MANAGEMENT
OF
FROM COMMERCIAL
RADIOACTIVE
NUCLEAR
VIRGIL
163
E,
WASTES
POWER
JONES
PLANTS
MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
FROM COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Submitted to:
Professor Frank Ski H e r n
for:
Problems in Environmental
by:
Virgil E. Jones
5-4-79
Law
MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
FROM
COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Nuclear Energy!
These two words possess an inherent capacity
for stimulating emotional responses.
Few p e o p l e , when asked to
comment on their feelings regarding the use of nuclear energy for
commercial power g e n e r a t i o n , remain noncommittal.
Most will
align
themselves with one of the diametrically opposing views of its
virtues or its dangers.
During the past three deca-des the development of our advanced
nuclear technology has produced a legacy of radioactive waste
materials which will retain the potential to affect future generations for thousands of y e a r s .
At no time in man's previous
history
has he possessed a capability to affect the future as he does
today.
The outcomes of those decisions which are made and the
directions taken during the remainder of this century regarding
the use of nuclear energy will influence energy policy in the
forthcoming
centuries.
With society having access to such a God-like p o w e r , it is
difficult to comprehend the public's general naivety
this country's entire nuclear program.
concerning
E v i d e n t l y , people find
themselves overwhelmed by a f o r c e , trapped within an atom which is
too small to s e e , but which has such awesome power that it can be
used to destroy a city or to light its s t r e e t s , to kill outright
or to locate cavities in one's teeth, or to either cause the development of cancers or to destroy them.
Until the recent wave of
s k e p t i c i s m , the attitude of individuals has been one of trusting
165
2
w i t h o u t question to scientists and engineers w h a t they themselves
could not understand.
With the emergence of organized groups who question the
various aspects of our nuclear p r o g r a m s , public awareness and
understanding of nuclear energy has greatly improved.
This is
especially true with regard to the use of nuclear energy for the
production of electricity.
As the public has become more know-
ledgeable of this issue, its attitudes have shifted.
This shift
can be seen when reviewing the results of public opinion polls
which dealt with issues related" to nuclear power plants.
A summary
(1) of an analysis of such polls conducted between 1960 and 1976
points out that in 1960 only 6% of those people surveyed had any
reservations about the use of nuclear power for generating electricity.
Half of those who did oppose its use did so because o f
concern about its safety.
The remaining opponents gave reasons for
their beliefs dealing with either economic r e a s o n s , such as the
cost of electricity and the loss of j o b s , or just their satisfaction
w i t h the then present system.
More recent surveys taken during
1975 and 1976 found an increased percentage of the public (from 19
to 3 5 % , depending on survey) who opposed the use of nuclear p o w e r .
When this group was asked to comment on its reasons for o p p o s i t i o n 5
the majority referred to some aspect of the operational
of the reactor itself.
safety
H o w e v e r , national surveys during the same
general time frame (1974, 1975) which asked the participant to
pick the most serious of a list of known problems associated with
nuclear power plants (various safety features as well as the
disposal of nuclear w a s t e s ) , approximately 50% picked nuclear w a s t e
*
1 t;'Cl
3
disposal as a serious problem.
In f a c t , this response occurred
twice as often as the next most common response.
A similar
reaction was obtained in a 1975 survey (2) in which 67% of those
questioned felt that the disposal of radioactive wastes was a
serious problem.
The public is thus shown to recognize the
problem of managing radioactive wastes as being a serious
one,
but evidently the public believes it to be a solvable p r o b l e m ,
and as such does not think it should stand in the way of the
development of commercial nuclear power.
Regardless of one's personal convictions on the issue of
using nuclear power in commercial generating p l a n t s , it must be
realized that from the time the first commercial reactor became
operational
in 1957, radioactive waste materials from such sources
have been accumulating.
These wastes must be managed in a manner
which will protect the environment from their potentially harmful
effects.
This paper presents information on the e n v i r o n m e n t a l ,
t e c h n o l o g i c a l , and legal requirements for the safe management of
radioactive waste materials.
No attempt will be made to include
information dealing directly with those wastes produced by either
this country's defense system or any foreign
government's.
L i k e w i s e , information will be restricted to those radioactive
wastes associated with operational systems which are presently in
use.
}V
I
4
j.OJL
RADIATION AND ITS BIOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
To appreciate the problems which are involved with managing
radioactive w a s t e s , one must be familiarized with the physical
process of r a d i o a c t i v i t y , the materials comprising the w a s t e ,
and how these factors interact with biological
forms.
Radiation
is an often misunderstood term which conjures up mental images of
nuclear w a r , lingering d e a t h , and total destruction.
In r e a l i t y ,
radiation is a physical activity defined (3) as "the process of
emitting radiant energy in the form of waves or particles".
R a d i a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , merely dissipates energy from regions of
overabundance.
Sunlight is the most familiar example of radiant
waves or electromagnetic radiation.
Without this incoming
e n e r g y , life as we know it could not exist on the e a r t h .
not all radiation is beneficial.
radiant
However,
Just as too long of an exposure
of sensitive skin to full sunlight will cause a " b u r n " , overexposure to other forms of radiation can also produce harmful
effects.
Radiation given off by radioactive substances consists of
alpha and beta particles as well as gamma rays (4).
Alpha
particles are nothing more than the nuclei of helium atoms
(two
protons in combination with two n e u t r o n s ) , and as such carry a
double positive charge.
These particles possess between three and
nine MeV — of kinetic e n e r g y , but due to their large size compared
to other atomic particles and double charge they are very r e a c t i v e ,
and thus do riot penetrate deeply into matter before dissipating
their energy.
A single sheet of newsprint is of sufficient
— MeV (million electron volts) is an expression of the
quantity of energy possessed,
thickness
5
j.OJL
to allow only a f e w , if a n y , alpha particles to pass through
Beta particles consist of either an emitted electron
beta decay) or positron
a single charge.
it.
(negative
(positive beta d e c a y ) , and as such carry
These particles possess a maximum of only 2.95
MeV of kinetic e n e r g y , but because of their single charge and small
size they are less reactive than alpha particles and thus, can
penetrate matter to a greater d e p t h .
Gamma rays are electromag-
netic radiation and possess neither mass nor charge.
