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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20 21 Son p. 3.1.119. In Table 3.1.82, the cost for the cooling of spent fuel dose and integrated population dose are more significant. It might e noted that the emergency dose limits of 100 rem and 25 rem apply implicitly to the case where only one or a few people are expo roper combinatin of 86. (Page 3.1.155, last paragraph) This is an improper coma n probabilities. If the probabilities are multiplid tee cndtns been done here, the result is the probabi y of all three condtons urrin in the same year. If the. robabilities are taken over 10,00 years, for example, the po ty of a falt intersecting the repository is 4 x 10is based on 75 percent of the spent fuel being stored in reactor basins at $30/kg. On p. 3.1.229, it is reported that 75 percent of spent fuel storage requirements are provided by power plant basins at an average cost of $6/kg HM-yr, which would amount to $36/kg for six years. Recalculating the spent fuel storage cost based on the assumption stated on p. 3.1.229, the cost of six-year cooling of spent fuel in Table 3.1.82 should therefore be $44/kg instead of $39/kg. 95. (Page 3.1.229, bottom) There is a brief discussion on the effects 7 . The probabilties of failure of waste containment, or of aquifer intersection, over this period are likely to be one, each. The total probability is'therefore about 4 x 10, not 4 x 10-15. 87. (Page 3.1.157, table) Dose commitments of 10 oi'ousing present worth costs as opposed to undiscounted costs. It ould be mentioned that the relative ranking of the fuel cycle be mentioned ysould that the relative ranking of the fuel cycle al natives by their total costs is significantly different according to i wich set of costs is used. As indicated by Tables 3.1.89 and 3.1.90, the U & Pu Recycle under the Deferred Fuel Cycle Decision has 8 person-rem are estimated to result in 2 x 10? fatal cancers. The risk associated (including the probability) is much'less. 88. (Page 3.1.161, second paragraph) The conclusion drawn from the comparison with the ore body would be improved if some analysis were provided. 89. last (Page paragraph) 3.1.162, Distribution of the waste would he'highest total cost, about 50 percent higher than the least epensive case, on the basis of undiscounted costs, while this same case'possesses the lowest total cost of any alternative when discounted (at a 7 percent rate) costs are used. 96. (Page 3.1.242, third paragraph) The study of rock-waste interactions should include the geochemistry. Mobility of a number of radionuclides is strongly affected by the geochemistry (particularly c 89. (Page 3.1.162, last paragraph) Distribution of the waste would lower the maximum and regional individual doses, but would increase the the oxidation-reduction potential of the repository and ground water) and by the potential presence of complexing agents. These should be probability of the event by a factor equal to the number of included in the proposed research program. repositories. 97. (Page 3.2, Section 3.2) This entire section appears to be largely 90. (Page 3.1.163, second paragraph) It is not proper to assume doses to the regional population from a ratio basis with total body dose. 91. (Page 3.1.164, second paragraph) Diverting the entering stream until it is diluted by another stream does not change the population dose. It merely means smaller doses to more people. speculative. The comment as to the speculative nature of the discussion applies to Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and, in fact, all the rest of Chapter rest of Chapter 3. 3. 98. (Page 3.2.2, 3rd paragraph, line 11) The word pegmatite should be replaced by migmatite. The reference (Leonardos, 1974) specifically states that "pegmatite contribution to monazite deposits are trivial" 92. (Page 3.1.165, third paragraph) The overall probability of a contaminated drilling event can exceed 0.005, since there is a chance of more than one drilling event over a period of time. (p. 1126). On 1127, Leonardos states "migmatites have supplied the material for the bands within the quartzite". Thus, migmatite is the term required to support the reference. 93. (Page 3.1.191, table) The quantity of krypton- 8 5 released to the 99. (Page 3.2.3, second paragraph) This paragraph does not consider air should be related to gigawatts of electicity produced for the effect of radiation damage in the glass. This should be mentioned. comparison with uranium fuel cycle standards. 100. (Page 3.3.13, seventh paragraph) The possibility that oxygen 94. (Page 3.1.119) There is an inconsistency in the unit cost of introduced with the waste will change the reducing conditions should be spent fuel storage stated in Table 3.1.82 and the text (2nd paragraph) considered.
22 23 101. (Page 3.6.1) The first paragraph of this section should state 109. (Page 3.6.10, Section 3.6.2.8) Seabed disposal refers to a that at present it is illegal to put high-level wastes in, on, or under disposition of wastes and as such falls within EPA regulatory authority the seabed and that legislative action would be required before for the disposal of radioactive waste in, on, or beneath the ocean implementation, floor. The seabed disposal option for HLW is not legal under current domestic law. However, we think DOE should continue to study this The fourth paragraph states that a ship will monitor the emplaced option to see if this is an environmentally acceptable option. wastes for an "appropriate length of -time." How long (or short) is this "appropriate length of time?" Additionally, in Section 3.6.3.6, on page 3.6.22, the DEIS states, "implementation of a sub-seabed disposal program for non-HLW is now 102. (Page 3.6.2) In mid eyre there is little benefit from deposition possible under EPA's ocean disposal permit program." DOE apparently of sediments since this process is very slow there. The document believes ocean dumping and sub-seabed emplacement are intrinsically states that less than .01 percent of the ocean floor would be used for different for high-level waste and identical for low-level waste. We disposal. What total area does this represent? believe there is no legal difference between ocean dumping and sub-seabed'emplacement and any difference between the two is purely The last bullet under "Advantages" suggests that an advantage to semantic. seabed disposal is the lack of need to resolve Federal-State relations problems. This is not so because problems would surely arise from port 110. (Page 3.6.14) Bottom sediments in the mid-plate areas have use and the loading and transportation of waste to the port. extensive animal tracks. Furthermore, fish in these areas make extensive vertical and lateral migrations; this indicates that there is 103. (Page 3.6.5, Table 3.6.1) The biological productivity of a possible pathway from the waste to people. seamounts should be included in the table. 111. (Pages 3.6.22 and 3.6.23, Section 3.6.3.6) See comments for 104. (Section 3.6.2.3, Page 3.6.5) There should be a mention that the page 3.6.10, Section 3.6.2.8. Sub-seabed emplacement must comply with philosophy behind this approach is isolation of the waste. This EPA regulations promulgated under authority given exclusively to EPA approach is required by EPA regulations, under Public Law 92-532, the Marine Protection, Research and 105. (Page 3.6.7) Why would one expect low nuclide concentrations Sanctuaries Act of 1972. around a waste canister? If the canister failed, one would expect high The fourth paragraph of this section perpetuates the notion that levels, sub-seabed emplacement is not ocean dumping. We consider the 106. (Page 3.6.7) Under "Water Column," there is a statement that difference between the two to be semantic. bottom currents are slow and uniform. However, in Section 1.3.6 the Should high-level waste be released, it most certainly will affect DEIS says bottom currents are weak and variable. should be corrected. This inconsistency other nations, contrary to the suggestions in the fifth paragraph. 112. (Page 3.6.24, Section 3.6.4.5) Port accidents occurred in the 107. (Page 3.6.7) Under "Basement Rocks," the fractured nature of the 60's during the loading of 55 gallon drums. This issue should be basalts could provide lenses for the transport of radionuclides. should be mentioned. This presented. 108. (Page 3.6.8) Under current EPA regulations the canister must act Is it proposed that several canisters go into one hole in the seabed, or will each penetrometer drop wherever it may, to be followed as a barrier until the material decays to innocuous levels. The by monitoring of 9000 different holes per year? conservative calculational assumption, that the canister will release its entire inventory of wastes, does not reflect this regulatory requirement. W
