Subseabed Disposal

8/14/2019 Subseabed Disposal

1/13

Page 1 of13

Charles Hollister, the geologist who started the idea of subseabed disposal, did everything possible to makesure it was logical. The idea was researched internationally by hundreds of scientists, and was found to be thebest solution to nuclear waste

Steven Nadis [former staff researcher for the Union of Concerned Scientists; writes regularly for Nature, Science, and Omni;co-author of several books, including Beyond the Freeze (1982) and Car Trouble (1993)], The Sub-Seabed Solution,Article Published bythe Atlantic Online Magazine [the online version of the Atlantic, anAmerican general editorial magazine focusing onforeign affairs,

politics, and the economy], October 1996, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htm [PB]

Next [Charles] Hollister , [the geologist who started the idea of subseabed disposal] , brought biologists, physicists,and oceanographers to Sandia to see if they could destroy the idea [of subseabed disposal] in what he calls the biggest shootoutsince the OK Corral. He [said], If we could find out it was a stupid idea at the outset, it would save us a lot of time andmoney. But rather than shooting down the concept, many of the scientists told Hollister theyd like to work withhim on it. A sub-seabed research program was initiated in 1974, with financial backing from Sandia; within a few years [a program for research onsubseabed disposal] had grown into an international effort involving ten countries and 200 scientists, under the auspices of theParis-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.This collaboration led to the core-sampling expedition that demonstratedthe stability of the region underlying the North Pacific floor. Hollister points out that the Pacific site he and hiscolleagues explored twenty years ago is not unu sual, geologically speaking. About a quarter of this planet iscovered with geology that is appropriate for this solution, he says. Experiments conducted by this international team ofscientists from 1974 to 1986 support Hollister s opinion that the sticky mud and clays that blanket the mid-oceanbasins may provide the best burial grounds yet proposed for nuclear waste. These tests suggest that if waste canisterswere deposited just ten meters below the ocean floor, any toxic substances that leaked out would be bound up by theclays for millions of years. Deeper interment, at 100 meters or more, could easily be managed, providing an evengreater margin of safety. The stuff sticks to the mud and sits there like heavy lead, Hollister maintains. Nothing sgoing to bring it into the biosphere, unless we figure out how to reverse gravity.

*Charles Hollister is also a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Subseabed disposal will not be pursued because of political blunders



Its an intriguing vision, and one that in principle still holds great promise. Yet the concept of sub-seabeddisposal, first suggested by Hollister in 1973, has been undercut by a series of political blunders. A decision laterthis fall at a meeting in London sponsored by the International Maritime Organization, and a bill before Congress atthis writing, may kill the idea possibly the best solution yet advanced to the nuclear-waste problem beforesociety has had a chance to judge its true potential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/http://www.whoi.edu/index.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/http://www.whoi.edu/index.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States


2/13

Page 2 of13

If subseabed disposal is such a good idea, why have we not heard of it? Because the Department of Energywas so focused on a land-based geologic repository that they refused to look into subseabed disposal, and theyinstead settled on Yucca Mountain

Steven Nadis [former staff researcher for the Union of Concerned Scientists; writes regularly for Nature, Science, and Omni;co-author of several books, including Beyond the Freeze (1982) and Car Trouble (1993)], The Sub-Seabed Solution,Article Published by

the Atlantic Online Magazine [the online version of the Atlantic, anAmerican general editorial magazine focusing onforeign affairs,politics, and the economy], October 1996, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htm [PB]

Ifhes right, and the proposed technique [ subseabed disposal] could end the worldwide radioactive-waste problem that has beenbuilding up for the past fifty years, why has almost nobody in this country heard about it? The answer to thisquestion along with the roots of many of the problems plaguing current U.S. nuclear-waste-disposal efforts can be traced to a 1986 decision by theDepartment of Energy which cut off research funds for sub-seabed and other disposal alternatives, so that the agencycould focus exclusively on developing a land-based geologic repository for high-level wastes; a year later it settledon Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The timing was unfortunate: ongoing sub-seabed experiments were canceled in spiteof encouraging results and after much experimental apparatus had already been built.

