338 OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 



They take these fuel elements out of the reactors and send them to 

 the processing plants and in the course of this processing highly radio- 

 active wastes are evolved. These wastes at the present time are not 

 disposed; the way they are being handled at the present time is by 

 storage in specially designed steel tanks underground. 



It IS not proposed that these highly radioactive wastes ever be 

 disposed in the ocean, although conceivably there is that possibility or 

 theoretically there is that possibility. 



Mr. Lennon. Do they have subsequnt use after they are sent to 

 these laboratories and experimental stations ? 



Dr. LiEBERMAN. Ycs, sir ; the possible or potential use of fission 

 products, which have been characterized in a very general way as the 

 result of a nuclear reaction, do have potential use. This is perhaps 

 another contributing factor or reason why one would not want to dis- 

 pose of these fission product wastes into the ocean. 



However, the potential or possible utilization of these highly radio- 

 active materials in itself will not solve that particular problem be- 

 cause eventually these things will have to be disposed of some place. 



The important point is that these highly radioactive wastes evolved 

 from the processing of irradiated fuels are not now being disposed of. 

 Speaking for our own installations — and I think this is true inter- 

 nationally — it is not proposed that they be disposed in the oceans. 



The systems that are being worked on in our development program 

 involve the possible safe long-term disposal— because we are thinking 

 in terms of hundreds of years now for the effectiveness of this radio- 

 activity — this involves disposal on land in one way or another, either 

 by fixing the radio-activity in some kind of solid inert carrier and 

 then disposal in some specially selected geologic formation, or direct 

 disposal of some highly radioactive wastes in special geologic forma- 

 tions where we know it will stay for this long period of time. 



Mr. Lennon. The low-level wastes are committed to the ocean in 

 concrete barrels or containers for economic reasons rather than burying 

 in the earth; is that right? 



Dr. LiEBERMAN. Tliese low-level wastes, which are the wastes that 

 are evolved from the use of isotopes in research — this is essentially 

 trash that might have some contamination — are susceptible to what we 

 call a dilute and disperse technique or approach. In other words, 

 specific environments have the capacity to absorb certain amounts of 

 this radioactivity without creating any harm to the public or to its 

 resourcas. These low-level wastes are susceptible to that approach. 



On the other hand, the high-level wastes we talked about are 

 handled or approached on a concentrate and contain philosophy. In 

 other words, our contention is at this time that there is not enough 

 dilution capacity in the environment to permit these high-level wastes 

 to be dispersed to tlie environment. 



With the low-level wastes, disposal into the oceans certainly seems 

 to us to be one way of disposing or handling tliose low-level wastes. 

 Bui-ial on land is an alternate way. As far as safety is concerned, I 

 think they both can be considered safe under specific circumstances. 

 I am, of course, talking in general terms. 



Certainly, under some conditions the economics of the situation 

 would indicate that you might use one method or the other. But burial 

 on land or disposal in the ocean could perhaps be considered alternative 

 methods for disposal of these low-level wastes. 