They are the
least reactive of the radioactive decay particles a n d , t h e r e f o r e ,
the most penetrating.
One must now apply this rudimentary knowledge of the forms in
which radiant energy may be encountered in assessing its potential
effects to biological systems.
The first prerequisite in doing
this is to realize that life on this planet has and will
continue
to be bombarded with a continual incidence of background
radiation
from three principle sources (5).
The first of these comes from
cosmic s o u r c e s , primarily in the form of cosmic rays and their
derivatives.
The quantity of radiation obtained from this source
is directly proportional to one's location on the earth with regard
to altitude and latitude.
Since the atmosphere absorbs a high
percentage of the cosmic rays which intercept the earth and the
earth's magnetic field deflects such r a d i a t i o n , a much lower
quantity of radiation reaches the earth's surface near the equator
at sea level than at either higher altitudes or latitudes.
Naturally occurring radionuclides comprise the second source of
background radiation.
Radiation from these natural sources has
remained relatively stable through t i m e , and as life forms have
6
evolved they have adapted to this normal occurrence of radiation
and can cope with its effects.
The third source contributing to
our present background radiation levels is man m a d e .
testing of nuclear devices has
Atmospheric
released large quantities of
radioactive materials into the environment.
Although such fallout
is distributed w o r l d - w i d e by atmospheric m o v e m e n t s , it tends to
concentrate in areas where precipitation intercepted the initial
radioactive c l o u d , or along the windward side of high mountain
ranges.
These man-made contaminants are present in sufficient
concentrations in the mountains of Colorado so that the altitude,
at which an animal once lived can be established by determining
the quantity of fallout materials concentrated in its organs.
Other
man-made radiation sources include X-ray m a c h i n e s , color T V ' s ,
nuclear r e a c t o r s , and other common items in our society.
level of background radiation is increased by man's
As the
activities,
the assurance that biological systems can continue to overcome its
effects is lessened.
When an organism is exposed to r a d i a t i o n , those particles
and waves which penetrate its being dissipate their energy in one
of two w a y s .
or excited.
Individual atoms of the organism are either ionized
Excitation refers to the process whereby an electron
is moved from its normal orbit to an orbit at a higher energy l e v e l .
In a biological s e n s e , ionization is by far a more
important
process since it involves the removal of one or more orbital
electrons from an atom and thereby changes the charge which the
atom normally p o s s e s s e s .
An atom in such a "charged" state may
either combine with other atoms in unnatural groupings or disassociate itself from those atoms to which it was a t t a c h e d .
,jt
1
y - i
/I*
If such
7
a rearrangement occurs in an important e n z y m e , m e m b r a n e ,
genetic s t r u c t u r e , serious consequences can result.
or
It is well
to r e a l i z e , h o w e v e r , that in the vast majority of cases in which
a serious cellular abnormality does o c c u r , the abnormality is
lethal to only the single cell involved.
Few of the total
number
of abnormalities which may be produced are ever transmitted
forwards
in t i m e , but there is little comfort in knowing that most of the
cells which could have caused one's affliction died before being
able to do so.
The density of ionization -along the pathway taken by radiation
is important in determining what effects may occur to that
organism.
As discussed e a r l i e r , alpha particles react readily
with matter and h e n c e , dissipate their energy over a very short
distance.
This tends to "bunch" the ionization which they cause
within a small a r e a .
Gamma r a y s , on the other h a n d , dissipate
their energy over a much greater d i s t a n c e , which enables the
ionization they cause to be spread over a much greater a r e a .
particles produce ion densities which are intermediate
the other density patterns.
Beta
between
If cellular damage from ionization is
localized within a tissue or organ and enough damage is d o n e , the
function of that tissue or organ may be impaired.
On the other
e x t r e m e , even a single ionization, if occurring in a genetic
structure within an egg or sperm c e l l , could conceivably produce a
mutated offspring.
Exactly how radiation will affect an organism can never be
predicted with complete accuracy.
A whole body dosage (6) of from
250-450 rad —
(0.5 rad the present maximum allowable annual
d o s a g e ) is generally considered to be lethal in m a n .
Smaller
d o s e s , h o w e v e r , can produce latent effects such as bone d i s o r d e r s ,
c a t a r a c t s , i n f e r t i l i t y , m u t a t i o n s , and a general decrease in life
expectancy.
Biological dangers associated with radiation exposure are
greatly increased
if the subject radionuclei gains entry into the
body of the o r g a n i s m .
For e x a m p l e , an alpha emitting
substance
w h o s e radiation when external from the body would not penetrate
the numerous layers of skin becomes a strong ionizing force when
within the body.
This is especially true if incorporated in body
tissue where it can constantly bathe the surrounding cells with
radiation.
N e w , rapidly growing cells are known to be much more sensitive to radiation than mature cells.
This principle explains w h y
radiation can be used to destroy malignancies in humans but also
why radiation is a greater risk to fetuses or young children who
have a much higher proportion of y o u n g , rapidly growing cells than
do a d u l t s .
This is the reason that expectant mothers and young
children were asked to temporarily move from the immediate area
of the Three Mile Island Reactor near H a r r i s b u r g , P e n n s y l v a n i a ,
when radioactive gases were being emitted from the damaged
reactor.
Regardless of cell a g e , some cells have been found to be
e s p e c i a l l y sensitive to radiation while others are extremely
resistant.
L y m p h o c y t e s , s p e r m a t o g o n i a , and erythroblasts
2/
— A unit of absorbed dosage for any ionizing radiation.
One rad equals 100 ergs absorbed per gram of any substance.
9
(precursor to red blood cells) of mammals are extremely sensitive
to radiation (7).
Dosages as low as 5 rad can produce adverse
effects in these c e l l s , whereas the single celled organism,
Paramecium, can survive dosages of over 300,000 rad (8).
Biolo-
gists do not know why such discrepancies exist.
Probably the most frightening aspect of radiation exposure
is the risk of unknown latent effects,
A summary of data (9)
pertaining to low dosage exposure of humans to radiation exemplifies such latent effects by presenting data showing that children
of mothers who received from three to five pelvic x-rays during
pregnancy were twice as likely to develop leukemia by age ten as
were children of non-x-rayed mothers.
Likewise, exposure of a
fetus to only 80 mr (.08 rad) in the first trimester doubled the
risk of cancer for that child.
