323 



We can check the physics, the permeability and such by using 

 the faster moving ions. We then have to make one assumption that 

 the absorption coefficient — the sticking coefficients — that we have 

 measured for something like plutonium are indeed correct. In 10 

 years, of course, the plutonium, if our calculations are correct, will 

 not have moved far enough for us to be able to see it. 



Mr. Marshall. Thank you. 



Mr. Studds. I wish we could spend all afternoon. 



This is fascinating. We are not used to witnesses who actually 

 know something. We are usually hearing from government agen- 

 cies, as you know. 



So it has been most enlightening. I deeply appreciate it. 



I particularly would like to spend the rest of the day on that 

 burp that you mentioned. I imagine that is a multimillenial burp? 



Dr. HoLLiSTER. Yes. That is a real problem: How does the sedi- 

 ment behave when it is heated up? 



We don't know the answer to that. 



But I am not afraid of not knowing that answer now. I am really 

 only afraid we won't have the time before the advocates move in or 

 the others move in and either close it off or open it up. 



I think the option ought to at least survive through the feasibil- 

 ity before we close it down. 



The nuclear waste is here now, even if we turned everything off. 

 That is what I am told. So, as a scientist I am trying to figure out 

 what to do with it in the most geologically sensible way I can. 



Mr. Studds. It is pretty sobering to think that some of us may 

 have to make essentially political decisions on the basis of a pretty 

 awesome lack of knowledge. 



our statement, of course, will be placed in the record in full. 



[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson and Dr. HoUister fol- 

 lows:] 



Prepared Statement by D. Richard Anderson, Program Manager, Subseabed 

 Disposal Program, Seabed Programs Division 4536, Sandia National Laborato- 

 ries, Albuquerque, N. Mex., and C. D. Holuster, Senior Scientist, Dean of 

 Graduate Studies, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mass. 



Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are pleased to be here today to 

 address the subject of the disposal of nuclear wastes by burial in the sea floor. We 

 will describe the activities of the Subseabed Disposal Program and some of the 

 salient points of the subseabed disposal option. 



structure 



The Subseabed Disposal Program, or SDP, is charged with two major tasks (Fig. 

 1). The first is to assess the feasibility of using the deep sea sediments as a 

 repository for high level nuclear wastes or spent fuel. The second is to develop the 

 ability to evaluate ocean disposal options considered or proposed by other nations. 

 The SDP does not consider dilution in ocean waters or dumping of canisters of 

 waste on the ocean floor as a viable disposal option for high level wastes. Rather, we 

 are investigating the feasibility of burjdng canisters of high level waste, or HLW, in 

 certain types of deep-sea sediments many tens of meters below the sediment surface 

 (Fig. 2). 



Assuming that subeasbed disposal is found to be feasible, it still would be neces- 

 sary to demonstrate, before any disposal operation could begin, that the disposal 

 option can meet performance criteria established by the EPA to ensure the safety of 

 man. The major research efforts of the SDP at this time are to describe and 

 quantify the response of the canisters, the waste form, and the sediments to the 

 radiation and heat from high level waste or spent fuel. This research is divided into 

 a number of areas. (Fig. 3). specifically: 



