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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Draft p. 1.23, 24, 25, 27<br />

Issue<br />

313<br />

ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS<br />

General<br />

One commenter noted that the nature and relative importance <strong>of</strong> research (necessary for<br />

the alternative concepts) should be expressed more clearly in the final EIS. (154)<br />

Response<br />

In preparing the final Statement, effort was made to present the research and develop-<br />

ment requirements in a clear and concise discussion for each <strong>of</strong> the concepts (see<br />

Sections 6.1.1.3, 6.1.2.3, . . . 6.1.8.3).<br />

Draft pp. 3.1.136, 3.3.3<br />

Issue<br />

Where there exist areas <strong>of</strong> uncertainty common to different alternatives they should be<br />

equally treated. For example on page 3.3.3 it states, "Information to satisfactorily assess<br />

the feasibility <strong>of</strong> the very deep hole conrept is inadequate. This is not to say that the<br />

concept is not feasible, but there is not sufficient knowledge at present to confirm that<br />

radioactive waste can be isolated deep enough. . .to avoid transport <strong>of</strong> radioactive material<br />

to the biosphere. The main uncertainty is the lack <strong>of</strong> information about porosity, permea-<br />

bility and water conditions at great depths." On page 3.3.1 <strong>of</strong> the GEIS it states that<br />

very deep hole disposal is considered flawed because more information is needed on ground-<br />

water systems, rock strength and sealing <strong>of</strong> holes over long periods <strong>of</strong> time. On the other<br />

hand it is argued on page 3.1.136 that no long term significant impacts are expected to<br />

result from waste repositories described previously in this statement whether located in<br />

salt, granite, shale or basalt formation. It would appear the information needs stated for<br />

deep hole disposal would also exist for conventional geological disposal. (208-NRC)<br />

The only alternative that is covered in any degree <strong>of</strong> detail is deep geologic disposal.<br />

While it is realized that less information is available for other alternatives, it appears<br />

they could be considered in more detail than these have been. (208-NRC)<br />

Response<br />

The first comment correctly addresses the issue <strong>of</strong> uncertainty regarding knowledge per-<br />

taining to the hydrology <strong>of</strong> deep geologic systems. Current limitations <strong>of</strong> such knowledge<br />

are important reasons for not considering the very deep hole concept as the primary tech-<br />

nical alternative. Also, there are other areas <strong>of</strong> uncertainty regarding the very deep hole<br />

concept that are important though not addressed by the commenter. These are addressed in<br />

the final Statement and include deep bore hole sealing, deep emplacement technology,

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!