GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 430 

OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

OF EARTH SCIENTISTS IN THE 

NUCLEAR AGE 

Prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey on behalf of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STEW ART L. UDALL, SBCUTAilY 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

THOMAS B. NOLAN, DntBCTOil 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 430 

OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES O]f EARTH SCIENTISTS 

IN THE NUCLEAR AGE 

By E. B. Eckel 

Prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey on behalf of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 

REPRINTED 1961 

Washington, D. C. 1960. 

Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract------------------------------------- 1 

Responsibilities------_----------------------- 1 

Military applications------------------------ 1 

Peaceful applications----------------------- 1 

Power production ___ ------------------------ 2 

Opportunities for the earth scientist _______ - _ _ _ _ 3 

Page 

Available literature--------------------------- 3 

General background------------------------- 4 

Underground nuclear tests------------------ 4 

Open file reports, U.S. Geological Survey---'"- 5 

Peac'eful uses of nuclear explosions ---------- 5 

Disposal of radioactive wastes--------------- 6 
OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSffiiLITIES. 

OF EARTH SCIENTISTS IN 

THE NUCLEAR AGE 

By E. B. Eckel 

P~sented.at .the annual meeting of the California Association of Engineenng Geologzsts, Los Angeles, Calif., Oct. 9-10, 1959. 

ABSTRACT 

Underground testing of weapons or other nuclear devices has already required many man-years of effort 

in geologic, geophysical, and hydrologic fields. Any 

future underground tests will require similar efforts. 

in providing advice on sites, feasibility, and interpretation of the explosions. Similarly, all offensive or 

defensive installations of any kind require geologic 

facts in site selection and in design and construction. 

Many peaceful applications of nuclear explosions have 

been proposed; others are sure to be prQ_posed in the 

future, Each such proposal will require evaluation in 

part by earth scientists, and some V,:ill go as far a~ 'full-scale tests or even to commercial applications. 

Much additional information on the effects of explosions 

in various kinds of rock is needed before it will be 

safe to extrapolate from the previous tests in a single 

rock type in Nevada, The success of the nuclearreactor program depends in part on geologic and 

hydrologic knowledge in helping to solve site selection, 

construction, and water-supply problems. More important, however, are studies of the disposal of radioactive wastes from reactors and similar plants. 

Parallel with the duties of geologists in the nuclear 

age are many opportunities to learn more about seismology, structural geology, mineralogy, volcanology, and 

other branches of earth science-all in large-scale 

controlled experiments. The paper includes a partial 

bibliography of the rapidly growing amount of literature on the subject. 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

This paper is confined to a very small fraction of 

the total geologic problems of the nuclear age-that 

is, to those more or less directly related to the release of nuclear energy. Even within this restricted 

field our job is large. 

Military Applications 

Energy releases by weapons or by explosive devices 

applied to peaceful purposes-sc;>-called uncontrolled 

releases-pose many problems. The geologist must 

supply all the geologic facts that have any bearing on 

the safety, efficiency, or economy of such explosions. 

Even though it poses many special problems, both 

technical and political, underground testing of nuclear 

weapons or other devices has many advantages over 

surface or above-surface testing. Since 1956, when 

the Atomic Energy Commission began serious plans 

for underground tests, the U.S. Geological Survey has 

been rather deeply involved in this aspect of nuclearenergy releases. Its job has been to advise the Commission on three essential points-selection of sites 

for contained underground tests, prediction of seismic 

effects both on and off the test site, and assessment of 

ground-water contamination problems, To carry out 

these responsibilities the Survey has performed many 

man-years of effort-geologic, geophysical, and 

hydrologic. In doing so it has had a rare opportunity 

to correlate surface and underground geologic mapping 

and other field studies with the :results of extensive 

chemical, petrographic, and physical-properties 

measurements made in the laboratory. All. of these 

interrelated facts have been used by the Survey and by 

many other groups in advising on the feasibility and 

interpretation of underground blasts of conventional 

and nuclear explosives. 

Aside from the testing of nuclear weapons, the very 

fact that the world has nuclear weapons opens up an 

~normously broad field for the engineering geologist. 

We must, apparently, be prepared to use nuclear 

weapons and to defend ourselves against them, This 

means that we must consider building everthing from 

at least backyard bomb shelters to vast underground 

factories and nerve centers to "hard• sites for nuclearmissile .launchers. These last installations must be 

ready to fire at all times, Yet they must be invulnerable to near hits by enemy missiles and to the radioactive material these may produce. 

Sites for offense or defense, or both, offer far bigger 

problems than geologic ones. But geologists and soils 

engineers have a very real duty and responsibility to 

assist in site selections and in the design and construction stages of all offensive or defensive installations. 

Peaceful Applications 

Peaceful applications of nuclear explosions that have 

been proposed range widely in their scope and in the 

degree of .economic or technologic soundness. Few if 

any of the proposals are new to the world-they merely 

propose to apply new methods to things that man has 

done or dreamed of in the past. 

Several thousand years ago, it was said that faitl). 

can remove mountains. More recently, Stalin spoke of 

moving mountains; al.nost certainly he was thinking of 

applying nuclear energy, rather than faith, to the task. 