Page 1 and 2:
FINAL DOE/EIS-0046F Volume 1 of 3 U
Page 3 and 4:
* Development of conventionally min
Page 5 and 6:
vi Locations of DOE Regional Office
Page 7 and 8:
viii CONTENTS (contd) 1.6.3 Acciden
Page 9 and 10:
CONTENTS (contd) REFERENCES FOR SEC
Page 11 and 12:
xii CONTENTS (contd) 4.4.3.1 Vault
Page 13 and 14:
xiv CONTENTS (contd) 4.9.3 Detailed
Page 15 and 16:
xvi CONTENTS (contd) 5.3.3 Effect o
Page 17 and 18:
xviii CONTENTS (contd) 6.1.2 Rock M
Page 19 and 20:
XX CONTENTS (contd) 6.2.1.2 Very De
Page 21 and 22:
xxii CONTENTS (contd) 6.2.5.5 Islan
Page 23 and 24:
xxiv FIGURES (contd) 4.3.10 Process
Page 25 and 26:
xxvi VOLUME 1 TABLES 1.1.1 Total Sp
Page 27 and 28:
xxviii TABLES (contd) 4.7.7 Dose to
Page 29 and 30:
XXX TABLES (contd) 5.4.20 Selected
Page 31 and 32:
xxxii TABLES (contd) 6.1.20 Estimat
Page 33 and 34:
xxxiv TABLES (contd) 7.4.2 Comparis
Page 35 and 36:
1.2 The DOE is proposing a program
Page 37 and 38:
106 ---- - 104 104 : 10 Ce- S - \ -
Page 39 and 40:
1.2 THE PROGRAMMATIC ALTERNATIVES 1
Page 41 and 42:
ELEVATOR SHAFT FOR SPENT FUEL OR FU
Page 43 and 44:
1.10 Once licensing approvals are o
Page 45 and 46:
1.12 example, a large labor force b
Page 47 and 48:
1.14 water transport to the biosphe
Page 49 and 50:
1.16 .1.4 ALTERNATIVE ACTION--BALAN
Page 51 and 52:
1.18 1.4.5 Ice Sheet Disposal Conce
Page 53 and 54:
1.20 Space disposal is of interest
Page 55 and 56:
1.6 PREDISPOSAL SYSTEMS(a) 1.22 Aft
Page 57 and 58:
1.24 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF P
Page 59 and 60:
1.26 1.7.1 System Radiological Impa
Page 61 and 62:
1.28 TABLE 1.7.5. Comparison of Hea
Page 63 and 64:
1.30 alternative program. The range
Page 65 and 66:
1.32 * Resource commitments also in
Page 67 and 68:
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1 1.34 Code
Page 69 and 70:
PLUTONIUM-URANIUM FUELFABRICATION 2
Page 71 and 72:
2.4 With regard to receipt and stor
Page 73 and 74:
Plan, including a summary of the pu
Page 75 and 76:
2.8 The main body of the text (Volu
Page 77 and 78:
2.10 2.3 OTHER DECISIONS CONCERNING
Page 79 and 80:
2.12 The second major decision proc
Page 81 and 82:
2.14 Using a general conceptual des
Page 83 and 84:
3.1 CHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTION OF PROGRA
Page 85 and 86:
3.3 The Interagency Review Group (I
Page 87 and 88:
3.5 3.1.2 Alternative Action--Paral
Page 89 and 90:
3.2 BASES FOR THE ANALYSIS 3.7 A nu
Page 91 and 92:
3.9 ENRICHED NUER WATER BASIN SPENT
Page 93 and 94:
3.11 wastes also result. These are
Page 95 and 96:
500 400 300 5 200 -_J 100 - 3.13 CA
Page 97 and 98:
3.15 3.2.4 Ecological and Atmospher
Page 99 and 100:
3.17 nue impacts can be provided in
Page 101 and 102:
3.19 quencies, source terms can be
Page 103 and 104:
3.21 ownership. The constant dollar
Page 105 and 106:
3.23 quences to the public followin
Page 107 and 108:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.2 3.25 Cla
Page 109 and 110:
3.3.1.1 Cosmic Radiation 3.27 Cosmi
Page 111 and 112:
3.29 surfaces, and 25 mrem/yr to bo
Page 113 and 114:
3.31 Part 20 of the Code of Federal
Page 115 and 116:
3.33 finding and listed radionuclid
Page 117 and 118:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.3 3.35 Tit
Page 119 and 120:
3.37 One such hazard index is based
Page 121 and 122:
3.39 Since long-term repository con
Page 123 and 124:
3.41 those data that can reasonably
Page 125 and 126:
3.5 NONTECHNICAL ISSUES 3.43 Many o
Page 127 and 128:
3.45 the repository. Some feel that
Page 129 and 130:
3.47 cooperative agreement with the
Page 131 and 132:
3.49 Inspection, the regular checki
Page 133 and 134:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5 3.51 Cod
Page 135 and 136:
SPENT AT REACTOR AWAY FROM FUEL STO
Page 137 and 138:
4.4 4.1.2 Predisposal System for th
Page 139 and 140:
4.6 TABLE 4.1.3. Example Predisposa
Page 141 and 142:
ONCE-THROUGH CYCLE SPENT FUEL STORA
Page 143 and 144:
4.10 TABLE 4.2.1. Classification of
Page 145 and 146:
4.12 BWR fuel models that account f
Page 147 and 148:
TABLE 4.2.3. Selected Radionuclide
Page 149 and 150:
4.16 TABLE 4.2.5. Selected Radionuc
Page 151 and 152:
4.18 ENCAPSULATION SPENT FUEL WATER
Page 153 and 154:
4.20 Combustible wastes produced du
Page 155 and 156:
4.22 methods described in Chapter 6
Page 157 and 158:
4.24 1) vitrification by in-can mel
Page 159 and 160:
4.26 Some partitioning options may
Page 161 and 162:
4.28 wells. The 90 Sr leach rate de
Page 163 and 164:
4.30 Another synthetic mineral conc
Page 165 and 166:
4.32 Center has been set up to prov
Page 167 and 168:
4.34 FUEL ASSEMBLY SHEAR RETRIEVE U
Page 169 and 170:
4.36 may be contact-handled. The qu
Page 171 and 172:
4.38 4.3.3.4 Immobilization of Wet
Page 173 and 174:
HEPA FILTER 4.40 CHARCOAL FILTER -
Page 175 and 176:
4.3.4.2 Gaseous Radionuclide Recove
Page 177 and 178:
4.44 treatment options at an FRP an
Page 179 and 180:
4.46 TABLE 4.3.2. Estimated Quantit
Page 181 and 182:
4.48 Harries, B. R. et al. 1979. De
Page 183 and 184:
4.50 U.S. Energy Research and Devel
Page 185 and 186:
4.52 4.4.1.1 Water Basin Storage of
Page 187 and 188:
4.54. The exhaust air is monitored
Page 189 and 190:
4.56 but double-walled tanks have b
Page 191 and 192:
4.58 The storage yard is monitored
Page 193 and 194:
4.60 A similar approach was examine
Page 195 and 196:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.4 4.62 Atl
Page 197 and 198:
4.64 These existing casks were desi
Page 199 and 200:
4.5.3.1 Fuel Residue Transport 4.66
Page 201 and 202:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.5 4.68 Per
Page 203 and 204:
4.70 flanges, and disconnecting ele
Page 205 and 206:
TABLE 4.6.1. Volumes and Radionucli
Page 207 and 208:
TABLE 4.6.3. Radionuclides Released
Page 209 and 210:
4.76 4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF P
Page 211 and 212:
4.78 4.7.1.2 Nonradiological Efflue
Page 213 and 214:
4.80 The expected socioeconomic imp
Page 215 and 216:
TABLE 4.7.5. Resource Commitments f
Page 217 and 218:
4.84 (those to which nearly all wor
Page 219 and 220:
4.86 TABLE 4.7.8. Example Reprocess
Page 221 and 222:
4.88 TABLE 4.7.9. Selected Social S
Page 223 and 224:
4.90 4.8 ACCIDENT IMPACTS FOR PREDI
Page 225 and 226:
4.92 Severe accidents resulting fro
Page 227 and 228:
4.94 with a colocated spent fuel pa
Page 229 and 230:
4.96 such as blowers, pumps, etc. T
Page 231 and 232:
4.98 occur once per year due to imp
Page 233 and 234:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.8 Code of
Page 235 and 236:
TABLE 4.9.1. Unit Costs of Predispo
Page 237 and 238:
TABLE 4.9.2. Unit Costs of Predispo
Page 239 and 240:
4.106 TABLE 4.9.3. Predisposal Unit
Page 241 and 242:
4.108 $109/kg HM, which is comparab
Page 243 and 244:
4.110 TABLE 4.9.7 Subsystems(a) Was
Page 245 and 246:
4.112 4.10 SAFEGUARDS INCLUDING PHY
Page 247 and 248:
4.114 1976). It is assumed that one
Page 249 and 250:
4.116 The physical protection requi
Page 251 and 252:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.10 4.118 C
Page 253 and 254:
5.2 This section provides an overvi
Page 255 and 256:
5.4 breakdown into component minera
Page 257 and 258:
5.6 geologic setting may require ex
Page 259 and 260:
5.8 releases so that substantial nu
Page 261 and 262:
Hole Sleeve 5.10 The function of ho
Page 263 and 264:
5.12 integral part of this plan is
Page 265 and 266:
5.2 STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY AND R&D 5.
Page 267 and 268:
5.16 Gravity analysis can detect sm
Page 269 and 270:
5.18 (Witherspoon 1977). Pulse inje
Page 271 and 272:
5.20 Potentially active faults can
Page 273 and 274:
5.22 release rate of the nuclides.
