee County, had a depth of 825 feet and was operated about 4
years. The quantity mined was about 15 acre-feet. The shaft is filled
with water to the surface. ;

5.3 The mine of the International Salt Company, at Detroit, is the only
producer of rock salt in Michigan. (17) It is operated through two shafts
about 1100 feet deep and the uppermost bed of the Salina formation is
worked. It varies in thickness throughout the mine from about 19' to
40'. The greatest thickness mined is about 36', 4' being left for roof.
About 60% of the area is mined, the remainder being left for pillars.
The rooms are limited to a width of 60'. About 700 acres has been
mined out. The mine is dry, except for an occasional seeping of a few
cubic feet of bittern from the formation. The mine has been in opera-=
tion since 1910 and, during that period, only one small roof-fall has
occurred. The shaft is located about 1 1/2 miles from the Detroit
River and about 1/4 mile from the River Rouge. The surface above the
mine is chiefly property of the Pennsylvanian and Wabash railroads used
for yards and shops. About 20' below the bottom of the bed now mined
and separated from it by a bed of dolomitic limestone, is a second bed
of salt, much thicker than the one being worked. The top of this lower
bed is exposed in one of the mine workings.

5.4 In Kansas, three rock salt mines are now operated, (18) The Carey
Salt Company operates a mine near Hutchison through a shaft 645' deep.
The bed mined has a thickness of 10'. The total volume mined out is
about 145 acre-feet, equivalent to about 14 acres. At Kanopolis, the
Independent Salt Company has two shafts 846' deep and is mining a bed
15-16' thick. The total mined-out space is about 4,000 acre-feet,
equivalent to about 25 acres. The American Salt Corporation has a

126.

mine near Lyons 993' deep working a bed 8 1/2! thick. The space
mined out is about 100 acre-feet.

Several other mines are either closed down or have been abandoned.
The largest is owned by the Morton Salt Company near Kanopolis and
was closed in 1948. It is thought to be still dry. Depth to bottom is
810' and the volume mined out is about 1500 acre-feet. The average
ceiling is about 9'. The Carey Salt Company has a shut-down mine at
Lyons closed in 1948. Its depth is 1024' average ceiling 10', and the
volume mined out is about 1000 acre-feet.

The three producing mines produced 534, 658 tons of rock salt in 1954.
This is equivalent to about 185 acre-feet. Assuming an average thick-
ness mined of 10' and 50% left for pillars, the area mined out would be
about 37 acres.

5.5 Salt is produced in Louisiana from four mines.(19) The Interna-
tional Salt Company has a mine at the salt dome at Avery Island, Iberia
Parish. The rock salt was first discovered at a depth of 18' below the
surface. The present mine was opened in 1898 with a shaft 518' in
depth.

At the Jefferson Island salt dome, where the mine is operated by the
Morton Salt Company, a circular shaft has been sunk to a depth of

900'. Myles Salt Company produces salt at the Weeks Island salt dome
from a shaft reported to be 645' in depth. Carey Salt Company is min-
ing salt from the Winfield salt dome, Union Parish, from a depth of
838'. The shallowest depth at which the salt has been found in this
structure is 437'. Rooms are 50' in width and 20 to 80' in height. Min-
ing began in 1931 and the production for several years averaged about
60,000 tons annually, increasing to 120,000 tons in 1941. Recent fig-
ures of the individual mines are not available.

5.6 In Texas, the Morton Salt Company, Grand Saline, Van Zandt
County, has a shaft to a depth of 700', which enters the salt at 215'.
Rooms are 60' wide by 80' high. The production is about 1000 tons per
day and 100 acres has been mined, (19)

The United Salt Corporation operates a mine on the Hockley dome,
Harris County. The shaft is 1525' deep.