Later on, the DOE began some research on subseabed disposal, but after the congressional committeestrongly discouraged spending money on such a program, the funding was blocked and attention was turnedto global warming. However, this decision was based on pragmatic, rather than technical, grounds theDepartment of Energy accepts the assessment that subseabed disposal would put waste in the mostgeologically stable places on earth, and has no large obstacles



The federal government had a change of heart in 1987, when Congress passed amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which, among other things, establishedthe Office of Subseabed Disposal Research within the DOE. The director of this office, Walter L. Warnick , wasasked to create a consortium of university investigators and devise a long-range research plan. But a couple ofmonths after Warnick had enthusiastically begun, the congressional committee that controlled appropriationsstrongly discouraged the Energy Department from spending any money on the program. With access to sub-seabed

research funds blocked, Warnick shifted his attention to acid rain and global-warming issues. The Office of Subseabed Disposalexisted in name only until this year, when it was abolished altogether. Warnick was disappointed by the final decision, although he recognizes that it waseffectively made about a decade ago, when the DOE and Congress chose the Yucca Mountain alternative and put all their eggs inthat basket. The judgment, he adds, was made on pragmatic, r ather than technical, grounds. It merely reflected thefeeling that land-based-disposal technology was more advanced at the time. But from a technol ogical point of view,he says, sub-seabed disposal is a fascinating concept that offers many advantages, perhaps the foremost being thatwastes would be deposited at some of the most geolo gically stable places on earth. Whats more, all the researchthat has been done on this option since 1974 points to no insurmountable obstacles an assessment, Warnick says,that is widely accepted within the Energy Department.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.doe.gov/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.rw.doe.gov/pages/resource/nwpa/nwpa.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.doe.gov/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.rw.doe.gov/pages/resource/nwpa/nwpa.htm


3/13

Page 3 of13

Subseabed disposal has been researched by other entities, and all of them have concluded that it would be asafe and economical method of disposing of waste. Why does our government not make the modestinvestment of ten years and $250 million?

Steven Nadis [former staff researcher for the Union of Concerned Scientists; writes regularly for Nature, Science, and Omni;co-author of several books, including Beyond the Freeze (1982) and Car Trouble (1993)], The Sub-Seabed Solution,Article Published by

the Atlantic Online Magazine [the online version of the Atlantic, anAmerican general editorial magazine focusing onforeign affairs,politics, and the economy], October 1996, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htm [PB]

The sub-seabed approach has been the subject of peer-reviewed research, and the program generated dozens ofarticles in prominent international scientific journals. Henry Kendall a Nobel laureate in physics [and] a professorat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists calls sub-seabed disposal a sweet solution and a winner,[labels subseabed disposal as] the best of the alternatives from a technical standpoint. A National Academy of Sciences panel called forfurther study of the sub-seabed approach, and a report last yearby Robert Klett , a systems ana lyst at Sandia, concluded that [all] analysesto date indicate that sub-seabed disposal would be a safe and economical method of [high-level waste] disposal andthat predictions could be made with a high degree of confidence. In light of these endorsements, why isnt the idea beingpursued, if only through research? Why wont this country make the modest investment [into subseabed disposal] about tenyears and $250 million, according to Hollister required to find out if it would really work?

The idea of subseabed disposal was destroyed by those who forced the DOE to stop researching it, narrow-minded environmentalists who thought it would involve ocean dumping, nuclear utilities who arentinterested in any type of disposal program because the funding comes out of their pockets, and industryofficials who wanted Yucca Mountain supposedly a quick solution. Has that paid off?