Page 275 and 276:
5.24 5.2.3.1 Excavation and Undergr
Page 277 and 278:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.2 5.26 Alg
Page 279 and 280:
5.28 Office of Nuclear Waste Manage
Page 281 and 282:
5.30 TABLE 5.3.1. Conceptual Reposi
Page 283 and 284:
BLDG EXCLUSION ZONE AGRICULTURAL FE
Page 285 and 286:
5.34 areas occupy 650 to 730 ha, wi
Page 287 and 288:
5.36 emplacement. Beyond this initi
Page 289 and 290:
5.38 In the case of reprocessing cy
Page 291 and 292:
5.40 sealed in an appropriately siz
Page 293 and 294:
5.3.2.5 Retrievability 5.42 These c
Page 295 and 296:
5.44 erations permit, as opposed to
Page 297 and 298:
5.46 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RELA
Page 299 and 300:
and no significant impacts are expe
Page 301 and 302:
5.50 3 TABLE 5.4.6. Particulate Con
Page 303 and 304:
5.52 5.4.3 Radiological Effects The
Page 305 and 306:
5.54 chlorosis of young trifoliate
Page 307 and 308:
5.56 the environment. Discharge of
Page 309 and 310:
5.58 of wastes, placement of waste
Page 311 and 312:
5.60 TABLE 5.4.15 Total Quantities
Page 313 and 314:
5.62 TABLE 5.4.16 Estimated Manpowe
Page 315 and 316:
5.64 TABLE 5.4.18. Selected Expecte
Page 317 and 318:
5.66 5.4.6.6 Environmental Effects
Page 319 and 320:
5.68 The 70-yr worldwide population
Page 321 and 322:
5.70 The spoils piles could have an
Page 323 and 324:
5.72 5.5 LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CO
Page 325 and 326:
5.74 Fuel Reprocessing Waste Spent
Page 327 and 328:
5.76 TABLE 5.5.1. First-Year Whole-
Page 329 and 330:
5.78 The population dose from a met
Page 331 and 332:
5.80 be from 4 x 10 - 3 to 3 x 10 -
Page 333 and 334:
5.82 Seventy-year whole-body dose c
Page 335 and 336:
5.84 Dilution Dilution Element Fact
Page 337 and 338:
5.86 this conversion, a regional po
Page 339 and 340:
5.88 probability that the drill (0.
Page 341 and 342:
5.90 a few years. For purposes of t
Page 343 and 344:
5.92 dose commitments are less than
Page 345 and 346:
5.6 COST OF GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL 5.94
Page 347 and 348:
5.96 kilogram of disposal in a basa
Page 349 and 350:
5.98 5.6.5 Comparison with Other Co
Page 351 and 352:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.6 5.100 Be
Page 353 and 354:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.7 5.102 Co
Page 355 and 356:
5.104 5.9 SHORT-TERM USES OF THE EN
Page 357 and 358:
6.1 Chapter 6 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
Page 359 and 360:
6.3 Concept Summary. The concept su
Page 361 and 362:
mined geologic repository, are not
Page 363 and 364:
Reactors Waste Sources LWR Fuel Cyc
Page 365 and 366:
6.1.1.2 System and Facility Descrip
Page 367 and 368:
6.11 bridge crane would remove the
Page 369 and 370:
6.13 For oil field rotary drilling,
Page 371 and 372:
6.15 diameter of approximately 48 c
Page 373 and 374:
6.17 * An improved understanding of
Page 375 and 376:
Health Impacts 6.19 Radiological Ef
Page 377 and 378:
6.21 The occupational hazards durin
Page 379 and 380:
Resource Consumption 6.23 The consu
Page 381 and 382:
6.25 evaluated only on the basis of
Page 383 and 384:
6.1.1.7 Safeguards 6.27 As noted, t
Page 385 and 386:
I* LWR Reactors 6.29 Waste Sources
Page 387 and 388:
Spent and 6.31 Recycle Facilities N
Page 389 and 390:
6.33 Drilling/Mining System. The re
Page 391 and 392:
6.35 cause of the limited time, the
Page 393 and 394:
6.37 are identical with those used
Page 395 and 396:
6.39 Fracturing During Cooling. Dur
Page 397 and 398:
6.41 Implementation Time and Estima
Page 399 and 400:
6.43 TABLE 6.1.8. Occupational Dose
Page 401 and 402:
6.45 TABLE 6.1.9. Estimated Energy
Page 403 and 404:
6.47 radioactivity transport, movem
Page 405 and 406:
6.49 Various options to be consider
Page 407 and 408:
Reactor 6.51 Recycle Facilities Spe
Page 409 and 410:
6.53 Repository Facility. The layou
Page 411 and 412:
6.55 * Development of criteria for
Page 413 and 414:
6.57 species that recolonize an isl
Page 415 and 416:
6.59 Radionuclides might be sorbed
Page 417 and 418:
6.61 Quantitative estimates of thes
Page 419 and 420:
6.1.4.2 System and Facility Descrip
Page 421 and 422:
6.65 RH-TRU and other Recycle TRU w
Page 423 and 424:
6.67 Canisters HLW 2,380 Cladding H
Page 425 and 426:
6.69 Waste Form. The waste form and
Page 427 and 428:
6.71 Transportation. Transportation
Page 429 and 430:
6.73 TABLE 6.1.11. Radiological Imp
Page 431 and 432:
Socioeconomic Impacts 6.75 Because
Page 433 and 434:
6.77 wastes (Deese 1976). This trea
Page 435 and 436:
6.79 In each case, only those costs
Page 437 and 438:
6.81 total costs are estimated to b
Page 439 and 440:
Waste Sources Reactors Fuel Cycles
Page 441 and 442:
Reactor Spent 6.85 M i n ed Recycle
Page 443 and 444:
6.87 It appears possible, as an alt
Page 445 and 446:
6.89 deployment of the concept desi
Page 447 and 448:
6.91 * The capability for correctiv
Page 449 and 450:
6.93 Other possible land impacts co
Page 451 and 452:
6.95 6.1.5.5 Potential Impacts over
Page 453 and 454:
6.97 described for the mined geolog
Page 455 and 456:
6.99 TABLE 6.1.18. Operating Costs
Page 457 and 458:
6.101 Isolation from the biosphere
Page 459 and 460:
6.103 S Fuel R e farication Note: L
Page 461 and 462:
6.105 would permit different isolat
Page 463 and 464:
6.107 Shale deposits in the United
Page 465 and 466:
6.109 Waste Preparation Technology.
Page 467 and 468:
6.111 to shallow ground water or to
Page 469 and 470:
6.113 may be conveniently divided i
Page 471 and 472:
6.115 repositories (Section 5.5) an
Page 473 and 474:
6.117 The geologic formation in whi
Page 475 and 476:
6.1.7.1 Concept Summary 6.119 6.1.7
Page 477 and 478:
The cycle continues by: 6.121 Spent
Page 479 and 480:
6.123 6.1.7.3 Status of Technical D
Page 481 and 482:
Implementation Time 6.125 The long
Page 483 and 484:
6.127 TABLE 6.1.21. Annual Routine
Page 485 and 486:
6.129 TABLE 6.1.25. Transportation
Page 487 and 488:
Socioeconomic Impacts 6.131 Socioec
Page 489 and 490:
6.133 Results of a long-term risk c
Page 491 and 492:
6.135 TABLE 6.1.28. Operating Costs
Page 493 and 494:
6.137 REACTORS Domestic Civilian F
Page 495 and 496:
HLW From Fuel Processing Facility 6
Page 497 and 498:
° 6.141 OTV/ORBIT 0.85 AU INSERTIO
Page 499 and 500:
6.143 Waste Form. The waste form wo
Page 501 and 502:
Implementation Time 6.145 With the
Page 503 and 504:
6.147 (Bechtel 1979a). (See Table 6
Page 505 and 506:
6.149 Regarding on- or near-pad acc
Page 507 and 508:
6.151 * Public Sector.Economy. Curr
Page 509 and 510:
6.153 * "Treaty on Principles Gover
Page 511 and 512:
6.155 charges to DOE as a Space Shu
Page 513 and 514:
6.157 Bell, W. J. 1971. An Analysis
Page 515 and 516:
6.159 Environmental Protection Agen
Page 517 and 518:
6.161 Lynn, R. D. and Z. E. Arlin.
Page 519 and 520:
6.163 Sandia Laboratories. 1980. Su
Page 521 and 522:
6.165 6.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE
Page 523 and 524:
6.167 fuel assemblies would be appr
Page 525 and 526:
6.169 A reprocessing fuel cycle wou
Page 527 and 528:
6.2.1.9 Space 6.171 In the space di
Page 529 and 530:
Radiological Effects 6.173 TABLE 6.
