Click for next page ( 13


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 12
12. Appcudix B NATIONAL AC ADEMY OF SCIENCE - NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES PROCEEDINGS of Me PRINCETON CONFERENCE on DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE PRODUCTS ) ~ . . - 6 Edited condensation from the record of the stenotype reporter. September 10- IZ, 1955 Graduate College, Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey

OCR for page 12
Appendix B September 10, 1955 Afternoon Se s sion R. J. Russell H. H. Hess A. E. Gorman Charies Renn J. T. Christ~r F. L. Cu~er, Jr. - E'ren~ng Se8sion CONTENTS - O~en~ng remarks~eeeee..e. Remarks ~ e ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ Addre ~ s and discus sion . . . e Acldre s ~ and dis cus sion e ~ ~ ~ Address ~d ctiscussion ee.e Address and cliscus sion .... H. H. Hess - Remarks e e e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e e ~ ~ e ~ ~ e e ~ e e ~ e e ;r. Ae tieberm~ - Address and discussion e e ~ ~ e ~ e ~ e A e M . Piper - AcI - ess a=d discus sion e ~ ~ ~ ~ Re;Fe Morton - Acidress and discussion E. G. Stru~mess - Ac3dress and discussion September 11, 1955 ~, Sunday Morning Session Ee Ge Stru~mess - C;ontinuation of address and discussion oeeeeeee.eeee General Discussion eeeeeeeeeeeeeee.-~---~-eee-ee-.ee Appo~tment of Commi~ees eeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeee -- September 12, 1955 Monday Morning Session 13. Page , .. _eeeeeee 14 14 eeeeee. 15 .~. 18 ----e-~. 22 e.~e 32 ~4 34 40 50 55 58 64 75 Reports of Committees: M . K. Hubbert eeeeee.~eeee.~ee~e~ee.~e 7 6 78 81 J. C. Frye eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeee H. H. Hess - Clos~ng remarks

OCR for page 12
14. PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCETON CONFERENCE ON THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE PRODUCTS SATURDAY AFTERNOON SESSION September 10, 1955 The Conference on Disposal of Radioactive Waste Products convened ~ the Commons Room of the Graduate College, Princeton University, at 2 o'clock. DR. RICHARD J. RUSSELL: On behalf of the Division of Earth Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, ~ am happy to welcome you to this Conference and to see this meeting so weU attended. We have been working with people at Johns Hopkins and with people from the A.E.C. since last November to prepare for this conference and plan for another one. We have called together a heterogeneous group of people from many different fields and cliscipl~es with a cumulative total of a tremendous amount . . O. experience . The main objective In this Conference, as far as the Division of Earn Sciences is concerned, is to generate and list ideas for the ~idergrou~c] disposal of high level wastes. That is our mission. - The ground rules have chimed from time to time on the problem, d it has been very difficult for those associated with it to keep up . with developments in the chemical processing which determine the nature of the materials we have to deal with. We have had the feeling several times that the problem has shifted completely from one area over to another; we believe that set this conference you win get a hint of the varier] nature of the problems before us. The preparation of this conference and the organization of the report which we win submit under the contract with the A.E.C., is under the direction of Harry Hess, who has served as Chairman of the Steering Committee, and who win presicle at these meetings. . .. Dr. H. H. Hess assumed the Chair .. . CHAIRMAN HESS: ~ would lilce to welcome you here on behalf of Princeton University. ~ am very happy, as Chairman of the Steering

OCR for page 12
15. Committee, to see how many of you responded to our request to participate in this conference. ~ know it is a serious matter to leave your normal activities and Rewrote several clays to our problem, en c] am delighted to see that so many of you have come. The problem we have to deal with is a very complex one. This first day ~nllbe spent determining what the components are: they change rather rapidly; the whole problem has changed Mace our first meeting of last spring. We will have to get the necessary background to know what sort of a problem we are dealing with, and ~ hope before the meeting is over there will be some specific suggestions that can be looked into and that win lead at least ~ the direction of the solu- tion or several solutions, however it may develop. Hi: .~ Mr. Corms, of the A.E.C., has agreed to make the introduc- tory remarks describing the Reactor Di~nsion's concept of the problem. Mr . Gorman! Mr. A. E. Gorman, Reactor Development Diwsion U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Bu;~;"g T5, ~ 9 0 ~ Constitution Avenue, Washington 25, D. C. MR. GORMAN: On behalf of the Reactor Division of the want to take this occasion to theory you Al for giving us your time and valuable assistance to discuss one of our acute problems, and also to thank the Un~versit~r for its courtesy ~ providing such excel- lent accommodations for us. A.E.C ., The Reactor Division is sponsoring the contracts wit e National Academy of Sciences add Johns Hopkins Unz~rersity to evalu- ate problems connected with the disposal of high and low level radio- active wastes. At this conference we are confining our attention to disposal of the high level wastes, which in A.E.C. we feel is a real serious problem. Because atomic energy work was begun during the war period, our plants were established in more or less distant ~d iso- lated places, and as problems of waste disposal arose they were not too difficult to take care of because of this isolation. Now, however ... ... ..