The French recently revived a 90-year-old proposal 

to change the climate of North Africa-this time by 

using nuclear explosives to open a passage from the 

Mediterranean to those parts of the Sahara that are 

below sea level. 
2 OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EARTH SCIENTISTS IN THE NUCLEAR AGE 

Some of the proposals that have been made in this 

country are these: 

1. Increase of fractures, hence an increase of stream 

production, in geothermal areas. 

2. Application of the heat-pump principle to withdraw 

energy from a deeply buried mass of rock heated by 

a nuclear explosion. 

3. Development of harbors and channels in Alaska and 

elsewhere. 

4. Excavation of a sea-level trans-Isthmian canal. 

5. Development of oil-shale resources, either by 

breaking large amounts of shale to make it ready for 

cheap mining Oij by undergrouna distillation of shale 

oil. 

6. Liquefaction of tar in tar sands by heat from a 

nuclear explosion. 

7. Minute fracturing of large low-grade metallic-ore 

deposits, preparatory ·to in-place leaching. 

8. Increased production of water by fracturing o( 

proper strata. 

9. Artificial ground-water recharge by fracture of 

impermeable beds between source and potential 

aquifer. 

10. Storage of oil and gas in rocks fractured by nuclear 

explosions. 

11. Construction of headwater detention dams by 

blasting of canyon walls. 

12. Production of valuable isotopes by breeder reactions 

deep within the earth. 

13. Production of diamonds and other gem minerals. 

Some of these proposals appear to be more fantastic 

than others and some will certainly be dropped from 

consideration after preliminary study. But others are 

equally certain to be tried, and some of these will 

prove successful. Moreover, we have just begun to 

think in terms of peaceful uses for nuclear explosions. 

For each scheme that has already been suggested there 

are certain to be several new ones proposed in the 

months and years to come. Each one of these will 

require evaluation, in part by earth scientists, and 

some will go as far as full-scale tests or even to real 

commercial applications. 

Virtually all of the proposed peaceful uses for 

nuclear explosives depend on the heat generated by the 

explosion or on the ability of the explosion to break or 

excavate large quantities of rock. Any specific scheme 

will of course require intensive studies of many kinds, 

ranging from economics to determination of the physical and hydrologic properties of the rocks that will 

be affected. 

On the basis of the present state of our economics 

and technology, it is easy for a geologist to see that 

nuclear explosives can be used only for very large 

projects. But if the project is large enough, the use of 

nuclear explosives may indeed prove economical. It 

is possible that the price of a nominal 20-kiloton device, 

emplaced and fired, would be no more than $500,000. 

Now~ 20,000 tons of dynamite would cost about 20 times 

as much as this, delivered at the site. Moreover, 

whereas a 20-kiloton nuclear device could be emplaced 

in a fair-sized drill hole, or in a room of only a few 

cubic feet, the equivalent amount of dynamite would 

require more than 20,000 cubic yards of space. The 

cost of excavation and support of a room of this size 

would be a very considerable addition to the cost of 

the explosive itself. And the resultant dynamite explosion would not be a point source of energy in either 

time or space! The economic contrasts become even 

more pronounced with larger explosions. A megaton 

device---1 million tons of TNT equivalent-can be 

bought for 1 million dollars! 

There is, of course, a fallacy involved in direct 

comparisons between nuclear and conventional explosives. The rates of propagation qf energy are of entirely different orders of magnitude, and the partitions 

of energy between shock, heat, and radiation are very 

different. Still, the orthodox comparison between total 

energy yields of TNT and nuclear explosions is the 

most convenient handle we have to use. 

It is obvious that we will not be ready for any largescale peaceful applications of nuclear explosives until 

we know much more about a number of different kinds 

of rocks and geologic settings. As a result of half a 

dozen tests, all more or less contained, we know a 

great deal about the effects of explosions on the 

rhyolitic tuff of the Oak Spring formation in Nevada. 

This tuff was chosen for the early tests because it is 

thick, relatively uniform, easily tunneled, and weathers 

to steep slopes. It was also chosen because the 

porosity, water content, and mineralogic composition 

of the tuff. permit it to absorb shock waves and radioactive contaminants, yet to dissipate heat rather 

rapidly. Hence it provided almost ideal conditions for 

the tests. But rocks like the Oak Spring are comparatively rare. Before we can have much co~fidence in 

extrapolating from the recent tests in Nevada we need 

to know much more about the results of tests in many 

other media-rocks of different hardness, toughness, 

and chemical composition. We also need to know much 

mo·re about the effects of joints and other structural 

features that are common to all rocks but in greatly 

varying degree. 

Power Production 

"Controlled• releases of energy, here limited to 

production of nuclear power, offer similar responsibilities. Schemes for increasing the heat release from 

geothermal regions by nuclear explosives, as well as 

schemes for underground storage of heat from explosions, are not strictly classed as controlled energy 

releases. Yet the ultimate extraction of the heat produced will be very closely controlled. Controlled or 

not, all such schemes are primarily geologic problems. 

All reactors, whether for production of power or for 

breeding of isotopes, require large amounts of surface 

or ground water. Many reactors will be built partly or 

wholly within the ground. Site selection, construction, 

and water supply all require geologic advice. 
AVAILABLE LITERATURE 3 

The safe, long-term disposal of radioactive fissionproduct wastes, however, is one of the important problems ahead of us in the controlled release of energy. 