Page 531 and 532:
Non-Radiological Environmental Effe
Page 533 and 534:
6.177 6.2.2.7 Long-Term Maintenance
Page 535 and 536:
6.179 deep hole, island mined repos
Page 537 and 538:
6.181 6.2.3.4 The Concept Should be
Page 539 and 540:
Timing 6.183 The timing of implemen
Page 541 and 542:
TABLE 6.2.6. Performance of Propose
Page 543 and 544:
6.187 As discussed in Section 6.2.1
Page 545 and 546:
6.189 design might well be limited
Page 547 and 548:
6.191 6.2.4.4 Conformance with Fede
Page 549 and 550:
6.193 appears not to significantly
Page 551 and 552:
TABLE 6.2.8. Estimated Resource Com
Page 553 and 554:
6.197 space disposal in an intermed
Page 555 and 556:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.2 6.199 Co
Page 557 and 558:
6.2 annual throughput or a common e
Page 559 and 560:
6.4 are identified for well injecti
Page 561 and 562:
6.1.1.1 Concept Summary 6.6 6.1.1 V
Page 563 and 564:
6.8 Recycle Geologic Facilitie UF6
Page 565 and 566:
6.10 The canister would have to pro
Page 567 and 568:
6.12 storage facility (Bechtel 1979
Page 569 and 570:
6.14 Sealing. Standard oil field pr
Page 571 and 572:
6.16 thermomechanical behavior woul
Page 573 and 574:
6.18 Remote determinations of water
Page 575 and 576:
6.20 TABLE 6.1.2. VDH Concept - Occ
Page 577 and 578:
6.22 available at this time. Parame
Page 579 and 580:
Potential Events 6.24 TABLE 6.1.6.
Page 581 and 582:
6.26 TABLE 6.1.7. Long-Term Radiolo
Page 583 and 584:
Page 585 and 586:
Waste-Type Compatibility 6.30 It is
Page 587 and 588:
6.32 Predisposal Treatment of the W
Page 589 and 590:
6.34 be: (1) the pipe and valve man
Page 591 and 592:
6.36 The heat effects in the periph
Page 593 and 594:
6.38 the necessary leaktightness of
Page 595 and 596:
6.40 Data Base Development. Develop
Page 597 and 598:
6.42 Radiological Impacts. During p
Page 599 and 600:
6.44 1979a). In addition, with colo
Page 601 and 602:
6.46 would be stored as a liquid, i
Page 603 and 604:
Page 605 and 606:
Reactors 6.50 -|LWR| Waste Sources
Page 607 and 608:
6.52 Precipitation Surface Faciliti
Page 609 and 610:
6.54 6.1.3.3 Status of Technical De
Page 611 and 612:
6.56 Moreover, although transportat
Page 613 and 614:
6.58 International and Domestic Leg
Page 615 and 616:
Sea Water Dilution 6.60 Discharge I
Page 617 and 618:
Page 619 and 620:
Reactors 6.64 Waste Sources IF L W
Page 621 and 622:
6.66 The ocean's benthic boundary l
Page 623 and 624:
6.68 The total seabed area required
Page 625 and 626:
6.70 Ion Transport in the Sediment.
Page 627 and 628:
6.72 The SDP program plan has been
Page 629 and 630:
6.74 TABLE 6.1.12. Estimated Dose C
Page 631 and 632:
6.76 TABLE 6.1.13. Estimated Energy
Page 633 and 634:
6.78 food chains and ultimate consu
Page 635 and 636:
6.80 processed and disposed of, and
Page 637 and 638:
Page 639 and 640:
6.84 Because the options for the wa
Page 641 and 642:
Reprocessing Plant 6.86 Shielded Ce
Page 643 and 644:
6.88 ,An important factor in this c
Page 645 and 646:
6.90 * Radioactivity of water at ic
Page 647 and 648:
6.92 Occupational casualties from t
Page 649 and 650:
6.94 glass, before transportation t
Page 651 and 652:
6.96 Specific areas of concern, as
Page 653 and 654:
6.98 TABLE 6.1.17. Capital Costs Fo
Page 655 and 656:
Page 657 and 658:
6.102 cases, the injection liquid w
Page 659 and 660:
6.104 heated to above 100 C) (EPA 1
Page 661 and 662:
6.106 capabilities, primarily perfo
Page 663 and 664:
6.108 volume of geologic data (stra
Page 665 and 666:
6.110 With the basic technology for
Page 667 and 668:
Summary 6.112 Major uncertainties,
Page 669 and 670:
Natural System Impacts 6.114 Effect
Page 671 and 672:
6.116 natural gas storage, freshwat
Page 673 and 674:
6.118 for a facility to perform rem
Page 675 and 676:
Reactors 6.120 -- ILWRl Waste Sourc
Page 677 and 678:
Predisposal Treatment 6.122 In a fu
Page 679 and 680:
6.124 * The use of commercial power
Page 681 and 682:
6.126 6.1.7.4 Impacts of Constructi
Page 683 and 684:
6.128 TABLE 6.1.23. Occupational Ra
Page 685 and 686:
6.130 TABLE 6.1.26. Summary Effects
Page 687 and 688:
6.132 waste treatment facility woul
Page 689 and 690:
6.134 more than 100 times for fresh
Page 691 and 692:
Page 693 and 694:
6.138 quirements, high costs, and p
Page 695 and 696:
6.140 The shielded waste container
Page 697 and 698:
6.142 Retrievability/Recovery. Unti
Page 699 and 700:
6.144 Rescue Technology. Remote aut
Page 701 and 702:
6.146 6.1.8.4 Impacts of Constructi
Page 703 and 704:
6.148 TABLE 6.1.30 Short Term (Pree
Page 705 and 706:
6.150 In general, normal operation
Page 707 and 708:
6.152 Critical Resources. Estimated
Page 709 and 710:
6.154 The potential hazard from the
Page 711 and 712:
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1 6.156 Aa
Page 713 and 714:
6.158 Cohen, J. J. et al. 1972. "In
Page 715 and 716:
6.160 Holilster, J. C. and R. J. We
Page 717 and 718:
6.162 Pardue, W. M. 1977. Prelimina
Page 719 and 720:
6.164 White, D. E. 1965. "Saline Wa
Page 721 and 722:
6.166 TABLE 6.2.1. Disposition of P
Page 723 and 724:
6.168 Spent fuel assemblies would b
Page 725 and 726:
6.170 A waste processing facility w
Page 727 and 728:
S\ 6.172 the spectrum of waste prod
Page 729 and 730:
6.174 unit of electrical power by n
Page 731 and 732:
6.176 policies" suggesting that con
Page 733 and 734:
6.178 6.2.3 Application of Performa
Page 735 and 736:
6.180 factory performance of the is
Page 737 and 738:
6.182 development of methods for pr
Page 739 and 740:
6.184 standard of judgement as to p
Page 741 and 742:
6.186 tion of facilities. The failu
Page 743 and 744:
6.188 The mined repository and very
Page 745 and 746:
6.190 relative to waste treatment a
Page 747 and 748:
TABLE 6.2.7. Estimated costs of Var
Page 749 and 750:
6.194 hole concept following packag
Page 751 and 752:
Radiological Effects TABLE 6.2.9. S
Page 753 and 754:
6.2.5.4 Space Disposal 6.198 The pr
Page 755 and 756:
7.1 CHAPTER 7 SYSTEM IMPACTS OF PRO
Page 757 and 758:
7.3 adoption of this strategy was t
Page 759 and 760:
7.5 these low-growth conditions. Th
Page 761 and 762:
7.7 By combining the ORIGEN to matc
Page 763 and 764:
7.9 Four types of waste management
Page 765 and 766:
7.3 SYSTEM LOGISTICS 7.11 To develo
Page 767 and 768:
7.13 7.3.1 Repository Inventory Acc
Page 769 and 770:
250 200- 150 100 - 2 _ 50- 250 1990
Page 771 and 772:
E 400 7.17 DCASE 5 S/ CASE 4 S300 z
Page 773 and 774:
7.19 TABLE 7.3.2. Comparison of Awa
Page 775 and 776:
7.21 wastes do become substantial f
Page 777 and 778:
TABLE 7.3.6. Comparison of Total Tr
Page 779 and 780:
7.25 TABLE 7.3.8. Maximum (and mini
Page 781 and 782:
7.27 The number of equivalent 30-ye
Page 783 and 784:
7.29 TABLE 7.3.10. Number of 800-he
Page 785 and 786:
TABLE 7.3.12. Plutonium Disposition
Page 787 and 788:
TABLE 7.3.13. Total Radioactivity I
Page 789 and 790:
7.35 reprocessing cycle wastes are
Page 791 and 792:
7.37 TABLE 7.3.18 Principal Contrib
Page 793 and 794:
7.39 TABLE 7.4.2 Comparison of 70-Y
Page 795 and 796:
7.41 for discrimination in the sele
Page 797 and 798:
7.43 TABLE 7.5.1 Resource Commitmen
Page 799 and 800:
TABLE 7.5.3 Comparison of Relative
Page 801 and 802:
7.47 1980). (This schedule actually
Page 803 and 804:
7.49 TABLE 7.6.4. Comparison of Lev
Page 805 and 806:
7.51 TABLE 7.6.8. Comparison of Lev
Page 807 and 808:
7.53 Unit costs for the present inv
Page 809 and 810:
8.1 CHAPTER 8 GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
Page 811 and 812:
8.3 Cask: A container that provides
Page 813 and 814:
FPF: Fuel packaging facility. 8.5 F
Page 815 and 816:
8.7 Kaolinite: A common clay consis
Page 817 and 818:
8.9 Primary Wastes: Untreated initi
Page 819 and 820:
8.11 Transportation: Movement of ma
Page 821 and 822:
iii VOLUME 2 CONTENTS APPENDIX A -
Page 823 and 824:
V CONTENTS (contd) K.2 REMOVAL OF E
Page 825 and 826:
vii FIGURES (contd) K.1.11 Very-Nea
Page 827 and 828:
ix TABLES (contd) A.1.20 Spent Fuel
Page 829 and 830:
xi TABLES (contd) A.3.9b Heat Gener
Page 831 and 832:
xi11 TABLES (contd) A.9.3c Reposito
Page 833 and 834:
xv TABLES (contd) P.2.4 Uranyl Phos
Page 835 and 836:
TABLE A.1.1. Spent Fuel Logistics f
Page 837 and 838:
Page 839 and 840:
Page 841 and 842:
Page 843 and 844:
Page 845 and 846:
A. 12 TABLE A.1.11. Spent Fuel Logi
Page 847 and 848:
A.14 TABLE A.1.13. Spent Fuel Logis
Page 849 and 850:
A.16 TABLE A.1.15. Spent Fuel Logis
Page 851 and 852:
TABLE A.1.16. (Contd) REPOSITo0R SH
Page 853 and 854:
TABLE A.1.17. (Contd) RFPPnrESS RSI
Page 855 and 856:
TABLE A.1.18. (Contd) FPanCnr.EsS Y
Page 857 and 858:
TABLE A.1.19. (Contd) cFPonrES StHI
Page 859 and 860:
TABLE A.1.20. (Contd) RA*CTO9 YEAP
Page 861 and 862:
TABLE A.1.22. Number of Containers
Page 863 and 864:
A.2 RADIOACTIVE INVENTORY TABLES A.
Page 865 and 866:
TABLE A.2.1b. Radioactivity Invento
Page 867 and 868:
Page 869 and 870:
Page 871 and 872:
Page 873 and 874:
Page 875 and 876:
Page 877 and 878:
Page 879 and 880:
Page 881 and 882:
Page 883 and 884:
TABLE A.3.la. Heat Generation Rates
Page 885 and 886:
TABLE A.3.2a. Heat Generation Rates
Page 887 and 888:
Page 889 and 890:
Page 891 and 892:
TABLE A.3.5a. Heat'Generation Rates
Page 893 and 894:
Page 895 and 896:
Page 897 and 898:
Page 899 and 900:
Page 901 and 902:
A.4' HAZARD INDEX TABLES A.68 The t
Page 903 and 904:
A.70 TABLE A.4.1b. Hazard Index--On
Page 905 and 906:
A. 72 TABLE A.4.2b. Hazard Index--O
Page 907 and 908:
A.74 TABLE A.4.3b. Hazard Index--On
Page 909 and 910:
A.76 TABLE A.4.4b. Hazard:Index--On
Page 911 and 912:
A. 78 TABLE A.4.5b. Hazard Index--O
Page 913 and 914:
A.80 TABLE A.4.6b. Hazard Index--Re
Page 915 and 916:
Page 917 and 918:
A. 84 TABLE A.4.8b. Hazard Index--R
Page 919 and 920:
Page 921 and 922:
A.88 TABLE A.5.la. Whole-Body Dose
Page 923 and 924:
TABLE A.5.2a. Whole-Body Dose to th
Page 925 and 926:
A.6 RESOURCE COMMITMENTS A.92 Resou
Page 927 and 928:
TABLE A.6.2. Resource Commitments w
Page 929 and 930:
A.7 TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS A.9
Page 931 and 932:
TABLE A.7.2. Transportation Require
Page 933 and 934:
TABLE A.8.1. Cost Estimates for Tre
Page 935 and 936:
A. 102 TABLE A.8.3. Cost Estimates
Page 937 and 938:
A.9 SUPPLEMENTARY SYSTEM COST DATA
Page 939 and 940:
TABLE A.9.1b. Allocation of Total-S
Page 941 and 942:
TABLE A.9.2a. Allocation of Total-S
Page 943 and 944:
TABLE A.9.2c. Allocation of Total-S
Page 945 and 946:
TABLE A.9.3b. Repository Media Effe
Page 947 and 948:
TABLE A.9.4a. Repository Media Effe
Page 949 and 950:
TABLE A.9.4c. Repository Media Effe
Page 951 and 952:
A.118 TABLE A.9.6. Estimated Resear
Page 953 and 954:
TABLE A.10.1. Repository Requiremen
Page 955 and 956:
B.1 APPENDIX B GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL SU
Page 957 and 958:
B.3 Erosion by wind energy is a mec
Page 959 and 960:
B.5 properties. The emplacement med
Page 961 and 962:
B.7 Rocks are named and described a
Page 963 and 964:
B.9 Through isotopic ratio dating,
Page 965 and 966:
B.4 HYDROLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS B.11
Page 967 and 968:
B.13 and the field measurement of h
Page 969 and 970:
B.6 MULTIPLE GEOLOGIC BARRIERS B.15
Page 971 and 972:
8.17 Salt deposit structures can be
Page 973 and 974:
B.19 TABLE B.6.1. Average Chemical
Page 975 and 976:
B.7 THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS B.21
Page 977 and 978:
B.23 CANDIDATE REGIONS FROM STAGE I
Page 979 and 980:
B.25 CONTINENTAL U.S. STAGE I DATA
Page 981 and 982:
B.27 Office of Waste Isolation. 197
Page 983 and 984:
C.2 the year of intake, and charge
Page 985 and 986:
C.2 DERIVED LIMITS AND ACTION LEVEL
Page 987 and 988:
C.6 boundary (e.g., evacuation). Th
Page 989 and 990:
C.8 Taylor, L. S. 1973. The Origin
Page 991 and 992:
D.2 employed here except that the p
Page 993 and 994:
0.4 and 75 radionuclides. A summary
Page 995 and 996:
D.6 farther than 2600 ft is negligi
Page 997 and 998:
D.8 Baker's analysis indicated that
Page 999 and 1000:
D.2.2.1 Dose Conversion Factors for
Page 1001 and 1002:
D.12 The concentration during the n
Page 1003 and 1004:
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D D.14 Atom
Page 1005 and 1006:
E.1 APPENDIX E RADIOLOGICALLY RELAT
Page 1007 and 1008:
warrants use in determining public
Page 1009 and 1010:
E.5 The Reactor Safety Study(a) (RS
Page 1011 and 1012:
E.2 GENETIC EFFECTS E.! It is known
Page 1013 and 1014:
E.3 CONCLUSIONS E.9 For this Statem
Page 1015 and 1016:
E.11 TABLE E.4.1. Comparison of Tra
Page 1017 and 1018:
E.13 E.6 SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION OF
Page 1019 and 1020:
E.15 In summary, it may be conclude
Page 1021 and 1022:
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX E E.17 Atom
Page 1023 and 1024:
E.19 Shtukkenberg, Y. M. 1968. "Phy
Page 1025 and 1026:
F.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND US
Page 1027 and 1028:
F.3 GEOLOGY F.4 The area in which t
Page 1029 and 1030:
70 600 - 150 500 - F.6 40 =30 20 CL
Page 1031 and 1032:
F.5 METEOROLOGY F.8 The general cli
Page 1033 and 1034:
F.10 F.6 PATHWAY PARAMETERS RELEVAN
Page 1035 and 1036:
G.1 APPENDIX G REFERENCE SITES FOR
Page 1037 and 1038:
Population G.3 Table G.2.1 Selected
Page 1039 and 1040:
H.1 APPENDIX H HAZARD INDICES The t
Page 1041 and 1042:
H.3 number of MPI in the environmen
Page 1043 and 1044:
H.5 Rochlin, G. I. 1977. "Nuclear W
Page 1045 and 1046:
Defense HLW(b) TABLE I.1.1. Compari
Page 1047 and 1048:
Defense TRU Waste On hand as of Sep
Page 1049 and 1050:
K.1 THERMAL CRITERIA K.1 APPENDIX K
Page 1051 and 1052:
subsequent precipitation of mineral
Page 1053 and 1054:
K.5 Step 5: Make near-field rock me
Page 1055 and 1056:
K.7 TABLE K.1.2. Thermal Load Limit
Page 1057 and 1058:
K.9 TABLE K.1.4 Thermal Loadings Ac
Page 1059 and 1060:
K.11 TEMPERATURE VS. DEPTH 400 -.-.
