@format APPENDIX G: TEAM B REPORT: THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARKERS TO DETER INADVERTENT HUMAN INTRUSION INTO THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP) @format Prepared by Team B: Victor R. Baker (University of Arizona) Frank D. Drake (Lick Observatory) Ben R. Finney (University of Hawaii) David B. Givens (American Anthropological Association) Jon Lomberg (Scientific Illustration, Honaunau, Hawaii) Louis E. Narens (University of California-Irvine) Wendell S. Williams (Case Western Reserve University) David B. Givens, B-Team Editor 22 April 1992 @title APPENDIX G: TEAM B REPORT: THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARKERS TO DETER INADVERTENT HUMAN INTRUSION INTO THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP) FINAL REPORT FOR SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES -On- THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARKERS TO DETER INADVERTENT HUMAN INTRUSION INTO THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP) B-Team Report By Victor R. Baker (University of Arizona) Frank D. Drake (Lick Observatory) Ben R. Finney (University of Hawaii) David B. Givens (American Anthropological Association) Jon Lomberg (Scientific Illustration, Honaunau, Hawaii) Louis E. Narens (University of California-Irvine) Wendell S. Williams (Case Western Reserve University) David B. Givens, B-Team Editor 22 April 1992 Appendix G: Team B Report CONTENTS Preface G-9 Marker Design Characteristics G-ll