The reasons are varied, though they are woven together in a familiar pattern. The Department of Energy killed theprogram partly for political reasons and partly because the sub-seabed researchers never really fit in withmainstream DOE culture. It was a clear case of not invented here, Hollister says. Many environmentalists acting as narrow-mindedly as their traditional opponents in government and the nuclear industry dismissed the

idea before learning the details, assuming that the approach involved little more than wholesale ocean dumping. Thenuclear utilities lobbied against it for pecuniary reasons: the waste-disposal effort is largely subsidized by a tax onnuclear-generated electricity that the utilities have been paying (they pass the cost on to consumers) since 1982, andthey have seen little tangible return on their $12 billion investment. Industry officials concerned that the DOEwould be unable to meet its obligation to start accepting nuclear waste by 1998 surmised that the sooner the YuccaMountain facility opened, the sooner they could divest themselves of their spent nuclear fuel and the waste issue ingeneral. Their position was extremely superficial, says John Kelly, who heads JK Research Associates, aconsulting firm specializing in nuclear- and hazardous-waste disposal issues. They decided the only way to succeedin building a repository in Nevada was to cut off all alternatives. This position was shared by Louisiana Senator J.Bennett Johnston, then the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a leading opponent ofsub-seabed disposal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.ucsusa.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.senate.gov/~energy/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.ucsusa.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.senate.gov/~energy/


4/13

Page 4 of13

The shortcomings of this quick solution (Yucca Mountain) are now widely apparent: There are problemswith its geological stability, concerns about a rising water and contamination of groundwater and explodingwaste. Political opposition to Yucca is also rising, and even if Yucca is opened, it will be able to accommodatea mere fraction of current nuclear waste



The shortcomings of [Yucca Mountain] are now widely apparent. After spending almost $2 billion on technicalstudies and preliminary excavation at Yuc ca Mountain, the DOE still hasn t demonstrated the geologic suitability ofthe site. The mountain lies near active seismic faults and a volcano that erupted less than 10,000 years ago. There isconcern that the water table beneath the proposed burial grounds could rise and seep into the repository,contaminating groundwater and allowing radioactivity to escape. Two scientists, holding a decidedly minority view, have evensuggeste d that the buried wastes might go critical and explode because of the large amounts of fissionable materialpacked into a relatively small space. Meanwhile, political opposition is growing : Nevada s governor and senators,along with local environmental groups, have declared war on the venture. Even if the project can withstand thesechallenges and move forward, the facility will be seriously undersized the day it opens its doors (2015 is consideredthe earliest possible date), able to accommodate just a fraction of the high-level waste that will have accumulated bythen in the United States.

There is no data that refutes subseabed disposal: There is no impact of nuclear waste sitting under or belowthe oceans bottom and it is virtually impossible for waste to reach the surface from deep water



The governments unwillingness to prepare a good fallback position in the face of mounting difficulties seems like sheer folly. Although the DOE is not supportingany work on alternative disposal concepts at present, [Charles] Hollister has not given up [on subseabed disposal] . While theambitious research program he helped to fashion is on hold, he continues to explore the sub-seabed concept in indirect ways. In 1993, for example,

he spent six weeks in the Norwegian Sea studying a Soviet nuclear sub that had sunk years before in the middl e ofan active fishing ground. The scientific evidence to date points to zero impact if the nuclear material sits beneaththe bottom of the sea or even on the bottom, he says. Other analyses of radioactive spills in the marine environmenthave reached a similar conclusion: high-level radioactive materials tend to stay put if they are placed in or on a clay-rich sea floor, Hollister claims. Vertical migratio n rates are so slow that it is virtually impossible for measurableconcentrations of radioactivity to reac h the surface from deep water. Many people dont like this conclusion, headds, but I ve never seen any data in the oceanographic literature that refute it.

The technology for recovery and monitoring of nuclear waste stored at sea exists, and it is better than digginghuge holes in the earth



[Charles] Hollisterdisputes this contention, [asserts] that the technology exists for both monit oring and recovery at sea.What s more, he says, sub-seabed retrieval would probably be easier and cheaper than digging vast tunnels into theearth. Yet Curtis remains unconvinced and would like to see the impending ban on sub-seabed disposal apply to research as well a viewpoint, he claims, that is shared by all majorenvironmental organizations. There is a broad consensus that ocean dumping of radioactive wastes, including sub-seabed burial, should be prohibited, he says. In light of that, it makes moresense to focus our research on terrestrial options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.well.com/user/rscime/yucca/wyop1.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://www.well.com/user/rscime/yucca/wyop1.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htm