Page 1061 and 1062:
K.13 TEMPERATURE VS. DEPTH 400 --.
Page 1063 and 1064:
600 - K.15 TEMPERATURE VS. TIME 6.5
Page 1065 and 1066:
K.17 TEMPERATURE VS. TIME 6.5 YR. O
Page 1067 and 1068:
K.19 TABLE K.1.7. Thermal Loading L
Page 1069 and 1070:
K.21 TABLE K.1.11. Maximum Near-Fie
Page 1071 and 1072:
K.2 REMOVAL OF EMPLACED WASTE K.23
Page 1073 and 1074:
K.25 K.2.2 Recoverable Emplacement
Page 1075 and 1076:
K.27 TABLE K.3.1. Predominant Solut
Page 1077 and 1078:
K.29 TABLE K.3.4 Retention Time Ran
Page 1079 and 1080:
K.31 Neretnieks, I. 1977. Retardati
Page 1081 and 1082:
USGS/LASL-SLA L.2 Evaluation of the
Page 1083 and 1084:
L.2 HOST ROCK PROPERTIES L.4 Resear
Page 1085 and 1086:
L.3 THERMAL AND RADIATION EFFECTS L
Page 1087 and 1088:
Glossary of Acronyms Used in Append
Page 1089 and 1090:
M.I APPENDIX M. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR SE
Page 1091 and 1092:
M.3 Bryant, E. A. et al. 1976. Oklo
Page 1093 and 1094:
M.5 Department of Energy (DOE). 197
Page 1095 and 1096:
M.7 Gorrell, T. C. 1979. Transmutat
Page 1097 and 1098:
Loeding, J. W. 1961. The Fluid Bed
Page 1099 and 1100:
M. 1 National Academy of Sciences (
Page 1101 and 1102:
M.13 Roberts, J. J. et al. 1978. Pl
Page 1103 and 1104:
M.15 Thompson, G. H. et al. 1979. A
Page 1105 and 1106:
N.1 APPENDIX N WASTES FROM THORIUM-
Page 1107 and 1108:
N.3 operation used to separate the
Page 1109 and 1110:
P.1 APPENDIX P MINERALS THAT COULD
Page 1111 and 1112:
P.3 One can usually establish only
Page 1113 and 1114:
P.5 * pH. Most minerals are leached
Page 1115 and 1116:
Element minerals P.7 TABLE P.1.4 Pl
Page 1117 and 1118:
P.1.2.1 Leaching rate P.9 If the le
Page 1119 and 1120:
P.11 Using Table P.1.6 as a guide,
Page 1121 and 1122:
P.13 * firing the calcine, at tempe
Page 1123 and 1124:
P.15 The reported rare earth conten
Page 1125 and 1126:
P.17 Although the pure di-calcium s
Page 1127 and 1128:
P.19 aluminosilicate framework stru
Page 1129 and 1130:
P.21 The stability of this group of
Page 1131 and 1132:
P.23 close association with albite,
Page 1133 and 1134:
P.25 complex carbonates of the alka
Page 1135 and 1136:
P.27 Ca(P04)3(0H) + 4H + - 5Ca 2+ +
Page 1137 and 1138:
P.29 Xenotime contains a high amoun
Page 1139 and 1140:
P.2.6.2 Uranate Minerals P.31 Urani
Page 1141 and 1142:
P.33 depending on the number of wat
Page 1143 and 1144:
P.3 MINERAL TABLES P.35 P.3.1 Hosts
Page 1145 and 1146:
P.37 TABLE P.3.1. (continued) Occur
Page 1147 and 1148:
Page 1149 and 1150:
Page 1151 and 1152:
P.43 The rankings, except for the t
Page 1153 and 1154:
P.45 Koreskawa 1954) and differenti
Page 1155 and 1156:
P.47 uranium or thorium. Reports of
Page 1157 and 1158:
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX P P.49 Alex
Page 1159 and 1160:
P.51 Mitchell, R. S. 1972.. "Virgin
Page 1161 and 1162:
FINAL DOE/EIS-0046F Volume 3 of 3 U
Page 1163 and 1164:
SAFEGUARDS GROWTH SCENARIOS GEOLOGI
Page 1165 and 1166:
2 POLICY TOPIC AREAS KEY ISSUES . R
Page 1167 and 1168:
4 Volume 2 Section of Final Stateme
Page 1169 and 1170:
Issues 6 WASTE PROGRAM Several comm
Page 1171 and 1172:
8 WASTE PROGRAM * The multibarrier
Page 1173 and 1174:
Response 10 WASTE PROGRAM The objec
Page 1175 and 1176:
Issue 12 LICENSING AND THE DECISION
Page 1177 and 1178:
14 LICENSING AND THE DECISION-MAKIN
Page 1179 and 1180:
Response 16 SITING ISSUES While the
Page 1181 and 1182:
Response 18 SITING ISSUES In keepin
Page 1183 and 1184:
Issues 20 FUEL CYCLE ISSUES Several
Page 1185 and 1186:
Issue 22 ATTRIBUTION OF COSTS/RISKS
Page 1187 and 1188:
24 GENERAL COMMENTS In addition to
Page 1189 and 1190:
Draft p. iv Issue 26 ORGANIZATION A
Page 1191 and 1192:
Issue 28 ORGANIZATION AND PRESENTAT
Page 1193 and 1194:
Section of Final Statement 30 ORGAN
Page 1195 and 1196:
Response 32 ORGANIZATION AND PRESEN
Page 1197 and 1198:
Draft pp. iv and 1.2 Issue 34 SCOPE
Page 1199 and 1200:
Response 5.2). Issue 36 SCOPE Such
Page 1201 and 1202:
(167) 38 SCOPE The problems or cost
Page 1203 and 1204:
40 RADIOLOGICAL ISSUES presently re
Page 1205 and 1206:
Draft p. 2.2.3 Issue 42 RADIOLOGICA
Page 1207 and 1208:
Draft p. 2.3.3 Issue 44 RADIOLOGICA
Page 1209 and 1210:
46 RADIOLOGICAL ISSUES particles (h
Page 1211 and 1212:
48 RADIOLOGICAL ISSUES it has been
Page 1213 and 1214:
Draft p. 3.1.144 Issue 50 RADIOLOGI
Page 1215 and 1216:
Draft Appendix C Issue 52 RADIOLOGI
Page 1217 and 1218:
Response 54 RADIOLOGICAL ISSUES EPA
Page 1219 and 1220:
56 RADIOLOGICAL ISSUES The EPA risk
Page 1221 and 1222:
58 RADIOLOGICAL ISSUES Transuranium
Page 1223 and 1224:
60 RADIOLOGICAL ISSUES BEIR III (19
Page 1225 and 1226:
62 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS Risk define
Page 1227 and 1228:
64 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS Sr and Cs h
Page 1229 and 1230:
66 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS individual
Page 1231 and 1232:
Response 68 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS Th
Page 1233 and 1234:
70 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS been provid
Page 1235 and 1236:
72 CONSEQUENCE.ANALYSIS on a sound
Page 1237 and 1238:
Response 74 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS DO
Page 1239 and 1240:
Draft p. 3.1.100 Issue 76 CONSEQUEN
Page 1241 and 1242:
Page 1243 and 1244:
80 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS demonstrate
Page 1245 and 1246:
82 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS The followi
Page 1247 and 1248:
Response 84 iCONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS T
Page 1249 and 1250:
Draft pp. 3.1.148-155 Issue ,86 CON
Page 1251 and 1252:
Page 1253 and 1254:
Draft pp. 3.1.165-168 Issue 90 CONS
Page 1255 and 1256:
92 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS Note the as
Page 1257 and 1258:
94 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS are found i
Page 1259 and 1260:
96 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS Briefly, th
Page 1261 and 1262:
98 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS rates to be