1. General Description G-ll
2. Physical Description G-ll (A) Earthwork G-ll (B) Monoliths G-14 (C) Central Structure G-14 (D) Small, Buried Time Capsules G-14
3. Messages G-17 (A) Message Units G-17 Symbols G-17 Pictographs G-17 (B) Message Content G-17 Level I: Rudimentary Information G-17 Level II: Cautionary Information G-36 Level III: Basic Information G-36 Level IV: Complex Information G-36 Celestial Reference Points G-36 Individual Marker Performance G-36
4. Persistence G-37 (A) Earthwork G-37 (a) 0-500 Years G-37 (b) 500-2,000 Years G-37 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-37 (B) Monoliths G-37 (a) 0-500 Years G-37 (b) 500-2,000 Years G-38 A Representative Granite Monolith G-38 A Granitic Plug G-38 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-38 Granite G-38 Salt Weathering G-40 Sulfuric Acid G-40 Sand G-41 (C) Central Structure G-41 (a) 0-500 years G-41 (b) 500-2,000 years G-41 (c) 2,000-10,000 years G-41 (D) Inscriptions (Symbols, Iconic Pictographs, Linguistic Scripts, Narrative Arrangements and Complex Scientific Diagrams) G-41 (a) 0 -500 years G-41 (b) 500-2,000 years G-42 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-42 (E) Buried Time Capsules G-42 (a) 0 - 500 Years G- 42 (b) 500-2,000 years G-42 (c) 2,000-10,000 years G-42
5. Recognition G-43 (A) Earthwork G-43 (a) 0-500 years G-43 (b) 500-2,000 years G-43 (c) 2,000-10,000 years G-43 Marking with High Dielectric Materials G-43 (B) Monoliths G-44 (a) 0-500 Years G-44 (b) 500-2,000 Years G-44 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-45 A Human Dimension G-45 (C) Central Structure G-45 "Made by Humans" G- 45 Central Placement G-45 World's Longest-Lasting Human Artifact G-46 (D) Symbols G-46 International Biohazard Symbol G-46 (a) 0-500 years G-46 (b) 500-2,000 Years G-47 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-47 (E) Iconic Pictographs G-4"7 (a) 0 - 5 0 0 Years G- 47 (b) 500-2,000 years G-48 (c) 2,000-10,000 years G-48 (F) Linguistic Scripts G-48 (a) 0-500 years G-48 (b) 500-2,000 years G-48 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-48 Appendix G: Team B Report (G) Complex Scientific Diagrams G-50 (a) 0-500 Years G-50 (b) 500-2,000 Years G-50 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-50 (H) Astronomical References G-51 A Millennial Marking System G-51 (a) 0-500 Years G-51 (b) 500-2,000 years G-51 (c) 2,000-10,000 years G-58
6. Interpretation G-58 (A) Earthwork G-58 (a) 0-500 years G-58 (b) 500-2,000 Years G-58 (c) 2,000-10,000 years G-59 (B) Monoliths and Central Structure G-59 (C)Symbols G-59 (a) 0-500 Years G-59 (b) 500-2,000 Years G-59 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-59 (D) Iconic Pictographs G-60 (a) 0-500 Years G-60 (b) 500-10,000 Years G-60 "Consequential" Statement G-60 Historical Sequence G-60 (E) Linguistic Scripts G-60 (F) Complex Scientific Diagrams G-62 (a) 0-500 Years G-62 (b) 500-2000 Years G-62 (c) 2,000-10,000 Years G-62 7 . Deterrence G-62 (A) Earthwork G-62 (a) 0-500 years G-62 (b) 500-10,000 years G-63 (B) Monoliths and Central Structure G-63 (a) 0-500 Years G-63 (b) 500-10,000 Years G-63 (C) Symbols G-63 Marker System's Performance G-64
7. Recognition of Marker System G-65 More Advanced, As Advanced, and Less Advanced Societies G-65 Political Change G-65 Mescalero Apache Symbolism G-66 Vandals G-66 Radical Increase in Consumption of World Resources G-69 Radical Discontinuity G-69 References Cited G-70 Appendix A: Testing Marker Systems for Understandability G-73 Appendix B: Supplemental Material on the WIPP Marker G-76 @format Figures
8. Radiation Trefoil Used for Earthworks, at Closure and After 5000 years G-12
9. Skull and Crossbones Used for Earthworks, at Closure and After 5000 years G-13
10. Tall Granite Monolith with Inscriptions G-15
11. Cross-Sectional Model of the WIPP and the Underground G-16
12. Pictographic Definition of Symbols--Circle with Slash G-18
13. Pictographic Definition of Symbols--Skull and Crossbones G-19
14. Pictographic Definition of Symbols--Radiation Trefoil G-20
15. Defining the Equality of Symbols, Version 1 G-21
16. Defining the Equality of Symbols, Version 2 G-22
17. Defining the Equality of Symbols and Message Languages, Version 3 G-23
18. Defining the Equality of Symbols, Version 4 G-24
19. Defining the Equality of Symbols, Version 5 G-25
20. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP G-26
21. Egyptian Funerary Art G-49
22. The Duhrva-Darshak Yantra, or Pole-Star Instrument G-52
23. Millennial Marking System G-53
24. The Changing Shape of the Big Dipper Over 100,000 Years G-61
25. The Quartered Circle: Visual Representations of the Mescalero Apache "Base Metaphor" G-67
26. Transformations of the Mescalero Apache Quartered Circle into a Four-Pointed Star, then Mountains G-68
27. Transparent Canister of Sample WIPP Waste G-83
28. View of a 30' Monolith from the WIPP Buildings G-87 @title Preface After an informal discussion as the nascent "B-Team," on the last day of the Marker Panels meeting hosted by Sandia National Laboratories from November 4-6, 1991 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, five members of the group (Drake, Finney, Givens, Lomberg and Narens) met formally on the weekend of December 14-15, 1991 in Kona, Hawaii. Three (Givens, Lomberg and Narens) met on December 16, 1991 to discuss testing the markers. Before the Kona meeting, B-Team members had been asked by Jon Lomberg (Chair) to respond to questions designed to assess overall agreement/disagreement on the issues. The five team members who met in Hawaii found themselves in general agreement on most of the issues. Wendell Williams' comments, faxed to Hawaii, seemed in accord. Victor Baker's input, unfortunately, was not available for comment. There was unanimous agreement on the following points: @format (1) The site should be marked, on the assumption that leaving it unmarked would pose greater risks to the future. Current mining activities in the area, alone, would make the choice of not marking extremely risky for present-day (i.e., living) humans, and cumulatively more dangerous for those living between now and 12,000 A.D. At present the WIPP is in an area of active oil production, gas production and potash mining @ref (Pasztor, 1991, IX-27). (2) Surface and buried markers should be used in tandem to enhance message redundancy. (3) All message components should be truthful, consistent and noncontradictory. (4) Only the land directly above the waste panels themselves @todo -about a 1/2 square-kilometer area-should be marked. (A) This would put the marker system on a cognitive scale better geared to human perception than one spread thinly over 16 square miles. (B) Additionally, it would reduce confusion that could arise from boring beneath a marker system beyond the panels and uncovering nothing unusual. (5) The entire perimeter of the marker system should be visible from the center of the site. (6) An assortment of symbolic, pictographic, linguistic, narrative, diagrammatic, scientific and astronomic messages should be used to ensure that people from any conceivable @title Appendix G: Team B Report culture or future society would be able to understand that hazardous materials are buried in the immediate area and that they should not intrude. (7) Part of the WIPP building itself should be left as evidence for future archeologists. (8) Information about the WIPP should be archived off-site, but details should be left to more knowledgeable archivists and library-science specialists 50 years from now. (9) Marking for nuclear waste sites should be standardized worldwide. Each site should include as part of its marking system a map of all other nuclear waste sites in the world. (10) Regarding the markers and their messages, whatever can be tested, should be tested. @format David B. Givens B-Team Editor Washington, DC @title Marker Design Characteristics @format 1. General Description @format We recommend that the proposed marker system consist of the following components: (A) Berms or earthworks to help define the perimeter of the surface area directly above the waste repository. The earthwork might be arranged in the shape of a symbol, yet to be determined. (B) A ring of granite monoliths, around or within the perimeter of the marked area, bearing a variety of symbolic, pictographic and linguistic inscriptions. (C) A central granite structure to house more detailed textual, narrative, diagrammatic and scientific information. (D) A large number of small, durable markers inscribed with basic warning information, seeded at various depths within the marked area and in the surrounding earthworks. (E) Buried duplicates of the granite monoliths placed in key locations at various depths, such as in the plugs of sealed airshafts. (F) A layer of contrasting dielectric materials at the surface to permit remote detection by radar (perhaps arranged in the shape of the designated marking symbol). (G) Duplicates of markers placed in Carlsbad Caverns and in off-site archives. @format 2. Physical Description @format (A) Earthwork. A 30' high earthwork, built of local sedimentary materials and caliche, could be constructed in a geometric shape, perhaps in the shape of a designated warning symbol. The earthwork would surround the 1/2 square-kilometer area above the waste panels, and could enclose an inner ring of monoliths. By imbedding a thin layer of non-local sediments with different dielectric, radar reflective and magnetic properties, the earthwork could be remotely sensed by aircraft and orbital satellites. (Figures 1 and 2 exemplify how the marking system might appear. The top image in each figure shows the site soon after completion, and the bottom image depicts the site after many centuries of degradation; the actual choice of symbols needs further study. [The structure just outside the ring of monoliths in each figure is the existing WIPP facility.]) @fig Figure 1. Radiation Trefoil Used for Earthworks, at Closure and After 5000 Years (art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 2. Skull and Crossbones Used for Earthworks, at Closure and After 5000 Years (art by Jon Lomberg). (B) Monoliths. Free-standing, massive, one-piece granite monoliths could be placed in a circular arrangement within the earthwork. Visible, tall monoliths (25' high X 10' wide) and stable, short, rounded stones (10' high X 20' wide) would alternate in the arrangement. The tall monoliths would be designed to be visible despite the encroachment of sand. The squat monoliths would be designed to be difficult to topple or decapitate. Both types of monoliths (as well as additional, buried monoliths and a large, granitic plug in the main mineshaft off-site) would be worked and shaped to convey they were manufactured by humans. Each monolith would carry a variety of inscriptions. The inscriptions would be placed on protected surfaces of the monoliths, such as within recessed niches and overhangs (see Figure 3 for a sample design of a tall monolith). The number of monoliths would be a power of two, preferably 16 or 32, to help future investigators infer the original configuration of the ring, should some elements be missing. (C) Central Structure. A granite "rock shelter" (20' high X 30' base) could be constructed inside the monolithic ring. Extensive planar stone surfaces within the structure (protected from weathering) would carry linguistic, diagrammatic and pictographic inscriptions. It should be designed to discourage habitation and vandalism. The kind of information that would be inscribed in the central structure would include a map of all nuclear waste sites worldwide; detailed schematics of the repository and its contents; a diagram of the periodic table of the elements with radioactive elements highlighted; and an explanation of how the Earth's processional cycle is to be used in dating the age of the repository. (D) Small, Buried Time Capsules. A variety of smaller "time capsules" could be buried (beneath the souvenir-hunter's casual digging zone) to deter serious excavators. Candidate materials for the small markers might include baked clay or other ceramics, tektite-like glass or sintered alumina. Durable tablets carrying simpler messages could likely be decoded by less developed societies in the future, and decoded and chronologically dated by as-advanced and more-advanced societies having such analytic tools as thermoluminescence. Buried samples of wood could be dated by carbon-14 analysis. Cross-sectional models using samples of sand, siltstone, gypsum and rock salt to show a cut- away view of the geological strata, mine shaft and waste panels (Figure 4) could be emplaced on and off the WIPP site. @fig Figure 3. Tall Granite Monolith with Inscriptions (art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 4. Cross-Sectional Model of the WIPP and the Underground. @format 3. Messages @format (A) Message Units. In semiotics, the most generic and fundamental message component is known as a sign. Signs marking the WIPP site would consist of (1) the arranged pattern of the monument itself, its geometric earthwork and configuration of surface and subsurface stones; (2) conventional symbolic shapes, such as the trefoil; (3) iconic pictographs (signs that picture, e.g., the circular arrangement of monoliths or the human face and body); (4) linguistic scripts (of the world's major written languages, including English, Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese and Chinese; major liturgical languages, such as Latin, Hebrew and Arabic; and languages of the region's indigenous people, including Navajo, Hopi and Mescalero Apache); (5) narrative arrangements (sequences of signs that tell a story or explain a consequence of actions); and (6) complex scientific diagrams and notation systems, such as the periodic table of the elements. @format Symbols. We recommend that a symbol or a variety of symbols be used. Symbols may have more emotional connotations than other signs. Indeed, symbols such as the U.S. flag, Star of David, Christian cross and Nazi swastika can be highly charged to humans. In our discussions, the choice of a nuclear warning symbol itself became somewhat emotional. In particular, some team members felt that the trefoil should be included in the report as an example of a nuclear symbol. Others felt that using the trefoil as an example would prejudice readers, and that the final choice of a designated warning symbol (or symbols) should be left to future researchers. Any symbols used should be defined pictographically so they could be understood by people who had no previous knowledge of the symbols. (See Figures 5-12) @format Pictographs. The human being, drawn as a stylized stick figure, ought to be easily recognized by any other human. The existence of a worldwide, pancultural tradition of stick-figure iconography was outlined by one of the team members in a previous report (Givens, 1982). A series of drawings showing stick figures engaged in various activities can, through iconographic principles of narration, show the history of the WIPP as well as the consequences of intrusion. Other drawings can define symbols and show how the markers are to be decoded. (See Figure 13, Parts (a) through (j)) (B) @format Message Content. The proposed marker system would encode four successive levels of meaning @ref (Givens, 1982), from rudimentary (information low) to complex (information high): @format Level I: Rudimentary Information. The site itself and its component parts would announce "something @fig Figure 5. Pictograph Definition of Symbols--Circle with Slash (art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 6. Pictograph Definition of Symbols--Skull and-Crossbones (art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 7. pictographic Definition of Symbols--Radiation Trefoil (art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 8. Defining the Equality of Symbols, Version 1(art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 9. Defining the Equality of Symbols, Version 2 (art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 10. Defining the Equality of Symbols and Message Languages, Version 3 (art by Jon Lomberg) @fig Figure 11. Defining the Equality of Symbols, Version 4. Symbols drawn as outlines as a possible presentation mode (art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 12. Defining the Equality of Symbols, Version 5. Symbols drawn as filled figures as a possible presentation mode (art by Jon Lomberg). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure continued on next page). @fig Figure 13. Pictographs Showing the Passage of Time at the WIPP. Parts (a) through (j) relate the pasage of time with the number of dots, and present a closeup surface picture by a long-range surface and underground picture (art by Jon Lomberg). @format (Figure concluded.) @format made by humans is here." The most important property of a level-I sign is its own existence. "Human made" would be suggested by the patterned shape--the unnatural syntax and negative entropy--of the earthwork, rock structures and inscriptions. @format Level II: Cautionary Information. Elementary linguistic scripts and pictographic narratives would convey: "Warning, dangerous materials are buried below." @format Level III: Basic Information. Level-III messages, including longer linguistic narratives, pictographic sequences, maps and simple diagrams would explain basic what, why, when, where, who and how information about the site. @format Level IV: Complex Information. Highly detailed written records, scientific data and diagrams would be available at the site in inscriptions and buried "time capsules." Celestial reference points would be included as level-IV information (1) to provide a chronological reference and (2) to give the site an astronomical dimension. The specific reference to Earth's movement through space and time (relative to the northern hemisphere's invariant constellations) would add an imaginative, celestial character that could help the site remain in society's memory. Precession (westward motion) of the equinoxes (the 26,000 year cycle) and the shape of the Big Dipper could give the site a chronology. From prehistory onward, humans have displayed an intellectual and emotional curiosity about their place in the cosmos. As the noted astronomer, Edwin Krupp, stated: "For most of the history of humankind, going back to stone age times, the sky has served as a tool. Just as the hands of the first people grasped the flints they crafted, so their brains grasped the sky. The regularity of the motions of celestial objects enabled them to orient themselves in time and space" @ref (Krupp, 1983, p. 1). @format Individual Marker Performance This report is structured in response to Sandia National Laboratories' request that we consider the probability of a marker system surviving and being understood within three time periods: 0-500, 500-2,000 and 2,000-10,000 years. Our design, however, evolved from more general discussions of the problem without reference to the specific time periods. We consider the following estimates to be reasonable yet subjective guesses. Indeed, the consensus of our team is that the probability consensus elicitation required by Sandia was the least certain part of our effort. We urge readers to evaluate our proposal on the merits of the design itself rather than on the accuracy of our probability estimates. Physical survival of the markers and clarity of the messages were our primary design criteria. We urge that the proposed physical materials and messages go through an adequate process of testing and refinement to insure the highest possible performance. @format 4. Persistence. @format (A) Earthwork. @format (a) 0-500 Years. A 0.8-kilometer diameter, 30' high earthwork of patterned shape would be likely to survive as a recognizable land feature for 500 years. The earthwork should be composed of "useless" material that would have a low probability of being mined in the future. @format(b) 500-2,000 Years. Rectangular, earthen mounds and plazas built around 9S0 A.D. @ref (Krupp I 1983) at Cahokia, a Mississippian Indian metropolis near St. Louis, have survived for 1,000 years. An earthwork on the WIPP site would be likely to survive for 2,000 years with its shape intact. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. Simple mounded earthworks (e.g., the chambered passage grave at Newgrange built by neolithic farmers in Ireland, ca. 3300 B.C.; @ref [Krupp, 1983]), have survived longer than 5,000 years. The banks of the 350' circular ditch surrounding Stonehenge, built around 3,000 B.C. @ref (Stover and Kraig, 1978), though considerably eroded (the inner bank, originally 6' high by 20' wide, is now one foot high @ref [Hawkins, 1973]), is still visible after 5,000 years. Hundreds of earthen mounds built in the U.S. during the Burial Mound period (1000 B.C. to 700 A.D.; @ref Le Mouel, 1991) are easily visible 1,300-3,000 years later. There is reason to assume an earthwork purposely designed to last 10,000 years would survive at the WIPP site. @format(B) Monoliths. @format (a) 0-500 Years. Large, granite surface markers would have a high probability of survival over the near future. The granite itself would be highly durable in a relatively arid environment. The size of the monoliths would make their removal difficult. The problem of mining the granite would be reduced if future societies considered the monolithic arrangement a human monument worth preserving (like, e.g., Stonehenge). (b) 500-2,000 Years. Granite monoliths would likely survive with their shapes intact for 2,000 years. A representative granite monolith could be stored off site in nearby Carlsbad Caverns as an indexical sign that would refer back to the WIPP marker system. The richly inscribed, off-site monolith would be available for interpretation as long as humans could visit Carlsbad Caverns. Persistence of such a sign would be likely over the 500-2,OOO-year span. For redundancy, a second stone marker, similarly inscribed, could be emplaced as a granitic plug off- site, 10-15' underground in the main shaft of the WIPP. The stone seal would be inscribed with a sample of messages from the marker system, and with messages showing the system's existence relative to the seal as a datum point. The likelihood of a buried plug's persistence over 500-2,000 years--even if uncovered- would be great. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. @format Granite. Granite is composed principally of quartz, mica and feldspar. Minor minerals include fluorospar, tourmaline, garnet, topaz and ferrous minerals @ref (Evans, 1972). Quartz is a crystalline form of silicon dioxide (Si02), commonly found as sand. Feldspar is a potassium, sodium, calcium or barium alumino-silicate (e.g., KAlSi3O8, known as orthoclase; @ref Deeson, 1973). An example of mica is biotite, a hydrous magnesium iron aluminum-potassium silicate @ref (Deeson, 1973). Water is the most important single agent in causing the natural disintegration (weathering) of granite @ref (Twidale, 1982). Because of its dense crystalline structure, intact granite is characterized by extremely low permeability, reducing the movement of water into the rock to such an extent that granite monuments have great durability when exposed to the surface atmosphere and drained of surface water. The action of water on granite is greatly enhanced by prolonged exposure to soil or ground water. Weathering tends to concentrate in fracture zones, which are much greater in permeability than the intact rock @ref (Twidale, 1982). The principal chemical weathering process for most natural granite is hydrolysis, mainly of biotite and feldspar. Biotite in particular is easily hydrated when in contact with water. The resulting hydrobiotite exerts a physical expansion to which some investigators attribute the major role in granite weathering @ref (Isherwood and Street, 1976). Feldspar alters by hydrolysis to clay minerals, silica and metal cations in solution. The clay minerals can exert physical expansion in a similar manner to the hydrobiotite. Small point stresses between crystal grains will, over time, disrupt intact granite to grus, an accumulation of disaggregated mineral grains of nearly identical composition to the parent rock. Grussification is extremely slow on exposed, well drained granite surfaces. On time scales of concern to marker persistence, the process will only be important if water is in continuous contact with the rock. This would occur in the following circumstances: (1) surface water is allowed to pond or otherwise be retained on the exposed granite; (2) regolith or other unconsolidated material buries the granite and holds moisture in contact with it. Both circumstances would be exacerbated by climatic conditions that would increase available moisture. The most rapid long-term grussification occurs in rock basins that enlarge to depths of a few tens of centimeters and widths of several meters over a few thousand years @ref (Twidale, 1982). On the time scale of 10,000 years it is extremely unlikely that these processes would appreciably modify the basic structure of granite columns measuring 10-25 feet in height and 10-20 feet in diameter. However, surface inscriptions could be compromised. When exposed to rainwater containing dissolved carbon dioxide (to yield carbonic acid), feldspar is weathered to form the clay mineral kaolin. When the feldspar is dissolved, the adjacent grains of quartz, mica and other materials are loosened and eventually washed away. This effect is seen in Cornwall, England, where the clay pits containing kaolin also feature granite "pyramids" still in the process of being weathered @ref (Evans, 1972). This illustrates the point that primary rocks from the earth's crust which are formed by igneous processes underground are not stable in the earth's atmosphere @ref (Smith, 1981). However, the process of weathering is evident only on a geological time scale orders of magnitude longer than the 10,000 year period of regulatory concern for the WIPP. @format Salt weathering. The most potent combination of weathering agents for construction stone is moisture and salt @ref (Winkler, 1975). If water containing salt solutions can enter the rock, subsequent evaporation of the water will lead to crystallization. Crystallization pressure, thermal discontinuities, hydration pressure, and other processes may then disaggregate rock containing the salt impurity. The WIPP lies in an area of high salt concentration. Wind from mine spoil piles transports dust with high salt content. Leached into the soil, this salt can be dissolved in soil and ground water. Burial of granite in salt-rich sediment introduces a potential for salt weathering of rock surfaces. @format Sulfuric acid. Another potential weathering process is attack by sulfuric acid, which decomposes mica to leave silica in fine scales @ref (Deeson, 1973). Such attack is not likely now, as acid rain from industrial pollution is not a current problem. A more likely source of acid rain might be from large power plants burning coal, as in the Four Corners plant at the junction of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. A six-year study by the University of Illinois indicated threat by sulfuric acid would not be significant at today's level of sulphur output. In exposed granite outcroppings, the main observable effect of weathering is to smooth the angles and accentuate the joints that form naturally during cooling of the molten mass from deep in the earth that becomes granite on solidifying @ref (Evans, 1972). In summary, concerning stability of granite markers at the WIPP site over 10,000 years, the amount of acid erosion would be negligible if the area remains dry and unpopulated, and minor if rainfall increases significantly and if human habitation and industrialization overtake the area. Some protection against wind-blown sand and rain containing higher than normal levels of carbonic acid and/or sulfuric acid could be afforded by incising the information deeper than the one centimeter observed on some monuments, and by providing a ridge of unpolished material around the edge of the inscribed area. @format Sand. Wind-blown sand has the potential to accumulate at the marker site. The dryness of climate, lack of vegetation and source of sand-sized particles are all important in facilitating sand mobilization by wind @ref (Costa and Baker, 1981). Prominent coppice dune fields immediately southeast of the WIPP attest to the local importance of this process. The low relief of earthwork should facilitate continued sand transport through the site without accumulation. The monoliths might act as obstacles in the wind field, leading to the accumulation of shadow dunes on their leeward sides. Because of wide spacing, however, it is unlikely that such dunes would coalesce. They would remain as relatively low forms extending downward from the monoliths. Their distinctive pattern could contribute an additional marking attribute of the site, making its appearance unique in the region. Eighteen of the original 30 shaped, 50-ton, 13.5' high sandstone monoliths of the Sarsen Circle of Stonehenge have been standing for 3,500-4,000 years @ref (Hawkins, 1973). [Sarsen stone = 7 on Mohs' scale of hardness; steel = 6.7 @ref (Stover and Kraig, 1978).] There is reason to assume that large, granitic stones--which are harder and more durable than sandstone--purposely shaped and positioned to remain upright for 10,000 years, would last longer than Stonehenge. The likelihood of survival of each large stone marker, including the two located off-site, would be great. @format (C) Central Structure. @format (a) 0-500 Years. A granite structure with inscriptions on planar surfaces of the inner walls could be the most durable feature of the marking system. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. The inscribed, granitic surfaces within the central "rock shelter" would weather less than the structure's outer, exposed surfaces. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. A stable stone structure built of intersecting walls of solid granite would have a good chance of surviving the 10,000 year time period. @format (D) Inscriptions (Symbols, Iconic Pictographs, Linguistic Scripts, Narrative Arrangements and Complex Scientific Diagrams) @format(a) 0-500 Years. There is little scientific evidence on the long-term durability of incisions cut in stone. Most studies have been done on marble tombstones less than 500 years old. Research is needed to determine the most durable incision for the granite markers. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. The monumental Behistun carving (520 B.C.) summarizing the biography of Persian King Darius I has lasted longer than 2,000 years. While inscriptions on buried monoliths would be highly likely to survive for at least 2,000 years, inscriptions exposed to weathering on surface monoliths would be expected to show signs of erosion from blown sand, carbonic acid in rain and perhaps sulfuric acid if coal fired power plants are built in the area. (Coal might not be used as an energy source during the 500-10,000 year time period.) @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. Though faint, a carving of a square-hilted dagger on the inner surface of sarsen stone number 53 at Stonehenge has survived in an open field for 3,500-4,000 years @ref (Stover and Kraig, 1978). It is likely that stone incisions designed to endure for 10,000 years would last longer than the carved dagger at Stonehenge. @format (E) Buried Time Capsules. @format (a) 0-500 Years. Most materials endure longer if buried in dry sediments than if left to weather on the surface. Time capsules fabricated of materials expressly chosen for their durability underground would have a very high probability of surviving for 500 years. Molded and fired plates of aluminum oxide would be one possible choice. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. Dry-sand burials of human bodies in ancient Egypt preserved bone, tissue and organs more efficiently than later mummification and embalming techniques. The dry, desert environment of the Delaware Basin in southeastern New Mexico would not be expected to threaten materials buried in sandstone or mudstone formations. Alumina is a natural constituent of geological formations. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. Stone projectile points, bone needles and bison teeth have survived for 10,000 years underground in damp sands and clay at the Lind Coulee Paleoindian site in eastern Washington State. Camel teeth and bones have been found in ancient spring deposits not far from the WIPP itself @ref (R.V. Guzowski, personal communication, Science Applications International Corporation, November 4-6, 1991, Albuquerque, NM). Artifacts designed to endure in dry deposits would be likely to have a greater chance than bone needles' of surviving 10,000 years. Buried time capsules ranging in size from six inches to two feet in diameter, seeded beneath the surface of the earthwork, would most likely be found after thousands of years as the earthwork itself eroded, exposing those plates closest to the surface in a slowly-timed release. Future archeologists would be likely to find the artifacts in excavations or to sense their existence electronically. Buried time capsules and inscribed plates would be unlikely to be found by future drilling operations. @format 5. Recognition @format (A) Earthwork. @format (a) 0-500 Years. The earthwork's geometric shape would be recognizable as long as enough remained for curious humans to imaginatively reconstruct. Archeologists have reconstructed ancient, seemingly obliterated hearths, post holes, building foundations and inscribed geometric shapes from the barest traces of material remains. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. Human curiosity regarding ancient earthworks, and creative thoughts about what their patterns signify, will likely persist for 2,000 years. The large, unnatural geometric shape at the WIPP site would with a high degree of probability convey at least a level-I message (i.e., rudimentary information) that "Something made by humans-if only the earthwork itself -is here." @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. The symbolic shape of the earthwork would be more recognizable if its design were repeated throughout the marker system in linguistic, pictographic and diagrammatic inscriptions, and in the buried time capsules. The chance of recognizing the earthwork's geometric shape 10,000 years from now would be greater than the likelihood of recognizing the pattern as a meaningful symbol. @format Marking with High Dielectric Materials. Recognition of the earthwork could be enhanced through dielectric materials. Radar (an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging) is widely used in modern remote sensing from aircraft and spacecraft @ref (Henderson, 1985; Sabins, 1978). Side-looking, synthetic- aperture radars (SAR) have received extensive recent application in the U.S. Space Shuttle and Seasat Programs to study Earth @ref (Ford et al., 1989) and the Magellan Mission to Venus @ref (Pettengill et al., 1991). Operating in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, radar systems are of great interest because of their ability to penetrate the atmosphere in nearly all weather conditions except heavy rain. Radar's active sensing can be used at night, making it useful for military reconnaissance. It is very likely that radar will continue to be used by advanced civilizations in the future to monitor the surface of Earth. The strength of the return radar signal from the terrain surface to the radar antenna depends on characteristics of (1) the radar signal itself and (2) the terrain. Radar signal properties are easily measured in terms of (a) wavelength, (b) polarization and (c) incidence angle (which also depends on terrain slope). The key terrain properties are (a) surface roughness and (b) the dielectric constant of the surface. Sandy, arid terrains have relatively smooth surfaces that do not provide noticeable anomalies or bright radar response. Moreover, flat landscapes, like that at the WIPP, will further enhance the uniformity of signal response. In such areas dielectric properties may become important. Dry rocks and soils tend to have very uniform, low dielectric constants of about 3 to 8, while water can be as high as 80 @ref (MacDonald and Waite, 1973). The dryness of the WIPP site ensures low values. Materials with unusually high dielectric constants include metal sulfides (such as iron' pyrite) and ferrimagnetic minerals (such as magnetite and pyrite). These are fairly common products of mining operations and are readily available in sand-sized form. Thus, it is feasible to mix such high dielectric materials with the surface soils of the WIPP to comprise a marker that would be highly visible to radar remote sensing. @format (B) Monoliths. @format (a) 0-500 Years. The rudimentary level-I message ("Something made by humans is here") would be evident in the circular arrangement of standing, worked monoliths. Moreover, the monumental configuration of large, shaped stones would connote, "Something important is here." @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. Inscriptions on the monoliths would reinforce the stones' level-I message. Furthermore, with age the monoliths could become recognized as a preservable, historical resource. Should individual monoliths topple or be removed, the geometric consistency and numbering (as a power of two with, e.g., 32 monoliths in the circle) would be a likely indication of what was missing, and from where. (The number two is used because the dyad is mathematically basic and symmetrical; its use as an ordering device could be inferred even if a majority of monoliths were gone from the arrangement.) @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. The ring of monoliths would be recognizable even if the majority of component stones were to break or be toppled. Should individual monoliths become unrecognizable, it is still likely that the patterned shape of the circular arrangement would persist for 10,000 years. To establish a human dimension, the diameter of the ring of monoliths would approximate the length of a soccer, rugby or football field. Visitors within the ring would see all the monoliths, feel psychologically enclosed in the circle, become "involved" with the stone monuments, and be drawn around the circumference to examine pictographs and messages inscribed on the granite. The ring of monoliths could be designed to engage future humans as active interpreters and as guests. @format (C) Central Structure. Probability is high that the granite structure emplaced at the center of the monolithic ring would be recognized as an intentionally constructed human artifact. Should the shelter itself collapse, observers from the future would still be able to infer that a fabricated structure once stood. The richly inscribed inner walls would be decipherable over the lO,000-year period, whether standing or collapsed. The presence of inscriptions, even if unintelligible, would convey the level-I message that "Something made by humans is here." Central placement of the rock shelter would draw future visitors through the encircling earthwork and ring of monoliths to the center of the marker, where inscriptions inside would carry pictographic, linguistic, diagrammatic and scientific information. The designed shape itself would attract people to the structure, which they could easily enter to view the inscriptions overhead. Inside, they would also find information about--and directions for sighting--key constellations of the northern sky from within the shelter. The shape and orientation of the rock shelter will have to provide easy access to visitors while minimizing potential burial by wind-blown sand. Aerodynamics is a concern here. Although sand mainly occurs as thin sheets in this region, accumulation around vegetation (coppice dunes) can reach depths of six meters. Mobilization of this sand by reduction of vegetation (through climate change or human action) could lead to redistribution of sand at the marker site. An aerodynamically streamlined shape allows sand to bypass a potential obstruction without accumulating @ref (Greeley and Iversen, 1985). Any aerodynamical streamlining of the rock shelter should be carefully oriented relative to the prevailing wind direction. Another strategy might be to place the entrance behind a streamlined baffle on the upwind side of the granite structure. Then any sand accumulation in the lee of the structure will not obstruct the entrance. The granite shelter would be the most interesting and complex marker within the system of markers at the WIPP. Purposely designed to be the world's longest-lasting human artifact, the likelihood of its recognition at least as a level-I message would be high across the 10,000-year span. @format (D) Symbols. Team B agreed that the WIPP marker system should include a symbol or symbol set. According to @ref Givens (1982, p. 176), @format "An international graphic symbol or emblem for biohazards should be put into general use. The emblem can provide a tangible focus for a simple oral transmission of information about hazardous substances, such as radioactive waste. The meaning of the symbol may be transferred across generations by including it as a component in iconic narrative material (i.e., the pictorial material would 'teach' the symbol's significance). A worldwide symbol could function as a unifying theme for the entire repository communication system." @format (a) 0-500 Years. A symbol is a sign whose physical shape and significance (meaning or reference) is purely traditional. Without understanding the tradition and its cultural history, a symbol is virtually indecipherable. An example is the U.S. (or any national) flag. The probability of symbol recognition over time is, therefore, low. If used, the trefoil could easily lose its reference to nuclear radiation within 500 years. However, symbols are among the most powerful of human signs. Along with flags, other potent symbols include the Star of David and the Christian cross. Using the trefoil or a yet-designed geometric shape in a monumental earthwork, and repeating the design throughout the inscriptions and in the buried time capsules would help the chosen symbol become a recognizable "trademark" for the site. On-site linguistic, pictographic and diagrammatic inscriptions could be used to teach the symbol's meaning. Worldwide use in waste repositories would give the symbol a higher probability of being recognized as a sign marking buried nuclear waste and its danger. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. If indexed strategically throughout the marker system's sign modalities, a symbol would be more recognizable to future humans than if it appeared solely as the shape of an earthwork. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. There would be a fair probability that the symbol encoded in the surface earthwork could serve ultimately as a shorthand label for the WIPP site, just as the pyramid has become a symbol representing Egypt. Should this happen, the probability of recognition across 10,000 years would increase. @format (E) Iconic Pictographs. @format (a) 0-500 Years. An iconic pictograph is a sign whose physical shape and significance (meaning or reference) bears a direct, intuitive relationship to the physical shape of what it stands for. Decipherment is aided by an iconic sign's visible resemblance to its referent. Examples include the crescent moon, the smile face and the human stick figure. When a crescent-moon pictograph, for instance, is used to signify the crescent moon, the sign is highly iconic. Iconicity is lost, however, as the crescent shape takes on less obvious meanings, such as in marking an outhouse door. When signs are designed explicitly to preserve the visual reference, their meanings across time are liable to be more recognizable. Airport pictographs of men, women, baggage, food and cocktails are examples of signs whose iconicity has been explicitly preserved for contemporary viewers. Team B agreed that there is a greater than 90 percent chance that simple pictographs could convey accurate information about consequences of intrusion into the repository. Specific pictographs and narrative sequences should be designed by international graphic symbol specialists and tested by behavioral scientists on people of diverse educational and cultural backgrounds. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. The iconic principle used in the WIPP markers is likely to aid sign recognition 2,000 years from now. Egyptian funerary art, for example, has conveyed complex information in graphic, pictographic form for 3,000 years (Figure 14). It is likely that explicitly designed pictographic signs, strategically targeting future humans, could achieve better recognition than ancient Egyptian pictographs. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. The imagined narrative scenes would show both what happened during construction of the WIPP and what would happen if intrusion were to occur. Information-rich pictographs have survived longer than 10,000 years. Spanish Levantine rock art, for example, dating back 12,000 years, still speaks to those willing and imaginative enough to reconstruct depicted narrative scenes of human hunting parties pursuing prey animals. Thus, there is a better than even chance that message designers consciously working to preserve iconicity and to enhance the narrative significance of pictographic messages could send recognizable' meanings across the 10,000-year span. @format (F) Linguistic Scripts. @format (a) 0-500 Years. Recognition of written messages and warnings would be likely to persist for 500 years. For comparison, Modern English itself is about 500 years old. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. Easy recognition of written scripts in the middle future would be less likely because today's languages could by then have changed dramatically. Middle (c. 1100-1500 A.D.) and Old English (c. 400-1100 A.D.) are virtually unreadable to most humans today. It is likely, however, that future scholars would have little trouble deciphering 20th century linguistic scripts 2,000 years from now. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. Using a rate of retention per 1,000 years for "basic" vocabulary terms of 81 percent @fig Figure 14. Egyptian Funerary Art (photo by M. McNaugher, The Carnegie Museum of Natural History). (a figure determined in lexicostatistics studies @ref [Swadesh l 1952]), by 12,000 A.D. English will have retained as few as 12% of its current basic words, and still less of its more complex vocabulary items. Scholars may have a hard time translating very ancient scripts. But the likelihood of recognition could be increased by utilizing many scripts in the manner of the Rosetta Stone. There is high probability that future classicists and linguists would, with scholarly effort, recognize and decode the writings. The likelihood of decoding could be improved if written messages were designed using simple declarative sentences and a "basic" @ref (Ogden l 1934), "monolexemic" @ref (Swadesh l 1952) vocabulary that would be more likely to resist linguistic change over time. @format (G) Complex Scientific Diagrams. @format (a) 0-500 Years. Recognition of scientific diagrams such as the periodic table of the elements and nuclear reactions that produced the waste would be likely as long as major scientific paradigms remained similar to those that inspired the diagrams. Should radical shifts in scientific thought take place within 500 years, science historians and other academic specialists would still be likely to understand the periodic table. @format (b) 500-2.000 Years. The periodic table would be more likely recognized by societies as advanced or more advanced than our own. Less advanced cultures would have trouble understanding the table and its scientific significance. To those who did recognize the periodic table (with the radioactive elements marked), its message would be: Danger, radioactive elements possible nearby. The graphic sign marking the radioactive elements would also appear, where appropriate, in iconic, linguistic, symbolic and other diagrammatic messages on site at the WIPP. Future readers would infer the sign's meaning from its occurrence within multiple contexts and message levels. (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. Detailed maps and scientific diagrams, with their iconic references, would be more likely to be recognized by future societies, no matter how technologically advanced or simple they might be. A precise diagram of the surface markers could be used to communicate the exact scale (of their dimensions, distances and angles) proportionally to the materials buried below. @format (H) Astronomical References. @format A Millennial Marking System. To ensure that generations far into the future, no matter how many disruptions in civilization and science might occur, could readily grasp when the WIPP was built and sealed, an astronomical way of dating the site should be built into the marker system. A Pole Star instrument or "millennial marker" could be constructed from a single monolith of granite. Based on an astronomical regularity known as the precession of the equinoxes, people from the future could date the site by sighting along the instrument and noting changes in positions of the "invariant" stars in the northern sky. Ten thousand years from now the earth's axis will be pointing away from the North Star, Polaris, toward a position almost midway between the bright stars Deneb and Vega. The Earth, like a top, wobbles as it spins. Slowly its polar axis traces a huge circle among the stars, a task requiring some 26,000 years to complete @ref (Kyselka and Lanterman, 1976). To track the northern stars' positions over such vast periods of time, the millennial marker would be aligned to true north and its sighting ramp (Figures 15 and 16) inclined to the same angle as WIPP's 32 degree 23' north latitude. Precession of the equinoxes and the westward drift of the vernal (spring) equinox through the zodiac could be depicted in language-free stone engravings and applied with a simple monolith serving as the sighting instrument. @format (a) 0-500 Years. In 1727 the Maharaja Jawai Jai Singh directed his craftsmen to construct a Pole Star instrument, along, narrow slab of red sandstone that still can be seen standing in the famous stone observatory of Jaipur, India @ref (Singh, 1978; 1986). The craftsmen beveled the top of this narrow slab of sandstone so that it sloped upward at 27 degrees. Jaipur is located at 26 degrees 55' north latitude. Because the angular height of Polaris above the horizon is approximately the same as the observer's latitude, one need only peer up the slope to see the North Star. Because Polaris is likely to persist as an important reference point for navigators for 500 years (at least), the proposed millennial marker has a very good chance of being recognized in the near future. @ref (b) 500-2,000 Years. In 2,000 years the North Star would be sufficiently out of alignment with the millennial marker for future archeologists and astronomers to infer the passage of time. The chance of the divergence being recognized would be high; @fig Figure 15. The Duhrva-Darshak Yantra, or Pole-Star Instrument @fig Figure 16. Millenial Marking System. Parts (a) through (e) show the different locations of the stars as sighted by a pole-star located at the WIPP over 10,000 years (art by Ben Finney). @format (Figure continued on next page.) @fig Figure 16. Millenial Marking System. Parts (a) through (e) show the different locations of the stars as sighted by a pole-star located at the WIPP over 10,000 years (art by Ben Finney). @format (Figure continued on next page.) @fig Figure 16. Millenial Marking System. Parts (a) through (e) show the different locations of the stars as sighted by a pole-star located at the WIPP over 10,000 years (art by Ben Finney). @format (Figure continued on next page.) @fig Figure 16. Millenial Marking System. Parts (a) through (e) show the different locations of the stars as sighted by a pole-star located at the WIPP over 10,000 years (art by Ben Finney). @format (Figure continued on next page.) @fig Figure 16. Millenial Marking System. Parts (a) through (e) show the different locations of the stars as sighted by a pole-star located at the WIPP over 10,000 years (art by Ben Finney). @format (Figure concluded) precession of the equinoxes has been noted by many cultures worldwide for thousands of years. @format (c) 2, 000-10,000 Years. In 10,000 years the Earth's axis will be pointing away from the North Star to a position midway between the bright stars Deneb and Vega. Should major discontinuities in knowledge of the current B.C./A.D. system occur in the remote future, it is reasonable to assume that the millennial marker, in tandem with explanatory diagrams and pictographs, could be used to recognize the WIPP's date of closure and to determine when it is "safe." Great care would need to be taken to make this marker stable. Many peoples through the ages have used the nightly rotation of circumpolar stars and constellations to tell time. The Mescalero Apache, for example, still time the commencement and duration of pre-dawn rituals by such a star clock @ref (Farrer, 1991). Although we do not know of cultures that have employed the precession of the equinoxes to keep track of the millennia, there are indications in ancient myths and religions that this slow shifting of stars was not only recognized by cultures reaching back perhaps as far as Paleolithic times, but also was the cause of great wonder @ref (DeSantillana and von Dechend, 1977; Ulansey, 1989; Worthen, 1991). It would seem likely, therefore, that even if major breaks occurred in civilization and science, people in future cultures across the next 10,000 years would still be able to recognize, interpret and understand the proposed millennial marking system. @format 6. Interpretation @format (A) Earthwork. @format (a) 0-500 Years. Given that the earthwork is recognizable, the likelihood of correct interpretation as a level-I message ("Something made by humans is here") over 500 years would be great. Recognition of the earthwork's geometric shape as a symbol-and recognition of its 20th-21st-century meaning--would be less likely. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. At 2,000 years the earthwork would suggest construction by humans "long ago." The "human- made" message would be likely to persist with a high level of probability. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. By 10,000 years the interpretation would be that the feature was constructed by "ancient" humans. There is nothing to suggest that future generations would attribute the earthwork's patterned shape to natural forces, geomorphological processes, animals or extraterrestrials. By itself, the 21st-century's symbolism would be unlikely to survive without cross-referenced clues to meaning elsewhere in the marker system's iconography, texts and scientific diagrams. @format (B) Monoliths and Central Structure. The worked stones and their arrangement, along with the placement of a rock shelter at the exact center of the circle, would reinforce the earthwork's level-I message ("Something made by humans is here"). The probability that level-I messages would be correctly interpreted should be high across the 10,000-year span. @format (C) Symbols. @format (a) 0-500 Years. A designated warning symbol ideally would serve as the marker's "trademark." Successful indexing and cross-referencing with other on-site messages would help convey the symbol's contemporary connotations of "danger" and "warning." The warning symbol's late 20th-century meaning as a sign for nuclear radioactivity would be a difficult message for near future viewers to interpret correctly. Still, in 500 years a fair probability exists that the symbol could become a popular logo for the site. @foormat (b) 500-2,000 Years. The likelihood of the symbol's correct interpretation as a shorthand trademark or logo for the WIPP site, including connotations of danger and warning, could be enhanced if the trefoil (or a yet designed symbol) were used in many nuclear-waste repositories throughout the world. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. The symbol would be likely to increase in potency the longer it resided in society's memory. Assuming recognition is not a problem, its correct interpretation as a trademark for the marker system would be probable across the 10,000-year period. The planned association and cross-referencing of the symbol with other on-site messages could increase the likelihood of its correct interpretation as a level-II (cautionary) sign. @format (D) Iconic Pictographs. @format (a) 0-500 Years. Pictographic messages designed according to principles of isotype @ref (Neurath, 1936) and scientific illustration @ref (Hogben, 1949) for remote-future addressees would have a high probability of correct interpretation in 500 years. @format (b) 500-10,000 Years. Pictographic reference to environmental objects likely to be seen in the future, such as the human hand, face and body; the Sun, crescent moon and constellations; and the marker's earthwork and arranged monoliths themselves would be clearly meaningful in the middle and far futures. Pictographic narratives based on such signs would have a high probability of being correctly interpreted across 10,000 years. A pictographic narrative could be used, for example, to depict the gradually changing shape of the Big Dipper (Figure 17), which would provide a chronological framework for the WIPP site. Two narrative sequences, a simple "consequential" statement and a more detailed, historical depiction could be used. The former would be a three scene panel depicting (a) a human figure standing upright, then (b) ingesting a substance (perhaps small capsules marked with the designated warning symbol), and finally (c) lying down with ribs and skull exposed. The message is, "This substance (whatever it may be) kills." The fact that humans cannot actually see what the nuclear sign represents will be less of a problem for future scientific societies that can decipher the periodic table of elements that it will be for less advanced societies. Still, humans need not actually see a deadly virus, "germ" or "spirit" in order to avoid the disease causing agent. The historical sequence would show the site's construction through a longer series of pictographic panels, in narrative order from top-to-bottom (Figure 13). Properly drawn, there is good reason to predict that the messages would be correctly interpreted. @format (E) Linguistic Scripts. As stated above, though unreadable to most people 2,000 10,000 years from now, there is high probability that future classicists and linguists could, with scholarly effort, @fig Figure 17. The Changing Shape of the Big Dipper Over 100,000 years (Jastrow and Thompson, 1977). recognize and decode the inscribed, written texts. Given the precision of writing as a form of communication, there is good reason to assume that written messages would be interpreted correctly 10,000 years from now. @format (F) Complex Scientific Diagrams. @format (a) 0-500 Years. Because of their precision and high information content, scientific diagrams recognized as such would have a very good chance of correct interpretation in the future. @format (b) 500-2,000 Years. Their significance would be most meaningful to future scientists and/or science historians from societies as advanced, or more advanced, than our own. @format (c) 2,000-10,000 Years. Assuming that human society continues to ascend the ladder of science and technology, as it has for the past 10,000 years since the domestication of plants and animals, there is a high probability that complex scientific diagrams would be correctly interpreted. @format 7. Deterrence We cannot guarantee that any simple or complex message, even when recognized and correctly interpreted, will deter a human being from inappropriate action. The caution on tobacco products sold in the U.S. demonstrates how frequently people ignore explicit health warnings. Ironically, some messages (such as "Danger-750 Volts," painted on Washington, D.C. 's Metrorail tracks) lure the reckless and suicidal. Nevertheless, carefully designed warnings could be expected to reduce the chances of inadvertent intrusion into the WIPP. Moreover, an intrusion would not be casual, but would be a planned event. As such, there would be a greater likelihood to consider cautionary data. @format (A) Earthwork. @format (a) 0-500 Years. With respect to materials buried 2,100' below the surface, an earthwork would offer two modes of deterrence: (1) as a monumental sign of long ago or ancient human activity, and (2) as a symbol for dangerous materials; Regarding the former, presence of a large, geometric "mound" would not deter mining exploration, unless the mound had become a site of historic interest (a possibility, at least). The earthwork would be massive enough that even several exploratory efforts to "find something" in it would do little harm. Regarding a symbolic message-given that it had been recognized and correctly interpreted- deterrence and appropriate action would be likely across the near, middle and far future time periods. An intentional goal of building a large, patterned earthwork would be to lock the site in society's memory. The earthwork's monumental size would be likely to help reduce the chance of forgetting its existence. @format (b) 500-10,000 Years. There is significant probability that an earthwork of great size and patterned shape would become better known with the passage of time, just as the world's ancient monuments have become increasingly known and recognized through the millennia. In the middle and far futures, therefore, an earthwork's potential to deter inadvertent intrusion actually could be enhanced. @format (B) Monoliths and Central Structure. @format (a) 0-500 Years. As a monument commemorating the 21st century's concern for the safety of future generations, the ring of monoliths, the central rock shelter and the accompanying inscriptions would be interesting enough to remain securely in societal memory for at least 500 years. @format (b) 500-10,000 Years. Deterrence as a monumental sign and warning symbol from 500-10,000 years in the future would be similar to that of the proposed earthwork (discussed above). @format (C) Symbols. A correctly interpreted symbol could provide high probabilities of deterrence. The symbol, in and of itself, would not provide needed when, what, where, how and why information to back up the warning. But as a psychic trademark for the nuclear-waste repository, the symbol would increase the likelihood of deterrence and appropriate action. Should the symbol be used internationally, deterrence would be higher. @format Marker System's Performance The probabilities and performance characteristics proposed above for the individual markers would be greatly enhanced by their inclusion within a larger, well-integrated marking system. Message redundancy would be increased, of course. But the additional cross-referencing and multiple linkages of markers, signs, symbols, text and diagrams also would help reduce the likelihood of inadvertent intrusion. Furthermore, use of teaching principles throughout the message system (i.e., defining the meaning of a given symbol or iconic sign by placement within appropriate linguistic and diagrammatic messages) would augment performance of the entire marker. A central assumption is that future human beings from more, less and as advanced societies will be curious about the marker, and that some members will work actively to decode the monument's holistic design. Despite intelligent efforts, however, a monument designed by 20th-21st-century humans will present something of a mystery to future generations. We assume our descendants will respond to the challenge as eagerly as 20th century men and women have responded to questions and enigmas posed by ancient monuments. The fact that people living in the 21st century made an effort to transmit a warning message to future generations would itself become a message, whether or not the marker system worked as efficiently as its designers had hoped. The effort itself, in other words, as clumsy as the design might be or seem to future generations, could still achieve the desired effect: a lowered probability of inadvertent human intrusion into the WIPP. Part of the message to future societies, clearly, would be the 21st century's perceived level of effort in marking the site. A monumental, intellectually stimulating system would enhance performance with higher probability than would a less energetic design based on minimal investment, thought and creativity. An oral tradition tethered to the marker system could emphasize (1) that it was designed to be the world I s longest lasting human artifact, (2) that it was intended as a gift to guard the health of future generations, and (3) that it is the world's largest celestial "clock" marking the millennia. Hyperbole and altruism are strong themes in the world's folk tales, songs and myths. @format 8. Recognition of Marker System Recognition of the proposed marker system would not be expected to depend on the technological level of hypothesized future civilizations. More advanced, as advanced and less advanced societies would encounter signs expressly designed for ease of interpretation in any culture. Extensive indexing, cross-referencing and teaching principles utilized on-site in the marking system would enable intelligent @format Homo sapiens from any future society to understand the message. More advanced societies would have the least difficulty decoding the proposed marker system. Twentieth-century scientists have done an admirable job recognizing and interpreting ancient pictographs, symbols and archaic texts. Future, more advanced scientists would have fewer problems interpreting pictographs, symbols and scripts purposely designed for transparency of interpretation. As advanced societies would be likely to share 21st-century assumptions and world view. A high probability exists that shared understandings would aid in future efforts to explain the markers. Less advanced societies would not grasp subtleties encoded in the periodic table of the elements, perhaps, but would likely understand pictographic narratives and linguistic scripts. Future cultures unable to read any of the inscribed, written messages would be unlikely candidates for intrusion because of a lack of technical capabilities to do so. The proposed marker system, therefore, would be designed to work for future societies in which technological knowledge increases, stabilizes or decreases. @format Political Change. Regarding altered political control of the WIPP site, the above principles apply. Societal memory loss from a radical change in political control would be less likely to deter inadvertent intrusion than would conscious decisions by a new government to destroy all traces (especially monuments) of the old regime. Because material representations of culture reflect basic assumptions and foreign world-views, challengers might yield to destructive impulses. Use of multicultural (as opposed to parochial or nationalistic) messages, could, along with employment of culturally diverse syhmbols, languages and scripts, mitigate effects of altered political control-across the 10,000 year span. @format Mescalero Apache Symbolism. To further enhance the transmission of the warning message, consideration should be given to including at least one Native American language among those chosen for the inscriptions, as well as the use of Native American symbolism on the markers. Only during the last three centuries have Spanish and English-speaking peoples been dominant in the plains east of the Pecos River, where the WIPP site is located. For thousands of years Native American hunters and gatherers ranged across these plains. Apache people entered New Mexico from the north around 1400 A.D. and then worked their way south to the eastern plains @ref (Opler, 1983; Pasztor, 1991). The group now known as the Mescalero Apache lived in the plains east of the Pecos from at least the 17th until the mid-19th century, when they were placed on a reservation just west of the Pecos. The historic association of this Native American tribe with the region where the WIPP is located could be recognized by including Mescalero language and the symbolism drawn from their rich tradition of ethnoastronomy. Mescalero Apache itself is part of a widespread Indian language family, known as Athabascan, which includes other Apache languages of New Mexico and Arizona, along with Navajo languages spoken as far north as Canada and Alaska. A written message could be inscribed using the Roman alphabet I s standard orthography, special Apachean characters and diacritical marks for tone agreed upon in 1975 by the Mescalero Apache Language Commission @ref (Farrer, 1991, p. 262). Like many Native American cultures, the Mescalero Apache "lived in the sky." That is to say, they responded with cultural sensitivity to motions of celestial bodies @ref (Farrer, 1991; Williamson, 1984, pp. 289-319). Their "cosmovision," represented by the quartered circle (Figures 18 and 19), which still symbolizes the cardinal points, the course of the sun and life's circularity @ref (Farrer, 1991; Farrer and Second, 1981), could be used in the symbolism of the WIPP markers. According to @ref Farrer (1991, p. 143): "The Creator gave the Mescalero Apache people serious responsibility for the maintenance of balance and harmony in the universe. Despite incursions of every imaginable sort by the larger mainstream Anglo culture, Apaches have persisted and maintained their responsibilities." @format Vandals. The greatest threat to any unpoliced marker system would be vandalism. Destruction of markers by juvenile members of @format Homo (or soldiers, religious fanatics or political @fig Figure 18. The Quartered Circle: Visual Representations of the Mescalero Apache "Base Metaphor" (Farrer, 1991). @fig Figure 19. Transformations of the Mescalero Apache Quartered Circle into a Four-Pointed Star, then Mountains (Farrer, 1991). true-believers) could present the greatest challenge to efforts detailed in the present report. Redundancy would make total annihilation of the site by vandals impossible; yet the cumulative damage inflicted over 10,000 years by vandals from more advanced, as advanced and less advanced societies could greatly reduce the expected level of deterrence. One defense would be to design a site that future generations considered valuable enough to preserve for their future generations. The better the monument, the more likely it would be protected--possibly even repaired--across 10,000 years. @format Radical Increase in Consumption of World Resources. Continued population growth and a significant increase in resource consumption presents a scenario in which societies 2,000-10,000 years from now increasingly would be tempted to make advertent intrusions into the WIPP. Efficacy of the proposed warning system would not be expected to vary with population, extractive activity or resource demand. However, such demands would likely stimulate decisions to test the limits of the WIPP's warning message. But strictly speaking, intrusions based on knowledge would be advertent. @format Radical Discontinuity. A major war or societal catastrophe would result in conditions similar to those detailed above for political change. Again, the proposed warning system would be targeted to more advanced, less advanced and as advanced literate societies. Its message would be designed for accurate interpretation across 10,000 years for people of all technological levels. Resource prices, economic disruptions and population growth would be unlikely to influence readability, but might be expected to inspire deliberate, advertent intrusions by excavation, tunneling and drilling, or by additional nuclear-waste storage efforts at the WIPP. @format References Cited Costa, J.E., and V.R. Baker. 1981. @format Surficial Geology: Building with the Earth. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. DeSantillana, G., and H. Von Dechend. 1977. @format Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time. Boston, MA: David R., Godine Pub., Inc. Deeson, A.F.L., ed. 1973. @format The Collector's Encyclopedia of Rocks and Minerals. New York, NY: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. Evans, I.O. 1972. @format Rocks, Minerals and Gemstones. London, England: Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd. Farrer, C.R. 1991. @format Living Life's Circle: Mescalero Apache Cosmovision. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Farrer, C.R., and B. Second. 1981. "Living the Sky: Aspects of Mescalero Apache Ethnoastronomy," @format Archaeoastronomy in the Americas. Ed. R.A. Williamson. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 22. Los Altos, CA: Ballena Press. 137-150. Ford, J.P., R.G. Blom, J.A. Crisp, C. Elachi, T.G. Farr, R.S. Saunders, E.E. Theilig, S.D. Wall, and S.B. Yewell. 1989. @format Spaceborne Radar Observations: A Guide for Magellan Radar-Image Analysis. JPL-Publ-89-41. Pasadena, CA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Givens, D.B. 1982. "From Here to Eternity: Communicating with the Distant Future," Et Cetera. Vol. 39, no. 2, 159-179. Greeley, R., and J.D. Iversen. 1985. @format Wind as a Geological Process: On Earth, Mars, Venus, and Titan. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Hawkins, G.S. 1973. @format Beyond Stonehenge. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Henderson, F.M. 1985. "Active Microwave Imaging Systems," @format The Surveillant Science: Remote Sensing of the Environment. Ed. R.K. Holz. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. [234]-247. Hogben, L.T. 1949. @format From Cave Painting to Comic Strip: A Kaleidoscope of Human Communication. New York, NY: Chanticleer Press. Isherwood, D., and A. Street. 1976 "Biotite-Induced Grussification of the Boulder Creek Granodiorite, Boulder County, Colorado," @format Geological Society of America Bulletin. Vol. 87, no. 3, 366-370. Jastrow, R., and M.H. Thompson. 1977. @format Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers. 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Krupp, E.C. 1983. @format Echoes of the Ancient Skies: The Astronomy of Lost Civilizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Kyselka, W., and R.E. Lanterman. 1976. @format North Star to Southern Cross. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. Le Mouel, J-F. 1991. "Prehistory of North America," @format Prehistory: The World of Early Man. Ed. J. Guilaine. New York, NY: Facts on File. 109-122. MacDonald, H.C., and W.P. Waite. 1973. "Imaging Radars Provide Terrain Texture and Roughness Parameters in Semi-Arid Environments," @format Modern Geology. Vol. 4, no. 2, 145-158. Neurath, O. 1936. @format International Picture Language: The First Rules of Isotype. London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ogden, C.K. 1934. @format The System of Basiq English. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Opler, M.E. 1983. "Mescalero Apache," @format Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 10: Southwest. Ed. A. Ortiz. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 419-439. Pasztor, S.B. 1991. "IX. A Historical Perspective of Cultural Development in Southeastern New Mexico," @format Background Information Presented to the Expert Panel on Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Eds. R. V. Guzowski and M.M. Gruebel. SAND91-0928. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. IX-1 through IX-38. Pettengill, G.H., P.G. Ford, W.T.K. Johnson, R.K. Raney, and L.A. Soderblom. 1991. "Magellan: Radar Performance and Data Products," Science. Vol. 252,_ no. 5003, 260-265. Sabins, F.F., Jr. 1978 @format Remote Sensing: Principles and Interpretation. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman. Singh, P. 1978. @format Stone Observatories in India, Erected by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh of Jaipur, 1686-1743 A.D., at Delhi, Jaipur, Ujjain, Varanasi, Mathura. 1st ed. Varanasi: Bharata Manisha. Singh, P. 1986. @format Jantar-Mantars of India: Store Observatories: Jaipur, Delhi, Ujjain, Varanasi, Mathura. Jaipur, India: Holiday Publications. Smith, D.G., ed. 1981. @format The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences. New York, NY: Crown Publishers, Inc. and the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Stover, L.E., and B. Kraig. 1978. @format Stonehenge: The Indo-European Heritage. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Swadesh, M. 1952. "Lexico-Statistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts," @format Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 96, no. 4, 452-463. Twidale, C.R. 1982. @format Granite Landforms. New York, NY: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Ulansey, D. 1989. @format The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Williamson, R.A. 1984. @format Living in the Sky: The Cosmos of the American Indian. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Winkler, E .M. 1975. @format Stone: Properties, Durability in Man's Environment. 2nd rev. ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Worthen, T.D. 1991. @format The Myth of Replacement: Stars, Gods, and Order in the Universe. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. @format APPENDIX A @format TESTING MARKER SYSTEMS FOR UNDERSTANDABILITY @format by Louis Narens The ideas for candidate marker systems should be thoroughly tested for understandability by various target populations before a selection of the final system is made. It is very likely that due to the novelty and nature of the project, much testing and refining candidate marker systems will be required. Some aspects of the testing can be successfully achieved in a modular way (i.e., various messages or pieces of messages can be tested independently of others), while other aspects may need to test a mockup of the entire system to succeed. This Appendix presents some testing concerns about marker systems similar to the kind of system that Team B has proposed. In Team B's system, there are three different kinds of explicit messages and a number of implicit ones. Each kind of explicit message makes different assumptions about the knowledge and capabilities of the reader and the kind of society to which he or she belongs. The rationale for testing of these kinds of messages will be based in part on these assumptions. The SCIENTIFIC MESSAGE assumes a reader with scientific sophistication--particularly an understanding of physical chemistry. In the present world all potential readers of such a message have essentially the same cultural understanding of physical chemistry (e.g., their coursework and textbooks, although possibly of different traditions and languages, share the same concepts, experimental and mathematical methods, facts, and roughly the same kind of quality judgments of what is important and what is good work). Of course, we do not assume that future physical chemists will necessarily have cultural understandings similar to the current one. Thus, given this limitation of culturally diverse populations for testing, the best we can expect of testing for this case is to verify that the scientific message is easily understandable to members of the scientific community with knowledge of physical chemistry, and establish the level of expertise and intelligence needed for correctly interpreting the message. The WRITTEN MESSAGE assumes a reader who is familiar with a portion of a variant of at least one of the languages the message is in. (For the purpose of exposition we will assume that the message is written in English) The written messages should be tested for understanding on people with a limited understanding of English, e.g., people who have English as second or third language, people who speak an English form of Pidgin. It is especially important to test the written message on people who are from cultures very different from our own, including nontechnological ones. The (NONSCIENTIFIC) PICTOGRAPHIC MESSAGE assumes moderately intelligent reader or group of readers who is willing to put in the time and effort to "decode" it. This message should be tested in even a wider variety of cultures than the previous messages, especially ones that have very limited understanding of our culture and technology. We assume that the nonscientific pictographic message will require much prior testing and redesigning. Much of this testing can be modular and can be somewhat generic in the sense that many of the results will be applicable to forms of the message. For example, variants of a symbol (or subset of symbols) can be tested to see which is most understandable; or various schemes for "teaching" a meaning of a symbol can be tested, etc. Both the resulting good symbols and good teaching methods can be then used as a basis for a variety of pictographic messages. The creators of various candidate marker systems will have ideas about how the overall design of the markers, the graphic forms of the messages, as well as the messages themselves will likely inform potential readers about the designers of the messages, the nature of the society they came from, and possible reasons for the marker system, etc. Since it is very likely that potential readers will use ideas (perhaps preconceived ones) about the designers of the markers, their society, and reasons for the markers) as an initial basis for deciding how to go about interpreting the messages, it is important that the designers' ideas about such issues be made explicit and be tested. Also because of this, it is imperative that the messages themselves also be tested in ways that simulate contexts in which readers might encounter them. This may mean building a mockup of the Markers Project in some nontechnological culture and having people of that culture explain what it is about, or sending drawings and information about the site to various types of specialists of various cultural backgrounds for their opinions, etc. In view of the above suggestions for testing marker systems, the following four considerations should be stressed: @format 1. The results of testing should feed back into the designing process. @format 2. Consideration of culture plays an important role in the testing, and thus anthropologists should be strongly involved in the entire testing process. @format 3. A variety of kinds of individuals and cultures should be used in the testing process; and in particular, nontechnological cultures who have limited contact with our culture should be included. @format 4. The designers of the messages should make explicit the means they think various possible readers of the message will use to decode the appropriate message, and it should be tested whether or not various target populations use these means or others in reaching their conclusions. @format 5. The proper testing of a candidate marker system, while not very expensive in terms of the actual construction of the marker system, may take several years to complete. @format APPENDIX B @format SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL ON THE WIPP MARKER by Jon Lomberg P.O. Box 207 Honaunau, Hawaii, 96726 @format I. Use of SYmbols in the WIPP Marker G-77 @format II. The WIPP Pictograph G-80 @format III. Marking by Direct Means: Using a sample of waste as part of the Marker System G-82 @format IV. Notes on Marker Aesthetics and Design G-84 References G-90 I. USE OF SYMBOLS IN THE WIPP MARKERS There are three basic messages that symbols associated with the WIPP marker might be used to convey: POISON RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS DON'T INTRUDE Most cultures use visual symbols, but they all use different symbols. Our team was unable to discover any "universal" visual symbols that are guaranteed to be understood by any human being in conveying any of these three messages. Some existing symbols were suggested by various members of our team. These included: @format 1) RADIATION TREFOIL @format 2) SKULL AND CROSSBONES @format 3) MR. YUK (a recently adopted international poison warning symbol for children) @format 4) DO NOT ____ (circle with slash) @format 5) DIAGONAL SLASH @format 6) X (something crossed out) @format 7) STYLIZED URANIUM ATOM We have used the radiation trefoil in our sample pictographs and other drawings submitted with this report, but we want to emphasize that this was only done as a matter of graphic convenience. Given limited time, the simple trefoil was more convenient to sketch quickly than the more complicated skull and crossbones or some group of many symbols (as is proposed below) . The radiation trefoil was the subject of some vigorous debate. Some argued that the trefoil had already been adopted internationally and might well survive for many centuries with its meaning more or less intact. Others were concerned that the trefoil is not iconographic, that is there is nothing about it that directly relates to the concept it symbolizes. One team member quipped, upon seeing the trefoil used to signify waste in our sample pictograph, "Why are they burying all those submarine propellers?" The skull and crossbones also received a good deal of consideration, including some external advice from Carl Sagan, who had written a letter to the project on the subject (see letter from Carl Sagan at the end of this Appendix B). The lineage of the skull and crossbones as a graphic symbol (as opposed to the use of ~ bones in totems and "cannibal lintels") leads back to medieval alchemists, for whom the skull represented Adam's skull and the crossed bones the cross that promised resurrection. It is almost certainly a Western cultural artifact, yet it too has spread worldwide as a symbol for poison -and also for pirates. Henry Dreyfuss, a great scholar of symbols, once performed an experiment where 3-year old children were shown a skull and crossbones and immediately shouted "Pirates". If they were shown the skull and crossbones positioned on a bottle, they shouted "Poison". It is for this reason that the skull and crossbones that appear in the drawings are sometimes shown set upon a bottle. Some general principles were agreed upon:

1. No symbol is certain to stay in use for the 10,000 year period. Future societies will probably create many of their own sYmbols, and symbols from our time may have their meanings changed or distorted with the passage of time. Compare how the meaning of the swastika has changed in our own century, going from positive religious symbol of India to a hated emblem of the Nazis.
2. Symbols used in the WIPP Marker should be defined by pictographs as part of the marker. Some examples of how this might be done follow. Figure 5 shows how the "Do Not" symbol might be defined. Figure 6 shows how the skull and crossbones could be shown to mean "poison" (though there should probably be an additional frame that shows the sick person as a skeleton). Figure 7 shows how difficult it is to define a radiation hazard symbol without requiring that the reader have a knowledge of chemistry or physics. The problem is that the effects of exposure to radiation can take many years to appear. In Figure 7 one possible solution to this is presented: A child encounters the waste (symbolized by the trefoil), and the symbol is transferred onto his chest. In the background are some young trees. Then the child is seen as an adult, identified with the child by the symbol on his chest. The tree is several decades older, but still recognizable by the pattern of its branches. Flowers at the base of the young and old tree provide a measure of scale. An additional frame might be added to this sequence showing the adult clearly dead. We do not suggest that any of these sequences are developed enough to use, but they perhaps point the direction in which other definitional pictographs could be developed.
3. Geometrically simple and symmetrical symbols (such as the trefoil or the "X") can withstand more degradation and later be reconstructed than can more complex symbols like the skull and crossbones. Two drawings show how a system of berms might be used to form a symbol visible from above (Figures 1 and 2).@foot * Remote marking using materials of different dialectric, thermal, or magnetic properties could also be shaped in this way. The trefoil can be severely degraded by wind or water erosion, or by excavation, and still be recognized. As soon as the skull and crossbones begins to lose its definition, there will perhaps be those future observers who argue that we are merely projecting a face onto a random arrangement of material, as is almost certainly the case with the so-called Face On Mars.
4. Multiple symbols might be easier to read than single symbols. While experimenting with various symbols, this artist noticed that the symbols were sorting themselves into pairs as follows: TREFOIL & STYLIZED ATOM CROSSBONES & MR. YUK SLASHED CIRCLE & X If these symbols are grouped together as pairs, the sum of two half-understood symbols might be two fully understood symbols. For example, the trefoil itself might seem to some future readers like an old radiation sign, while others argued that it looked floral (a French ruin?) or like a Japanese @format mon (a clan crest). The stylized atom, if seen alone, might be mistaken for a solar system. But together, the two symbols help confirm the correct hypothesis and disprove the incorrect hypothesis. Boxing the symbols together is one way to enforce the sense of their connection. Figure 8 shows how groups of symbols might be designed to convey the three basic warning messages. A detail that requires more thought is what to put behind the slashed circle or the X. A drilling tower such as the one shown may not be recognized for what it is. But a stylized stick figure of a person digging doesn't convey the danger correctly, since it is not dangerous to dig a few feet down; perhaps the more detailed information on the pictographic sequence showing the history of the WIPP will clarify that possible confusion. @foot *The drawings give a generalized view of how our Markers might appear: a ring of monoliths circumscribing the area directly over the waste, with a central structure that contains the most detailed information. The WIPP building, or some remaining portion of it, is due north of the central structure. A fourth pair of symbols might be added to help explain that the two symbols in each box are equivalent symbols of the same concept (see Figure 9) .
5. Symbols could be used in association with the linguistic messages. Use of an identical symbol or group of symbols before each language could help suggest that each language is saying the same thing (see Figure 10).
6. Symbols can and should be tested to determine which symbols work best and how their presentation affects their ability to be understood: for example, does it make any difference if symbols are drawn as outlines or filled figures? (see Figures 11 and 12) . @format II) THE WIPP PICTOGRAPH A sketch of the kind of pictorial narrative that might be used on the WIPP Marker. BACKGROUND Not all human cultures have painting, drawing, or other graphic arts. In those that do, the human figure is a common subject. People and animals are the most easily recognized elements in the pictures of another culture. Symbolic elements, emblems of natural forces, decorative motifs, and scripts can be difficult to interpret in prehistoric cave murals, Egyptian frescoes, Chinese scrolls, Persian miniatures, or Plains Indians hide paintings. But the human figure is usually clear. Universal human actions--running, digging, paddling a boat, hunting--are also usually easy to recognize. Often sequences of images are used to depict events in time in a linear fashion, to tell a story or record a historical event; there are many examples of linear, pictorial narratives in existence. Three independently evolved examples--the Bayeaux Tapestry (France, 12th Century); the Japanese scroll "The Mongol Invasions" (Japan, 13th Century); and the Lakota Sioux picture story of the Battle of the Little Big Horn (United States, 19th Century)--indicate how widespread the use of pictures to create narrative is. Drawing and reading comic strips is one the most ancient and widespread of human pastimes. The human figure is the object likeliest to be recognized by those people of the future who find the WIPP Markers. The human figure provides a natural scale for determining the size of objects in the pictures, and helping recipients interpret and calibrate the numbers and measurements used. A linear narrative contained in panels, read from top to bottom, seems a good way of conveying the history of the site. TECHNIQUES One difficulty facing an artist who wants to show human figures at the WIPP site is that the depth of the repository is such that to show the underground chambers scaled correctly, more than 2200' have to be contained in the frame. The human figure is far too small in any reasonably sized frame. The size of the frame is constrained by the number of frames required to tell the story and the height of the marker. Top to bottom reading is done in all cultures. Horizontal readings provide more ambiguity, no matter how they are marked. The clearest way to present the narrative is in a single stack of frames, avoiding the confusion possible if readers have to go from the bottom of one column of frames to the top of another. Therefore the size of the frame can be determined by dividing the height of the easily readable area of the marker by the number of frames. Museum exhibit designers generally try to contain all text and diagrams between 3 feet and 6 feet from the floor. The sequence of drawings for Figure 13 has 10 frames. To fit 10 frames in 3 feet, each frame can be no higher than 3.6 inches. Actually, since frames require a little spacing, the actual height would be less than that. But large frames can be seen even higher than 6 feet. A more generous estimate of the maximum reading area might be between 10' and 2'. Now the height of each panel is over 9 inches. If the WIPP building and the repository are shown to scale in a frame of this size, then a 6' person is less than one fortieth of an inch high. Just a featureless dot on the horizon. The conventional solution used in Western style comic strips is to cut to scenes at different scales, much as a movie director will cut from a long shot to a closeup. But this is @format not a convention that has been used universally, and it provides many ambiguities. THE STORY OF WIPP The solution I propose is to have two parallel stories presented in a stack of paired frames. One shows the WIPP site at large scale, the other at human scale. Deliberate efforts have been made to associate each frame in the pair by date, size scale, and stars in the sky. The hope is that future decoders will be able to figure out that they are seeing the entire site and a closeup and various moments in time. Tally dots beneath each frame reinforce the sequencing-and perhaps the sense of time passing-implied by the sequence of frames. The long shot frames show the desert as it was before WIPP, oriented by the North Star, the appearance of WIPP, the sinking of the shafts and the excavation of the chambers, the transportation of waste material to the site, down the shaft, and into the chambers, the sealing of the shaft, the erection of the markers, the change in the Polar constellations due to the Earth's precessional cycle, and the decay and disappearance of the buried hazard. The close-up frames cut from surface activities at the site to activities beneath the surface. The absence of stars in the sky and the indicated depth should be a clue as to the difference. Even if recipients cannot actually @format read the depths, they should be able to recognize that the "2150" is associated with some of the close-ups and that 0' is associated with others. Comparing these two numbers with their positions in the long shot will help decode the location of the scenes. NOTE: The Trefoil has been used as a symbol for the waste matter purely as a matter of the artist's convenience: it was fast for me to draw in. The actual symbol or group of symbols that should be used on the marker is a matter requiring a great deal of further study and testing. @format III) MARKING BY DIRECT MEANS: Using a sample of waste as part of the Marker System. No symbolic representation of the radioactive material could be as unambiguous as the material itself. A properly sealed, transparent canister (Figure 20) containing a representative sample of the gloves, glassware, and sludge buried at WIPP would be harmless, indeed unobserved, by the casual visitor. Sealed containers containing small amounts of waste could be buried at strategic spots in the Marker area e.g. under the central structure, beneath the shaft seals, or with the other buried monoliths. Perhaps the "remote" marker in Carlsbad Caverns would be another possible site for a waste sample. A sample of waste might be the most effective way of deterring--or at least slowing down-the potential intruder who was serious enough to have begun excavation. The sample could be marked with the symbols representing the buried material, and thus provide the best possible proof of the meaning of the symbols used elsewhere on the site. The discovery of the waste sample might help steer intruders away from any hypothesis that nuclear weapons, weapons grade materials, or extractable ores were contained in the repository. The contents of WIPP are so uninspiring and worthless that a sample might be the best means @fig Figure 20. Transparent Canister of Simple WIPP Waste (art by Jon Lomberg). of deterring intruders from undertaking the difficult and costly task of re-opening the chambers. @format IV) NOTES ON MARKER AESTHETICS AND DESIGN Various members of the Marker Panel have expressed the view that the Marker should be designed so as to achieve maximum aesthetic impact, so as to be seen as a "gift from our century to the future" @ref (Givens), involving contemporary artists working on large scale environmental sculpture @ref (Sullivan), or using Jungian archetypal forms to create a mood of dread and danger @ref (Brill). As a professional artist, I wish to register a dissenting view. I believe that the Marker should be designed purely on functional grounds, and that any attempts to make the Marker some kind of artistic statement are bound to confuse the clarity of the basic message we are trying to convey. There are several reasons for this belief:

1. ART IS AMBIGUOUS. Art is sometimes described as a universal language. Some aspects of art can help bridge gaps when there is no common verbal language, and that is the basis of the idea of using a pictographic sequence to convey some aspects of the nature of the WIPP site. But art can as often be the most ambiguous form of human communication, especially when we are trying to understand the intent of the artist. For example, the depictions of the animals in cave paintings are easily understood, but it is much harder to determine why the paintings were created. Representational art is much more easily understood than symbolic art, and the direction that most artists take in large scale sculpture is symbolic or abstract. I believe that most of the designs that would be suggested by sculptors or "Earth Artists" would be more abstract than representational. Contemporary audiences often voice puzzlement over the intent of abstract painters and sculptors. Any inclusion of abstract, geometrical, or symbolic forms in the Marker is more likely to confuse than to enhance the meaning of the Marker.
2. ART IS AN END IN ITSELF. Even if we could commission some monument great enough to become a wonder of the world whose fame would be carried down 300 generations, the very fact that the Marker was so impressive could lead to the belief that the purpose of the marker is artistic rather than communicative. A large and powerful sculpture sitting in the middle of the desert could easily be seen as the product of some individual artist-similar to Mt. Rushmore or current endeavors like Charles Ross' "Star Axis" (also under construction in New Mexico) rather than as an organized attempt at communication. Some of these large-scale artworks may also survive millennia. The WIPP Marker shouldn't be mistaken for another example--however well designed--of a 20th Century school of outdoor sculpture. Art usually has no function, it exists only to be experienced. If people of the future view the WIPP Marker as a piece of art, they are less likely to try to interpret it as conveying a particular message rather than as some elaborate "artistic statement". These comments apply equally well to art which intentionally tries to be ugly or convey a mood of dread or danger, as in some of Mike Brill's (A Team) imaginative designs. Not all great art is meant to be beautiful. Consider Picasso's painting "Guernica" in this context. Sculptural forms which convey a negative emotion or mood may also be seen as "merely" works of art, with no explicit marking function.
3. ART DRAWS PEOPLE TO IT. We want people to stay away from this site, not travel from distant places to see it. A great and famous work of art encourages visits from other artists, historians, and tourists. If enough people want to come to see a remote wonder, somebody will put up a hotel to accommodate them. Maybe the hotel decides to drill for water... By creating a great monument we may be causing the developments at the site that we most want to avoid.
4. GREAT ART IS HARD TO COMMISSION. For every successful commissioned monument there are a hundred failures, e.g., the Prince Albert memorial in London (an architectural laughingstock) or the WWII Airman's Memorial in Toronto (known locally as "Gumby Goes to Heaven"). If a decision is made to have a competition for a sculpture, a momentum is established whereby one piece has to be selected, whether or not somebody has come up with the right design. I am also very concerned about who would decide which design would be used. Let me remind the Panel that the thinking that now dominates the art world in places like New York is anti- scientific, anti-representational, and seems to favor more detached and (to me) nihilistic statements of artists. I do not think that the art community as it exists would be well qualified to create or select a design that would be scientifically informed about the many intricacies of this problem (encroachment by sand dunes, durability of materials, future scenarios, etc.) Yet if an announcement were made that there was going to be a grand competition for a Marker to last 10,000 years, it would be hard @format not to involve the art community in the decision making process. If you do, be warned: they are likely to end up picking a giant inflatable hamburger to mark the site. I say let artists submit designs if they wish, but don't decide @format a priori that any design will in fact be used.
5. AN ARTISTIC MARKER MAKES INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION OF MARKERS LESS LIKELY. We all seem to agree that having similar markers appear worldwide at other nuclear waste repositories is a good idea. A purely functional marker, if well conceived and not too site specific has a chance of being adopted internationally. But as soon as you make it an artistic competition, you invite nationalistic competitiveness. I cannot believe, for example, that France would want a sculpture selected by an American committee to grace a French repository. And if each country wants an artistic statement that reflects their own (contemporary) artistic beliefs and styles, the Markers will very quickly diverge, making it harder for people of the future to realize that all these sites have some common link. For all of the above reasons, I urge that the Marker be designed purely on the criterion of message clarity. An example of a marker designed purely for function is shown in Figure 3. The design was inspired by the placement of an Indian pictograph painted in the year 1054 A.D. which recorded the appearance of a supernova in the sky. The painting was done on the underside of an overhang, perhaps the best location to minimize the effects of rain and windblown dust. Different kinds of information could be placed on different faces of the marker. For example the symbols and languages could be placed on the side facing outward, information about the site's relation to the Earth's precessional cycle could be placed on the side facing inward. Variations on this design might have niches or other recesses carved into each monolith in which the most important information could be engraved. According to the present dimensions stipulated as those of the actual waste storage area, it is possible to calculate how large a 30 foot monolith on the perimeter of a ring shown in Figure 2 would appear from the center Figure 21. @fig Figure 21. View of a 30' Monolith from the WIPP Buildings. @format CORNELL UNIVERSITY @format Center for Radiophysics and Space Research @format SPACE SCIENCES BUILDING @format Ithaca, New York 14853-6801 @format Laboratory for Planetary Studies @format Telephone (607) 255-4971 @format Fax (607) 255-9888 @format 8 August 1990 Dr. D. Richard Anderson Performance Assessment Division 6342 Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 Dear Dr. Anderson: Many thanks for your kind invitation to participate in the panel charged with making recommendations on signing to the far future about the presence of dangerous long-lived radioactive waste repositories (assuming the waste hasn't all leached out by then). It is an interesting and important problem, and I'm sorry that my schedule will not permit me to participate. But I can, in a few sentences, tell you my views on the matter: perhaps you would be kind enough to pass them on to the members of the panel: Several half-lives of the longest-lived radioisotopes in question constitute a time period longer than recorded human history. No one knows what changes that span of time will bring. Social institutions, artistic conventions, written and spoken language, scientific knowledge and even the dedication to reason and truth might, for all we know, change drastically. What we need is a symbol invariant to all those possible changes. Moreover, we want a symbol that will be understandable not just to the most educated and scientifically literate members of the population, but to anyone who might come upon this repository. There is one such symbol. It is tried and true. It has been used transculturally for thousands of years, with unmistakable meaning. It is the symbol used on the lintels of cannibal dwellings, the flags of pirates, the insignia of SS divisions and motorcycle gangs, the labels of bottles of poisons -- the skull and crossbones. Human skeletal anatomy, we can be reasonably sure, will not unrecognizably change in the next few tens of thousands of years. You might very well wish also to include warnings in major human languages (being careful not to exclude Chinese and Arabic), and to attach a specification of the radioisotopes in question -- perhaps by circling entries in a periodic table with the appropriate Dr. D. Richard Anderson 8 August 1990 page 2 isotopic atomic numbers emphasized. It might be useful to include on the signs their own radioactive markers so that the epoch of radioactive waste burial can be calculated (or maybe a sequence of drawings of the Big Dipper moving around the Pole Star each year so that, through the precession of the equinoxes, the epoch of burial, modulo 26,000 years, could be specified). But all this presumes much about future generations. The key is the skull and crossbones. Unless a more powerful and more direct symbol can be devised, I think the only reason for not using the skull and crossbones is that we believe the current political cost of speaking plainly about deadly radioactive waste is worth more than the well-being of future generations. @format With best wishes, @format Cordially, @format Carl Sagan @format cc: Jon Lomberg @format Ann Druyan @format REFERENCES Brodrick, A.H. 1948. @format Prehistoric Painting. London, England: Avalon Press Ltd. Dreyfuss, H. 1972. @format Symbol Sourcebook: An Authoritative Guide to International Graphic ,Symbols. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. @format The Herder Symbol Dictionary. 1986. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications Johnson, F.C., L.A. Johnson, and G. Dykstra. 1971. @format Stick Figure Drawing For Language Teachers. London, England: Ginn. Kidder, J.E. 1981. @format The Art of Japan. New York, NY: Park Lane. Lehner, E. 1950. @format Symbols, Signs, and Signets. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Co. Sagan, C., F.D. Drake, J. Lomberg, L.S. Sagan, A. Druyan, and T. Ferris. 1978. @format Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record. New York, NY: Random House. Soisson, P., and J. Soisson. 1978. @format Life of the Aztecs in Ancient Mexico. Barcelona, Spain: Productions Liber.