If the problem is not solved it could prove to be a 

limiting factor in our development of atomic power as 

an energy source. Great quantities of wastes must be 

eithe-r drowned in the ocean, buried in the ground, or 

safely dispersed in natural environments. Wherever 

we put them the longer lived nuclides must stay safely 

where they are for centuries and must not contaminate 

ground-water supplies or mineral deposits that may 

be needed in the future. It is also desirable that they 

be recoverable at will, for there is always the possibility that new uses will be found for various fission 

products. 

Waste disposal thus offers great challenges and 

opportunities to earth scientists. The individual job 

may be a simple one of site selection for a concrete 

burial vault, or determination that a given mine, cave, 

salt dome, or depleted natural-gas reservoir will or 

will not be a good container for liquid or solid wastes. 

But it may just as well be the discovery and delineation 

of a structural basin thousands of feet deep,_ with no 

potentially useful mineral or fuel deposits within it, 

with permeable beds in its lower portions, and with no 

possible connection between those beds and water-. or 

oil-bearing horizons closer to the surface. 

_OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EARTH SCIENTIST 

This cataloging of responsibilities implies a large 

number of opportunities for the earth scientist. Some 

of these implications have to do with jobs or with the 

ability to add to our knowledge of the country by means 

of the detailed geologic maps, backed up by thorough 

exploration, that we will have to produce. There are, 

however, other opportunities for fundamental research 

in the earth sciences. 

The seismologist can use nuclear blasts to measure 

shock waves whose origins, in terms of time, place, 

and energy, are known in very exact terms. Further, 

he can use these measurements in studying the makeup 

of the earth. 

The structural geologist can study the deformations 

in different kinds of rocks caused by point sources of 

energy. The volcanologist can study the effects on 

rocks of extremely high temperatures applied for 

transient periods. The mineralogist must learn howand if-clay and other minerals adsorb radioactive 

isotopes and how mineral properties are changed by 

intense r~diation, heat, and pressure. The economic 

geologist will be able to aid in efforts to produce 

economic deposits of radioisotopes or to develop 

submarginal ore deposits; he will be able to make and 

freeze magmas whose composition he knows or can 

even control. The engineering geo~ogist will perforce 

accumulate extremely detailed information on small 

parts of the earth's crust; he will be able to correlate 

and interpret innumerable measurements of chemical, 

physical, petrologic, and structural properties of rock 

types and stratigraphic units in a way ·that has never 

been possible heretofore. 

There are many actual and potential uses of nuclear 

reactions as tools for the geologists' trade. Gammaray and neutron logging of boreholes is already well 

known, as is age determination of rocks,. soils, and water 

by means of radioisotopes. The years ahead will see 

growth in such methods as these, but perhaps even 

greater growth in other field and laboratory applications. 

For some elements, neutron-activation measurements, 

for example, are more sensitive than standard chemical 

analyses. Again, radioactive tracers can and will be 

used to study not only ground-water movements, but 

such things as cliff erosion and transportation of sediments. Soil moisture and density can now be measured 

in place by means of neutrons and gamma rays. Many 

other methods and gadgets will be developed for measurements of geologic processes and properties as time 

goes on--all to the benefit of the science. 

Many of the thit:igs that the engineering geologist will 

be called on to do with regard to nuclear-energy releases are those- that he is already expected to know. 

But if he is really to live up to his opportunities, he 

should broaden his fundamental knowledge. He should 

become aware, first of all, of the vast political and 

sociological implications of the forces with which he 

is working. Next, he should understand something of 

the mean.ing---and mechanics of nuclear reactions, both 

fission and fusion. And the more he knows about such 

fields as radiochemistry, explosives engineering, and 

rock mec~nics, the better will he do his job. We 

need, in fact, to develop a whole new concept of rock 

mechanics. We know a good deal about the effects of 

static loads on rocks. Now we need to learn as much 

or more' about the effects of dynamic loads caused by 

instantaneous shock. 

AVAILABLE LITERATURE 

The literature of atomic energy is already enormous 

and is growing at least as fast as any other branch of 

knowledge. Many reports that deal with geologic 

aspects of·atomic-energy releases are classified and 

are not available to the public. A surprisingly great 

and increasing number of reports, however, is unclassified and available to anyone who knows. where to 

look for them. Some such reports are in the standard 

technical and scientific journals ~r in government 

publications. Many others are released by various 

contractors to the Atomic Energy Commission and are 

either for sale or for study in open files. 

The appended partial bibliography of unclassified 

literature on geology in the nuclear age (exclusive of 

radioactive raw materials) amounts to little more than 

a sampling, but it will give the reader some idea as 

to the wealth of material that is already available. 

Many of the_ reports listed contain additional bibliographic references. Some of the material so listed is 

marked "for official_ use" or has other restrictions, 

even though this fact is not always indicated in the 

bibliographies. Because many restricted documents 

are subsequently released to open files or otherwise 

published, the earnest student would be well advised 

to inquire of the source agency as to the current status 

of such reports. 

The expression $--- OTS means that the report 

is for sale by the Office of Technical Services, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington 25, D. C. The 

expression (mf) means microfilm; photostat copies 

are also available, at somewhat higher cost, for most 

items listed as microfilm. 
4 OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EARTH SCIENTISTS IN THE NUCLEAR AGE 

General Background 

Dwyer, C. J., 1958, Reports on the productive uses of 

nuclear energy; Nuclear energy and world fuel 

prices: Washington, Natl. Plan. Assoc., 84 p. $1.25. 

Politicoeconomic study of nuclear energy versus the 

fossil fuels. 