Page 1263 and 1264:
Response 100 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS T
Page 1265 and 1266:
102 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS in additio
Page 1267 and 1268:
104 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS Three sour
Page 1269 and 1270:
106 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS would depe
Page 1271 and 1272:
Issue 108 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS A qu
Page 1273 and 1274:
Response 110 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS A
Page 1275 and 1276:
Response 112 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS T
Page 1277 and 1278:
Issue 114 DOSE CALCULATIONS Several
Page 1279 and 1280:
Draft p. 1.20 Issue 116 DOSE CALCUL
Page 1281 and 1282:
Response 118 DOSE CALCULATIONS In p
Page 1283 and 1284:
Response 120 DOSE CALCULATIONS Dilu
Page 1285 and 1286:
Response 122 DOSE CALCULATIONS The
Page 1287 and 1288:
Page 1289 and 1290:
Page 1291 and 1292:
Issue 128 RISK PERSPECTIVES Several
Page 1293 and 1294:
Response 130 RISK PERSPECTIVES * Th
Page 1295 and 1296:
132 RISK PERSPECTIVES Draft p. 1.16
Page 1297 and 1298:
Draft p. 3.1.64 Issue 134 RISK PERS
Page 1299 and 1300:
Draft Appendix H Issue 136 RISK PER
Page 1301 and 1302:
Response 138 RISK PERSPECTIVES EPA
Page 1303 and 1304:
Draft p. 3.1.55 Issue 140 WASTE MAN
Page 1305 and 1306:
Response 142 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERA
Page 1307 and 1308:
Page 1309 and 1310:
14,6 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS To
Page 1311 and 1312:
Response 148 -WASTE MANAGEMENT OPER
Page 1313 and 1314:
Page 1315 and 1316:
Page 1317 and 1318:
Response 1.54 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPER
Page 1319 and 1320:
156 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS AFR
Page 1321 and 1322:
Page 1323 and 1324:
Page 1325 and 1326:
Draft pp. 1.11 Issue 162 WASTE MANA
Page 1327 and 1328:
164 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS whi
Page 1329 and 1330:
166 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS and
Page 1331 and 1332:
168 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS are
Page 1333 and 1334:
Draft p. 1.4 Issue 170 WASTE MANAGE
Page 1335 and 1336:
Draft p. 1.10 Issue 172 WASTE MANAG
Page 1337 and 1338:
Page 1339 and 1340:
Page 1341 and 1342:
178 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS Dra
Page 1343 and 1344:
180 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS 3.
Page 1345 and 1346:
Draft p. 3.1.116 Issue 182 WASTE MA
Page 1347 and 1348:
184 WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS sta
Page 1349 and 1350:
DOE/ET-0028, pp. 7.4.43 and 7.5.46
Page 1351 and 1352:
Draft pp. v and 3.1.6 Issue 188 FUE
Page 1353 and 1354:
Draft pp 1.10, 1.23, 3.1.133 Issue
Page 1355 and 1356:
192 COSTS 3. The construction cost
Page 1357 and 1358:
Draft pp 3.1.210-212 Issue 194 COST
Page 1359 and 1360:
196 COSTS Title Basin Size Cost Est
Page 1361 and 1362:
Issue 198 COSTS An issue which need
Page 1363 and 1364:
200 SAFEGUARDS For the waste in the
Page 1365 and 1366:
202 SAFEGUARDS planning for assista
Page 1367 and 1368:
Draft pp. 1.10 and 2.1.2 Issue 204
Page 1369 and 1370:
Draft, p. 1.3 Issue (208-NRC) Respo
Page 1371 and 1372:
Page 1373 and 1374:
Response 210 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATION
Page 1375 and 1376:
Page 1377 and 1378:
214 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS in thes
Page 1379 and 1380:
216 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS The rev
Page 1381 and 1382:
Draft p. 3.1.4 Issue 218 GEOLOGIC C
Page 1383 and 1384:
Page 1385 and 1386:
Page 1387 and 1388:
Draft p. 3.1.8 Issue (113-EPA) Resp
Page 1389 and 1390:
226 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS composi
Page 1391 and 1392:
Page 1393 and 1394:
Page 1395 and 1396:
232 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS 5. Figu
Page 1397 and 1398:
Draft p. 3.1.20 Issue 234 GEOLOGIC
Page 1399 and 1400:
Page 1401 and 1402:
Draft pp. 3.1.24, 33 and 235 Issue
Page 1403 and 1404:
Page 1405 and 1406:
242 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS selecti
Page 1407 and 1408:
244 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS The Tek
Page 1409 and 1410:
Response The text was changed. Draf
Page 1411 and 1412:
Page 1413 and 1414:
Page 1415 and 1416:
252 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS made. T
Page 1417 and 1418:
Page 1419 and 1420:
256 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS effects
Page 1421 and 1422:
Page 1423 and 1424:
260 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS be mapp
Page 1425 and 1426:
262 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS tectoni
Page 1427 and 1428:
264 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS Since e
Page 1429 and 1430:
Issue 266 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS S
Page 1431 and 1432:
Issue 268 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS I
Page 1433 and 1434:
270 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS the Nev
Page 1435 and 1436:
Draft p. 3.1.6 Issue 272 MULTIBARRI
Page 1437 and 1438:
Draft p. 3.1.40 Issue 274 MULTIBARR
Page 1439 and 1440:
Page 1441 and 1442:
Page 1443 and 1444:
Draft Appendix L Issue 280 MULT.IBA
Page 1445 and 1446:
282 MULTIBARRIERS FOR DISPOSAL cont
Page 1447 and 1448:
Draft p. 1.6 Issue 284 SOCIOECONOMI
Page 1449 and 1450:
Draft p. 3.1.25 Issue 286 SOCIOECON
Page 1451 and 1452:
Draft p. 3.1.75 Issue 288 SOCIOECON
Page 1453 and 1454:
290 SOCIOECONOMIC/SOCIOPOLITICAL IS
Page 1455 and 1456:
292 SOCIOECONOMIC/SOCIOPOLITICAL IS
Page 1457 and 1458:
294 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS a site sp
Page 1459 and 1460:
Response REFERENCE ENVIRONMENTS DOE
Page 1461 and 1462:
Response 298 REFERENCE ENVIRONMENTS
Page 1463 and 1464:
Draft pp. 1.1, 31, 35, 36 Issue 300
Page 1465 and 1466:
302 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT 2. To st
Page 1467 and 1468:
304 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT Draft p.