Associated directly with the
nuclear power industry was the reported increase in infant mortality
near three boiling water reactors.
This increase was felt to be
linked with the radioactive waste gases being released into the
atmosphere during normal operations of these plants.
Other evidence
presented suggests a relationship between exposure to low doses
of radiation and premature births, an increased incidence of
respiratory diseases, and congenital birth defects.
In addition to the well-known radiation hazard associated
with nuclear waste materials is the extreme toxicity of the transuramic elements (those elements with an atomic number greater
than uraniurn—-usually man-made).
These heavy m e t a l s , of which
the most notorious is plutonium, are more dangerous from a standpoint of toxicity than of radiation.
M
1
HH
/O
Plutonium, as an example,
10
can enter the body via the food w e e a t , the air we b r e a t h e , or
by skin absorption.
Its dangers were emphasized by T . B. Taylor
(10) as follows:
On a scale of lethal doses it is at least 20,000
times m o r e toxic than cobra venom or potassium cyanide
and 1,000 times more toxic than any modern nerve gas.
An individual can safely absorb no more than one tenmillionth of a gram in his l i f e t i m e , and inhaled as
dust in a quantity no larger than a p i n h e a d , it is
deadly. Within a few days it will cause death from
lesions in lung tissue and lesser dosages result in
cancer over a longer period of time.
Biological
responses to radiation a r e , t h e r e f o r e , dependent on
1) the type of radiation emitted (i.e., a l p h a , b e t a , or gamma
r a y ) , 2) the type of exposure (i.e., external or internal),
3) the length of e x p o s u r e , 4) the half-life of radionuclides,
and 5) the biological effects due to causes other than radiation
( i . e . , toxicity of transuramic elements).
WASTES ASSOCIATED WITH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Nuclear power plants are similar to conventional
thermal
plants except that rather than using a fossil fuel they utilize
fissionable e l e m e n t s , usually uranium 235 (11) in a controlled
chain reaction as a heat source.
This chain reaction is continued
by the absorption of neutrons by the nuclei of a fissionable
element.
The resulting "heavy" nuclei are not stable and release
the extra energy by either disintegrating
into parts plus addi-
tional neutrons (fission), or by the less frequent release of
gamma rays.
As the fission products collide with
surrounding
m a t t e r , their kinetic energy is transformed into heat.
This is
the heat that is extracted from the reactor core in the form of hot
water.
13
In the ordinary combustion of a fuel s o u r c e , various
compounds are produced which can be collectively called waste
materials.
N u c l e a r chain reactions proceed one step
further.
Not only do they produce waste compounds; they also create new
elements and isotopes of both the common and new elements.
of these products are not stable and undergo spontaneous
Many
radio-
active d e c a y , with the rate of decay being unique to each.
The
rate at which this decay occurs determines the length of time
that the substance remains radioactive and h e n c e , the time span
over which we must consider its m a n a g e m e n t .
Radioactive decay is not a linear function with respect to
time.
A given period of time is required for one-half of the
total number of radionuclei to d e c a y .
The same length of time
is then required for one-half of the remaining nuclei to d e c a y ,
and so forth until all have decayed to a stable s t a t e .
Half-life
is the term used to refer to the time necessary for one-half of
the radioactivity of a substance to decay.
Typical
half-lives
associated with nuclear waste materials range from seconds to
thousands of y e a r s .
Sixteen common radionuclides found in
waste materials produced by nuclear power plants are presented
as Appendix A with their approximate
half-lives.
Three basic categories of radioactive waste materials are
produced by commercial
tions.
nuclear power plants during normal
opera-
These consist of 1) structural m a t e r i a l s , disposable
e q u i p m e n t , potentially contaminated protective c l o t h i n g , paper
p r o d u c t s , e t c . , 2) radioactive g a s e s , and 3) spent fuel
j.OJL
assemblies.
12
As the n u c l e a r chain reaction takes place within the core
of the r e a c t o r , t h e structural material of the reactor itself
and its shielding is bombarded with radiation.
Over a reactor's
lifespan this b o m b a r d m e n t produces an induced radioactivity in
these structural m a t e r i a l s .
Pieces of disposable equipment ranging
from tools, the p r o t e c t i v e clothing worn by plant p e r s o n n e l , and
paper products such as the filters used in the cooling
may be c o n t a m i n a t e d .
not compromise the
systems
All of these materials must be managed to
environment.
Radioactive g a s e s such as T r i t i u m , Iodine, K r y p t o n , and
Xenon (12) are e m i t t e d into the atmosphere from nuclear power
p l a n t s , with the q u a n t i t y being dependent upon the type of
reactor involved.
O f the 72 (13) commercial nuclear power plants
operating in this c o u n t r y , practically all are light water
reactors (LWR).
transfer
T h i s means that ordinary water is used to
heat a w a y from the core of the reactor.
The majority
of these L W R 1 s are o f the pressurized water type (14) and as such
employ a highly p r e s s u r i z e d water system (primary loop) to transfer heat from the c o r e to a secondary water system (secondary
from which steam TS generated for use in the turbines.
loop)
With this
type of system the w a t e r in the secondary loop never enters the
core of the r e a c t o r .
This is unlike the boiling water reactor
which has only one water loop in which as the steam is condensed
into water it is r e c y c l e d into the core and heated into steam
again.
Pressure t y p e reactors release a much smaller total
amount
of radioactive g a s e s into the atmosphere (15) than does the boiling
water type.
The t w o loop system prevents the w a t e r which is
13
transformed into steam from ever entering the reactor core where
radioactive gases and other substances leached from the fuel
assemblies are a c c u m u l a t e d .
Attempts at removing dissolved
gases from the w a t e r in either or both systems are not completely
successful and some gases do escape into the a t m o s p h e r e .
emissions under normal operations do not exceed limits
under federal
These
established
regulations.
NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT
Nuclear power plants are designed to have a usable lifespan
of from 30 to 40 y e a r s .
This being the c a s e , no utility company
has as y e t been forced to decommission an entire reactor c o m p l e x .
H o w e v e r , a number of the original power plants have either
reached or exceeded the halfway point of their expected
and will soon have to be decommissioned.
lifespans
Changes in the regula-
tions governing the level of allowable emissions or which
reactor designs are acceptable could hasten obsolescence if
changes to present equipment cannot be economically m a d e .