DISTRIBUTION (Send Distribution list changes to M.M. Gruebel, Dept. 6342, Sandia National Laboratories, PO Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1328) Federal Agencies US Department of Energy (6) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Attn: Deputy Director, RW-2 Associate Director, RW-10/50 Office of Program and Resources Management Office of Contract Business Management Director, RW-22, Analysis and Verification Division Associate Director, RW-30 Office of Systems and Compliance Associate Director, RW-40 Office of Storage and Transportation Director, RW-4/5 Office of Strategic Planning and International Programs Office of External Relations Forresta1 Building Washington, DC 20585 US Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office Attn: National Atomic Museum Library PO Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185 US Department of Energy (2) Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Attn: Director, EM-1 C. Frank, EM-50 Washington, DC 20585 US Department of Energy (3) Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Attn: M. Frei, EM-34 / Trevion II Director, Waste Management Projects Washington, DC 20585-0002 US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Attn: J. Lytle, EM-30 / Trevion II Washington, DC 20585-0002 US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Attn: S. Schneider, EM-342 Trevion II Washington, DC 20585-0002 US Department of Energy (3) WIPP Task Force Attn: G.H. Daly S. Fucigna B. Bower 12800 Middlebrook Rd., Suite 400 Germantown, MD 20874 US Department of Energy (4) Office of Environment, Safety and Health Attn: R.P. Berube, EH-20 C. Borgstrum, EH-25 R. Pelletier, EH-231 K. Taimi, EH-232 Washington, DC 20585 US Department of Energy (6) WIPP Project Integration Office Attn: S. Alcorn W,J. Arthur III J. Coffey L.W. Gage P.J. Higgins D.A. 010na PO Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87115-5400 US Department of Energy (2) WIPP Project Integration Satellite Office Attn: R. Batra R. Becker PO Box 3090, Mail Stop 525 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 US Department of Energy (10) WIPP Project Site Office (Carlsbad) Attn: A. Hunt (4) V. Daub (4) J. Lippis K. Hunter PO Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090