OCR for page 12
16. under the rapid growth of opportunities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for privately-owned competitive industries to enter the Held of atomic energy, some real problems are being posed. It seems inevitable that the industry win move toward more populated areas. Our cliscussions with representatives of industry make it evi- dent that they env~;ic,= building reactors as`d fuel processing plats near their markets. When a new ~nclustry moves into a community which is aireacly well ~tegratecI and weH organized, it finds that its pre de c e ~ so rs have ce ran e stabli shed right s . The new industry wants to be a good neighbor. ~ the field of atomic energy we have to face the problem that the establisheci regulatory agencies (which could take almost any industry and its waste problems in its stride), are not familiar with radiation as a contaminant, nor with the mate- rials and the technology of the industry. Obviously, if the industry is to grow in a healthy way, it must be a "good neighbor,'' ancl that means having harmonious relations with the rest of the community and the regulatory agencie s . The group at Johns Hopkins U:uveraity and the A.E.C. staff have been struggling With this waste problem for a number calf years. To some extent, because of our geographically isolated locations;, it has been possible ''to sweep the problem under the rug," so to speak. But those of us who are close to it are convinced that we must face up to the fact that we are confronted by a real problem. ~ am sure that when you hear the details of the situation from those who follow me on today's program you Mao will be convince d. When we tries] to evaluate the problem ~ Me early phases of the atomic energy program, we caned upon the U. S. Geological Survey, the Weather Bureau, and many other governmental agencies, and many Universities for assistance, but the problem of the disposal of high level waste is a long way from berg resolved. It is one which causes deep concern because of the ranger of contaminating local water supply, or having an unfavorable affect on nature resources. The volumes of waste are large but they are not excessive, compared with other industries. The main concern is Me fact that some of the constituents of the wastes have long half-li~res which require that the waste be kept under control for many, many years . L- ~ addition to the consideration of safety there is aide the ques- tion of cost. The handling of waste ~ our Nations is costing tens of nonillions of dollars a year. The magnitude of this item is such that 5

OCR for page 12
17. it cold be a serious deterrent to the development of a competitive ~nclustry, therefore, it merits a good deal of attention. ~ effect, in A.E.C. we feel it is our responsibility to find economical solutions before we can elect an industry to be developed, and to do so, we know we need a lot of help. The problem has really two major categories: t) where and how can we put wastes into the ground economically and Ever con- clitions which win not jeopardize the rights of Others, especially in populated areas) and 2} what can we do with the large volume of wastes that have been and are yet to be produced at our production plants, particularly those which are being accumulated ~ urlder- ground tactics at the Hanford Works ~ the State of Washington. Al- n~ost every year appropriations must be made to build more and larger tanks, but this cannot go on forever. At least, we hope it w~11 not go on forever. We are looking to this group for more rational schemes directed toward disposal to the ground. Some of our difficulties have been described to the ocea~og- raphers and Marie biologists ~ meetings which Dr. Rena win re- ~new. They have given us good avarice: much of that Vivace indicates that we ought to consider further means of underground disposal. (Laughter) It seems to us, purely on the basis of economics, that ground disposal should be much cheaper than ocean disposal. After the representatives of our contractor once our operations and field officers have briefed you on the character of the wastes and the current arch foreseeable problems, we hope you win be able to make recommendations to us as to what methods have hope of berg reasonably elective, and what type of research and development should be carried out In order to evaluate these potentialities. . . j . The problem is extremely complex. It takes team work over a wide spectrum ~ order to put the problem before you In the proper light so that you may evaluate all aspects. If you can indicate to us the directions ~ which we should encourage research and develop- mez~t, we would be in a sound position to go to our budget people and ask for appropriations to study those approaches that have some probability of yielding positive solutions. It is no ordinary responsibility to take part In Me early phases of the growth of a new industry. :Looking backward] we know of the mistakes that may industries made ~ assuming that disposal of

