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.

333<br />

ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS<br />

to go wrong. We question the statement on p. 3.3.4 that "studies have identified no major<br />

technical issues which would cast doubt on the feasibility <strong>of</strong> the concept." This statement<br />

made elsewhere for other concepts may be plausible, but not for this one. Its expression<br />

here reduces its credibility elsewhere. (154)<br />

Response<br />

A fairly substantial re-evaluation was accomplished in the preparation <strong>of</strong> the final<br />

Statement. The comparison <strong>of</strong> concepts in Section 6.2 casts severe doubt on the credibility<br />

<strong>of</strong> rock melt based on current DOE waste management objectives and the status <strong>of</strong> knowledge<br />

regarding the concept. The concept would require resolution <strong>of</strong> significant questions in a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> areas (including criticality question) before it can be considered to be an<br />

acceptable candidate. See draft Section 3.4.1.4, Disadvantages and 3.4.2, Technological<br />

Issues Regarding Resoulation for Rock Melting. Isolation or Disposal has been rewritten to<br />

reflect current state <strong>of</strong> knowledge more realistically. The studies detailing the feasi-<br />

bility <strong>of</strong> the concept are referenced in the final Statement.<br />

Draft pp. 3.4.4, and 3.4.12<br />

Issue<br />

Probable ground-water migration and circulation patterns associated with the rock-<br />

melting alternative need further consideration and discussion, preferable in conjunction<br />

with effects <strong>of</strong> thermal crack. (218-DOI)<br />

Response<br />

The need for additional data regarding the role <strong>of</strong> groundwater in the rock melt process<br />

is discussed in Sections 3.4.2.5 and 3.4.2.7 <strong>of</strong> the draft Statement in conjunction with<br />

other topics needing further study. More detailed discussion is presented in Sec-<br />

tion 6.1.2.3 <strong>of</strong> the final Statement. Many such questions need to be further resolved before<br />

this concept could be field tested with radioactive waste.<br />

Draft p. 3.4.5<br />

Issue<br />

It is stated that retrieval <strong>of</strong> waste following emplacement would be difficult. This<br />

is understood, and not adequately addressed. (208-NRC)<br />

Response<br />

The commenter raises a valid point. It should be pointed out that the rock melt pro-<br />

cess was to make retrieval <strong>of</strong> waste as difficult as possible, since in one regard (safe-<br />

guards) retrievability has been perceived as being equivalent to vulnerability. The current

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!