Faul, Henry, 1954, Nuclear geology; a symposium on 

nuclear phenomena in the earth sciences: New 

York, John Wiley & Sons, 406 p. 

Does not treat engineering· applications of explosions. 

Glasstone, Samuel, ed., 1957, The effects of nuclear 

weapons: U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., 579 p. $2. 

Glazov, N. V., and Glazov, A. N., 1959, New instruments and methods of engineering geology; translated from Russian by J. Paul Fitzsimmons: New· 

York Consultants Bur. 1 Inc., 91 p. 

New •tools" for engineering geologists, particularly 

methods based on radioactivity. 

Hubbert, M. K., 1957, Nuclear energy and the fossil 

fuels l!!, Drilling and Production Practice, 1956: 

Am. R!troleum Inst., p. 7-25. 

Lansdell, Norman, 1958, The atom and the energy revolution: New York, Philosophical Library, 196 p. 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1957, Atomic energy 

facts: Washington, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 

216 p. $2. 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear science 

abstracts: Washington, U.S. Govt. Frinting Office, 

semimonthly publication available on subscription 

basis; also available on exchange basis to 

universities, research institutions, and industrial 

firms from U.S •. Atomic Energy Comm. Tech. Inf. 

Service, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

U.S. Atomic ~nergy Commission, Semiannual reports 

(annual from July 1959): Washington, U.S. Govt. 

Printing Office. 

Incl-qdes references to much of the significant 

literature. 

Zeitlin, H. R., Arnold, E. D., and Ullmann, J. W., 1956, 

Processing requirements, build-up of fission product activity, and liquid radiochemical waste volumes in a predicted nuclear power economy: Oak 

Ridge Natl. Lab., CF-56-1-162, Jan. 30, 1956, 18 

p. $2.40 (mf) OTS. 

Underground Nuclear Tests 

Anderson, A. D., 1959, Application of "Theory for 

close-in fallout" to low-yield land surface and 

underground nuclear .detonations: U.S. Naval 

Radiological Defense Lab., USNRDI..r-TR-289, 66 p. 

Budenholzer, R., and Nielsen, H. J., ~958, Evaluation 

of temperature distribution and yield of an underground nuclear explosion: Armour Rese_arch 

Foundation ARF-TM-D-15, 9 p. $1.80 (mf) OTS. 

Carder, D. S., and Cloud, W. K., 1959, Surface motion 

from large underground explosions: Jour. Geophys. 

Research, v. 64, no. 10, p. 1471-87, 

Carder, D. S., and others, 1958, Surface motions from 

an underground explosion: U.S. Coast and Geodetic 

Survey, WT-1530, 45 p. $1.25 OTS. 

Eckel, E. B., and others, 1957, Geologic aspects of the 

recent underground atomic explosion in Nevada: 

Geotimes, v. 2, no. 5, p. 6, 14. 

Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier, Inc., 1958, Photographic analysis of earth motion, Shot Rainier: 

WT-1532, 15 p. $2.40 (mf) OTS. 

Goodale, T. C., and others, 1958, Temperatures from 

underground detonation, Shot Rainier: Broadview 

Research Corp. and California Univ., Mercury, 

Nevada, Radiation Lab., WT-1527, 51 p. $1.50 OTS. 

Green, J. B., ed., 1958, Proceedings of the Army-ORO 

conference on basic and applied research and component development, June 23-July 2, 1958: Johns 

·Hopkins Univ. Operations Research Office, OROSP-68 (v. 3), Papers 17, 22, 28, and 29, 66 p. 

Includes discussions of geophysics and underground 

atomic tests. 

Griggs, D. E., and Teller, Edward, 1956, Deep underground test shots, California Univ., Livermore, 

Lawrence Radiation Lab., UCRI..r-4659 $0.50 OTS. 

Higgins, G. H., 1959, Evaluation of the ground-water 

contamination hazard from underground nuclear 

explosions: California Univ., Livermore, Lawrence 

Radiation Lab., UCRl..r-5538. 25 p. $1. OTS. Also 

Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 64, no. 10, p. 1509-

1519, 

Johnson, G, W., Higgins, G. H., and Violet, C. E., 1959, 

Underground nuclear detonations: Jour. Geophys. 

Research, v. 64, no. 10, p. 1457-1470. 

Johnson, G. W., and Violet, C. E., 1958, Phenomenology 

of contained nuclear explosions: California Univ._, 

Livermore, Lawrence Radiation Lab.~ UCRI..r-5124 

(Rev. -1),27 p. $1 OTS. 

Johnson, G. W., and others, 1958, The underground 

nuclear detonation of Sept. 19, 1957, Rainier, 

Operation Plumbbob: California Univ., Livermore, 

Lawrence Radiation Lab., UCRl..r-5124, 27 p. $1 

OTS. 

Johnson, M. S., and Hibbard, D. E., 1957, Geology of 

the Atomic Energy Commission Nevada Proving 

Grounds area, Nevada: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 

1021-:K, -p. 333-384. 

General geology of Nevada Test Site. 

Kennedy, G. C., and Higgins, G. H., 1958, Temperatures 

and pressures associated with the cavity produced 

by the Rainier event: California Univ., Los Angeles, 

Institute of Geophysics and California Univ., 

Livermore, Lawrence Radiation Lab., UCRl..r-5281, 

9 p. $0.50 OTS. 