US Department of Energy Research & Waste Management Division Attn: Director PO Box E Oak Ridge, TN 37831 US Department of Energy (2) Idaho Operations Office Fuel Processing and Waste Management Division 785 DOE Place Idaho Falls, ID 83402 US Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office Defense Waste Processing Facility Project Office Attn: W.D. Pearson PO Box A Aiken, SC 29802 US Department of Energy Richland Field Office Attn: R.F. Guercia PO Box 550 / R3-80 Richland, WA 99352 US Department of Energy Office of Geologic Disposal Yucca Mountain Project Office Attn: Associate Director, RW-20 PO Box 98608 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8608 US Department of Energy (3) Nevada Operations Office Attn: J.R. Boland D. Livingston P.K. Fitzsimmons 2753 S. Highland Drive Las Vegas, NV 89183-8518 US Department of Energy (2) Technical Information Center PO Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 US Department of Energy (2) Chicago Operations Office Attn: J.C. Haugen 9800 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 US Department of Energy (3) Rocky Flats Area Office Attn: W.C. Rask G. Huffman T. Lukow PO Box 928 Golden, CO 80402-0928 US Department of Energy Los Alamos Area Office 528 35th Street Los Alamos, NM 87544 US Department of Energy Dayton Area Office Attn: R. Grandfield PO Box 66 Miamisburg, OH 45343-0066 US Bureau of Land Management Carlsbad Office 101 E. Mermod Carlsbad, NM 88220 US Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Office PO Box 1449 Santa Fe, NM 87507 US Environmental Protection Agency (2) Radiation Protection Programs Attn: M. Oge ANR-460 Washington, DC 20460 US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Attn: C. Byrum, 6T-ET 1445 Ross Ave. Dallas, TX 75202 US Geological Survey (2) Water Resources Division Attn: C. Peters 4501 Indian School NE Suite 200 Albuquerque, NM 87110 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Waste Management Attn: H. Marson Mail Stop 4-H-3 Washington, DC 20555