5.7 The total estimated production of rock salt for 1953 by states is
shown in the accompanying Table Il, During that year, about 145 acres

WA

TABLE II

ROCK SALT

ESTIMATED PRODUCTION BY STATES - 1953 - Short Tons

Equiva-
lent Ave.
space, thick- Acres Depth
Per acre- ness mined to
Production. Value ton feat mined out ) salt
Kansas 534,658 2,194,751 $4.10 185 10 37 600-
1000
Louisiana 1,338,997 462 80 10 600-
800
Michigan 1,000,000 346 30 25 1000
New York 1,200,000 414 10 68 1000
Texas 400,000 138 60 5 700;
1500
Utah 5,000 2
TOTALS 4,478,655 23,777,527 $5.34 1,547 145

Me eeettie pravdty Ze oslo 4b pesca Wl onus per ton;
2900 tons per acre-foot.

(2) assuming 50% or 60%, according to locality, left as pillars.

Zr

was mined out, producing an equivalent space estimated to be 1547
acre- feet. During the last twenty years (1934-53) the reported pro-
duction of rock salt is 61,639,696 tons, equivalent to 21,250 acre-
feet. Assuming that the average thickness of salt mined was 10', the
area mined out would be 2125 acres. These figures give a general
idea of the large amount of underground space that has resulted from
the mining of the salt.

5.8 In the potash mines of New Mexico, a large volume of underground
space is produced by the removal of the sylvanite ore. The total amount
of ore mined in 1952 was approximately 7,550,000 short tons. Assum-
ing 15 cubic feet of ore to the ton, the volume would be about 2700 acre-
feet per year. If the average thickness mined is 8', the total number of
acres mined out annually would be about 335 acres. Pillars are left to
support the roof during the mining operations but these are usually
pulled after mining operations cease to recover the additional ore. Be-
cause of the plasticity of the sylvanite it is doubtful if the mined out
space would be suitable for long-time storage of atomic waste. The
subjacent salt would provide a more suitable potential storage space be-
cause of the greater resistance of the halite to pressure.

6. PRODUCTION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

6.1 Fission-product waste is produced when a nuclear fuel, such as

U4 > U 5 Ose Bue is fissioned in a nuclear reactor, (29) In nuclear
reactors, the fission of one gram of u235 produces about 1 gram of fis-
sion products. The fission products are, in part, gaseous and, in part,

in liquid or solid form, depending upon the fuel used.

6.2 Fuel systems used or considered for power reactors may be grouped
as follows:

6.2.1 Liquid-fuel systems, in which the fuel is dissolved in water or
heavy water;

6.2.2 Solid-fuel systems, using metals such as uranium and plutonium,
in which these metals are contained in corrosion- and temperature-
resistant cans;

6.2.3 Liquid-metal systems, using sodium, bismuth, etc. as a solvent;

6.2.4 Fused-salt systems, in which the nuclear fuel is mixed, for ex-
ample, with a fluoride or hydroxide of sodium, lithium, etc.

129.

6.3 Where the nuclear fuel is introduced in the reactor in aqueous
solution the output of the reactor is directly processed to remove the
waste. If the waste from the reactor is in solid form and included in
the spent fuel elements, the waste is separated from the unconsumed
uranium and plutonium in a chemical processing plant, in which the
solids are dissolved and the waste thereafter separated by one of sev-
eral methods.

6.4 Natural uranium contains one part of fissionable u235 in 139 parts
of fertile U%38, Thus, if natural uranium is used as a fuel, it is pos-
sible to consume U@35 both to support the chain reaction and to give
excess neutrons which, when captured in u238, will produce plutonium
239. Theoretically, in power breeders, it is possible to produce more
Pu“?? than the combined consumption of U235 and Pu in the reactor.

In a system where highly enriched u235 is used, Pu is not produced be-
cause of the absence of fertile u238, If, in such a system, the reaction
proceeded until 30% of the initial u#35 were consumed, approximately
250 grams of fission products would be produced per kilogram of u235
charged. (22) Thus, from one metric ton of natural uranium irradiated
to 30% burn up of u435, approximately 2 kg of fission products will be
derived. If enriched U*°8 were used as fuel, the quantity of fission
products per ton of charge would be increased, depending upon the ex-
tent of the enrichment.

7. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY

7.1 It has been calculated that the fission of 1 gram of U235 will pro-
duce approximately 24,000 kilowatt hours at 100% thermal efficiency.
The efficiency of production of electrical pos from heat is usually
taken as 25% for statistical calculations. ( 4)

(23)

7.2 The present installed capacity of electric utility generating stations
in the United States is about 115,000,000 kw (115,000 megawatts). (49)
The production of electrical energy for the year ended January 31, 1956,
was 553,568,952,000 kwh; equivalent to 63,000,000 kw-years. This
represents an average load factor of about 55%.

7.3 Estimates have recently been made that the installed capacity of
electrical plants will increase 8-fold during the next 50 years. (26) The
installed capacity has in the past doubled as follows: (see Figure 7)

25,000- 50,000 mw 1927-1946, 18 years;
50,000-100,000 mw 1946-1954, 8 years.

MILLIONS OF KILOWATTS

130

110 110

FIG.7-— INSTALLED CAPACITY OF
ELECTRIC UTILITY GENERATING

a PLANTS— UNITED STATES
1920-1954
After JA, Lane, October-l954

105

105

95

85

70

MILLIONS OF KILOWATTS

40

STEAM AND
INTERNAL COMBUSTION

10

1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955
YEAR ‘

To increase 8-fold would require further growth as follows:

100,000-200,000 mw 1954-1970, 16 years;
200,000-400,000 mw 1970-1985, 16 years;
400,000-800,000 mw 1985-2000, 15 years.

7.4 It has also been estimated that 50% of the installed capacity in
2000 will be nuclear plants. (27) Using these figures, the following
table has been constructed:

Thermal Electrical Electri- Thermal Electrical
capacity capacity cal pro- capacity capacity
utility utility Electrical duction nuclear nuclear
plants plants production kw plants plants
mw mw kw years hours mw mw
Tas eMAGOMOOON ALIS) COO) GeSxl0. 5.51052 : é
PCOmS63 0001.) 142,000 7eSxl0" ..6.82102" 2.000 500
1970 800,000 200,000 10.9x10 9.5x10 ; 24,000 6,000
1980 100,000 25,000

2000 4,000,000 1,000,000 54.5x107 47.5x10!! 700,000 175,000

Using a thermal comacity of 700,000 mw x 8,760,000 (kwh per mw year)
gives a total of 6.1 x 10°“ kwh (heat) that would be produced by the op-
eration of nuclear plants in the year 2000.

7.5 If each metric ton of natural uranium is irradiated to 4000 megawatt
days per ton as heat, approximately 63,500 tons of natural uranium
would be required per year to produce 6.1 x 1014 kilowatt hours of heat.

7.6 Plants now under construction or contemplated will have an installed
electrical capacity of approximately 100 megawatts each. Assuming

25% thermal efficiency, such a plant would consume approximately 36
tons of natural uranium per year at 4000 megawatt days per metric ton.
In the future it is quite probable that plants of 1000 megawatt electrical
capacity could be built. At 4000 megawatt days per ton and 25% thermal
efficiency, such a plant would require 365 tons of fuel per year, witha
100% load factor. If the capacity of the average nuclear plant were to be
500 megawatts electrical (or 2000 megawatts heat) 350 nuclear plants
might be in operation in the United States by the year 2000, (28)

SIZ.
8. CHARACTERISTICS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

8.1 If natural or enriched uranium is used in metallic form in a heter-
ogeneous reactor, the fissioning process proceeds to some point limited
by economics, corrosion or mechanical stability. It is probable that
large quantities of fissionable and fertile material will remain in the
irradiated fuel. Thus spent fuel elements are still very valuable since
they contain part of the initial charge of fissionable and fertile material
along with any new fissionable material produced. They are trans-
ported, usually in solid form, to a chemical processing plant for re-
covery and separation of fissionable and fertile material from fission
products in diluent. This is accomplished by dissolving the elements
in an acid such as nitric acid, followed by selective solvent extraction
of valuable components from diluents and fission products. This leaves
the fission products in the bulk of the depleted processing stream or
raffinate. This raffinate stream is the high level waste and poses the
principal disposal problem.