There
is also the possibility that a nuclear power plant can be damaged
to such an extent that repair or salvage is impossible.
The
recent accident involving the Three Mile Island Reactor may well
force its permanent closure.
If this is the c a s e , Consolidated
Edison will be forced to decommission the plant at a time when
there are few alternatives for handling radioactive w a s t e s , no
experience at d e c o m m i s s i o n i n g , and little or no tested methodology
to follow.
Regardless of the method used, which presently would
j.OJL
14
include only mothballing or e n t o m b m e n t , the task will
undoubt-
edly be a multi-million dollar venture.
The methods presently employed to manage
nonstructural
materials other than fuel elements consist of either shallow
surface burial or on-site s t o r a g e , as is the case of some gases
and liquids.
Containment lasts until radioactive decay progresses
to the point that the materials can be diluted and released into
the environment.
A g a i n , it is assumed that these diluted quanti-
ties of radiation are harmless.
By far the most serious waste management problem presently
associated with nuclear power plants involves the spent fuel
assemblies.
These highly radioactive units have to date been
stored on site in holding pools after removal from the reactor
core.
The one exception to this practice involved a limited quan-
tity of assemblies which were shipped to a reprocessing plant for
recovery of the remaining fissionable m a t e r i a l s , but at present
no commercial reprocessing plants are operating within this
country.
The one plant which was in operation reprocessed 640
metric tons of spent fuel during a six year period (16).
This
plant was closed in 1972 to allow design modifications to be made
and has not been reopened.
With the recently published report by
the Ford Foundation which recommended that reprocessing and plutonium recycling should be deferred (17), followed shortly by an
announcement by President Carter that the United States would
refrain from all commercial reprocessing as a means of reducing
the risk of nuclear p r o l i f e r a t i o n , it seems unlikely that any
commercial reprocessing will be available within the foreseeable
future.
15
With n e i t h e r commercial
r e p r o c e s s i n g nor a p e r m a n e n t
disposal m e t h o d c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e , those utility
companies
o p e r a t i n g n u c l e a r power plants are faced with the problem of
w h a t to do with t h e i r rapidly increasing q u a n t i t y of spent
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1700 M e t r i c Tons o f Uranium (MTU) per y e a r
fuel,
(18).
P r e s e n t options range from m a x i m i z i n g the SDace c u r r e n t l y
avail-
able to total c u r t a i l m e n t of p l a n t o p e r a t i o n s .
latter
S i n c e the
choice will be c o n s i d e r e d by u t i l i t i e s only as a last r e s o r t ,
emphasis m u s t be placed on how t e m p o r a r y storage facilities will
be u s e d .
On J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 7 7 , 17 n u c l e a r plants did not have
enough reserve s t o r a g e a v a i l a b l e to a c c o m m o d a t e a full
of the reactor core (19).
discharge
The n e c e s s i t y of such a d i s c h a r g e w o u l d
occur in the event t h a t m a j o r m a i n t e n a n c e or a full safety
tion o f the core w a s r e q u i r e d .
The m a j o r i t y of these
inspec-
plants,
h o w e v e r , already had taken steps w h i c h w o u l d allow them to regain
a full core d i s c h a r g e
capacity.
By this same date (January 1 , 1 9 7 7 ) , the N u c l e a r
Commission
Regulatory
(NRC) had been notified by utilities operating
36
reactors that they w e r e p l a n n i n g to increase s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y by
c o m p a c t i n g their p r e s e n t stores
(20).
has been q u e s t i o n e d by the National
The safety of compacting
Resources D e f e n s e Council
regarding 1) the risk of u n i n t e n t i o n a l
c r i t i c a l i t y , 2) the n e c e s s i t y
of using boron panels as neutron a b s o r b e r s and t h e r e b y
decreasing
the flow rate of c o o l a n t , and 3) the p o s s i b i l i t y of exceeding
capacity of p r e s e n t cooling
(21)
the
systems,
The NRC had also received numerous requests for licenses
p e r m i t the c o n s t r u c t i o n of additional o n - s i t e s t o r a g e
j.OJL
to
facilities.
16
Utilities can also ship spent fuel assemblies from plants with
little storage to newer plants which still have an excess of storage
space available.
This p r o c e s s , called " s h a r i n g " , h o w e v e r , tends
to cause all storage facilities to become full at the same time
and in the long run may be a more difficult problem to overcome
than even periodic closures.
A sizable amount of off-site storage
could be supplied by using the storage facilities at the nonoperatina
General Electric and Exxon reprocessing plants at M o r r i s , I l l i n o i s ,
and Oak Ridge, T e n n e s s e e , respectively.
It has been estimated
(22)
that the additional 4500 MTU of storage capacity that these facilities would provide would allow a full core reserve for all reactors
through 1986.
A l s o , if the Energy Research and Development
Administration's
(ERDA) estimate of 1985 as the date when full
scale operation of a national depository is m e t , the problem of
on-site storage capacity will be alleviated.
h o w e v e r , is probably optimistic
This
estimate,
(23).
It is inevitable that any comprehensive waste management plan
will require the shipment of spent fuel assemblies from on-site
storage facilities to other repositories or disposal
sites.
T h e s e shipments will have to travel by conventional rail and
highway systems.
The risks associated with such
transportation
schemes can be reduced (24) by 1) decreasing the number of shipments (rail shipments can be l a r g e r , hence less
frequent),
2) decreasing the distance s h i p p e d , 3) the use of stronger shipping
v e s s e l s , 4) the reduced speed of transportation v e h i c l e s , and 5)
routing around high density population centers.
Of the five pro-
posed risk abatement p r o c e d u r e s , the t h i r d , development of stronger
17
shipping v e s s e l s , has received considerable attention.
Sandia
Laboratories have conducted extensive testing (25, 26) on the
ability of specially designed shipping containers to retain their
integrity in accident situations.
These tests have shown these
containers to be able to survive probable accident
situations
with ease.
Upon solving all other management p r o b l e m s , one question
remains:
How does one assure long term isolation of up to
thousands of years for these waste materials?
General
consensus
within the scientific community holds that isolation would best
be accomplished by disposing of these materials in s t a b l e , deep
geologic f o r m a t i o n s .
