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

Draft p. 4.4
Issue
307
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT
Table 4.2.1 indicates that "non-high-level" TRU wastes cannot be disposed.of by, among
others, the very-deep hole, island disposal, and subseabed disposal methods. It is not
apparent why this is so. The GEIS should either present a rationale for requiring separate
disposal methods or include "non-high-level" wastes in the wastes to be disposed of by
those disposal methods. This is important because the current GEIS assumptions require
that if disposal of HLW by the above methods is used, disposal in mined cavities in bedded
salt also be an acceptable method. (208-NRC)
Response
Non-high-level TRU wastes can be disposed of by methods other than geologic disposal;
however, other constraints, principally volume, make geologic disposal of these wastes the
preferred alternative. This distinction was brought out in Section 6.2.
Draft p. 4.7
Issue
Beginning on page 4.7 eleven decision criteria are presented and discussed. One is
called Ecoystem Impact and consists of two attributes. No rationale is given for selecting
these particular measures as criteria. On p. 4.11, Table 4.5.1 states that available infor-
mation on the physical and operating characteristics of the commerical waste management
options is not sufficient to permit comparative assessment of these attributes. Appendix F
does not give any primary production information. While Table 3.1.95 presents data used as
a basis for scalar quantities in comparative analysis. They give a value of 5 x 1010 g
dry organic matter for reversible ecological effects. There is no explanation of where
this number comes from or why it is used except that on page 5.19 a formula is given for
determining primary production. (208-NRC)
Response
The attributes cited under the Ecoystem Impact criterion in the draft Statement were
removed during preparation of the final document. The data relating to reversible eco-
logical effects was also deleted from the Statement.