8.2 After irradiation in a reactor, the metallic elements in which un-
consumed fuel and waste are mixed are highly radioactive and they are
accordingly stored before processing for a period of time, during which
further decay of fission products occurs. Cooling periods vary. How-
ever, the rate of decay of fission products is approximately the same;
e.g., after 135 days the activity of the fission products is reduced by a
factor 10~* from their activity level at the time of discharge from the
reactor. At the time of discharge from reactor, the gross fission prod-
uct activity is 5.7 per cent of the rated power of the reactor.

8.3 If the fuel is fed to a reactor of homogeneous type in liquid form,
the spent fuel must also be processed in liquid form. Because itis,
under present conditions, more difficult to transport the waste in liquid
than in solid form, the chemical processing for the removal of the
waste from the fuel will presumably be accomplished at each reactor.
Future developments may make it feasible to transport such liquid
waste economically and safely.

8.4 In either case, the waste products of the reactor, except for those
disposed of to the atmosphere in gaseous form, will be presented for
disposal as liquids. The characteristics of the liquid waste are deter-
mined by the particular method of chemical processing used. Wastes
resulting from the operation of nuclear reactors are classified as high-
level wastes.

US) Sie

8.5 These high-level wastes, as produced by processing plants, have
concentrations varying from 0.5 gals. to 20 gals. per gram of U
burned.(29) One figure used for calculations of waste volumes result-
ing from solvent extraction is 820 gals. per metric ton of fuel charged
to the reactor, which is equivalent, at 4000 mwd/ton, to 2 gals. of
waste per mwd of heat produced by a nuclear reactor, (30

8.6 The principal problems in connection with the transportation and
storage of radioactive waste arise from its chemical character, the
energy given off as heat, and radioactivity. The waste is produced as
an acid solution, and, unless neutralized by an alkali, such as sodium
hydroxide, is corrosive to processing equipment. The corrosion is
increased with high temperature and it may, therefore, be desirable
that the temperature of waste in metallic storage be moderate; below
120-150° F. is desirable.

8.7 Depending upon the concentration of fission products in the waste,
the power produced per unit of fuel charged to the reactor, and the de-
cay cooling time, fission products in the waste will produce heat at
the rate of about 1 to 3 Btu/gal/hr. (3!) This rate of heat production
would be sufficient to raise high-level waste above the boiling point in
a few days. In storage of waste underground in liquid form, it would
therefore be necessary to provide means for cooling the waste and re-
moving the heat, unless the waste were greatly diluted.

8.8 The radioactivity of liquid waste from natural uranium is from 20
to 400 curies per gallon depending upon its chemical character. (32)
Adequate protection of personnel from this amount of energy requires
heavy shielding. The weight of the shielding adds greatly to the cost
of transportation.

9. WASTE PRODUCTION IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

9.1 Ina preceding paragraph it was assumed that the thermal capacity
of nuclear power plants would reach 700,000 mw by the year 2000, re-
quiring a feed of about 63,500 tons of natural uranium, or equivalent,

per year. Using a figure of 820 gallons of high-activity waste per metric
ton of fuel charged gives a total annual volume of waste of about 52 mil-
lion gallons, equivalent to 7,000,000 cu. ft. or about 160 acre-feet. If
this power were produced in 350 power plants, the amount of underground
space required annually for each power plant would be about 0.5 acre-
foot.

134.

9.2 This amount of total space is approximately 10% of the amount of
space being produced annually in the mining of rock salt at the present
time. By the year 2000 it is to be expected that the volume of salt
production will increase several times, production having doubled in
the last 15 years.

10. TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE

10.1 The three methods in use for transportation of high-level nuclear
waste, trucks on highways, barges and ships on waterways, and cars
by railway, are all costly because of the necessity for shielding and
other requirements for safety in transit.(33), Trucks are used for trans-
portation of waste for relatively short distances and generally in areas
where safety is carefully controlled. The transportation of waste from
processing plants to points of disposal is principally by rail or water.
Estimates of cost indicate that rail transportation costs several times
as much as water transportation for equivalent distances. The hazards
of transportation of highly radioactive materials by rail through popu-
lated areas are also greater than is generally the case along water
routes. For these reasons it may be advantageous to locate plants for
the processing of spent fuel at points where the spent fuel can be trans-
ported by water from the reactor.