5/13

Page 5 of13

Sub-seabed disposal was proven to be the safest method of disposing of nuclear waste, but the U.S. programwas terminated in 1987

Professor Edward L. Miles [Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs at the University of Washington; Adjunct Professor at theSchool of Fisheries at the University of Washington;Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of Denver (1965); Senior

Fellow at the Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington; Co-Director of the Center for Science in the

Earth System at the University of Washington; Graduate from the School of International Studies at the University of Denver;studies inInternational Law and Organization; Science, Technology and International Relations; Marine Policy and OceanManagement; did his Ph.D. dissertation on The Process and Politics of the Intergovernmental Codification of

International Law at the Supranational Level], Sub-Seabed Disposal of High Level Radioactive Waste: The Policy Context Then and Now,

Published on the Internet, 2008, http://www.xiamenacademy.org/upload/2-8%20Miles%20MASTER%202008-07-29.doc [PB]

Ultimately, on the basis of radiological assessments conducted by EPA and Sandia National Laboratories, themanager of both the national and the coordinated international programs, the sub-seabed option was shown to be thesafest of all options by several orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, the U.S. program was terminated prematurely byDOE in 1987 and the European program couldnt survive on its own. What then had happened?
http://www.xiamenacademy.org/upload/2-8%20Miles%20MASTER%202008-07-29.dochttp://www.xiamenacademy.org/upload/2-8%20Miles%20MASTER%202008-07-29.doc


6/13

Page 6 of13

Sub-seabed disposal would put waste in some of the most stable and predictable places on earth, and woulduse multiple barriers to delay the migration of radionuclides until they decay

Dr. Leo S. Gomez[Ph.D.; radiation biologist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico], Emplacementof Mercury Wastes in the Sediments of the Deep-Ocean? Department of Energy Scientific and Technical Information, September 2000,http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/760764-kvb8E8/webviewable/ [PB]

Subseabed disposal , like other geological disposal options, was a multi-barrier concept that studied the feasibility of[buries] solidified and packaged high-level nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel in high-integrity canisters, tens of meters within the stable geologicformations of the deep-ocean floor. These deep-ocean floor geologic formations are some of the most stable andpredictable on earth. In the subseabed concept the multiple barriers of the waste form, the canister, the claysediments, and the ocean waters were predicted to delay migration of radionuclides until they decayed to innocuouslevels.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/760764-kvb8E8/webviewable/http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/760764-kvb8E8/webviewable/


7/13

Page 7 of13

Daniel J. Fornari [Ph.D. in Marine Geology from Columbia University (1978); Senior Scientists at the Woods HoleOceanographic Institution; Masters of Philosophy Degree in Marine Geology from Columbia University (1975); Masters of Arts Degreein Geology from Columbia University (1975)], New Opportunities and Deep Ocean Technologies for Assessing the Feasibility of Sub-Seabed

High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: The Application of 21st Century Oceanography to Solving Outstanding Problems, Published on the

Internet,July 29, 2008, www.xiamenacademy.org/.../2-7%20Fornari%20MASTER%202008-07-29.doc [PB]
http://www.xiamenacademy.org/.../2-7%20Fornari%20MASTER%202008-07-29.dochttp://www.xiamenacademy.org/.../2-7%20Fornari%20MASTER%202008-07-29.doc


8/13

Page 8 of13

Sub-Seabed Disposal different from ocean dumping means taking desert-like mud flats that lie severalkilometers underneath the ocean and support no life, drilling them to hundreds of meters, and loweringcontainers with nuclear waste into these holes

Professor K. R. Rao [professor of electrical engineering at The University of Texas at Arlington;Ph. D. in electrical engineering from TheUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque (1966); has published extensively in refereed journals and has been a consultant to

industry, research institutes, law firms and academia], Radioactive waste: The problem and its Management, General ArticlePublished in docstoc find and chare professional documents, September 21, 2007,http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-management [PB]