Of the many such strata that e x i s t , bedded
salt formations are looked upon with favor by a majority of
scientists
(27).
The advantages of using salt beds as disposal sites were
presented in a 1970 National Academy of Sciences Committee Report
as quoted in the environmental
impact statement for the now
defunct waste repository at L y o n s , Kansas (28).
The listed
advantages were:
1.
A highly radioactive source separated from the
environment by a thickness of good-quality
bedded salt in an area of tectonic stability
is effectively isolated from that environment
for at least 1,000 years and probably for significantly longer.
2.
Bedded salt has a high compressive strength
but flows plastically at relatively low temperatures and pressures. This will relieve
stress concentrations produced by the mining
operation or by the heat generated by the
radioactive w a s t e .
j.OJL
3.
Fractures that might develop in bedded salt
are "self-healing". This is indicated in
part by the absence of solution cavities in
the rock salt that has been studied.
4.
The natural plasticity of the salt at the
temperature imposed by the highly radioactive
waste will effectively seal the remnants of the
containers in cells of crystalline salt.
Should m a n , for a now unforeseen r e a s o n , have
to remove the buried radioactive w a s t e , it
could be accomplished with specialized mining
e q u i p m e n t , albeit with considerable difficulty
and e f f o r t .
5.
Bedded salt permits the dissipation of larger
quantities of heat than is possible in other
types of rock.
6.
Rock salt is approximately equal to concrete
for gamma-ray shielding. Experimental radiation exposure has caused very little detectable
radiolytic change in rock s a l t .
7.
The loss of our salt resources would be
negligible. There is a great abundance of
bedded salt in the United States (particularly
in Kansas) that is of satisfactory quality and
in suitable geological environments that can
be used for the burial of specified radioactive
wastes produced by the nuclear plants that are
anticipated in the United States over the next
two or three decades.
8.
The burial of the radioactive wastes under
consideration in deep-bedded salt greatly
reduces chances for release by accidental or
malicious acts in both the near and distant
future.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , until a full scale test of a salt bed disposal system is completed, numerous questions will
unanswered.
remain
To d a t e , such a test has been repeatedly
delayed.
In the late 1960's, a salt mine in Central Kansas was extensively
tested to determine its suitability as a waste depository.
Only
after the Atomic Energy Commission had announced that the L y o n s ,
K a n s a s , site had been selected was it discovered that an unknown
a
r\r*)
19
number of abandoned gas wells penetrated the proposed
This i n f o r m a t i o n , coupled with mounting political
caused the AEC to abandon this s i t e .
formation.
opposition,
A later try at establishing
a depository in Michigan also was cancelled due to political
opposition.
P r e s e n t efforts are being directed towards
surveying
potential sites in numerous states and the Waste Isolation
Plant (WIPP) near C a r l s b a d , Mew M e x i c o .
Pilot
WIPP is foreseen as a
permanent disposal site for transuramic wastes from the defense
program and as a research and development installation
studying
the effects of radioactive wastes on a salt formation.
It has
been suggested that WIPP could also function as a test site for
the disposal of up to 1,000 spent fuel assemblies
tive plans call for mining out chambers into which
vessels will be p l a c e d .
(29).
Tenta-
containment
The chambers will then be back filled
with loose s a l t .
Some limited testing of salt's suitability as a repository
medium has shown bedded salt to not be as anhydrous as previously
thought (30).
It is now known that when heat is a p p l i e d , such
as would be generated by radioactive d e c a y , moisture trapped within
the crystalline structure tends to migrate to the heat source.
Any sizable accumulation of moisture would form a brine pocket
surrounding the containment vessel and would represent a potential corrosion p r o b l e m .
Test drilling at the WIPP site has also
located previously unsuspected aas and water reservoirs at some
locations in that salt formation.
To what extent such factors
decrease the suitability of salt as a depository medium is y e t
unknown.
20
A growing number of scientists feel that not. enough
informa-
tion is available on the effects of radioactive wastes on bedded
salt to allow accurate predictions of what the consequences of
long periods of storage will be.
These doubts were expressed in
a GAO report (31) which pointed out that the present NRC requirements of from five to ten years for the retrievabi1ity of wastes
deposited in test facilities may not be of sufficient
length.
Other concerns w e r e raised by a team of U. S. Geological
Survey
scientists (32) about selecting repository s i t e s .
included:
These
1.
the unknown effects that heat will have on the
subject strata and water and gases in the
strata;
2.
the little knowledge about ground water movement through cracks in granite or basalt; and
3.
the fact that no one can guarantee future
stability.
These scientists also suggested five areas in which
information was critically needed.
These
research
included:
1.
the effects of small amounts of water on s a l t ,
how this affects its s t r e n g t h , and how to
guarantee retrievability from such formations;
2.
the necessity for conducting research with
other strata such as s h a l e , crystalline r o c k ,
and zeolitic tuffs;
3.
the ways to determine ground water movements
at repository sites;
4.
the need to improve methods of determining
geologic s t a b i l i t y ; and
5.
what the short and long term effects of the
repository will be on the geologic environment around it.
Not all scientists feel that deposition in bedded salt formations is the best or only solution to our nuclear waste problem.
j.OJL
These scientists have suggested alternative methods such as the
use of other bedded f o r m a t i o n s , including g r a n i t e , b a s a l t , s h a l e ,
etc.
Disposal
in s p a c e , on the Antarctic ice sheet (33), and in
deep sea sediments (34) has also been proposed.
Other promising
techniques for handling wastes include the use of lasers
(35)
to separate usable components and actual radioactive materials
from the general w a s t e m a s s , thereby reducing the quantity that
would have to be managed and the use of linear accelerators to
transmute radioactive wastes into stable forms.
TERRORIST
ACTIVITIES
The Irish Republican A r m y , P . L . O . , 15th of September
Movement,
and the Red Brigade are but a few of the well o r g a n i z e d , well
financed terrorist groups operating on a worldwide scale today.
There is little doubt that any of these groups or numerous other
revolutionary organizations would not rejoice at the opportunity
of acquiring a nuclear threat capacity.
The possibility of
terrorist activities being directed towards the commercial
nuclear
industry at either the plant or waste management level is one of
the most serious dangers associated with nuclear power today.