11. ACCESSIBILITY OF SALT SPACE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

11.1 The principal areas in which salt deposits occur are those in the
north central states and in the southern states along the Gulf Coast.

11.2 The salt deposits of the north central states, New York, Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio and Michigan, are adjacent to the Great Lakes and lie in
part beneath these bodies of water. It is possible in this region to use
water transportation for the movement of spent fuel to a processing
plant from points as far separated as New York City on the east to
Chicago or Duluth on the west.

11.3 In southeastern Michigan or in northern Ohio a processing plant
could be located on the shore of Lake Erie directly above salt deposits
occurring at a depth of about 2,000 feet. Suitable facilities for unload-
ing barges could be provided at the plant. Shafts could be driven to the
underlying salt and the salt produced and marketed. The mined-out
space could be so planned as to provide adequate roof support and safe
routes for the transportation of waste to points of storage. The mining

HS5).

operations could be performed by an industrial contractor so that the
net cost of the mined-out storage space might be very small. De-
tailed consideration should also be given to the suitability and availa-
bility of space in existing or abandoned salt mines in this area.

11.4 The area along the Gulf Coast in which salt domes occur is ac-
cessible to water transportation through the Mississippi River and its
distributaries and the intercoastal canal. Numerous salt domes are
present in the area but in many of them the salt is at uneconomic
depths. Some of the salt domes are being mined and worked-out space
now exists. The feasibility of utilizing such space for the storage of
radioactive waste and at the same time continuing the operation of the
salt mines would require detailed investigation. A few salt domes
exist in the area in which mines have not been opened and which are
favorable as to depth of salt and convenience of transportation.

12. UTILIZATION OF SALT SPACE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

12.1 The storage of radioactive waste in properly located space ob-
tained by the mining out of rock salt has many advantages as compared
with other methods of disposal. Some of these are the following:

a. The salt itself has considerable strength so that pillars left in
mining may provide sufficient strength to support the roof. In bedded
salt deposits the overlying strata such as limestone and dolomite pro-
vide truss-like support to the overburden. The possibility of roof
collapse causing the release of radioactive materials stored under
these conditions appears very small but merits verification.

b. The salt is impervious to the passage of water because of its
plasticity and crystalline structure, so that the mined-out space is
very dry. This dryness increases the life of metals by reducing rust
and corrosion.

c. The salt deposits are quite level so that suitable vehicles can be
used in transportation underground.

d. The two principal areas where deposits of rock salt occur in the -
United States have very low seismicity and the possibility of space in
mined-out areas being collapsed by earth movements is extremely
small. Geological examination of mined-out areas indicates that
faults are not present, confirming a geological history of stability.

NIG

e. The comparatively high thermal conductivity of salt and its suf-
ficiently high melting point would permit the storage of wastes at
moderate temperature without effect on the walls of the cavity, pro-
vided the plasticity of salt is not increased by long-continued exposure
to elevated temperatures.

12.2 These advantages would not exist to the same extent if the salt
cavities were produced by pumping water into the salt formations and
the removal of the salt as brine. The large extent of cavities formed
by this method, the absence of roof support, and the lack of control
over the underground distribution of radioactive waste introduced into
such cavities are disadvantages which make it inadvisable to consider
the use of such space for disposal. The possibilities of collapse of
such cavities are considerable and instances of surface subsistence
from such collapse are known to the salt industry.

13. PROBLEMS OF UTILIZATION OF MINED-OUT SPACE

13.1 The storage of high-level radioactive waste in underground salt
space presents several problems of an engineering character. These
problems differ in some respects depending upon the physical form and
characteristics of the waste as it would be produced by reactors or
processing plants.

13.2 High-level waste now being produced from these sources is in
liquid form. The liquid as produced is chemically active, radioactive,
and produces heat through radioactive decay. It is therefore desirable
that the waste be treated before storage to minimize these hazardous
characteristics. It is also, in some cases, diluted in the course of the
chemical separation process so that the volume is materially increased.