OCR for page 12
~ - q 18. wastes was simply a backdoor problem that anybody could handle. But in this new atomic energy industry hazards are magnified greatly by the unique potentialities of the wastes. We have great hopes that as a result of your deliberations we can start an evaluation of the problem that w:H lead to final and eco- nomic disposal of high level radioactive wastes. Byf~nal, ~ mean returning those wastes to nature in some place where they can be held for very, very lon.g periods of time without jeopardy to our en- vironment or property. We know that we can extract from some of these waltzes certain long half-life raclioisotopes, but if this is done, you still have to keep a reasonable control over the use and storage of these materials. So the problem cannot be evaded by simply milk- ing the wastes of their highly objectionable constituents. I think, Dr. Hess, that is about all ~ want to say by way of ~n- troduction, because ~ know all of you are anxious to get down to the meat of the problem which those who follow me ~H be able to pre- sent to you. CHAIRMAN HESS Dr. Rem, of Joel Hopkins ~~l continue the introduction. Dr . Charie s Renn, Department of Sanitary Engineering & Water Resources, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore IS, Mci. DR. CHARLES REND: Five points were made at the most re- cent conference on ocean disposal of radioactive wastes which ~ think wall interest you. This meeting was held on June 22-24, at Woods Hole, MaS sachusetts. First, it is important to define the problem In terms of the volumes en c} characteristics of the different wastes so that the ocea- . . nographer can consider the variety of ways of disposing of materials In the seas. For example, the coastal waters above the midcile Atlantic continental shelf exchange, roughly, in a year and a half. This pro- v~des a relatively long growth interval for any crop to be ~ contact with wastes; there is a substantial hazard] to commercial fisheries if the waste material is released even In dilute form over the continental shelf .

OCR for page 12
19. That bungs up the question of dilution. A popular idea is that dilution is easy to obtain if you have large masses of water. How- if you have large masses of water. ever, the larger the masses of water. the more unpredictable the me charism of dilution b e come ~ . . ~ . . . . According to some evidence, saline wasted; ctumpect ~ me ocean wad move as thin horizontal layers thou- sands of times as rapidly as on the vertical pane, so that concentra- tion of high order win be maintained over this horizontal band. There is a great hazard of isotopic movement and concentration along these bands. Those who are familiar with the dilution of industrial waste in larger rivers and harbors know the tendency of these wastes to move In narrow and uncontrolled streams, particularly along the edges. It takes a special circumstance to malce available for dilution the I ill volume of a large mass of water. A' ' O a, our knowledge of the mum mechanisms ~ oceanic masses. a -lnere are fame cars In The question of sequestering waste ~ the ocean came up. Where it is important to note the value of detailed knowledge of the ocean Door and of the water column. ~ . e ~ ~ . ~ . ~ We have in the last ten years acqu~rect a very extensive Descry ot one vertical stratification of , , ~ water, but there are very few areas where the stations have been 8Ut- ficiently close together, and the measurements made with sufficient precision to accurately bound the water mass and determine the rate . , - . Of water exchange. The measurements are close together In the study ~ . ~ _ .~ ~ ~ t ~ . ot tone ~arrlnean ceeps, and Include recent, very precise measure- men1~s. These deeps have some ideal characteristics. The deep is bounded by a natural escarpment, and has a single entrance and exit. It allows the oceanographer to assay the rate at which water enters and leaves the area. There is possibility of complement, Ad it shouic3 be possible to predict the rate of eventual exchange ~ n this confined mass . . . A special hazard hack to be consiclered: when the heat content of pos sible waste. loads was exarn~ecI, the thermal stability of this area was form to be -- as far as we know -- very close to the limit required for containment. It win require a more careful analysis of the situation to be certain whether we can ~trocluce the heat at the bottom of the stratified water or not. - A very important point was brought up in Me discussion of the tendency of pl~ktoD!c organisms and their predators to concentrate .. .. . . ~ ~ ~ .. ~ . . the more active and troublesome sections at waste . For example, the long-life elements are taken up quite appreciably by filter-fee~ing plankton. We simply don't lmow what the rate of concentration beyond . . . ;:

OCR for page 12
20. the plankton forms would be. Presumably, at each stage of pro- cluction we would gab concentrations of acting r where initial con- centra;tions are high, and lose where initial concentrations are low. This represents a very considerable gap ~ our knowledge of the course of events following Dilution and dispersion of dissolved and suspended wastes ~ the ocean. But this is not ast insoluble problem. The oceanographer and the marine ecologist can make appro~ma- tions to determine theoretical standards for the allowable concentra- tion of isotopes. This would force the ecologist to examine aU the important variables Mat enter into the Marie en~riromnent. Me geologists presented an ~teresffng discussion of ground water: it was suggested that it might be possible to enter some ar- tesian aquifer that discharged at sea on the edge of the continental shelf. This would make it possible to introduce waste off the shelf into deep water without large disturbances. It woMd be much more convenient than transport by ocean vessel. The question of packaged waste was considered. A common concept that many specialists ~ the field of atomic waste disposal hare, and which has been considered at one time or another, is that packaged waste can be camped ~ the deep, and mat it Ant sink in ,% ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ the bottom oozes. A careful survey of 8UCh dung ground would be required. T'ne ideal condition a naturally enclosed area ~ which Acre is a deep bed of mud. Oceanographic ~d marsue geological research~dicates that suitable pockets of mud exact not far from shore on the Atlantic shelf, these would not involve deep sea opera- nons, but might affect commercial tifIneries. for example. those in . . . . ~ ~ , . _ the Gulf of Mae. ~ , The ace ~ographere are not ~~ agreement on rates of exchange between surface and deep ~ tere. One group represents The clew That the deep waters are roughly 2000 years old. The supposing data depend largely on carbon 14 measurements which are not wholly con- sistent. Another group contends that the rate of tourer of the deep is much more rapid, that the data from the oxygen distribution pattern d thermal stratification Silicates relatively rapid movement. This is a summary of the thinking in tile field. We were very happy Bleed to find that Me oceanographers had seriously worked over the material that was presented as raw data, and that a large amount of Diligent work had been done. They discussed the problems Rigorously, anti gene ratetl well developed philosophic s on the waste disposal problem.