Page 1469 and 1470:
Response 306 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT
Page 1471 and 1472:
Draft p. 4.9 Issue 308 COMPARATIVE
Page 1473 and 1474:
Page 1475 and 1476:
Page 1477 and 1478:
314 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS g
Page 1479 and 1480:
316 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS h
Page 1481 and 1482:
Response 318 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL C
Page 1483 and 1484:
Draft Appendix P Issue 320 ALTERNAT
Page 1485 and 1486:
Draft p. 1.25 Issue 322 ALTERNATIVE
Page 1487 and 1488:
Draft p. 3.3.7 Issue 324 ALTERNATIV
Page 1489 and 1490:
Draft p. 3.3.30 Issue 326 ALTERNATI
Page 1491 and 1492:
Page 1493 and 1494:
Response 330. ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL
Page 1495 and 1496:
332 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS A
Page 1497 and 1498:
334 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS D
Page 1499 and 1500:
Draft p. 3.4.13 Issue Response 336
Page 1501 and 1502:
Issue 338 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONC
Page 1503 and 1504:
Draft Section 3.5 Issue 340 ALTERNA
Page 1505 and 1506:
Page 1507 and 1508:
Page 1509 and 1510:
346 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS o
Page 1511 and 1512:
348 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS S
Page 1513 and 1514:
Page 1515 and 1516:
Draft p. 1.27 Issue 352 ALTERNATIVE
Page 1517 and 1518:
354 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS W
Page 1519 and 1520:
356 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS e
Page 1521 and 1522:
Response Jbb ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL C
Page 1523 and 1524:
Page 1525 and 1526:
Page 1527 and 1528:
Page 1529 and 1530:
Page 1531 and 1532:
368 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS T
Page 1533 and 1534:
Draft p. 3.6.18 Issue Response 37U
Page 1535 and 1536:
Page 1537 and 1538:
Page 1539 and 1540:
Page 1541 and 1542:
Draft Section 3.7 Issue 378 ALTERNA
Page 1543 and 1544:
Page 1545 and 1546:
Page 1547 and 1548:
Page 1549 and 1550:
386 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS W
Page 1551 and 1552:
Page 1553 and 1554:
Page 1555 and 1556:
Page 1557 and 1558:
Page 1559 and 1560:
Page 1561 and 1562:
398 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS T
Page 1563 and 1564:
400 ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL CONCEPTS E
Page 1565 and 1566:
Draft p. 3.10.18 Issue 402 ALTERNAT
Page 1567 and 1568:
Draft p. 3.10.27 Issue 404 ALTERNAT
Page 1569 and 1570:
Page 1571 and 1572:
408 HEARING BOARD REPORT AND RESPON
Page 1573 and 1574:
410 Safeguards of the Nuclear Regul
Page 1575 and 1576:
HEARING BOARD REPORT ON THE DEPARTM
Page 1577 and 1578:
Associated documents that came to t
Page 1579 and 1580:
Further, this sole statement of pur
Page 1581 and 1582:
Not even those in the scientific co
Page 1583 and 1584:
A common misconception is that hole
Page 1585 and 1586:
In sumnary, humanistic consideratio
Page 1587 and 1588:
4. EDITORIAL AND TERMINOLOGICAL Res
Page 1589 and 1590:
Several views of comparative risk n
Page 1591 and 1592:
Resp-nse Various spent fuel storage
Page 1593 and 1594:
Since current costs in developing a
Page 1595 and 1596:
multiple barrier concept, they shou
Page 1597 and 1598:
F. MISCELLMEOUS ITMS REQUIRING REVI
Page 1599 and 1600:
III. CONCLUSIONS Subject to the abo
Page 1601 and 1602:
, Draft Environmental Impact Staten
Page 1603 and 1604:
440 Interagency Review Group. 1978.
Page 1605 and 1606:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Page 1607 and 1608:
A.1 APPENDIX A LIST OF RESPONDENTS
Page 1609 and 1610:
A.3 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED 12. Ms.
Page 1611 and 1612:
A.5 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED 34. Mr.
Page 1613 and 1614:
A.7 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED 54. Edw
Page 1615 and 1616:
A.9 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED 79. Wal
Page 1617 and 1618:
A.11 . COMMENTER- . .... . .... DAT
Page 1619 and 1620:
A. 13 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED 132.
Page 1621 and 1622:
A.15 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED 157. F
Page 1623 and 1624:
A.17 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED 183. R
Page 1625 and 1626:
A.19 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED 208. J
Page 1627 and 1628:
A.21 COMMENTER DATE RECEIVED LETTER
Page 1629 and 1630:
Page 1631 and 1632:
Page 1633 and 1634:
Page 1635 and 1636:
Page 1637 and 1638:
Page 1639 and 1640:
Page 1641 and 1642:
Page 1643 and 1644:
North Carolina: A.37 COMMENTER DATE
Page 1645 and 1646: APPENDIX B INDEX FOR COMMENT LETTER
Page 1647 and 1648: B.2 Letter Topic Area Pages 1 Costs
Page 1649 and 1650: B.4 Letter Topic Area Pages 30 (Con
Page 1651 and 1652: B.6 Letter Topic Area Pages 57 Gene
Page 1653 and 1654: B.8 Letter Topic Area Pages 102 Gen
Page 1655 and 1656: B.10 Letter Topic Area Pages 133 Wa
Page 1657 and 1658: B.12 Letter Topic Area Pages 160 Ge
Page 1659 and 1660: B.14 Letter Topic Area Pages. 198 W
Page 1661 and 1662: 8.16 Letter Topic Area Pages 215 Wa
Page 1663 and 1664: C.1 APPENDIX C STATE AND FEDERAL AG
Page 1665 and 1666: State Of Idaho /' .DIVISION OF BUDG
Page 1667 and 1668: STATE OF KANSAS TENNESSEE §beparim
Page 1669 and 1670: B. 1JM PORTER H.T. SUTTON OFFICE OF
Page 1671 and 1672: Dr. Colin A. Heath July 10, 1979 Pa
Page 1673 and 1674: OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR WILLIAM P. C
Page 1675 and 1676: (Office of file (aobernor Geoar Pus
Page 1677 and 1678: as storage facilities begin to reac
Page 1679 and 1680: C. Frank Harsche, III Socftary Juli
Page 1681 and 1682: ,U - ,UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF C
Page 1683 and 1684: -3- TO: PP/EC - R. Lehm FROM: OA/Dx
Page 1685 and 1686: for promulgation as Federal guides
Page 1687 and 1688: 2 published since the Draft EIS was
Page 1689 and 1690: 6 Spec c The hazard indices discuss
Page 1691 and 1692: 10 22. (Page 3.1.6, sixth paragraph
Page 1693 and 1694: 14 15 43. (Page 3.1.40, physical pr
Page 1695: 18 74. (Page 3.1.106, third paragra
Page 1699 and 1700: 26 27 124. (Page D.8) - The model u
Page 1701 and 1702: 30 The consequence analysis as it b
Page 1703 and 1704: 34 United States Department of the
Page 1705 and 1706: -4- -5- -4- An important criterion
Page 1707 and 1708: -8- -9- Modeling of Groundwater Mod
Page 1709 and 1710: -12- -13- Reasonable bounds for the
Page 1711 and 1712: 3 Page 3.1.30. Third paragraph, fir
Page 1713 and 1714: 7 8 also include at least generaliz
Page 1715 and 1716: 11- 12 Page 3.1.6, par. 3, line 2:
Page 1717 and 1718: 15 shaft and borehole sealing; larg
Page 1719 and 1720: 1.9 20 Page 3.1.106. par. 3: What w
Page 1721 and 1722: UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO
Page 1723 and 1724: INDEX TO GEIS COMMENTS 1. GENERAL..
Page 1725 and 1726: 1-3 Comment Number Comment 1-4 .5 T
Page 1727 and 1728: 1-7 Comment Comment Number Number ,
Page 1729 and 1730: 2-1 2-2 Comment Comment Number Numb
Page 1731 and 1732: Comment Number 2-5 d. Transportatio
Page 1733 and 1734: 2-9 2-10 Comment Comment Number Num
Page 1735 and 1736: C ~, "0 '0 , ' 0omment C Numb1 0 .3
Page 1737 and 1738: Comment Number 2-17 Comment Number
Page 1739 and 1740: 3-1 3-2 Comment Number Comment Numb
Page 1741 and 1742: 3-5 3-6 Comment Number Comment Numb
Page 1743 and 1744: Comment Number 3-9 Comment Number i
Page 1745 and 1746: 3-13 Comment Comment Number Number
Page 1747 and 1748:
Comment Number 3-17 3-18 Comment Nu
Page 1749 and 1750:
3-21 3-22 Comment Comment Number Nu
Page 1751 and 1752:
3-25 Comment Number Comment Number
Page 1753 and 1754:
3-29 3-30 Comment .. Comment "'umbe
Page 1755 and 1756:
3-33 Comment Comment Number ,lumber
Page 1757 and 1758:
3-37 3-38 Comment Number Comment Nu
Page 1759 and 1760:
3-41 3-42 Comment Comment Number Nu
Page 1761 and 1762:
Comment Number 4-3 Comment Number I
Page 1763 and 1764:
4-7 4-8 Comment Comment Number Numb
Page 1765 and 1766:
Comnent ,iumoer 4-11 Comment Number
Page 1767 and 1768:
5-2 Comment lNumber Comment 5-3 5-3
Page 1769 and 1770:
Dr. Cblin A. Heath nivision of Wast
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?