13.3 The activity of the waste is now chemically neutralized by treat-
ment with alkaline solutions before it is placed in surface storage tanks
for aging. This process results in an increase of about four times in
the volume of the waste but this can be reduced by evaporation to a
point where the slurry contains about 35% solids.(>4) Waste so neutra-
lized would apparently not have any chemical effect on the walls ofa
salt cavity with which it moves into direct contact but further study
should be given to this problem.

13.4 The storage of the waste in surface tankage for a period of six
months or more permits the decay of some of the fission products that

Sie

have a short half-life, so that radioactivity and heat are both largely
reduced. However, other fission products, such as Cs-137, witha
half-life of 33 years and Sr-90, with a half-life of 25 years, are still
present in the waste in important quantities after months of storage. (35)

13.5 The transportation of such wastes to cooling tanks and its storage
in such tanks, whether earth or metal, requires the exercise of much
precaution. The piping and other vessels used in transportation must
be chemically resistant to corrosion and the stainless steels and other
metals required are costly. The building of metal tanks or the excava-
tion of earth reservoirs for storage during the cooling period is also

a serious economic burden. These costs must be balanced against
costs of shielding and handling required to transport the waste to sites
of disposal. It, therefore, becomes a problem in economics as to how
long it is feasible to hold such wastes in temporary storage to reduce
their activity before ultimate disposal. The engineering problems re-
lated to the transportation and storage during the cooling period have
been solved but at high unit cost.

13.6 Perhaps the most difficult engineering problem connected with
the underground storage of high-level waste is that of heating. The
energy released from such waste as heat is, depending upon concentra-
tion, expected to be from 1 to 3 Btu per hour per gallon. An acre-foot
of such waste would, at the higher figure, produce about 1,000,000
Btu's per hour, equivalent to the combustion of about 700 lbs. of coal.
From the standpoint of usable power, this is low-level heat and below
the level of economic utilization. But, from the viewpoint of disposal,
this amount of heat creates a problem that would be continuing for a
period of 20-30 years.

13.7 It is feasible to excavate in underground salt deposits reservoirs
that are adequate to contain the volumes of liquid waste that are con-
templated in a program of development of nuclear power. However, the
waste stored in such reservoirs would soon, from its own energy, rise
in temperature to the boiling point, creating an additional hazard of
production of radioactive vapor. The holding of the temperature in such
underground reservoirs below the boiling point would require the re-
moval of the heat by a cooling system installed in the reservoirs. The
maintenance and operation of such a system presents problems of engi-
neering design which, in themselves, appear to be manageable but only
with substantial installation, maintenance and operating costs. An al-
ternative method would be to let the temperature of the tanks exceed the
boiling point and remove the heated air and vapor by a circulating sys-
tem, filtering, and discharging the gases to the atmosphere. The

138.

underground storage of the liquid waste in barrels or other containers
would present similar problems of heat removal and would probably,
in comparison, be more costly than underground storage in bulk.

13.8 The fixation of the liquid waste in some solid form after cooling
and prior to underground disposal would be advantageous as regards
both transportation and storage. Various methods of conversion of
waste to solid form have been suggested and some of these have been
carried through the stage of pilot plant operations. Mixing with cement
in the proportion of about 15 lbs. per gallon would result in a solid
mixture of about 7 cubic feet, weighing about 80 lbs. per cubic foot. (36)
On a large scale, at a processing plant, this material could be cast in
molds into a form suitable for handling by automatic conveyors and
shielded fork-lift trucks with very low hazards from irradiation. Other
methods of solidification, such as incorporation in slag or ceramic
products, have considerable merit.

13.9 Onthe assumption that a disposal plant could be located in the
immediate vicinity of underground storage in mined-out-salt space,
the designing of a system of transportation from the plant to the point
of disposal would seem to present no serious problems, using belt
conveyors for movement and shielded fork-lift trucks for stacking or
piling in the underground rooms. The solidified material would produce
heat in storage but the problem of boiling would be eliminated and the
air temperature could become high without effect on the surrounding
salt. The cement blocks could be cast in such form that air could pass
through them. A system of air circulation to remove the heat from
storage rooms would be more feasible than the cooling of liquid waste
in underground reservoirs.