It
is almost inconceivable that a serious attempt at nuclear blackmail will riot occur in the near future.
The unfortunate aspect
of this forecast is that with the present world s i t u a t i o n , the
United States is a prime target for attack.
R e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , for
e x a m p l e , would probably more easily gain the freedom of cohorts
jailed in another country having close ties to the United States
22
by threatening New York City or W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. , than cities
w i t h i n the other country.
Terrorist a c t i v i t i e s , if and when they o c c u r , will
probably
be directed towards 1) procurring an atomic b o m b , 2) procurring
plutonium or other highly toxic radioactive s u b s t a n c e , 3) gaining
control of a nuclear facility, or 4) the destruction of said
facility.
The ultimate of these terrorist activities is undoubtedly
the acquisition of a nuclear bomb by gift or direct t h e f t , or by
diverting the fissionable materials necessary for building a
crude bomb.
Only such diversions as might presently occur from
the commercial nuclear power industry are within the scope of
this p a p e r .
The present ban on reprocessing spent fuel has
greatly reduced the potential of terrorist groups acquiring the
fissionable materials (highly enriched u r a n i u m , uranium 233 or
plutonium) necessary for an atomic bomb.
These substances are
not present in sufficiently high concentrations in the fuel
assemblies
(either new or spent) of light water reactors so that
the fuel itself could be used directly in a b o m b .
Expensive
reprocessing would be required, which is probably beyond the scope
of an unassisted terrorist group.
These fuel a s s e m b l i e s , if
s t o l e n , would also be difficult to smuggle in or out of a country
due to their size.
It is logical to assume that terrorists would
rather obtain a product such as plutonium which is already
refined.
A quantity the size of a baseball of this element or of either
isotope of uranium (3G) would provide the critical mass necessary
for an atomic bomb with a yield of from five to six tons of high
e x p l o s i v e s , plus the threat of radiation and contamination.
j.OJL
23
The only commercial reactors in use today which are in
variance with the above stated facts are several high temperature
gas cooled reactors that require a highly enriched uranium
fuel (37),
H o w e v e r , even this fuel could not be used in a bomb
directly because the enriched uranium is dispersed in graphite
and as s u c h , would present the same problems of logistics and
extraction as fuel from L W R ' s .
The logical point at which to
attack this system would be at the fuel fabrication plant before
the highly enriched uranium is dispersed in the graphite base.
If a terrorist group obtained a fissionable mass of plutonium
they would not be restricted to using it in a bomb.
The mere
threat of dispersing such a toxic substance would be sufficient
to blackmail most governments.
In the event that the threat was
carried o u t , or if the plutonium was dispersed as a tactical
act,
large areas would be made uninhabitable and possibly millions
of
people would be killed by its direct or latent effects.
The third action that a terrorist group might employ would
be to secure a nuclear facility.
Since most nuclear plants in
this country are in populous a r e a s , the demands of a group holding
and threatening to destroy such a plant and thereby releasing
c o n t a m i n a n t s , would probably be granted.
A fourth alternative
t h a t a group or even a determined individual could accomplish as
a tactical movement would be the unannounced destruction of a
nuclear plant or support facility.
This could be done by either
armed ground a t t a c k , s a b o t a g e , or an aerial attack such as crashing
an airplane loaded with explosives into the target.
It seems probable that the transportation of commercial
nuclear
w a s t e s does not present a choice target for terrorist acts due to
/"V**
1H /
M
24
the materials involved.
At best only a localized area would be
c o n t a m i n a t e d , and since routing in transporting these wastes will
be designed to go through low density a r e a s , only a limited
threat is involved.
This would also apply to repositories or
disposal sites which did not contain any refined or highly concentrated waste m a t e r i a l s .
By their very n a t u r e , these facilities
will be isolated from major population
centers.
To entirely dissolve the threat of attack on the commercial
nuclear industry is probably impossible.
Increased security at
key sites (nuclear power p l a n t s , fuel fabricating p l a n t s , etc.)
w o u l d be a d e t e r r e n t , but it is doubtful that a sufficiently
armed and dedicated group could be repelled.
Present security
levels have been e n h a n c e d , but as recently as early 1977 a
government report (38) chided the NRC for not acting decisively
or effectively in the security a r e a .
The then present security
systems at some nuclear plants would not have reportedly met the
threat of even minimum sabotage attempts.
A majority of the blame
was placed on the N R C 1 s failure to establish minimum
requirements
for security s y s t e m s .
LEGAL
ISSUES
Little legal precedence has been established regarding the
m a n a g e m e n t of nuclear w a s t e m a t e r i a l s .
placed the authority for locating 5
Congressional action has
constructing, and operating
nuclear waste repositories for high level wastes (including
fuel assemblies) with DOE subject to NRC regulation.
Low level
repositories are not currently being managed under a single
1 8 G
spent
25
management scheme but one operated by D O E , private c o n c e r n s , and
states with NRC approval.
The recent DOE Task Force Report on
Nuclear Waste Management (39) recommended that all 22 low level
waste repositories
(18 o p e r a t i o n a l , 4 closed) be placed under DOE
ownership and m a n a g e m e n t .
to accomplish
Legislative procedures were suggested
this.
Other legislative action that has been proposed is to grant
the states the right to veto any proposed nuclear waste repository
that is sited within their borders (40).
This proposed grant has
been suggested as a means of overcoming political opposition and
for gaining public support.
Senator H a r t , Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulations S u b c o m m i t t e e , has suggested a compromise measure whereby
the state would receive a qualified right to v o t e , but one which
could be overruled by the President for reasons of national
interest.
Any nuclear w a s t e disposal site will be licensed and operated
by federal agencies and as s u c h , leaves no question as to w h e t h e r
major federal action is involved.
