577 



make the subseabed option unacceptable. Present models indicate that the sedi- 

 ments will be able to contain the wastes. If these models cannot be verified by field 

 experiments, or if properties in-situ are such that the models predict unacceptable 

 release of radionuclides, the program would be halted. Results that might prove the 

 sediments an inadequate barrier would include: There is extensive natural water 

 movements through the deep sea sediments in question: The absorption properties 

 of the sediment are lower or more unpredictable in-situ than in the laboratory; the 

 strength of the heated sediment is inadequate to prevent extensive cannister migra- 

 tion: The sediment cannot properly be sealed after cannister emplacement. Field 

 verification of these properties and models, is necessary research before a proper 

 evaluation of the subseabed option can be complete. If the subseabed option was 

 found unacceptable the major research programs of the project would be terminat- 

 ed. It would be desirable to maintain some organization responsible for evaluating 

 other nations programs of oceanic disposal of high radioactive waste and to be able 

 to demonstrate and document the finds of the U.S. subseabed program. 



2. Five nations currently spend some funds for research to assess the feasibility of 

 seabed disposal of radioactive wastes. One other nation will start research in 1981 

 and two others are considering research. The U.K. and France have the most active 

 programs. Our program is complimentary with theirs in that we are not presently 

 funding U.S. ships to study areas in the Atlantic. The U.K. and France fund ships to 

 research the Atlantic and we are allowed to participate in their cruises and obtain 

 copies of their data. If one were to consider the European programs as a whole it 

 would be fair to state that their scope of investigations is as broad if not more so 

 than the U.S. program. 



It is difficult to delineate specifically the funds expended for research on sub- 

 seabed disposal of radioactive wastes. Research in the ocean is often of use in a 

 number of program areas and cannot be strictly defined as research for subseabed 

 disposal. For example, in the U.S. research on subseabed disposal it is quite easy to 

 state how much money goes through the program. However without ongoing re- 

 search in oceanography and to some extent land based nuclear waste disposal, the 

 subseabed program budget would be unable to make significant progress in evaluat- 

 ing the option. With this in mind some 1981 budgets for the various countries are 

 listed: 



United States 6.1 million dollars. 



United Kingdom 3 



France 3 



Japan 1 



West Germany 0.5 



Netherlands To begin 1981. 



Switzerland Considering. 



Belgium Considering. 



It would be prudent for the U.S. to maintain the capability to evaluate other 

 nation's research programs, which may involve funding some field research, until 

 that time when the nation proposing disposal can document the safety of the 

 program to the standards we expect of ourselves. 



3. The use of the ocean sediments as a repository for high-level nuclear wastes 

 would offer a number of advantages to land-based mined repositories. First, the 

 areas of the ocean that would be suitable for disposal offer a very predictable 

 geologic environment. The central portions of the oceanic plates have the lowest 

 seismic activity on earth. Areas can be chosen that have no volcanism. The continu- 

 ously depositional nature of the central gyre areas of the ocean is remarkably 

 insensitive to climatic changes. Second, the oceans present an unsurpossed natural 

 barrier to man's intrusion to the repository. The deep sea floor is perhaps the least 

 valuable property on earth. The clay sediments (essentially dust blown off the 

 continents) is of no commercial value. Manganese nodules of high copper and nickel 

 content are concentrated in areas of the ocean that are being avoided even though 

 the collection of nodules from the sea floor above a repository would be unlikely to 

 disturb the repository. We cannot trust societal controls to prevent intrusion into 

 the repository for the 10,000 year minimum life of a repository. Thus, it is signifi- 

 cant that a society less technically advanced than our own would simply be unable 

 to disturb the repository. The cannisters placed in the deep sea sediments would be 

 essentially independent of each other. Any operation that disturbs one or a few 

 cannisters would not degrade the barrier properties of the remainer of the reposi- 

 tory. These first two features are very important since EPA calculations on mined 

 repositories indicate that almost all of the risk of a repository is associated with 

 unexpected breaching of a repository. The third desirable feature of the ocean 



