23.04.2013 Views

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Draft p. 3.1.40<br />

Issue<br />

177<br />

WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS<br />

The discussion <strong>of</strong> physical protection makes sense if it refers to physical protection<br />

during the operational phase <strong>of</strong> a repository. The first paragraph on p. 3.1.41 is self-<br />

contradictory. Because operational controls will cease to exist long before any appreci-<br />

able decay <strong>of</strong> 23 9 Pu, the protection must be inherant in the inaccessibility <strong>of</strong> the waste in<br />

the repository and the massive effort that would be required to remove it. (113-EPA)<br />

Response<br />

This discussion applies to the operational period only. Once decommissioned, the<br />

wastes are isolated from human access.<br />

Draft p. 3.1.41<br />

Issue<br />

The listed impacts are essentially written <strong>of</strong>f without any perceived bases. For exam-<br />

ple, storage and disposal <strong>of</strong> mined mineral on the surface is a visual, as well as potential<br />

biological impact. These impacts should be fully considered and analyzed by a generic man-<br />

ner, and not be left for a later determination. (208-NRC)<br />

Response<br />

The first sentence under Operational and Post-Operational Impacts states that the<br />

issues listed need to be resolved to further clarify operational and post-operational environmental<br />

impacts associated with waste repositories in deep geologic formations; and the<br />

first <strong>of</strong> these issues is the proposed deposition <strong>of</strong> mined repository material, especially<br />

for salt repositories. On draft pp. 3.1.120-123 (final Section 5.4) there is some dis-<br />

cussion <strong>of</strong> the toxicity <strong>of</strong> mined salt to certain plants, values given for the amount <strong>of</strong><br />

salt deposited at the repository fenceline, and comparisons <strong>of</strong> salt to other candidate geo-<br />

logic formations. The values for fenceline salt deposition are given as 9.3 and 93 g/m 2 for<br />

the arid and reference environment, respectively, in the Statement (draft p. 3.1.121, final<br />

Section 5.4) and as 8.4 and 83 g/m 2 in DOE/ET-0029, p. 10.1.10. A similar discussion <strong>of</strong><br />

salt impacts is given in Section 10 <strong>of</strong> DOE/ET-0029. For geologic disposal, salt was the<br />

option judged to have the potential for significant ecological impacts beyond what would<br />

result from change in land use. The acid effluents from mined pyrites from the shale forma-<br />

tion could also be potentially damaging to aquatic ecosystems.<br />

Issue<br />

Several letters noted that the issue <strong>of</strong> storage and disposal <strong>of</strong> mined material was not<br />

sufficiently addressed.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!