T h i s , coupled with the fact
that nuclear waste management undoubtedly has the potential
of
affecting the human e n v i r o n m e n t , assures by the reasoning in MRDC
v. A d m i n i s t r a t o r , ERDA (451 F. S u p p . 1245) that a detailed
environmental statement subject to the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is required.
m
f
-r%
26
APPENDIX A
HALF-LIVES OF TYPICAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPONENTS
Radionuclide
Half-life (years) —
Americium-241
460
Americium-242
150
Cesi um-135
Cesium-137
(41)
2 x 106
30
Curium-242
•
Curium-243
32
Curium-244
18
Iodine-129
1.6 x 1 0 7
Neptuni um-237
2.1 x 1 0 6
Plutoni um-239
2.4 x 1 0 4
PIutoni um-241
Radon~226
Strontium-90
13
1600
28
Technetium-99
2.0 x 1 0 5
Thori um-230
7.6 x 1 0 4
Tritium
13
— The half-life is the time necessary for half of
the radionuclei to d e c a y .
27
FOOTNOTES
R a n k i n , W . L. and S . M . N e a l e y , "Attitudes of the Public
About Nuclear Wastes," Nuclear N e w s , Vol. 2 1 , No. 8 , PD. 1121 1 5 , 1978.
2
"Second Harris Poll Finds Public Still Favors Nuclear,"
Nuclear N e w s , Vol. 2 0 , N o . 1, pp. 3 1 - 3 5 , 1977.
^Webster's Seventh New Collegiate D i c t i o n a r y , G . & C.
Merriam C o m p a n y , S p r i n g f i e l d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 1 9 6 7 , p. 705.
^Choppin, G . R . , Nuclei and Radioactivity, W . A. B e n j a m i n ,
I n c . , New York and A m s t e r d a m , 1 9 6 4 , pp. 20-28.
5
P i z z a r e l l o , D. J . and R. L. W i t c o f s k i , Basic Radiation
B i o 1 o g y , Lea and F e b i g e r , P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1967, p. 22.
6
C a s a r e t t , A . P . , Radiation B i o l o g y , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc.,
Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . , 1 9 6 8 , p. 220.~
\ o u t i t , J . F. , Irradiation of Mice and M e n , The University
of Chicago P r e s s , Chicago and L o n d o n , 1962, p p . 6 - 7 .
8
C a s a r e t t , p. 2 2 0 .
Q
S t e r n g l a s s , E. J . , "The Health Effects from Radiation,"
Vital Speeches of the D a y , Vol. 3 7 , N o . 2 2 , pp. 6 9 9 - 7 0 3 , 1971.
^ T a y l o r , T. B . , with D. C o l l i g a n , "Nuclear Terrorism:
Threat of the Future?" Science D i g e s t , Vol. 7 6 , pp. 14-15,
A u g u s t , 1974.
A
]1
T h e Science and Public Policy Program (including Doi E .
K a s h , Director, e t . a l . ) , Energy Alternatives: A Comparative
A n a l y s i s , University of O k l a h o m a , N o r m a n , O k l a h o m a , 1975,
C h a p . " 6 , "The Nuclear Energy--Fission Resource System," p . 3.
12
1 b i d . , p . 33.
13
" A t o m i c Power's Future," T i m e , April 9 , 1 9 7 9 , p. 20.
14
1 9 7 7 - 1 9 8 6 LWR Spent F u e l Disposition C a p a b i l i t i e s ,
Energy Research and Development A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U. S. Government
Printing O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. , 1977, p. 14.
^ S c i e n c e and Public Policy P r o g r a m , p. 33.
1
C o m p t r o l l e r General of the United States, "Nuclear Energy'
Dilemma: Disposing of Hazardous Wastes Safely," Report to the
C o n g r e s s , General Accounting O f f i c e , U . S. Government Printing
O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , September 9 , 1977, p . 4 .
28
1?
M e t z , W . D . , "Ford-MITRE Study: Nuclear Power Y e s ,
Plutonium No," S c i e n c e , Vol, 196, N o . 4 2 8 5 , p . 4 1 , 1977.
18
Comptroller General of the United S t a t e s , "Nuclear
Energy's Dilemma," p . 52.
19
1 9 7 7 - 1 9 8 6 LWR Spent Fuel Disposition C a p a b i l i t i e s , p. 4 ,
20
Comptroller General of the United S t a t e s , "Nuclear
Energy's Dilemma," p . ix.
2 1
Ibid., p p . 15-16.
977-1986 LWR Spent Fuel Disposition C a p a b i l i t i e s , p . 5.
Report of Task Force for Review of Muc1 ear Waste Management , U. S . D e p a r t m e n t of E n e r g y , Directorate of Energy R e s e a r c h ,
U. S , Government Printing O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . , 1978, p. 15.
^ A s s i s t a n t Secretary for the E n v i r o n m e n t , "Everything You've
Always Wanted to Know About Shipping High-Level Nuclear Wastes,"
U. S . Department of E n e r g y , Division of Environmental Control
T e c h n o l o g y , 1978.
25
Ibid.
26
"Wrecking Trains for Science," Science D i g e s t , Vol. 8 0 ,
N o . 1 7 , 1976.
27
Hol
l i n g s w o r t h , R. E . , "Environmental Statement--Radioactive
Waste R e p o s i t o r y — L y o n s , Kansas," United States Atomic Energy
Commission, U. S. Government Printing O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . ,
1 9 7 1 , p. 9.
28
I b i d . , p p . 10-11.
29
Report of Task Force for Review of Nuclear Waste Management , p. 16.
30
C a r t e r , L. J . , "Nuclear Wastes: The Science of Geologic
Disposal Seen as Weak," S c i e n c e , Vol, 2 0 0 , pp. 1135-1137.
31
Comptroller General of the United S t a t e s , "Nuclear Energy's
Dilemma," p. 37,
^ B r e d e h o e f t , J . D . , et, a l . , "Geoloaic Disposal of Highlevel Radioactive Uastes--Earth Science Perspective," U. S ,
Geologic Survey C i r c u l a r , N o . 7 7 9 , pp. 1 - 1 5 .
33
Z e l l e r , E, J , , et, a l . , "Putting Radioactive Wastes on Ice,"
Bulletin of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , Vol. 2 9 , N o . 1 , p p . 4 - 9 , 5 0 - 5 2 .
i
a
?
29
G r i m w o o d , P . D . , and G. A. M . W e b b , "Assessment of the
Radiological Protection Aspects of Disposal of High Level Waste
on the Ocean Floor," Her Majesty's Stationery O f f i c e , 49 High
Hoi b o r n , London WC1V 6 H B , U. K.