Seabed disposal is different from sea-dumping which does not involve isolation of low-level radioactive waste within a geological strata. The floor ofdeep oceans is a part of a large tectonic plate situated some 5 k ilo m eters below the sea surface, covered by hundredsof meters of thick sedimentary soft clay. These regions are desert-like, supporting virtually no life. The SeabedBurial Proposal envisages drilling these mud-flats to depths of the order of hundreds of meters , such boreholesbeing spaced apart several hundreds of meters . The high-level radioactive waste contained in canisters, to which we havereferred to earlier, would be lowered into these holes and stacked vertically one above the other interspersed by 20 m eters ormore of mud pumped in.

Experiments show that (1) seepage of nuclear waste is minimal, (2) the waste will stay stationary, allowing fortotal radioactive decay, and (3) leaching probability is low

Professor K. R. Rao [professor of electrical engineering at The University of Texas at Arlington;Ph. D. in electrical engineering from TheUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque (1966); has published extensively in refereed journals and has been a consultant toindustry, research institutes, law firms and academia], Radioactive waste: The problem and its Management, General Article

Published in docstoc find and chare professional documents, September 21, 2007,http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-management [PB]

Experimental work has already established that clays have the property of holding on to several radioactiveelements, including plutonium; hence, seepage of these elements into saline water is minimal. Rates of migration ofthese elements over hundreds of thousands of years would be of the order of a few meters. Hence, during such longtimes, radioactivity will diminish to levels below the natural radioactivity in sea water due to natural radioactivedecay. The clays also have plastic-like behavior to form natural sealing agents. Finally, the mud-flats have ratherlow permeability to water; hence, leaching probability is rather low.

The method of sub-seabed disposal depends on standard, routinely practiced deep-sea drilling techniques the techniques are well-developed


Published in docstoc find and chare professional documents, September 21, 2007,http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-management [PB] [brackets added for emphasis words usedin the article]

It may be noted that the method [of sub-seabed disposal] depends on standard , [ routinely practiced ] deep-sea drillingtechniques and [the] sealing of the bore-holes. These two aspects are well-developed, thanks to the petroleumindustry and also because of an international program called the Ocean Drilling Program. Core samples from about half a dozen vastlyseparated sites in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans have showed an uninterrupted history of geological tranquillity over the past 50-100 million years.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-management


9/13

Page 9 of13

Sub-seabed disposal is even more effective than land-based disposal at preventing sea pollution


Published in docstoc find and chare professional documents, September 21, 2007,http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-management [PB] [brackets added]

Although the world trend is toward the option of land-based disposal, it is doubtful whether restricting repositoriesto land-based sites really helps prevention of sea pollution. If radionuclides from a land-based repository leached outto the surface, they would be quickly transported to the sea by surface water. What is essential is to isolateradionuclides from the biosphere as reliably as possible. If sub-seabed disposal results in more reliable isolation,sub-seabed disposal is the better safeguard against sea pollution. This method takes into consider ation technologicalfeasibility [and] protection of marine environments, and availability of international understanding.

Waste packages could be transported via submarine tunnel eliminating treaty violation possibilities, oceanpollution in any rare case of accident, and any monitoring difficulties

Professor K. R. Rao [professor of electrical engineering at The University of Texas at Arlington;Ph. D. in electrical engineering from TheUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque (1966); has published extensively in refereed journals and has been a consultant to

industry, research institutes, law firms and academia], Radioactive waste: The problem and its Management, General ArticlePublished in docstoc find and chare professional documents, September 21, 2007,http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-management [PB]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea delineates that a coastal state is granted sovereign rights to utilize all resources in water and under the seabed within its exclusive

economic zone (EEZ), which can extend from the coast line up to 200 nautical miles (about 370 km) offshore. A repository is proposed to be constructed inbedrock 2 k ilo m eters beneath the seabed. To utilize sub-seabed disposal within the EEZ, it is also proposed that waste packages wouldbe transported through a submarine tunnel connecting land with the sub-seabed repository. Sea pollution by anaccident during disposal work would be improbable, because waste would never go through sea water during thework. The proposed method is a variation of geologic disposal. Long-term monitoring is also possible by maintaining the access tunnel forsome time after constructing artificial barriers.