Mark, J. C., 1959, The detection of nuclear explosions: 

Nucleonics, v. 17, no. 8, p. 64-73. 

Perret, W. R., 1957, Subsurface motion from a confined 

underground detonation, Part 1: Sandia Corp., 

ITR-1529, 64 p. $3.60 (mf) OTS. 
AVAILABLE LITERATURE 5 

Perret, W. R., and Preston, R. G., 1958, Preliminary 

summary report of strong-motion measurements 

from a confined underground nuclear detonation: 

Sandia Corp. and California Univ. Radiation Lab., 

ITR-1499, 34 p. $3 (mf) OTS. 

Pieper, F. A., and others, 1958, Subsurface accelerations and strains from an undergrou,nd detonation, 

Part 2: Army Engineer Research and Development 

Labs., WT-1531, 38 p. $1.25 OTS. 

Polatty, J. M., and others, 1958, Grouting Consulting 

Service: Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, Miss., 

WT-1713, 21 p. $0.75 OTS. 

Describes drilling and grouting operations at 

Nevada Test Site. 

Romney, Carl, 1959, Amplitudes of seismic body waves 

from underground nuclear explosions: Jour. 

Geophys. Research, v. 64, no. 10, p. 1489-98. 

Swift, L. M., and others, 1958, Surface motion from an 

underground detonation: Stanford Research Inst. 

ITR-1528, 61 p. $3.90 (mf) OTS. 

Open file reports, U.S. Geological Survey 

The following reports on various phases of the 

underground tests at the Nevada Test Site have been 

released in open files by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Copies are not available for retention, but all reports 

can be consulted at some or all of the following offices 

of the U.S. Geological Survey. Additional reports will 

doubtless be released to open file at frequent intervals. 

Library,· Room 1033, General Services Administration Building, Washington, D. C. 

Library, Building 25, Federal Center, Denver, Colo. 

Library, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, Calif, 

504 Federal Building, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

1031 Bartlett Building, Los Angeles, Calif. 

232 Appraisers Building, San Francisco, Calif. 

Diment, W. H., Wilcox, R. E., and others, 1959, 

Properties of Oak Spring formation in area 12 at 

the Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-672, 

120 p., 55 illus., 30 tables. 

Diment,· W. H., Wilmarth, V. R., and others, 1959, 

Geologic effects of the Rainier underground 

nuclear explosion: U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-355, 

134 p., 21 illus., 13 tables. 

--- 1959, Geological Survey investigations in the 

U12b.03 and U12b.04 tunnels, Nevada Test Site: 

U.S. Geol. Survey TEM-996, 74 p., 11 figs., 14 

tables. 

---1959, Geological Survey investigations in the 

U12e.05 tunnel, Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geol. 

Survey TEM-997, 70 p., 7 figs., 8 tables .. 

---1959, Geological Survey investigations in the 

U12b.01 tunnel, Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geol. 

Survey TEM-998, 38 p., 6 figs., 7 tables. 

Gibbons, A. B., 1959; Geologic effects of the Rainier 

underground test-preliminary report: U.S. Geol. 

Survey TEI-718, 35 p., 22 illus. 

Hansen, W. R., and Lemke, R. W., 1959, Geology of the 

USGS and Rainier tunnel areas, Nevada Test Site: 

U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-716, 1~1 p., 8 illus., 7 tables. 

Morey, G. W., 1959, The action of heat and of superheated steam on the tuff of the Oak Spring formation: U.S. Geol. Sl!rvey TEI-729, 13 p., 4 tables. 

Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions 

Bacigalupi, C. M., 1959, Large scale excavation with 

nuclear explosives: California Univ., Livermore, 

Lawrence Radiation Lab,, UCRL--5457, 17 p., 

$0,50 OTS. 

Brown, H., and Johnson, G. W., 1958, Nonmilitary uses 

·of nuclear explosions: Califo·rnia Univ., Livermore, 

Lawrence Radiation Lab., UCRL--5026, 15 p,, 

$0.50 OTS~ 

Carlson, R. H,, 1958, The construction of underground 

oil storage tanks utilizing nuclear explosives: 

Sandia Corp., SCTM-233-58 (51), 24 p., $2.70 

(mf) OTS. 

---1959, The construction of geothermal steam 

power plants utilizing nuclear explosives: Sandia 

Corp., SCTM-52-59 (51), 31 p., $2.70 (mf) OTS. 

Crawford, J. E., 1958, Operation PlowsharEM-Construction through destruction: Industrial Rev, (Africa), 

v. 10, no, 5; also in Atomics and Energy, v. 3, 

no. 11. -

Denarie, Paul, 1959, La mer interieure du Sahara: 

Transmondia Economie et Transport, v. 52, Jan., 

p. 4&-53. 

Pr9posal to divert Mediterranean into Sahara by 

means of nuclear explosives. 

Holmes and Narver, Inc., 1958, Completion report, 

Project Chariot-Phase !-Operation Plowshare: 

Los Angeles, AECU-4039. $3.90 (mf) OTS. 

Feasibility report on Alaskan harbor project. 

Johnson, G. W., 1958, Nuclear explosions-Rainier 

test: Mining Congress Jour., v. 44, no. 11, p. 78, 

so. 

---1958, Rainier blast opens new horizons: 

Engineering and Mining Jour., v. 159, no, 4, April, 

p. 21. 