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (4) Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Attn: D. Moeller M.J. Steind1er P.W. Pomeroy W.J. Hinze 7920 Norfolk Ave. Bethesda, MD 20814 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Attn: D. Winters 625 Indiana Ave. NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Attn: Library (2) 1100 Wilson Blvd. Suite 910 Arlington, VA 22209-2297 State Agencies New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Socorro, NM 87801 New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Attn: Librarian 2040 South Pacheco Santa Fe, NM 87505 New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department New Mexico Radioactive Task Force (2) (Governor's WIPP Task Force) Attn: A. Lockwood, Chairman C. Wentz, Policy Analyst 2040 South Pacheco Santa Fe, NM 87505 Bob Forrest Mayor, City of Carlsbad PO Box 1569 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Carlsbad Department of Development Executive Director Attn: C. Bernard PO Box 1090 Carlsbad, NM 88221 New Mexico Environment Department Secretary of the Environment (3) Attn: J. Espinosa PO Box 968 1190 St. Francis Drive Santa Fe, NM 87503-0968 New Mexico Environment Department Attn: P. McCasland WIPP Project Site Office PO Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 New Mexico State Engineer's Office Attn: M. Chudnoff PO Box 25102 Santa Fe, NM 87504-5102 Environmental Evaluation Group (5) Attn: R. Neill 7007 Wyoming Blvd. NE, Suite F-2 Albuquerque, NM 87109 Inyo County Planning Department Attn: Brad Mettam Drawer L Independence, CA 93526 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Facility Safety John F. Ahearne Executive Director, Sigma Xi 99 Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 James E. Martin 109 Observatory Road Ann Arbor, MI 48109 WIPP Committee, National Research Council's Board on Radioactive Waste Management National Research Council (2) Board on Radioactive Waste Management Attn: C.A. Anderson I. B. Alterman 2101 Constitution Ave. NW Harris Bldg. HA 456 Washington, DC 20418

Howard Adler Oxyrase, Inc. 11020 Solway School Rd. Knoxville, TN 37931 John o. Blomeke 3833 Sandy Shore Drive Lenoir City, TN 37771-9803 John D. Bredehoeft Western Region Hydrologist Water Resources Division US Geological Survey (MIS 439) 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Fred M. Ernsberger 1325 NW Tenth Ave. Gainsville, FL 32605 Rodney C. Ewing Department of Geology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Charles Fairhurst Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering University of Minnesota 500 Pillsbury Dr. SE Minneapolis, MN 55455-0220 B. John Garrick PLG, Incorporated 4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2027 Leonard F. Konikow US Geological Survey 431 National Center Reston, VA 22092 Jeremiah O'Driscoll Jody, Incorporated 505 Valley Hill Drive Atlanta, GA 30350 Christopher G. Whipple ICF Kaiser Engineers 1800 Harrison St. 7th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-3430 Thomas A. Zordan Zordan Associates, Inc. 3807 Edinburg Dr. Murrysville, PA 15668 Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel G. Ross Heath College of Ocean & Fishery Sciences University of Washington 583 Henderson Hall, HN-15 Seattle, WA 98195 Thomas H. Pigford Department of Nuclear Engineering 4159 Etcheverry Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 Thomas A. Cotton JK Research Associates, Inc. 4429 Butterworth Place NW Washington, DC 20016 Robert J. Budnitz President, Future Resources Associates, Inc. 2000 Center Street Suite 418 Berkeley, CA 94704 C. John Mann Department of Geology 245 Natural History Bldg. 1301 West Green Street University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 Frank W. Schwartz Department of Geology and Mineralogy The Ohio State University Scott Hall 1090 Carmack Rd. Columbus, OH 43210 National Laboratories Argonne National Laboratory (2) Attn: A. Smith D. Tomasko 9700 South Cass, Bldg. 201 Argonne, IL 6D439

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (2) Attn: S. Bates R.E. Westerman MSIN P8-44 Battelle Boulevard Richland, WA 99352 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (2) Attn: H. Loo R. Klinger Mail Stop 5108 Idaho Falls, ID 83403-4000 Los Alamos National Laboratory (5) Attn: B. Erda1, INC-12 M. Ennis, HS-12 Mail Stop J900 S. Kosiewicz, EM-7 Mail Stop J595 L. Soho1t, EM-13 Mail Stop M992 J. Wenzel, HS-12 Mail Stop K482 PO Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Transuranic Waste Manager Attn: D.W. Turner Bldg. 3047 PO Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6060 Pacific Northwest Laboratory Attn: B. Kennedy PO Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 Westinghouse-Savannah River Technology Center (4) Attn: N. Bibler J.R. Harbour M.J. Plodinec G.G. Wicks Aiken, SC 29802 Corporations/Members of the Public Battelle Memorial Institute Attn: R. Root J. Kircher 505 Marquette NW, Suite 1 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Benchmark Environmental Corp. Attn: C. Frederickson 4501 Indian School NE, Suite 105 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Beta Corporation Int. Attn: E. Bonano 6613 Esther NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 City of Albuquerque Public Works Department Utility Planning Division Attn: W.K. Summers PO Box 1293 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Deuel and Associates, Inc. Attn: R.W. Prindle 7208 Jefferson NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 Disposal Safety, Inc. Attn: B. Ross 1660 L Street NW, Suite 314 Washington, DC 20036 Ecodynamics (2) Attn: P. Roache R. Blaine PO Box 9229 Albuquerque, NM 87119-9229 EG & G Idaho (3) 1955 Fremont Street Attn: C. Atwood C. Hertzler T.I. Clements Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Geomatrix Attn: K. Coppersmith 100 Pine S~., Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Golder Associates, Inc. Attn: R. Kossik 4104 148th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 John Hart and Associates, P.A. Attn: J.S. Hart 2815 Candelaria Road NW Albuquerque, NM 87107

John Hart and Associates, P.A. Attn: K. Lickliter 400-C 8th St. NW Tacoma, WA 98439 INTERA, Inc. Attn: A.M. LaVenue 1650 University Blvd. NE, Suite 300 Albuquerque, NM 87102 INTERA, Inc. Attn: J.F. Pickens 6850 Austin Center Blvd., Suite 300 Austin, TX 78731 INTERA, Inc. Attn: W. Stensrud PO Box 2123 Carlsbad, NM 88221 INTERA, Inc. Attn: W. Nelson 101 Convention Center Dr. Suite 540 Las Vegas, NV 89109 IT Corporatio~ (2) Attn: R.F. McKinney J. Myers Regional Office, Suite 700 5301 Central Avenue NE Albuquerque, NM 87108 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Attn: J. Long Building 50 E Berkeley, CA 94720 MAC Technical Services Co. Attn: D.K. Duncan 8418 Zuni Road SE, Suite 200 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Newman and Holtzinger Attn: C. Mallon 1615 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 RE/SPEC, Inc. (2) Attn: W. Coons 4775 Indian School NE, Suite 300 Albuquerque, NM 87110 RE/SPEC, Inc. Attn: J.L. Ratigan PO Box 725 Rapid City, SD 57709 Reynolds Electric and Engineering Company, Inc. Attn: E.W. Kendall Building 790 Warehouse Row PO Box 98521 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521 SAIC Attn: H.R. Pratt 10260 Campus Point Drive San Diego, CA 92121 SAIC Attn: C.G. Pflum 101 Convention Center Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89109 SAIC (3) Attn: M. Davis R. Guzowski J. Tollison 2109 Air Park Road SE Albuquerque, NM 87106 SAIC (2) Attn: J. Young D. Lester 18706 North Creek Parkway, Suite 110 Bothell, WA 98011 Southwest Research Institute Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis (2) Attn: P.K. Nair 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, TX 78228-0510 Systems, Science, and Software (2) Attn: E. Peterson P. Lagus Box 1620 La Jolla, CA 92038 TASC Attn: S.G. Oston 55 Walkers Brook Drive Reading, MA 01867

Tech Reps, Inc. (8) Attn: J. Chapman C. Crawford D. Marchand T. Peterson J. Stikar D. Scott M. Minahan V. Gilliland 5000 Marble NE, Suite 222 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Tolan, Beeson &Associates Attn: T.L. Tolan 2320 W. 15th Avenue Kennewick, WA 99337 TRW Environmental Safety Systems (2) Attn: I. Sacks, Suite 800 ' L. Wildman, Suite 1300 2650 Park Tower Drive Vienna, VA 22180-7306 Sanford Cohen and Associates Attn: J. Channell 7101 Carriage Rd NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 Westinghouse Electric Corporation (5) Attn: Library C. Cox L. Fitch B.A. Howard R.F. Kehrman PO Box 2078 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Westinghouse Hanford Company Attn: D.E. Wood, MSIN HO-32 PO Box 1970 Richland, WA 99352 Western Water Consultants Attn: P.A. Rechard PO Box 4128 Laramie, WY 82071 Western Water Consultants Attn: D. Fritz 1949 Sugar1and Drive #134 Sheridan, WY 82801-5720 P. Drez 8816 Cherry Hills Road NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 David Leche1 9600 Allende Rd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 C.A. Marchese PO Box 21790 Albuquerque, NM 87154 Arend Meijer 3821 Anderson SE Albuquerque, NM 87108 D.W. Powers Star Route Box 87 Anthony, TX 79821 Shirley Thieda PO Box 2109, RR1 Bernalillo, NM 87004 Jack Urich c/o CARD 144 Harvard SE Albuquerque, NM 87106 Universities University of California Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering Department (2) Attn: W. Kastenberg D. Browne 5532 Boelter Hall Los Angeles, CA 90024 University of California Engineering and Applied Science Attn: D. Okrent 48-121A Engineering IV Los Angeles, CA 90024-1597 University of California Mine Engineering Department Rock Mechanics Engineering Attn: N. Cook Berkeley, CA 94720

University of Hawaii at Hilo Business Administration . Attn: S. Hora Hi1o, HI 96720-4091 University of Illinois Department of Geology Attn: C. Bethke 1301 W. Green St. Urbana, IL 61801 University of New Mexico Geology Department Attn: Library Albuquerque, NM 87131 University of New Mexico Research Administration Attn: H. Schreyer 102 Scholes Hall Albuquerque, NM 87131 University of Wyoming Department of Civil Engineering Attn: V.R. Hasfurther Laramie, WY 82071 University of Wyoming Department of Geology Attn: J.I. Drever Laramie, WY 82071 University of Wyoming Department of Mathematics Attn: R.E. Ewing Laramie, WY 82071 Libraries Thomas Brannigan Library Attn: D. Dresp 106 W. Hadley St. Las Cruces, NM 88001 New Mexico State Library Attn: N. McCa11an 325 Don Gaspar Santa Fe, NM 87503 New Mexico Tech Martin Speere Memorial Library Campus Street Socorro, NM 87810 New Mexico Junior College Pannell Library Attn: R. Hill Lovington Highway Hobbs, NM 88240 Carlsbad Municipal Library WIPP Public Reading Room Attn: L. Hubbard 101 S. Ha1agueno St. Carlsbad, NM 88220 University of New Mexico Zimmerman Library Government Publications Department Albuquerque, NM 87131 NEAjPerformance Assessment Advisory Group (PAAG) P. Duerden ANSTO Lucas Heights Research Laboratories Private Mail Bag No. 1 Menai, NSW 2234 AUSTRALIA Gordon S. Linsley Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Management International Atomic Energy Agency PO Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, AUSTRIA ' Nicolo Cadelli Commission of European Communities 200, Rue de 1a Loi B-1049 Brussels, BELGIUM R. Heremans Organisme Nationa1e des Dechets Radioactifs et des Matieres Fissi1es (ONDRAF) Place Madou 1, Boitec 24/25 B-1030 Brussels, BELGIUM J. Marivoet Centre d'Etudes de l'Energie Nuc1eaire (CEN/SCK) Boeretang 200 B-2400 Mol, BELGIUM

P. Conlon Waste Management Division Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) PO Box 1046 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 559, CANADA A.G. Wikjord Manager, Environmental and Safety Assessment Branch Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Whiteshell Research Establishment Pinawa, Manitoba ROE lLO, CANADA Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO) (2) Attn: Timo Aikas Jukka-Pekka Salo Annankatu 42 C SF-OOIOO Helsinki Suomi, FINLAND Timo Vieno Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) Nuclear Energy Laboratory PO Box 208 SF-02l5l Espoo, FINLAND Division de la Securite et de la Protection de l'Environment (DSPE) Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique Agence Nationale pour la Gestion des Dechets Radioactifs (ANDRA) (2) Attn: Gerald Ouzounian M. Claude Ringeard Route du Panorama Robert Schuman B. P. No. 38 F-92266 Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex FRANCE Claudio Pescatore Division of Radiation Protection and Waste Management OECD Nuclear Energy Agency 38, Boulevard Suchet F-750l6 Paris FRANCE M. Dominique Greneche Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique IPSN/DAS/SASICC/SAED B.P. No. 6 F-92265 Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex FRANCE Robert Fabriol Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres (BRGM) B.P. 6009 45060 Orleans Cedex 2 FRANCE P. Bogorinski Gesellschaft fur Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) MBH Schwertnergasse 1 D-5000 Kaln 1, GERMANY R. Storck GSF - Institut fur Tieflagerung Theodor-Heuss-Strabe 4 D-3300 Braunschweig, GERMANY Ferrucio Gera ISMES S.p.A Via del Crociferi 44 1-00187 Rome, ITALY Hiroyuki Umeki Isolation System Research Program Radioactive Waste Management Project Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC) 1-9-13, Akasaka, Minato-ku Tokyo 107 JAPAN Tanis Papp Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. Box 5864 S 102 48 Stockholm SWEDEN Conny Hagg Swedish Radiation Protection Institute (SSI) Box 60204 S-104 01 Stockholm, SWEDEN J. Hadermann Paul Scherrer Institute Waste Management Programme CH-5232 Villigen PSI SWITZERLAND Dist-9

