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

18
74. (Page 3.1.106, third paragraph) There is no discussion of the air
content of the repository following backfilling. The mobility of The identical statement is repeated in other portions of the DEIS
several significant radioelements, plutonium, neptunium, uranium, and (p. 3.1.180 and p. 3.1.194) in referring to other estimates of the
technetium, are affected significantly by their oxidation state. (In numbers of in-migrants associated with different types of waste
some schemes for the in situ solution mining of uranium, air is used as management facilities.
the source of 02 and is the oxidizing agent of the uranium.) The air
content should be briefly discussed. 78. (Page 3.1.137, last paragraph) The groundwater releases did not
appear to include the "two aquifer case," which is most significant for
75. (Page 3.1.111, last paragraph) There should be some consideration ground water releases. This case involves a hydrologic connection
of the possible interaction of the various wastes with each other. If between two aquifers through a repository, with subsequent ground water
the transuranic waste contains organic material, these may contain transport. The analysis also appears to consider only release of the
chelating materials, which could have an effect of mobilizing other total radionuclide content, which does not appear to be a credible or
waste. useful form of analysis.
76. (Page 3.1.129) Social service demands (Table 3.1.21) were derived 79. (Page 3.1.138, second paragraph) The presence of salt would
by applying factors "to the project in-migration values" : probably not preclude the use of the water as a source of food or
(Table 3.1.19). Therefore, the level of forecasted social service recreation. The salt would be diluted to acceptable levels by any
demands by individual site should be proportional to the estimated reasonable amount of water far more quickly than the radioactivity.
level of project in-migrants for each site. From Table 3.1.19, under
the maximum impact condition the respective estimates for the number of 80. (Page 3.1139, third paragraph) What are the bases for assuming
project in-migrants for 1985 indicate the lowest value for the Midwest that 10 percent of the particulates suspended are of respirable size?
site (5800), followed by the Southeast site (8600) and the Southwest
site (15,000). However, in Table 3.1.21, also under the maximum impact
8 1
.
( 1 40
Page 3.1. )
Ho w i s t h e
uranium-238 depleted by so much over a
condition, some of the social services--physicians and dentists, and period of one thousand years?
hospital and nursing care beds--indicate values for 1985 which reverse
the relative position of the Midwest and Southeast sites. This82.
apparent error occurs in similar tables throughout the DEIS.
( e 3 14 7
Pag .1 , fourth paragraph) A meteorite of the described
size would undoubtedly produce a local disaster area. The impact of
the meteorite, however, would also disperse radioactive materials into
77. (Page 3.1.129) The following statement appears to be incorrect in the atmosphere from which they would impact over an extended area. It
light of the information presented in the accompanying tables: is the additional impact of this radioactive material that is
significant. It is not likely that the impact would be local or that
"Although the numbers of in-migrants are smaller, the potential it could be controlled by local monitoring.
for impacts in the Southeast maximum impact condition is quite similar
to the potential in the Southwest site under maximum conditions. This
83.
83
(Page ( e 3.1.18, 3 fourth f o u r t h paragraph) This scenario does not appear to
Pag .1.148, paragraph) This scenario does not appear to
is the case because the base population in the Southeast is roughly be a particularly bad case because of the limitation of the contact for
twice that in the Southwest site; therefore the Southeast is capable of one year. Such a limitation, together with slow leaching, results in a
absorbing greater population influx, other things being equal." minimal release of radionuclides.
erosion?
What is the effect of continued
It appears that the words "Southeast" and "Southwest" should be 84. (Page 3.1.149, table) A leach rate of 10 - 4 /cm 2 reversed, since if the number of in-migrants for site A is half the
number of site B, and the number of in-migrants stated as a percent of
each site's base population is the same for each site, then the base
( a g 1 4 9
/da, applied
84 a e 3.1. nt t b e e of y 2, w d re g t ay aplie
to a 3 e cenimeter cube of density 2, would result in a leaching rate
of 3x10 4 per day, or approximately 0.1 per year. Is this the value
population of site B must be twice the base population of site A.
Site B would be more capable Site B of would absorbing be more population opulation capable influx.
that was used in the analysis?
85. (Page 3.1.150, fifth paragraph) Doses to a maximum individual are
not the best measure of the impact of this accident. Total population
19