---1959, Mineral resource development by the use 

of nuclear explosives: C~lifornia Univ., Liverlt).ore, 

Lawrence Radiation Lab., UC RL--5458, 18 p., 

$0.50 OTS. 

Johnson, G. W., and Brown, Harold, 1958, Nonmilitary 

uses of nuclear explosives: Scientific Am., v. 199, 

Dec., p. 29-35. 

Kaplan, M. F., 1958, Nuclear energy and the civil 

engineer: South African Inst. Civil Engineers 

Trans., nos. 7 and 8, 20 p. 
6 OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EARTH SCIENTISTS IN THE NUCLEAR AGE 

Merritt, M. L., 1959, Earth moving by nuclear explosives: Sandia Corp., SCTM 78-59 (51), 14 p., $2.40 . 

(mf) OTS. 

Feasibility and cost studies. 

Murphey, B. F., and Ames, E. S., 1959, Air pressure 

·versus depth of burst: Sandia Corp., SCTM-42-59 

(51), 4 p., $1.80 {mf) OTS. 

Consideration of proposed peaceful uses. 

Palmer Films, 1958, Industrial application of nuclear 

explosives: California Univ., LivE)rmore, Lawrence 

Radiation Lab., 16-mm color sound film; available 

on free loan from Atomic Energy Comm. headquarters and field libraries; Byron Inc., 1226 

Wisconsin !we., N. W., Washington 7, D. C., $29.08. 

Paris, Leonard, 1958, We'll make the H-blast serve us: 

Monsanto Mag., v. 38, p. 14-17. 

Pokrovskii, G. I., 1953, Rlysics of earth works: 

Tekhnika Molodezhi, no. 2, p. 9-12; translation, 

California Univ., Livermore, Lawrence Radiation 

Lab., UCRL-Trans-358 {L), p. 3-19. 

Compares various means of moving vast quantities 

of earth. 

Pokrovskii, G. I., 1954, Beginning of an era of atomic 

energy: Tekhnika Molodezhi, no. 9, p. 2-6; translation, California Univ., Livermore, Lawrence 

Radiation Lab., UCRL-Trans-358 (L), p. 20-40, 

·---1957, Constructive explosions-China: Tekhnika 

Molodezhi, no. 7, p. 7; translation, California Univ. 

Livermore, Lawrence Radiation Lab., UCRLTran~358 (L) p,. 20-40. 

Porzel, F. B., 1957, Some peacetime uses for nuclear 

weapons: Armour Research Foundation, ARF-TMD-1, 9 p., $1.80 (mf) OTS. 

Discussion of use for heat engines and controlled 

excavation. 

---1958, A new approach to heat and power generation from contained nuclear explosions: hn. Power 

Conf. Proc., v. 20, p. 92-102; also [Armour 

Research Foundation] 2d United Nations lnternat. 

Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, 

Geneva, Switzerlaf!d, 1958, Paper A/Conf. 15/P/ 

2178, 14 p., $0.50 OTS. 

Rabb, D. D., 1958, Possible mining applications: Mining 

Cong. Jour., v. 44, no. 11, p. 79-80. 

Rougeron, Camille, 1956, The applications of thermonuclear explosions: Paris, Eds. Berger-Leveault~ 

306 p. [French] 

Discusses possibilities of changing climates, as by 

transfer of sea water to deserts, performance of 

chemical and metallurgical processes in subterranean 

centers, etc. 

Teller, Edward, 1958, Peaceful uses of fusion: 

California Univ., Livermore, Lawrence Radiation 

Lab., UCRL-5257 (Rev.), 11 p., $2.40 {mf) OTS. 

Von Ubisch, H., 1957, In the event of reacto~ disasters, 

what protection is to be gained by constructing the 

reactor within a rock chamber?: Teknika Tidskr., 

v. 87. p. 893-898. 

Voress, H. E., 1959, Peaceful uses of nuclear explosives; 

a literature search: U. S...Atomic Energy Comm. 

Tech. Inf. Service Ext., TID-3522 (Rev. 2), 5 p., 

$0.50. 

All significant items listed here. 

Zodtner, Harlan, ed. 1958, Industrial uses of nuclear 

explosives, Plowshare Series, Rept. no. 1: 

California Univ., Livermore, Lawrence Radiation 

Lab., UCRL-5253, 96 p., $1.75 OTS. 

Anonymous, 1958, AEC tackling technical, legal problems 

of •Plowshare"; Eight proposals submitted by 

power, mining, oil firms: Nucleonics, v. 16, no .. '4, 

p. 21. 

--- 1958, Peaceful uses for bombs: Bull. Atomic 

Scientists, v. 14, no. 2, p. 94. 

---1959, A-bomb recovery of shale oil proposed: 

Rocky Mountain Oil Reporter, March 1959. 

---1959, Can underground blast make shale oil 

competitive?: Oil and Gas Jour., v. 57, p. 58-59. 

Disposal of Radioactive Wastes 

Africk, D. L., Novak, P. E., and Blomeke, J. 0., 1957, 

Radioactive waste treatment and disposal-a 

bibliography of unclassified literature: Oak Ridge 

Natl. Lab,, CF-57-8-118, 33 p. $30 (mf) OTS. 

Arnold, E. D., 1957, Compilation and analysis of waste 

disposal information: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., 

CF-57-2-20 (Del.), 295 p, $6 OTS. 