Disposal of waste under seabed via land-based tunnels (1) would not violate the London Convention, and (2)has been tried successfully by Sweden


Published in docstoc find and chare professional documents, September 21, 2007,http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-management [PB] [brackets added]

While sub-seabed disposal of nuclear waste-filled canisters thrown from vessels apparently is regulated by the London Convention, [sub-seabed disposal of nuclearwaste-filled canisters] is not prohibited or regulated by the London Convention when accessed via land-basedtunnels. Sweden has been practicing this method of sub-seabed disposal since 1988, when a repository for reactorwastes was opened sixty meters below the Baltic seabed. This project has been widely cited by politicians fromother countries as a great example of solving the nuclear waste problem. Because of Swedens initiative, nuclearwaste is already being deposited under the seabed. Other countries could follow Swedens example and dispose ofnuclear waste under the seabed via land-based tunnels.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-managementhttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/20255582/Radioactive-waste-The-problem-and-its-management


10/13

Page 10 of13

Nuclear waste must be sealed away for not 1 year, not 100 years or 1,000 years, but permanently the issue ofnuclear waste disposal is imperative

Christopher Meisenkothen [Bachelors of Arts Degree from the University of Connecticut (1996);Juris Doctorate from theUniversity of Connecticut School of Law (1999)], Note: Subseabed Disposal of Nuclear Waste: An International Perspective,

Article Published in the Connecticut Journal of International Law,Fall 1999, (14 Conn. J. Int'l L. 631) [PB]

Our unfortunate contribution to the ages will be the legacy of the Cold War and the nuclear waste and high levelradioactive by-products that have accompanied it. With half-lives reaching into the millions of years, humancivilization is confronted with a task of titanic proportions - we must find some way to isolate these nuclear wastesfrom society and from all contact with the environment. They must be permanently not for 1 year, or 100 years, or1,000 years, but permanently sealed off from the rest of the world like so many casks of Amontillado until they arereduced to harmless piles of slag. Never before has such a task been attempted, yet never before has such a task beenso vital to the very well-being of the environment and to life on this planet. Having created this problem, thequestion of what next? rings in many scientists and policymakers ears.

The U.S. has spent millions of dollars just keeping nuclear waste safe where it is we need a permanentsolution for waste (disposal)



Such is the legacy of the Cold War. Hanford, a 1450 square kilometer site in Washington state, was the U.S. governments original production facility for the manufacturing of weapon-quality

plutonium, the highly radioactive element used in the construction of nuclear weapons. In the wake of the Cold War and with the production of nuclear weapons halted,Hanford, [a1450 square kilometer site in Washington state ], has become a graveyard of sorts for some of the most radiologicallycontaminated land in the country. Hanford has slowly devolved into a nightmarish agglomeration of decaying,contaminated facilities that each consume tens of millions of dollars a year just to be kept stable or safe. Whileradioactive and chemical brews boil at Hanford, the United States government has spent its time and resources onmerely assessing the damage and attempting to prevent the further contamination of soil and groundwater, all thewhile skirting the truly difficult issue of permanent remediation and disposal.

An alternative for Hanford is needed



The worst of Hanfords secrets are not even in the soil or in the nearby Columbia River, but lie within the facilitiesthemselves or within the storage tanks buried beneath the ground. Hanford has 177 underground tanks that containhigh level nuclear waste, chemical wastes and flammable toxic gases, dozens of which have already leaked and therest of which are in danger of leaking. There are at least a dozen tons of dangerous plutonium, some of it in the soilor otherwise unsecured. Five buildings have dangerous or lethal levels of contamination where plutonium wasextracted from irradiated nuclear fuel. There are also approximately 2100 tons of irradiated fuel, in basins that inan earthquake could become lethal, radioactive dustbins. Needless to say, serious remediation is urgently needed.