OCR for page 12
21. DR. M. KING HUBBERT: Mr. Chairman, ~ wonts! like to refer to the "graybook" of March al, 1955. In New of the oceanographic discussions, ~ would like to comment on one statement that struck my attention: it was states] that if wastes were put in the deep water that they would have to be monitored by periodic observations, but that no major cable company would guarantee a cable two miles long for more than one or two tripe. . .. . - That statement struck me as berg odd, and ~ checked with the Schiumberger Company, who regularly lower things on cable s down of] weds as much as four miles deep, and ~ asked them what Me life of a cable is, and they s=d they are good for about 200 rou=~-trips. DR. RENT: ~ am glad you brought that up, Dr. Hubbert, be- cause one of the points made by a small group of r``en was this: that the situation as far as mo~tor~g is concerned has improved greatly. Fir at of aH, plastics have been developed which have low adsorption characteristics for fission products. Decode of signaling that per- mit a high degree of leakage have been developed, so that deep water systems would not become vulnerable to smaHIeake of seawater. Instrumentation is improving rapidly and the present emphasis is on Increasing the sensitivity of tile equipment. The conditions for hand- li~g sampling gear at sea differ from Close of of} well logging. The weights are greater, and there are sudden strams due to ship ;~6 boom heaving, with the newer signal systems, longer effective life of cables is possible, however. ~ .. CLAN HESS: Are Mere any other questions you would like to brag up while Dr . Rem is stiU here ~ DR. TRUMAN P. KOHMAN: ~ would like to ask a little more about getting material into We ocean from coasts Satiations. Were you referring to underwater? DR. RENT: This powt was discussed more ~ detail by Dr. Ewing. He offered it purely as a possibility. The question under dis- cussion at that time was how to get the waste across the continental shelf and out into deep ocean. His suggestion was simply that there must emit a number of strata which incline sea - "rd. below the sur- face of the continental shelf, and intercepting He continental slope. The density of the introduced waste being higher than salt water, it would force the stream mead and would eventually seep out below the edge of the shelf.

OCR for page 12
1 22. DR. KOHMAN: ~ other words, Were are no such erg rivers that flow underground ~ Me sea against the more dense salt water, but the idea is they would create one? DR. PENN: No, the implication was Mat these structures do exist. For example, ~ the Chesapeake Bay we have artesian sprigs, and the picture ~ get is that such inclined strata probably east and break through the siop~g faces of the shelf. CHAIRMAN HESS: Are there any other questions? If not, Dr. Christy, of Hanford, wiO teU us some of the prob- ~ems they have out there ~ waste disposal. ~ have to apologize to Dr. Christy. He did not loom he was conning to discuse Mere problems until a few days ago, and he didn't Ludlow he was going to be a speaker until lunchtime. Dr. Joseph T. Christy, Hanford. DR. JOSEPH T. CHRISTY: Hanford is Me name of an Atomic Energy Commission site ~ the nor~we~ern part of his country, on the..Columbia River . ~ southeastern Washington . A schematic break- . . . .. down of the operations wit! permit the presentation of a generalized New of She plants, withy the limitations of security classifications. . The Columbia hider forme one boundary of our site, and the reactors are along Me river. The major radioactive waste problem at Hanford does not involve We waters of the Columbia River which is sapped for nOwff`rough the reactors, and is returned to the river to dissipate heat generated ~ the reactor. The radic~~cti~ y is negli- gible because the water is not recirculated and there is no concentra- time of acti' r; fuzthermora, there is no significant contaniination by fuel elements from rupture. The major waste problems are ~ the chemical separations plants. Early Hanford consisted of reactors and three major chemical processing plants, of which only No were operated initially. A foyers plant was not completed except for waste tangle, and the third plant became a stand-by. At eac:h one of Mere plats, separate stor- age facilities were provided for many thousands of gallons of waste. Essentially Al of the waste from the initial plants -was stored, because ... .......