Barker, F. B., 1958, Factors affecting the transport of 

radioactivity by water: Am. Waterworks Assoc. 

Jour~, v. 50, p. 603-612. 

Bierschenk, W. H., 1959, Aquifer characteristics anc;l 

ground-water movement at Hanford: General 

Electric Co., Hanford Atomic Products Operation, 

HW-60601, 81 p. $2.25 OTS. 

Bierschenk, W. H., and McConiga, M. W., 1957, Changes 

. the Hanford water table, 1944-1957: General 

lectric Co., Hanford Atomic Products Operation, 

H -51277, 21 p. $0.75 OTS. 

Birch, Francis, 1958, Thermal considerations in deep 

disposal of radioactive waste: Natl. Research 

Council Pub. 588, 22 p. $1. 

Blanchard, R. L., Kahn, Bernd, and Robeck, G. C., 

1958, Laboratory studies on the ground disposal of 

ORNL intermediate-level liquid radioactive 

wastes: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., ORNL-2475, 34 p. 

$1 OTS. 

Blomeke, J. 0., 1958, Radioactive waste treatment and 

disposal-a bibliography of unclassified literature, 

Part 2: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., CF-58-7-77, 24 p. 

$2.70 (mf) OTS. 

Brown, R. .E., and Bierschenk, W. H., 1958, Geologic 

and hydrologic guides to ground containment and 

control of wastes at Hanford: Am. Inst. Chern. 

Engineers, Preprint 14, 12 p. 
AVAILABLE LITERATURE 

Brown, R. E., Parker, H. M., and Smith, J. M., 1956, 

Disposal of liquid wastes to the ground: Internat. 

Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, 

·Geneva, Switzerland, 1955, Proc., v. 9, p. 669-675. 

Brown, R. E., Pearce, D. W., Horton, J. H., Jr., and 

Patterson, C. M., 1958, Experience in the disposal 

of radioactive wastes to the ground at two production sites: 2d United Nations Internat. Conf/ on 

the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, ,Gpn~c~., 

Switzerland, 1958, Proc., v. 18, p. 9HOO. 

California Univ., Livermore, Lawrence Radiation 

Laboratory, 1957, Radioactive waste disposal; a 

bibliography: Calif. Univ., Livermore, Lawrence 

Radiation Lab., UCRL-5068, 12 p. $2.40 (mf) OTS. 

Christensen, N. A., 1957, A study of proposed use of 

ground water at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and its effect upon the water table: Brookhaven Natl. Lab., AECU-3931, 74 p. $4.50 (mf) OTS. 

Primarily· ground-water supplies. 

Christenson, C. W., and others, 1958, Soil adsorption 

of radioactive wastes at Los Alamos: Sewage and 

Industrial Wastes, v. 30, p. 1478-1489. 

Laboratory tests of Bandelier tuff. 

De Laguna, Wallace, 1959, What is safe waste disposal: 

Bull. Atomic Scientists, v. 15, p. 35-43. 

De Laguna, Wallace, and Blomeke, J. 0., 1957, The 

disposal of power-reactor waste into deep wells: 

Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., CF-57-6-23, 46 p. $3.30 

(inf) OTS. 

Deutsch, Morris, 1956, Effects of dissemination of 

radioactive materials on water resources conservation, with special reference to Michigan: Michigan State Univ., Agr. Expt. Sta., East Lansing, 

Paper for Dept. Resource Development Project 

520, Apri:l, 35 p. 

Frost, F. E., 1957, 'Radioactive waste processing 

and disposal {1950-1957) bibliography: Calif. 

Univ., Livermore, Lawrence Radiation Lab., 

UCRL-4891, 23 p. $2.70 (mf) OTS. 

Gloyna, E. F., and others, 1959, Reactor fuel waste 

disposal project; summary report, in Industrial 

radioactive waste disposal: u.s. 86th Congress, 

1st sess., Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation, Joint Comm. on Atomic 

Energy, v. 3, p. 2223-:-2279. 

Glueckauf, E., 1956, Long-term aspect of fission product disposal: Internat. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses 

of Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland, 1955, 

Proc., v. 9, p. 3-8. 

Higgins, I. R., and Wymer, R. G., 1955, Diban-ion exchange waste disposal scheme: Oak Ridge Natl. 

Lab., ORNL-1984, 20 p. $0.20 OTS •. 

McHenry, J. R., and Honstead, J. F., 1957, Evaluation 

of sites for the disposal of radioactive waste solutions: General Electric Co., Hanford Atomic Products Operation, HW-53219, 13 p. $2.40 (mf) OTS. 

Applies to Hanford, Wash. 

Mawson, C. A., 1956, Waste disposal into the. ground: 

Internat. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic 

Energy, Geneva, Switzerland, 1955, Proc., v. 9, 

p. 676-679. 

Morgan, J. M., Jr., 1956, Feasibility of establishing a 

national burial ground for radioactive waste in the 

northeastern United States: Johns Hopkins Univ., 

AECu-4102, 126 p. $6.90 (mf) OTS. 

Nace, R. L., 1959, Activities of the United States 

Geological Survey in problems of radioactive 

waste disposal, in Industrial radioactive waste 

disposal: U.S. 86th Congress, 1st sess., Hearings 

before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation, 

Joint Comm. on Atomic Energy, v. 4, p. 2580-2645. 