14, RECOMMENDED STUDIES

In the light of present knowledge, no insurmountable obstacles to the
storage of radioactive waste in solid form in underground cavities in
salt appear to exist. Detailed studies should be carried out on the fol-
lowing engineering and economic phases of the problems related to salt:

a. The availability and cost of suitable space in underground salt
deposits;

b. The most effective and economical methods of processing liquid
waste in large quantities into solid form;

139.

c. The development of suitable conveyors and other devices for the
underground transportation and disposal of waste in solid form;

d. The design of suitable ventilation facilities for the removal of
excessive heat from underground storage chambers.

William B. Heroy

11 March 1957

140.

10.

11.

12.

REFERENCES

Hess, Harry H., Chairman, Report of the Committee on Waste
Disposal, Division of Earth Sciences, National Academy of
Sciences - National Research Council, 1956.

Phalen, W. C., Salt resources of the United States: U.S. Geol.
Surv. Bull. 609, p. 234, 1919.

Phalen, W. C., Salt: Chapter 37, Industrial minerals and rocks,
Am. Inst. Min. Eng., p. 643-670, 1947.

Schaller, Waldemar T., and Edward P. Henderson, Mineralogy
of drill cores from the potash field of New Mexico and Texas:
U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 833, p. 74, 1932.

Alling, H. L., The geology and origin of the Silurian salt of New
York State: New York State Mus. Bull. 275, p. 139, 1928.

Fettke, Chas. R., Occurrence of rock salt in Pennsylvania: Penn.
Geol. Surv. Progress Rept. 145, 1 sheet, 1955.

Stout, Wilber, R. E. Lomborn and Downs Schaaf, Brines of Ohio:
Ohio Geol. Surv. Bull. 37, 4th ser., p. 123, 1932.

Pepper, James F., Areal extent and thickness of the salt deposits
of Ohio: Ohio Geol. Surv. Rept. Invest. no. 3, Ohio Jour. Sci.,
vol, 47, no. 6, p. 225-239, 1947.

Cook, Charles W., The brine and salt deposits of Michigan: Mich.
Geol. and Biol. Surv. Publ. 15, Geol. Series 12, p. 188, 1914.

Taft, Robert, Kansas and the nation's salt: Kansas Acad. Sci.
Trans., vol. 49, no. 3, p. 223-272, Dec. 1946.

Barton, D. C., Mechanics of formation of salt domes with special
reference to Gulf Coast salt domes of Texas and Louisiana: Am.
Assoc. Petr. Geol. Bull., vol. 17, no. 9, p. 1025-1083, 1933.

Nettleton, L. L., History of concepts of Gulf Coast salt-dome for-
mations Am). As soche ret.) Geol bull viOlk.ws 9. unO scm pEcono—
Zars5), M&VE5),

sisi

14,

Wye

16.

WES
LS;

19.

20.

21.

22.

(eye

24,

Zz).

141.

Shoemaker, E. M., Structural features of southeastern Utah and
adjacent parts of Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona: Utah Geol.
Society, Guidebook to the geology of Utah, no. 9, p. 48-69, 1954,

Hoots, H. W., Geology of a part of western Texas and south-
eastern New Mexico, with special reference to salt and potash:
Ue. Geol. curv. Bull. 780, p. 33-126, 1926.

U. S. Bureau of Mines, Salt in 1953: Mineral Market Report no.
Zo 4,0 pee, March 2951955.

La Vigne, E. F., Mining and preparation of rock salt at the Retsof
mine: Am. Inst. Min. Eng. Tech. Pub., no. 661, p. 21, 1936.

Jacoby, C. H., personal communication.
Foley, Frank C., personal communication.

Weigel, W. M., The salt industry of Louisiana and Texas: Am.
Inst. Min. Ene. Gech. Pub. , no. 6205p. 19, 1935.

Culler, F. L., Jr., Notes on fission product wastes from pro-
posed power reactors: In Report of meeting on ocean disposal of
reactor wastes held at Woods Hole, Mass., Aug. 5-6, 1954;
Atomic Energy Comm., NYO, Waste Disposal, p. 79 (mimeo),
May 15, 1955.