11/13

Page 11 of13

Radioactive waste will simply not go away we need a permanent, safe way to remove such waste from thebiosphere



The serious contamination and environmental degradation encountered at the United States Hanford reservationand the problems of nuclear-powered submarine disposal highlight just a couple of the daunting tasks ahead ofnuclear nations in their continued efforts to find a safe, effective means of radioactive waste disposal. As the two case studies

above have attempted to illustrate,radioactive waste, particularly high level radioactive waste,will not just go away. A permanent, safe andeffective method of isolation and disposal must be developed in order to successfully remove such wastes from thebiosphere. The following sections of this article will devote themselves to the explication of subseabed disposal of radioactive waste and will highlight some of the major internationalobstacles to implementing such a program.

Subseabed disposal would involve drilling holes beneath deep-sea clays on the geologically stable centers ofthe continental plates, depositing canisters of nuclear waste into the holes, and then back-filling the holes this would effectively deal off the waste for millions of years



Subseabed disposal is the permanent entombment of high level nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor at thegeologically stable centers of the continental plates. Such emplacement would be achieved by drilling holes in thethick, deep-sea clays on the ocean floor and depositing canisters of nuclear waste into the holes and then back-fillingthe holes, sealing the canisters off from the rest of the world for millions of years.

SSD has the unique ability to impede the migration of radioactive materials, which would inevitably leakfrom their containers these areas resemble deserts, are the most geologically stable places on the planet, andare predicted to remain so for at least 50 million years

Christopher Meisenkothen[Bachelors of Arts Degree from the University of Connecticut (1996);

Juris Doctorate from theUniversity of Connecticut School of Law (1999)], Note: Subseabed Disposal of Nuclear Waste: An International Perspective,Article Published in the Connecticut Journal of International Law,Fall 1999, (14 Conn. J. Int'l L. 631) [PB]

The reasons for selecting the SSD option lie mainly in the unique ability of deep-sea sediments to impede themigration of radioactive materials, which would inevitably leak from corroded containers, and in the ocean floorsalmost inescapable isolation from the rest of the world. The intended disposal sites lie at the centers of the largetectonic plates (continental plates) over three miles beneath the surface of the oceans. These areas are vast mudflatsthat might appear, at first glance, to constitute some of the least valuable real estate on the planet. The rocky crustunderlying these abyssal plains is blanketed by a sedimentary layer, hundreds of meters thick, composed of claysthat resemble dark chocolate and have the consistency of peanut butter. Bereft of plant life and sparsely populatedwith fauna, these regions are relatively unproductive from a biological standpoint and largely devoid of mineralwealth. These areas are some of the most geologically stable locales on the planet, having experienced anuninterrupted history of geologic tranquility over the past 50 to 100 million years and every indication suggests that

they will stay that way for at least another 50 million.


12/13

Page 12 of13

The two proposed existing sites in the U.S. for terrestrial disposal are the New Mexico repository and the theYucca Mountain Repository



There has been much recent debate and national press over several proposed terrestrial disposal sites so-calledgeologic repositories within which to place our higher level radioactive wastes. The two most notable such siteshave been the United States newly opened ancient salt mine repository beneath the desert in New Mexico and theproposed site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada .This section will briefly discuss the relative pros and cons of terrestrial disposal as compared with subseabed disposal,using the New Mexico and Yucca Mountain sites as examples.

SSD should preferred over Yucca Mountain because it immediately seals off the waste, and keeps it farremoved from and contact with the hydrologic cycle



Subseabed disposal is preferable to terrestrial disposal for several reasons. Perhaps most importantly, SSD almostentirely removes any interred high level waste from the environment on at least a scale of tens of thousands of years,something that any terrestrial disposal option cannot honestly promise. One of the main points of legitimate concernwith any terrestrial disposal option involves uncertainties regarding the hydrologic cycle and water tables. Regarding theNew Mexico site, scientists chose to bury the waste in the salt bed of a former ocean partly because salt creeps over time... [and] once a repository room is filled with waste, nature will beallowed to take its course: in seven to n ine years, the rooms roof and walls will collapse, encapsulating the waste. Further, the salt formations left by [the] prehistoric ocean eons ago have