OCR for page 12
71. DR. HUBBERT: What I meant is that we are paying $14 per gallon for hauling lead. Now, if we cat" hold 100 times as many curies tenth the same load of lead we can cut this $14 per gallon. Even if we have to add a refrigerating unit we cut that down to a fraction of a dol- lar . cost . . DR. CULLER: This particular waste is Ready saturated with aluminum, and the dry aluminum concentrate occupies the same volume as the wet solution. DR. HUBBERT: The aluminum is not radioactive. Can we get rid of it? DR. CUL.L`ER: Yes. That $14 per gallon made us get rid of it. (L'aughter) DR. MacMURRAY: ~ would like to come to the rescue-of Dr. Morgan: liquid reactor waste costs $14 a gallon to ship. The discus- sion has moved on to talk of concentration and refrigeration, and to the removal of Humbug. DR. MORGAN: To carry it further, this was based on a freight car 40 feet ~ length, and it would hold three of these units. So the freight car load was about ~ 50 tons . DR. ROEDDER: If you loaded Mat Maine freight car with BlUgB what Louis be the equipment? DR. MORGAN: ~ don't think you can make a comparison. DR. ROE DDER: As to curies and slugs, I wondered the relative DR. MO-ROAN: ~ casmot give you that. Perhaps the answer lies along the lines of developing a specially constructed railroad car in the shape of ~ oilta~cer, completely shielded, with atube through the center and shielded at either end. DR. RUSSELL: Have you ever considered what would happen to the car ~ a tram wreck? DR. MORGAN: ~ am sure Hat the possibility of an accident has been on Mr. Gorman's mind.

OCR for page 12
72. DR . HE:DMAN: What is the basis- for your 50 tons ? DR. MORGAN: Conformity Etch the existing I.C.C. regulations. DR.-WATKINS: It seems probable that with a homogeneous re- actor, the disposal facilities are to be at the site; with a heterogeneous reactor, the processing plant can be at some distance from the reactor. DR. CULLER: ~ don't think that is true. The homogeneous re- actor materials can be shipper} just as can the heterogeneous elements. The peaces sing on the heterogeneous system consists of drawing a small amount off the reactor, arid shipped it as the reactor fuel ele- ment, ~ suspect. It has a higher potential of spillage than does a metal container, but you are not shipping thousands of gallons. In the homo- geneous system you do not withdraw uranium; you withdraw fission products, and from the external core. The cycle or turnover time for the core is about 270 days, and the amount of material that we have to take out per day may be in the neighborhood of 100 to 200 1itres. The liquid might be transported ~ relatively small Volumes, or as a dry solid. It is necessary to bow off heavy water Ad rehire it to the homo- geneous system before the stuff drawn off the reactor leaves the plant. We probably would be transporting dry sodium oracle. DR. RUSSELL: That would be at high temperature ? . DR. CURVIER: At a high temperature in a coolly system. DR. HUBBERT: It seems to me we have been very premature indeed Awe come to any conclusion that the waste can~otbe trans- ported. The difficulties are great and the costs appear high but ad- niitte~ythe estimates are sub3ectto many modifications and are based on "adequate data. There are enmesh ounortanities for corrections . and improvements, therefore, the imposition of limiting suppositions may seriou';ly jeopardize the usefulness of the committee. DR. CLAUS: ~ our committee work should we consider prima- rily our immediate problem, and by immediate ~ mean the next ten to twenty years, or should we consider it in terms of the vast quantities that have been discussed in connection tenth possible production by the year 2000? Furthermore, should we think primarily ~ terms of prob- lems ~ the United States, or should we take a wider ~new? England, for example, expects to have a large number of reactors and some are us der construction. Their waste disposal plain; are unknown to most , - . .. . ..

OCR for page 12
- ; :d ~ - 73 ~ of us at the conference, and it should be kept ~ mind that England's problems are world problems just as ours are, and any thoughts we might have on the disposal of waste from England will also be of bene- fit to us. :- & CHAIRMAN HESS: ~ think it would be difficult to consicler con- struction outside the Uniter} State`;. Construction of reactors and dis- posal of waste in most countries will probably follow the pattern set by the originators. There is nobody here who knows enough of the geol- ogy of out-of-the-way places to give intelligent data. A lot of people here are familiar with many parts of the United States, so we can come to rather specific conclusions about many places, whereas ~ don't know that we are competent to tackle the geology of England from our pro- fessiollal experience, and whatever we do here, except for Englantl, will probably be followed in over countries. We can find solutions for the condition'; ~ the United States and we can work out analogous solu- tions for over areas ~ Me future. ~ think we have sufficient diversity within the United States to meet any conditions any other country would face. ~ don't tank we should discuss Outside meat. DR. LACK Y: Such things as costs and amortization would be considerations ~ competitive Emus try or would be handled by fairly adbstanti~ go~rerament subsidy. ~ propose we omit these items ~d think of the technolog'zc~ feasibility of the solutions to the problems nearest to us. If solutions are found, Me costs win be clealt Off Me norms development of the industry. CHAIRMAN H11:SS: ~ think that is right, for we will not have cost figures for the mews of disposal that we suggest. DR. ABELSON: On the other hand, if the cost of disposal is more - --t}~an the Court of storage in tanks, it is not a good solution.. -I- DR. G. F. JEANS: ~ would like to add that the Union Carbide Companyis deeply~nterested On these consideration'; as a priorate firm. We are working Inch practically Apache power reactor groups =~ designs ofchen~calprocess~ng plants to purity reactor fuels. The variations are certainly complex: Lathe government reactor prograxn Here are -~about five kinds ofreactors, and He A.~.C.is encouraging He devel- opmentofnew types oireactors. There is no advantage In building -just one kind, so the physicists, the meta~ur~sts, and The mechanical engineers are being encouraged to develop new reactor designs, new reactor arrangements, and new metallurgical Buoys. For example,