National Research Council, Committee on Waste Disposal, 1957, The disposal of radioactive waste on 

land: Natl. Research Council Pub. 519, 145 p. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1958, Health Physics 

Division Annual Progress Report for period ending 

July 31, 1958: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., ORNL-2590, 

1 79 p. $3 OTS. 

Parker, F. L., and others, 1958, Status report (I) on 

waste disposal in natural salt formations: Oak 

Ridge Natl. Lab., ORNL-2560, 59 p. $1.75 OTS. 

-----1959, Status report (II) on waste disposal in 

natural salt formations: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., 

ORNL-2700, 56 p. $3.60 (mf) OTS. 

Pearce, D. W., 1959, Disposal of radioactive liquid 

waste to the ground at Hanford, in Industrial radioactive waste disposal: U.S. 86thCongress, 1st 

sess., Hearings before Special Subcommittee on 

Radiation, Joint Comm. on Atomic Energy, v. 2, 

p. 1124-1171. 

Philberth, Bernhard, 1959, The storage of atomic 

wastes in glacial caps of the earth: Acad. Sci. 

[Paris] Comptes rendus, v. 248, p. 2090-2092. 

Calculations for Greenland and Antarctica. 

Prout, W. E., 1959, Adsorption of fission products by 

Savannah River Plant soil: du Pont de Nemours & 

Co.; Atomic Energy Div., Savannah River Lab., 

DP-394, 16 p. $0.50 OTS. 

Reichert, S~ 0., 1958, Geology and hydrology for disposal of radioactive wastes to ground at the 

Savannah River. Plant: du Pont de Nemours & Co., 

Atomic Energy Div., Savannah River Lab., DP-341, 

24 p. $1 OTS. 

Reisenauer, A. E., 1959, A procedure for estimating 

capacity of a ground disposal facility for radioactive waste: General Electric Co., Hanford 

Atomic Products Operation, HW-57897, 16 p. 

$0.50 OTS. 

Rodger, W. A., and Fineman, P., 1957, Ultimate disposal of radioactive wastes, in Progress in Nuclear 

Energy: ser. 3, v. 2, p. 47D-485. 

Considers mines, pits, salt domes, and others. 
8 OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EARTH SCIENTISTS IN THE NUCLEAR AGE 

Roedder, Edwin, 1959, Problems in the disposal of 

acid aluminum nitrate high-level radioactive 

waste solutions by injection into deep-lying permeable formationfo!: u.s. Geol. Survey Bull. 1088, 

65 p. $0.40. ' 

Includes excellent list of geologic and other criteria 

for site selection and also an excellent bibliography. 

Simpson, E. S., Beetem, W. A., and Ruggles, F. (H., 

1958, Radiotracer experiments in the Mohawk 

River, New York, to study sewage path and 

dilution: Am. Geophys. Union Trans., v. 39, 

p. 427-433. 

Simpson, E. S., Beetem, W. A., Ruggles, F. H., and 

others, 1959, Hydrologic and tracer studies in 

Mohawk River at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory: 

U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., Schenectady Naval 

Reactors Operations Office and U.S. Geol. Survey, 

S0-45, 285 p. $5 OTS. 

Straub, C. F., 1959, Treatment of liquid radioactive 

wastes: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Proc., v. 85, 

no. SA 1, p. 61-68. 

Review of European experience. 

Theis, C. V;;-~eologic and hydrologic factors in 

ground d~l of waste, in Sanitary Engineering 

Conference_!3altimore, Maryland, April 15-16, 

1954: U.S. At~miC Energy Comm., Div. of Reactor 

Development, WASH-275, Po 261-283. $1.50 OTS. 

-----1956, A review of the ground-water geology 

of the major waste-producing sites, in Sanitary 

engineering aspects of the atomic energy industry; 

a seminar sponsored by the AEC and the Public 

Health Service, held at the Robert A. Taft Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 6-9, 

1955: U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., Div. of Reactor 

Development and Public Health Service, TID-7 517 

(pt. la), p. 116-131. TID-7517, pts. la and lb, 

$SOTS. . 

_____ 1956, Problems of ground disposal of nuclear 

wastes: Internat. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of 

Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switerzland, 1955, Proc., 

v. 9, p. 679-683. 

----:-:---1959, Testimony [ground disposal of radioactive waste], in Industrial radioactive waste disposal: U.S. 86th C~ngress, 1st sess., Hearings 

before Special Subcommittee on Radiation, Joint 

Comm. on Atomic Energy, v. 2, p. 111~1123. 

U.S. 86th Congress, 1st sess., 1959, Industrial radioactive waste disposal; Hearings before the Special 

Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee 

on Atomic Energy: Washington, U.S. Govt. 

~rinting Office, 5 v., 3142 p., :i,llus. · 

Voress, H;. E., Davis, T. F., and Hubbard, T. N., Jr., 

1958, Radioactive waste processing and disposal; 

a bibliography of selected report literature: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Comm., TID-3311, 123 p. $2.75 

OTS. 

Watson, L. C., and others, Methods of storage of solids 

containing fission products: Atomic Energy of 

Canada, Ltd., Chalk River, Ontario, CRCE-736 

(AECL-649), 60 p. $1.50 AECL. 

Wolman, Abel, and Gorman, A. E., 1956, The management and disposal of radioactive wastes: Internat. 

Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, 

Geneva, Switzerland, 1955, Proc., v. 9, p. 9-16. 

INT.DUP. ,D.C.6o- B 2160