Current status and recommended future studies of underground supercriticality of fissile material

More than a year has passed since we released our original report pointing out the possibility of natural or induced rearrangement of fissile material underground into a critical mass, the possibility of positive feedback in underground configurations, the confinement of the rock to produce significant yield, and the possibility of venting or explosion. The nuclear weapons and repository storage groups at both Los Alamos and Livermore have been critical of our work while others have defended our calculations on wet and dry criticality. The conditions we identified for positive and negative feedback are no longer contested. The role of confinement of the rock in enhancing the yield from the explosion is still unsettled, and that is addressed later in this paper. The likelihood of confinement, venting, or explosive dispersion also remains unsettled and that is addressed here as well. Some critics of our work have tried to show that the probability of reconfiguration by natural processes is very small. They argue further that emplacement can be done in such a way as to make the probability even smaller. Of course these additional efforts will raise the cost of waste emplacement and the question arises as to how much is enough. The answer to this question seems to not be an easy one