remained geologically stable for more than 225 million years. While the New Mexico site offers some enticing features, SSD not only offers the alternative ofimmediately sealing the wastes off from the environment when clay is back-filled, but it also removes the wastesfrom any contact with the hydrologic cycle. Even if wastes could somehow find their way through the virtually impermeable deep-sea clays and into the cold watersat the bottom of the ocean, it would literally take hundreds of years for wastes to migrate back to the surface. Although several hundred years is not enough time for all the radioactivity in the

wastes to decay, in a worst case scenario, it would provide a buffer time before humans came in contact with the wastes. In any event, even should some wastesmiraculously escape their tombs, they would still be far removed from water tables and natural aquifers from whichhumans derive most of their water for drinking and irrigation not so with the sites in New Mexico and at Yucca Mountain.

SSD should preferred over The New Mexico Waste Isolation Pilot Project because it immediately seals off thewaste, and keeps it far removed from and contact with the hydrologic cycle



Subseabed disposal is preferable to terrestrial disposal for several reasons. Perhaps most importantly, SSD almostentirely removes any interred high level waste from the environment on at least a scale of tens of thousands of years,something that any terrestrial disposal option cannot honestly promise. One of the main points of legitimate concernwith any terrestrial disposal option involves uncertainties regarding the hydrologic cycle and water tables. Regardingthe New Mexico site, scientists chose to bury the waste in the salt bed of a former ocean partly because salt creepsover time... [and] once a repository room is filled with waste, nature will be allowed to take its course: in seven tonine years, the rooms roof and walls will collapse, encapsulating the waste. Further, the salt formations left by[the] prehistoric ocean eons ago have remained geologically stable for more than 225 million years. While the NewMexico site offers some enticing features, SSD not only offers the alternative of immediately sealing the wastes offfrom the environment when clay is back-filled, but it also removes the wastes from any contact with the hydrologiccycle. Even if wastes could somehow find their way through the virtually impermeable deep-sea clays and into the cold waters at the bottom of the ocean, it would literally take hundreds ofyears for wastes to migrate back to the surface. Although several hundred years is not enough time for all the radioactivity in the wastes to decay, in a worst case scenario, it would provide a

buffer time before humans came in contact with the wastes. In any event, even should some wastes miraculously escape their tombs, they wouldstill be far removed from water tables and natural aquifers from which humans derive most of their water fordrinking and irrigation not so with the sites inNew Mexico and at Yucca Mountain.


13/13

Page 13 of13

It is time for the nations of this world to stop pursuing land disposal and to pursue subseabed disposal as apotentially life-saving, very real, permanent disposal option



The worlds radioactive waste problem is grievous . Serious measures must be taken soon to remediate alreadycompromised disposal sites and to prevent the deterioration of already contaminated environments. Currenttechnologies either do not exist or are ill-suited to properly cleaning up and disposing of the worlds radioactivewastes. While the terrestrial disposal option may be a possibility for the United States and Russia, though a sorely inadequate one, the worlds nuclear nations need to

wake up and make hard choices and stop chasing the chimericalnotion of a safe, effective and economical land-baseddisposal option. The time has come for subseabed disposal of radioactive waste to be seriously considered by thelawmakers and policy-givers of this world as a potentially life-saving, and very real, permanent disposal option.

America owes it to future generations to find a place on the planet to dispose of nuclear waste me must notput our trust simply in the geologically unsecure, undersized Yucca Mountain, but use the thick, muddystrata under the sea



Barring a miraculous technical breakthrough that would allow radioactive elements to be easily transformed into stable ones or would provide the safe and economic dispatch of nuclear wastes

to the sun,society must ultimately find somewhere on the planet to dispose of the by-products of the decades-longnuclear experiment. Americans in particular cannot responsibly pin all hopes on a single, undersized facility in aNevada mountainside. They owe it to future generations to broaden their outlook and explore other possibilities, including those that involve thethick, muddy strata under the sea.

Documents

Subseabed Disposal