Glasstone, Samuel, Principles of nuclear reactor engineering:
New York, D. Van Nostrand Co., p. 861, 1955.

Culler, F. L., Jr., Op. cit., Wo Wh.

Joseph, Arnold B., and James M. Morgan, Jr., Radioactive
wastes in the atomic energy industry; the problem of disposing of
high level waste, Appendix 2, p. 24: The Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, p. 32 (mimeo); under AEC Contract No. AT(30-1)-1477,
March 31, 1955.

Ayres, Eugene, and Charles A. Scarlott, Energy sources - the
wealth of the world, p. 102: New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
p. 344, 1952.

U. S. Federal Power Commission, Electric Power Statistics,
Report No. 55-12C, p. 15, December 1955.

142.

26.

Za o

Z8.

29.

30).

31.

SZ

3S) 6

34,

35g

36.

3 o

Lane, J. A., Nuclear power requirements for large-scale in-
dustrial power: Nucleonics, p. 65, October 1954.

Zeitlin, H. R., E. D. Arnold and J. W. Ullman, Processing
requirements, build-up of fission product activity, and liquid
radiochemical waste volumes in a predicted nuclear power econ-
omy: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, January 30, 1956, File
56-1-162.

Culler, F. L., Jr., personal communication.

Culler, F. L., Jr., Notes on fission product wastes from pro-
posed power reactors, Table 5, p. 22.

Zeitlin, H. R., op. cit., Figure aris
Joseph, A. B., op. cit., Table 1, p. 3.
Culler, F. L., Jr., op. cit., Tabilent.mpercor

Harrington, A. C., R. G. Shaver, and C. W. Sorenson, Perma-
nent methods of radioactive waste disposal - an economic evalua-
tion: U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., Report K-1005, Waste
Disposal, p. 50, March 11, 1953.

Clark, Joseph R., Radioactive wastes at the Savannah River plant,
p. 40: In Report of meeting on ocean disposal of reactor wastes
held at Woods Hole, Mass., Aug. 5-6, 1954; Atomic Energy Comm.,
NYO, Waste Disposal, p. 79 (mimeo), May 15, 1955.

Guillie, IPS Wage Sica Olds Cites y IASUESR 2, 35 ji. Bo 6.

Vitro Corporation of America, Disposal of radioactive wastes in
cement: U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., Report KXL-1377, p. 15,
June 18, 1952.

Hatch, L. P., Ultimate disposal of radioactive wastes: American
Scientist, vol. 41, no. 3, p. 410-421, July 1953.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - NATIONAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL

The National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council
is a private non-profit organization of scientists, dedicated to the fur-
therance of science and to its use for the general welfare,

The Academy itself was established in 1863 under a Congressional
charter signed by President Lincoln. Empowered to provide for all
activities appropriate to academies of science, it was also required by
its charter to act as an adviser to the Federal Government in scientific
matters. This provision accounts for the close ties that have always
existed between the Academy and the Government, although the Academy
is not a governmental agency.

The National Research Council was established by the Academy
in 1916, at the request of President Wilson, to enable scientists generally
to associate their efforts with those of the limited membership of the
Academy in service to the nation, to society, and to science at home
and abroad, Members of the National Research Council receive their
appointments from the President of the Academy. They include repre-
sentatives nominated by the major scientific and technical societies,
representatives of the Federal Government, and a number of members-
at-large. More than 3000 of the foremost scientists of the country co-
operate in the work of the Academy-Research Council through service
on its many boards and committees in the various fields of the natural
sciences, including physics, astronomy, mathematics, chemistry, geol-
ogy, engineering, biology, agriculture, the medical sciences, psychology,
and anthropology.

Receiving funds from both public and private sources by contribu -
tion, grant, or contract, the Academy and its Research Council thus
work to stimulate research and its applications, to survey the broad
possibilities of science, to promote effective utilization of the scientific
and technical resources of the country, to serve the Government, and
to further the general interests of science.

/
;
;
5
a
‘