35
" L a s e r s Reduce Nuclear Waste," C h e m i s t r y , Vol. 5 0 , N o . 4 ,
p p . 2 4 - 2 5 , 1977.
oc
W i l l r i c h , M . , "Terrorists Keep Out!" Bulletin of the
Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , Vol. 31, N o . 5 , p. 13.
37
Science and Public Policy P r o g r a m , p. 2 1 .
38
Comptroller General of the United S t a t e s , "Security at
Nuclear Powerplants--At B e s t , Inadequate," Report to the C o n g r e s s ,
April 7 , 1977, p. 17.
~
^ R e p o r t of Task Force for Review of Nuclear Waste Management , p. "19.
C a r t e r , L. J . , "Congressional Committees Ponder Whether to
Give States a Right of Veto Over Radioactive Waste Repositories,"
S c i e n c e , Vol. 2 0 0 , p p . 1136-1137, 1978.
^ F i s h e r , A . , "What Are We Going to Do About Nuclear Waste?"
Popular S c i e n c e , Vol. 2 1 3 , No. 6 , p. 9 8 , 1978.
30
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A s s i s t a n t Secretary for the E n v i r o n m e n t , "Everything You've
Always Wanted to Know About Shipping High-Level Nuclear
Wastes," U. S. Department of E n e r g y , Division of Environmental Control T e c h n o l o g y , 1978.
"Atomic Power's Future," T i m e , April 9 , 1979, p* 20.
B r e d e h o e f t , J . D . , et. a l . , "Geologic Disposal of High-level
Radioactive Wastes—Earth Science Perspective," U. S .
Geologic Survey Circular, N o . 779.
C a r t e r , L. J . , "Congressional Committees Ponder Whether to Give
States a Riaht of' Veto Over Radioactive Waste Repositories,"
S c i e n c e , Vol. 2 0 0 , pp. 1136-1137.
"Nuclear Wastes: The Science of Geologic Disposal Seen
as Weak," S c i e n c e , Vol. 2 0 0 , pp. 1135-1137.
s
C a s a r e t t , A . P . , Radiation Biology, P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc.,
Englewood C l i f f s , N . J , , 1968.
C h o p p i n , G . R . , Nuclei and R a d i o a c t i v i t y , W . A . B e n j a m i n , Inc.,
New York and A m s t e r d a m , 1964.
Comptroller General of the United S t a t e s , "Nuclear Energy's
Dilemma: Disposing of Hazardous Wastes Safely," Report to
the C o n g r e s s , General Accounting O f f i c e , U. S . Government
Printing O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . , September 9 , 1977.
Comptroller General of the United S t a t e s , "Security at Nuclear
Powerplants--At B e s t , Inadeauate," Report to the C o n g r e s s ,
April 7 , 1977.
'
F i s h e r , A . , "What Are We Goinq to Do About Nuclear Waste?"
Popular S c i e n c e , Vol. 2 1 3 , N o . 6 , pp. 9 0 - 9 7 , 146, 1978.
G r i m w o o d , P. D . , and G. A. M. W e b b , "Assessment of the Radiological Protection Aspects of Disposal of High Level Waste on
the Ocean Floor," Her Majesty's Stationery O f f i c e , 49 High
Hoi b o r n , London WC1V 6 H 3 , U. K.
Hoi 1 ingsworth, R, E . , "Environmental Statement—Radioactive Waste
R e p o s i t o r y — L y o n s , Kansas," United States Atomic Energy
C o m m i s s i o n , U. S, Government Printing O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n ,
D. C. , 1971.
"Lasers Reduce Nuclear Waste," C h e m i s t r y , Vol. 5 0 , N o . 4 ,
pp. 24-25.
fK *
31
L o u t i t , J . F . , Irradiation of Mice and M e n , The University of
Chicago P r e s s , Chicago and L o n d o n , 1962.
1977-1986 LWR Spent Fuel Disposition C a p a b i l i t i e s , Energy Research
and Development A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U,~ S. Government Printing
O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . , 1977.
M e t z , W . D . , "Ford-MITRE Study: Nuclear Power Y e s , Plutonium
No," S c i e n c e , V o l . 196, N o . 4 2 8 5 , p . 4 1 , 1977.
P i z z a r e l l o , D. J . and R. L. W i t c o f s k i , Basic Radiation B i o l o g y ,
Lea and F e b i g e r , P h i l a d e l p h i a , P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1967.
R a n k i n , W . L. and S . M . N e a l e y , "Attitudes of the Public About
Nuclear Wastes," Nuclear N e w s , Vol. 2 1 , N o . 8 , pp. 112-117,
1978.
Report of Task Force for Review of Nuclear Waste M a n a g e m e n t ,
U. S. Department of Energy", Directorate of Energy Research,
U. S . Government Printing O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . , 1978.
The Science and Public Policy Program (including Don E. K a s h ,
D i r e c t o r , e t . a l . ) , Energy Alternatives: A Comparative
A n a l y s i s , University of O k l a h o m a , N o r m a n , OkTancSma, 1 9 7 5 ,
Chap. 6 , "The Nuclear Eneray--Fission Resource System,"
pp. 1-74.
"Second Harris Poll Finds Public Still Favors Nuclear,"
N e w s , Vol. 2 0 , N o . 1, pp. 31-35.
Nuclear
S t e r n g l a s s , E . J . , "The Health Effects from Radiation," Vital
Speeches of the D a y , Vol. 3 7 , N o . 2 2 , pp. 6 9 9 - 7 0 3 , 1971.
T a y l o r , T . B . , with D , C o l l i g a n , "Nuclear Terrorism: A T h r e a t
of the Future?" Science D i g e s t , Vol. 76, pp. 1 2 - 1 7 , A u g u s t ,
1974.
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Pi c t i o n a r v , G . S C .
Company, S p r i n g f i e l d , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 1967.
Merriam
Will r i c h , M . , "Terrorists Keep Out!" Bulletin of the Atomic
S c i e n t i s t s , V o l . 3 1 , N o . 5 , pp. 12-16.
"Wrecking Trains for Science," Science D i g e s t , Vol. 8 0 , N o . 1 7 ,
1976.
Z e l l e r , E. J . , et. a l . , "Putting Radioactive Wastes on Ice,"
Bulletin of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , Vol. 2 9 , M o . 1, pp. 4 - 9 ,
50-52.