OCR for page 12
74. the Detroit Allison Company is interested ~ t he fast breeder reactor using alloys containing only a small amount of fissionable material; _ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~~ . in. . ~ ~ ~ . , In order to run me system al one maximum ez~clency, Ryan 18, 10 breed, the fuel is to be purified at a high rate. The problem is not just to rid the fuel of the fission products, but also to process rapidDy so as to minimize the inventory costs of fissionable uranium. It takes a lot of reactors to retake it economical to run a chemical processing plant; but on the other hand, aU of the different reactor plants must have some on-the-site purification ~ order to cut clown the amount of ire uranium. Then the slags or the concentrated form of the fission products containing a minimum of uranium will be shipped to a central face ity where it is econorn~c lo recover one remaking uranium . The only reason we have the waste is because we are treating the fission products to recoverer the U 235 or Me U 233 or the Plutonium 239. If none of these material were ~ the fission products then there would be no interest In them at the present time. However, we are interested In Me radioisotopes because they are potentially valuable raw materiels. Throughout our corporation we are encouraging re- search in applications as a form of investigation distinct from research In separation and recovery. We want to encourage research In applica- tions to such fields as Ploys, gases, carbons, chemicals, plastics, and rest, ~d we are trying to build up withy our corporation an ap- preciation of the need for the utilization of Obese materials, so that Bateau of a waste disposal problem we are con~rert~g it into a raw ma- terial problem. We are, therefore, In favor of disposal ~ such a way that the material is not lost but is retained somewhere so that ~ the next Eve or ten years it can be recovered and put to use; that is what would like to suggest at the present time. We have given a lot of thought to the methods developed at Brookhaven and other laboratories where the materials are treated ~ nc~t-too-<]ilute form so that the val- uable components~caD be put to some future use. .. . - ;~ ,1 ..! DR. CLAUS: To what extent may we actually consider it feasible to remove strontium and cesiurn? ~ think~chis was discussed very en- thusiastically yesterday as something that might be done easily, and yet ~ understand that we have not yet reached the stage where it can be extracted from waste streams ~ a reasonable useable manner. It makes a difference what kind of disperse can be applied to the rem~- ~g material. If these elements are not present, the degree of hazard is so much less, that you have a different way of thinking about the re- m~g wastes than if the cesium and strontium are present. ~ Clinic this ought to be clarified before we Mink seriously about what to do with the remaining material.

OCR for page 12
75. CHAIRMAN HESS: It seems to me from the discussion that you have a reasonable chance of taking these two elements out at some future time, say five years hence, so it won't be much of a problem after that period. But it certainly is a problem at present. I think we should consider both alternatives and have multiple solutions. ~ think ~ would agree there certainly is a clisposal problem. The waste we have on hand is not being disposed of, in ally strict sense, and it is something to worry about. There also win be a waste prob- lem with us until the chemical processing and reactor treatments have been stabilized on a product that can be dealt with easily. But for the . . . Immediate tuture, extending lo many years, wastes wait constitute a serious problem. It is an encouraging possibility that ~ the future people can produce wastes that can be gotten rid of more easily than the present material. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES The Steering Comsnittee wishes to study the Waste problem from two pouts of view and, therefore, this group should be separated into subcommittees to consider each one. One approach involves disposal at great depth us~gtech~iques like those used~ disposing of oil field brined;; the other approach iB relatively shaHow disposal such as is berg employed at Oak Ridge and Hanford. The goal is an evaluation of the efficiency, the hazards, and the practical methods of resolving, the mOi~ndual problems. Dr. Hubbert has agreed to be the Chairman of the Committee on deep disposal, am] the Committee on near-surface disposal wall be headed by Dr. Joh Frye. From the long List of Par- ticipants, each committee chairman has selected a few names to make up a nucleus; the remaining members on this fist wall be left to di~nde themselves a'; they see fit, In keeping with their individual Steve sts ~c] specializations. Those selected for the Surface Committee are as follows: Benson, Claus, Frye , Goldich, Hunt, Ingerson, Jenlcins, IJatta, Coofbourow, Theis, Thomas. Those selected for the Deep Committee are as follows: Culler, Den~son , Ferris, Garrels, GiOuly, Hubbert , Hunter, Thurston, acid Wakens . an.. ~ 6 The committee s will meet ~d proceed immediately . ... Whereupon, at 10:50 o'clock, the meeting adjourned