J. Vigfusson HSK-Swiss Nuclear Safety Inspectorate Federal Office of Energy CH-5232 Villigen-HSK SWITZERLAND D.E. Billington Departmental Manager-Assessment Studies Radwaste Disposal R&D Division AEA Decommissioning & Radwaste Harwell Laboratory, B60 Didcot Oxfordshire OXll ORA UNITED KINGDOM P. Grimwood Waste Management Unit BNFL Sellafield Seascale, Cumbria CA20 IPG UNITED KINGDOM Alan J. Hooper UK Nirex Ltd Curie Avenue Harwell, Didcot Oxfordshire, OXII ORR UNITED KINGDOM Jerry M. Boak Yucca Mountain Project Office US Department of Energy PO Box 98608 Las Vegas, NV 89193 Seth M. Coplan (Chairman) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of High-Level Waste Management Mail Stop 4-H-3 Washington, DC 20555 A.E. Van Luik INTERA/M&O The Valley Bank Center 101 Convention Center Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89109 NEA/Probabilistic System Assessment Group (PSAG) Shaheed Hossain Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Management International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse 5 PO Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, AUSTRIA Alexander Nies (PSAC Chairman) Gesellschaft fur Strahlen- und Institut fur Tieflagerung Abteilung fur Endlagersicherheit Theodor-Heuss-Strasse 4 D-3300 Braunschweig GERMANY Eduard Hofer Gesellschaft fur Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) MBH Forschungsgelande D-8046 Garching, GERMANY Andrea Saltelli Commission of the European Communities Joint Resarch Centre of Ispra 1-21020 Ispra (Varese) ITALY Alejandro Alonso Catedra de Tecnologia Nuclear E.T.S. de Ingenieros Industriales Jose Gutierrez Abascal, 2 E-28006 Madrid, SPAIN ENRESA (2) Attn: M. A. Cufiado F. J. Elorza Calle Emilio Vargas, 7 E-28043 Madrid, SPAIN Pedro Prado CIEMAT Instituto de Tecno1ogia Nuclear Avenida Complutense, 22 E-28040 Madrid, SPAIN Dist-IO

Nils A. Kjellbert Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) Box 5864 S-102 48 Stockholm, SWEDEN Bjorn Cronhjort Royal Institute of Technology Automatic Control S-lOO 44 Stockholm, SWEDEN Richard A. K10s Paul-Scherrer Institute (PSI) CH-5232 Vi1lingen PSI, SWITZERLAND Nationa1e Genossenschaft fur die Lagerung Radioaktiver Abfal1e (2) Attn: C. McCombie F. Van Dorp Hardstrasse 73 CH-5430 Wettingen, SWITZERLAND N. A. Chapman Intera Information Technologies Park View House 14B Burton Street Melton Mowbray Leicestershire LE13 1AE UNITED KINGDOM Daniel A. Galson Ga1son Sciences Ltd. 35, Market Place Oakham Leicestershire LE15 6DT UNITED KINGDOM David P. Hodgkinson Intera Information Technologies 45 Station Road, Chiltern House Henley-on-Thames Oxfordshire RG9 1AT UNITED KINGDOM Brian G.J. Thompson Department of the Environment: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution Room A5.33, Romney House 43 Marsham Street London SW1P 2PY, UNITED KINGDOM Intera Information Technologies Attn: M.J.Apted 3609 South Wadsworth Blvd. Denver, CO 80235 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2) Attn: R. Code11 N. Eisenberg Mail Stop 4-H-3 Washington, DC 20555 Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Attn: P.W. Eslinger MS K2-32 PO Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis (CNWRA) Southwest Research Institute Attn: B. Sagar PO Drawer 28510 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, TX 78284 Geostatistics Expert Working Group (GXG) Rafael L. Bras R.L. Bras Consulting Engineers 44 Percy Road Lexington, MA 02173 Jesus Carrera Universidad Politecnica de Cataluna E.T.S.I. Gaminos Jordi, Girona 31 E-08034 Barcelona, SPAIN Gedeon Dagan Department of Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer Tel Aviv University PO Box 39040 Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978 ISRAEL

Future Societies Expert Panel Civil Engineering California 94720 Civil Engineering Institute of Technology 02139 Michael Baram Bracken and Baram 33 Mount Vernon St. Bolton, MA 02108 Shlomo P. Neuman College of Engineering and Mines Hydrology and Water Resources Dept. University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 Dennis McLaughlin Parsons Laboratory Room 48-209 Department of Massachusetts Cambridge, MA Yoram Rubin Department of University of Berkeley, CA Peter Kitanidis 60 Peter Coutts Circle Stanford, CA 94305 Peter Grindrod INTERA Information Technologies Ltd. Chiltern House 45 Station Road Henley-on-Thames Oxfordshire, RG9 lAT, UNITED KINGDOM Christian Ravenne Geology and Geochemistry Division Institut Francais du PetroIe 1 & 4, Av. de Bois-Preau B.P. 311 92506 Rueil Malmaison Cedex FRANCE Alain Galli Centre de Geostatistique Ecole des Mines de Paris 35 Rue St. Honore 77035 Fontainebleau, FRANCE Ghislain de Marsily (GXG Chairman) University Pierre et Marie Curie Laboratorie de Geologie Applique 4, Place Jussieu T.26 - 5e etage 75252 Paris Cedex 05 FRANCE Alan Gutjahr Department of Mathematics New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Socorro, NM 87801 Wendell Bell Department of Sociology Yale University 1965 Yale Station New Haven, CT 06520 C. Peter Jackson Harwell Laboratory Theoretical Studies Department Radwaste Disposal Division Bldg. 424.4 Oxfordshire Didcot Oxon OXll ORA UNITED KINDGOM Rae Mackay Department of Civil Engineering University of Newcastle Upon Tyne Newcastle Upon Tyne NEI 7RU UNITED KINGDOM Steve Gorelick Department of Applied Earth Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-2225 Gregory Benford University of California, Irvine Department of Physics Irvine, CA 92717 Duane Chapman 210 Warren Hall Department of Agricultural Economics Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-7801 Bernard L. Cohen Department of Physics University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Victor Ferkiss 23 Sage Brush Circle Corrales, NM 87048 Theodore S. Glickman Resources for the Future 1616 PSt., NW Washington, DC 20036 Ted Gordon The Futures Group 80 Glastonbury Blvd. Glastonbury, CT 06033 Craig Kirkwood College of Business Administration Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287 Harry Otway Health, Safety, and Envir. Div. Mail Stop K-491 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545 Martin J. Pasqua1etti Department of Geography Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-3806 Dan Reicher US Department of Energy 8-1 1000 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC 20585 Norman Rosenberg Resources for the Future 1616 PSt., NW Washington, DC 20036 Max Singer the Potomac Organization, Inc. 5400 Greystone St. Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Theodore Taylor P.O. Box 39 3383 Weatherby Rd. West Clarksville, NY 14786 Maris Vinovskis Institute for Social Research Room 4086 University of Michigan 426 Thompson St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1045 Marker Development Expert Panel Dieter G. Ast Department of Materials Science Bard Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-1501 Victor R. Baker Department of Geosciences Building #77, Gould-Simpson Building University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 Michael Brill President BOSTI 1479 Hertel Ave. Buffalo, NY 14216 Frank D. Drake Board of Studies in Astronomy and Astrophysics Lick Observatory University of California, Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95064 Ben R. Finney University of Hawaii at Manoa Department of Anthropology Porteus Hall 346, 2424 Maile Way Honolulu, HI 96822 David B. Givens American Anthropological Association 4350 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 640 Arlington, VA 22203 Ward H. Goodenough Department of Anthropology University of Pennsylvania 325 University Museum 33rd and Spruce Streets Philadelphia, PA 19104-6398

Maureen F. Kaplan Eastern Research Group, Inc. 100 Hartwell Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Jon Lomberg P.O. Box 207 Honaunau, HI 967626 Louis E. Narens Department of Cognitive Sciences School of Social Sciences University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92717 Frederick J. Newmeyer Department of Linguistics GN-40 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 Woodruff T. Sullivan, III Department of Astronomy FM-20 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 Wendell S. Williams Materials Science and Engineering White Building Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106 Individuals Jill Bartel 6129C Shanda Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Michael A. Bauser Neuman & Holtzinger 1615 L St, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Paul Carroll U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment Ocean and Environment Program Washington, DC 20510-8025 Richard Clegg British Nuclear Fuels, p1c Building B433 Sellafield Seascale Cumbria CA20 lPG UNITED KINGDOM Matthew Coolidge 499 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 Jeff Davis Mother Jones Magazine 1663 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Thomas W. Fogwe11 International Technology Corporation 4585 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, CA 94553 Don Hancock Southwest Research and Information Center P.O. Box 4524 Albuquerque, NM 87106 Randy Hanson 3620 15th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55407 W.C. Kirwin Department of Fine Arts University of Guelph Guelph Province of Ontario CANADA N1G 2W1 Joe Knap TRICAN 347 Greenwich St. Brantford, Ontario N3P 5T3 CANADA Donald Lipski 1061 Manhattan Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11222

Timothy Margulies USEPA Mid Code 6602J 401 M St., NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Steven R. Mattson Science Applications International Corporation Valley Bank Center 101 Convention Center Drive Las Vegas, NV 89109 Elizabeth R. Mertz The Carnegie Museum of Natural History Publications 4400 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213-4080 Ardyce Milton Clark County Nuclear Waste Division 301 E. Clark Avenue, Suite 570 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Homi Minwalla Roy T. Weston, Inc. 955 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Eighth Floor Washington, D.C. 20024 Jim Morris Design Department SUNY College at Buffalo 1300 Elmwood Ave. Buffalo, NY 14222 Mike O'Neil U.S. Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Office 1474 Rodeo Road Santa Fe, NM 87502 David Okrent 439 Veteran Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024 Ken Peterson Westinghouse Hanford Company P.O. Box 1970, H4-14 Richland, WA 99352 Catherine Rich University of California at Los Angeles Department of Geography 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024-1524 Kyle Rogers USEPA Office of Radiation Programs Mail Code ANR-460 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 Tim Rohrer 1350 West Hualapai Tucson, AZ 85745 Patricia Rosati (2) St. Martin's Press, Inc. Permissions 175 Fifty Avenue New York, NY 10010-7848 Carl Sagan Space Sciences Building Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14850 A1 Schenker Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc. 2400 Louisiana Blvd., NE Building 1, Suite 400 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Steve Schwartz Military Production Network 218 D Street, SE 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20003 Terry Simmons 403 Flint S~reet Reno, NV 89501 Rolf Sj 6b1om Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate Sehlstedtsgatan 11 Box 27106 S-102 52 Stockholm SWEDEN

Gar Smith Earth Island Journal 300 Broadway, Suite 28 San Francisco, CA 94133-3312 Chris Solloway U.S. EPA PM-223 402 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 George Stromeyer Ascot Square 1603 3850 Woodhaven Road Philadelphia, PA 19154 David R. Turner Southwest Research Institute 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, TX 78238-5166 Joel Weishaus 2812 Garfield, SE #E Albuquerque, NM 87106 Simon J. Wisbey AEA Technology B60, Harwell Laboratory Didcot Oxfordshire OXll ORA UNITED KINGDOM Jya-Syin Wu 38-137 ENG-IV University of California at Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90024 Foreign Addresses Studiecentrum Voor Kernenergie Centre D'Energie Nucleaire Attn: A. Bonne SCK/CEN Boeretang 200 B-2400 Mol, BELGIUM Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (3) Whiteshell Research Establishment Attn: M.E. Stevens B.W. Goodwin D. Wushke Pinewa, Manitoba ROE lLO, CANADA Juhani Vira Teollisuuden Voirna Oy (TVO) Annankatu 42 C SF-OOIOO Helsinki Suomi FINLAND Jean-Pierre Olivier OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (2) 38, Boulevard Suchet F-750l6 Paris, FRANCE D. Alexandre, Deputy Director ANDRA 31 Rue de la Federation 75015 Paris, FRANCE Claude Sombret Centre D'Etudes Nucleaires De La Vallee Rhone CENjVALRHO S.D.H.A. B.P. 171 30205 Bagnols-Sur-Ceze, FRANCE Bundesministerium fur Forschung und Technologie Postfach 200 706 5300 Bonn 2, GERMANY Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe Attn: M. Langer Postfach 510 153 3000 Hanover 51, GERMANY Gesellschaft fur Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) (2) Attn: B. Baltes W. Muller Schwertnergasse 1 D-5000 Cologne, GERMANY Institut fur Tieflagerung (2) Attn: K. Kuhn Theodor-Heuss-Strasse 4 D-3300 Braunschweig, GERMANY Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Attn: P. Brenneke Postfach 33 45 D-3300 Braunschweig, GERMANY

Shingo Tashiro Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Tokai-Mura, Ibaraki-Ken 319-11, JAPAN D.R. Knowles British Nuclear Fuels, pIc Risley, Warrington Cheshire WA3 6AS, 1002607 UNITED KINGDOM Netherlands Energy Research Foundation (ECN) Attn: L.H. Vons 3 Westerduinweg PO Box 1 1755 ZG Petten THE NETHERLANDS Johan Andersson Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate Statens Karnkraftinspektion (SKI) Box 27106 S-102 52 Stockholm SWEDEN Fred Karlsson Svensk Karnbransleforsorjning AB Project KBS Box 5864 S-102 48 Stockholm SWEDEN Nationale Genossenschaft fur die Lagerung Radioaktiver Abfalle (2) Attn: S. Vomvoris P. Zuidema Hardstrasse 73 CH-5430 Wettingen SWITZERLAND AEA Technology Attn: J.E. Tinson B4244 Harwell Laboratory Didcot, Oxfordshire OXll ORA UNITED KINGDOM AEA Technology Attn: J.H. Rees D5W/29 Culham Laboratory Abington. Oxfordshire OX14 3DB UNITED KINGDOM AEA Technology Attn: W.R. Rodwell 044/A31 Winfrith Technical Centre Dorchester Dorset DT2 8DH, UNITED KINGDOM '4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1993-573.110/80283 MS 0101 0827 0827 0127 0724 1324 1324 0750 1320 1320 1322 1322 1337 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1341 1326 1326 1345 1328 1328 1328 1328 1341 1341 1341 1341 1341 1343 1330 0736 0746 0746 0746 0727 0718 0899 0619 1119 Dist-17 Internal Org. 1 A. Narath 20 O.E. Jones 1502 P.J. Homme 1511 'D.K. Gart1ing 4511 ?D.P. Garber 6000 D.L. Hartley 6115 P.B. Davies 6115 R.L. Beauheim 6118 H.R. Westrich 6119 E.D. Gorham 6119 Staff (14) 6121 J.R. Ti11erson 6121 Staff (7) 6300 D.E. Ellis 6302 L.E. Shephard 6303 S.Y. Pickering 6303 W.D. Weart 6305 S.A. Goldstein 6305 A.R. Lappin 6306 A.L. Stevens 6312 F.W. Bingham 6313 L.S. Costin 6331 P.A. Davis 6341 Sandia WIPP Central Files (150) 6342 D.R. Anderson 6342 Staff (30) 6343 V. Harper-S1aboszewicz 6343 Staff (3) 6345 R.C. Lincoln 6345 Staff (9) 6347 D.R. Schafer 6348 J.T. Holmes 6348 Staff (4) 6351 R.E. Thompson 6352 S.E. Sharpton 6400 N.R. Ortiz 6613 R.M. Cranwell 6613 R. L. Iman 6613 C. Leigh 6622 M.S.Y. Chu 6641 R.E. Luna, Acting 7141 Technical Library (5) 7151 Technical Publications 7613-2 Document Processing for DOE/OSTI (10) 8523-2 Central Technical Files