OCR for page 12
76. MONDAY MORNING SESSION September 12, 1955 The meeting convened at 9:15 o'clock, Dr. Hess presiding. CHAPMAN HESS: This will probably be our final session of this conference. We wall hear the reports of Me work done and cos~- clusions reached yesterday by the two committees. At the end of the reports we win have a general discussion, anci then acI.,ourn. The Grit report will be by DO. Hubbert. Dr. M. King Hubbert Chief Consultant, General Geology &elf Oil Company Box 2099 Houston I, Texas DR. HUBBERT: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The committee to look into the possibility of deep waste disposal ~ permeable rocks met yesterday afternoon and reviewed He problem. We decided on two premises for our discussions: one, that the disposal should be safe; and, two, that we MUIR formulate basic principles governing disposal during what we hope win be orclerly ~d rational development of the Poultry ~ the future. ~ ogler to obtain a clearer idea of the magnitude of the waste- dispos=1 problem, the following calculation was made: Suppose that begiruiing ~ ~960, nuclear power-were produced at ~ rate eq~ to the present entire power output of the United States, and the waste products diluted to the extent of 50 gallons of water per gram of :Eission products, were injected] underground into a sandstone 100 feet thick, having 20 percent porosity, what would be the area of the Band that would be fined with waste products by the year 2000? At <~the meeting an approximate calculation was made, and the following are the slightly revised results: The present power output of the United States is about 4.~ x ~0~ kw-hr/yr (l 08 kw at a load factor of 0.54). The quantity of U-235 requ~recl would be 84 metric tons per year, and the diluted wastes would amount to 100 million (42-g~) barrels per year. By the year 2000 the area occupied by tibe wastes would be 40

OCR for page 12
77. square miles, or a square of 6,3 miles to the side -- the size of a large oil field. For comparison, ~ the East Texas oil field, 100 million barrels of water per year are currently being injected through 58 wells with 7-~nch casings. Eight wells take over 10,000 barrels per day each without pumping. Since structural basins this size, or much larger, are abunciant, it is concluded that the deep underground disposal of wastes for a long time to come would involve operations which are small as compares] with those of the petroleum industry. The various other phases of the deep disposal question were dis- cussed in considerable detail by the committee, and finally a subcom- mi~ee drew up a summary of the conclusions which were approved and read as follows: The committee has accepted as premises Me following: A. That the nuclear waste, if ';tored underground, should be isolated as permanently as possible from contact with sieving organisms; B. That the nuclear waste may be stored ocher conditions where it nedd not be recovered; C. ticular ~nsta~ation. That We disposal of waste is a specie problem for each par- However, it is concluded that certain general principles should guide the selection of methods of disposal: - I. Thistle liquids containing the nuclear waste shallhave a greater specific gravity when ~ntroclucec! into the reservoir the the liquids already present ~ the reservoir; 2. That me liquids shall be stored underground preferably where they will remain under essentially static conditions; 3 . That the introduction of the flus ds into Me bottom of structural basins is one means of satisfying effectively this condition 4. That adequate monitoring of *te distribution of nuclear waste within the reservoir be provided by appropriate observation wells,

OCR for page 12
78. which could also serve as sources of diluent; 5. That prior to the introduction of nuclear waste liquids into the reservoir, We problems of heat dissipation, clogging of reservoir space, and chemical reaction with the reservoir rock and fluids be evaluated. CHAIRMAN HESS: Does anyone wish to discuss this report or offer any amen~nents? If not, ~ will caJ1 on Dr. John Frye to present the report of the committee on surface disposal. Dr. John C. Frye Chief, State Geological Survey Urbana, I~inois DR. FRYE: The committee on the stucly of shallow disposal recommends: I. Disposal of waste materials ~ solic] form is preferable to any suggested methods of disposal of liquids. The most desirable form appears to be a stinter or brick ~ which the fission products are faced. In this form the material can be disposed of ~ shaHow covered trenches In many places. Seconc] choice would be waste materials evaporated to dryness, solids but soluble. Such materials could be packaged ~ metal containers and stored ~ shallow noises or under- grounc] vaults that are relatively dry. If feasible, different elements shouic! be packages} separately. It seems highly desirable that research along both of Mere lines be pursuecl as rapidly as possible. 2. Until concentration In solid foam becomes" feasible, disposal of Squid wastes at relatively shaHow depths may be possible under cer- ta~r. conditions. 'Shadow" proved to be a slight misnomer, because in considering mines, depths as great as 6,000-7,000 Ret were contemplated. How- ever, most of Me exca~raHone are relatively shallow ~ comparison to deep disposal methods considered by the over group. The work of the committee was conce~ratet1 on item 2, and a large range of geologic en~nromnents were studied. Many of these ge- ologic environments were discarded by the comzn~ttee as unsuited for Me hippo sal of liquids, but ~ order to record the Poe sibiliti;e 8 that were

OCR for page 12
79. discussed, it seems amusable to outline the various environments . . conslaerea. I. Excavations a. ~ crystaD~ne rocks b. In permeable sedimentary rocks c. In argillaceous rocks, such as shale and clay pits. 2. Infiltration In permeable, near-surface beds a. Above the water table b. Below the water table. - 3. Uncierground openings a. Nature caverns b. Abandoned ore mines c. Specially prepared workings. O 4. Sat beds, salt domes, abandoned salt mines, and related geologic structures. The consensus of the corurnittee was that several of these env,- onrnents might be feasible but more information was needed. The order of feasibility ~ which the committee arranged these various en~nromnents was as follows: fin deterrnin~ng this order we did not get a unanimous Rote Ed the consensus of the committee was estimated) First: mat domes ~ salt beds ~ abandoned salt mines ~ and storage ~ cavities excavated ~ salt below the surface but not necessarily near the base of the local stratigraphic section. This would use an en~nron- ment that has relatively wale distribution ~ the United States, both In coastal areas and at many places In the interior. It was pointed out that the development of cavities In salt is very cheap. The figure ranges from Free to six dollars per barrel for cavities for the storage of hy- drocarbons . How these figures can be translated into ~;pecia~y prepared cavities for this type of waste disposal is another question. For this general type of disposal several lines of research are indicated: (a) laboratory stud' calf salt under conditions of heat and pressure in contact with these liquids; ace {b) heat-transfer considerations.

OCR for page 12
80 ~ The second priority was storage ~ especially prepared excava_ tions ~ shale at depth. The experience record comes from cavities that have been prepared at a number of places for storage of hydro- carbosts in very recent years. Some of the advantages are that rela- tively thick shale beds are scattered widely over the United States; there are sites that probably could be obtained for this use near sev- eral of the existing ~sSaHations as wed as potential future sites. _ .. .. . . ~ Furthermore, the cost z~ low. When we use as a basis of cost evalua- tion the operations now under way for the storage of hydrocarbons, figures ranging from $3 to $7 per barrel were cited as representative of the cost for the preparation of this type of underground cantor. The research needed here is study of the stability of shale ~ Me presence of these particular aqueous solutions. The third order of preference -- and on this particular item there was considerable diversity of opinion -- was infiltration into particular low-permeable beds with ~ mutable high clay content for the fixing of these materials in place. This infiltration above the grater table bears some similarity to the Hanforc! operation as it was cles- cribed, but with certain modifications. The needed research indicated here was (a) study of the hydrodynamic profile of the systems (b) clevel- opment of proper tracer for water; (c) study of behavior of a suitably simulate c] 'solution to determine exchange characteristics; and, of course, (~) highly detailed ~`re';tigations of water-table fluctuations in any area that might be considered for his type of disposal. It shouic! be pouter} out that only those areas with low water table, which would largely limit his matter to some of the western areas, wouic] be usable. . - The fourth order of preference was deep, abancloned flay relines. It was the consensus calf opinion that if a proper dry Mae couch be lo- cated it niightbe a very feasible method of disposal, but that such mines would be extremely difficult to come by and niight very weD not be In file vicinity of any site where they would be needed. If such a structure could be located, it was Chic ate d that some research would be needed on heat-dissipa~don problems under the particular conditions obtaining that Mae. The fish and last category that was judged to be worthy of consid- eratioD. was disposal in properly covered shale and clay pits on the sur- face. The consensus was that at the present state of knowledge, it is not a desirable means of di';pos~g of high petrel wasted;, but that it would be desirable to have continued research on base exchange and self-sealing characters :m the hope that tili8 method might become fea- sible for high-level waste ~ the future e Research on self-seal~ng 6 ., ., , #,, .

OCR for page 12
81. possibilities indicated In this area midget also have applicability in several other areas or methods of relatively shMIow disposal. CHAIRMAN HESS: Thank you, Dr . Frye . Does anyone wish to comment on this report^ You: win notice that the tasks as given out were changed some- what after the committees got to work. "Deep'' and "shallow" do not apply any more. Someone wanted to know what we meant by deep and shallow. The first committee did not comment on how deep they considered deep, but ~ would Wink it would mean 1000 to lO, 000 feet for the dis- pc~sal of materials underground. DR. HUBBERT: ~ think Me consensus was that deep means as- deep- as-pos sible . (L`aughter) CHAIRMAN EDi:SS: What is deep to a geologist may seem very deep to a non-geologist or not deep at all. DR. HUBBERT: We can say ten or fifteen thousand feet is thor- oughly practical, although in many cases depths of 5,000 to 10,000 feet ,- or even le ~ a, may be satisfactory . The conference was adjourned at 1 1 :30 ae m - .