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

in nondestructive, in situ testing and other problems mentioned In our Page 1.23, par. 2: The material used for the canister might also be valuable
comments for the previous page. The problems of predictive geology are enough in the future to attract invasion of the repository. Copper, stainless
not adequately expressed in the final sentence of the paragraph. There steel, titanium, and even gold have been mentioned by some as canister material.
are at least as many deficiencies in the geologic data base as in "Waste
Form;" yet "Waste Form" is allotted five times as much space as "Geology." Page 1.23, par. 3: Institutional controls cannot be relied upon for more
than several decades.
Page 1.14, par. 4, lines 7-9: These two sentences indicate an attempt to
dismiss a real problem. Presumably, water will eventually enter any mined Page .1.23, last par. line 2: Why 600 m?
repository, except perhaps one above a deep water table in an arid western
basin. Leachability is still an unresolved issue. Page 1.23, last par. line 4: Suggest inserting 'chemical" before "thermodynamic."
Page 1.15, par. 3: The proposed Swedish canister is not "highly" sophisti- Page 1.23, last par. line 5-6: Nothing Is absolutely chemically Inert in any
cated; it is a simple copper can with lead fill. The engineered sorption ground water, so it is unrealistic to suggest that the waste form might be so
barriers are not part of the canister but part of the backfill buffer around rendered.
the canisters. In the last sentence it is not clear what "redox materials"
are. Page 1.23, last par. line 8: Suggest substituting "approaching" for "in" before
"thermodynamics."
Page 1.16, par. 2, line 11: Many toxic organics will degrade biologically
or chemically with time; we therefore suggest inserting "might" before Page 1.24, par. 3: The economic feasibility of the synthetic-mineral waste
"remain." form must also be assessed.
Page 1.16, table 1.3: This table could be misleading, in the sense of com- Page 1.23, last par. last line: Suggest substituting "might" for "would."
paring apples to oranges. Chlorine gas, for instance, will rapidly deteriorate
in most environments because of its high reactivity. Phosgene and Page 1.25, par. 2-3: There are major problems with this option, if the hole
amonia are also non-persistent. Most of these substances can easily be is lost (collapses or is otherwise rendered unuseable) during the waste emtreated
to render them relatively harmless. placement or backfilling-sealing stages. We would end up with the waste
in the wrong place or irretrievably placed in an unsealed hole, both of which g
Page 1.17, par. 1: The difference between a "major disaster" and a "primary are probably unacceptable. These potential problems should be pointed out. o
event" is not clear.
Page 1.26, par. 2: Other unresolved problems or disadvantages that should be
Page 1.17, par. 2, lines 6-7: We disagree; uncertainty of geologic pre- mentioned regarding island disposal are: greater probability of disruptive
dictions does limit the application of.risk assessment. If the probability geologic events (faulting, earthquakes, volcanism, etc.); perhaps greater
of a certain geologic event occuring is not known, how can a reliable risk erosion rates; more subject to higher rainfall rates, tropical storms,. and
assessment be calculated to include the potential impact of such an event? tsunamis.
Page 1.18, par. 5: It would seem that different disposal options and media Page 1.26, par. 7, line 2: Suggest substituting "appear to be" for "are"
would involve different canister and buffer materials. This might have a before "abyssal."
major Impact on certain materials such as stainless steel, copper, and
bentonite. Page 1.26, last par.: Suggest inserting "sub-seabed" before "geologic media."
Page 1.21, par. 3: The basis for calculating the frequency of stream invasion Page 1.27, par. 2, line 4: Suggest substituting "possible" for "the" before
of a repository is not clear. Appropriate references should be cited. "thermal-related."
Page 1.22, par. 1: It is not "unreasonably pessimistic" to assume that Pages 1.28 and 1.32: The discussion and assessment of the reverse well insuch
markers would be stolen, moved, maliciously destroyed, covered by jection alternative should include at least general-consideration and evaluanatural
sedimentation, or other works of man. tion of the vertical separation of individual plates or sheets of injected
waste-bearing grout. Consideration of the impacts of the alternative should
.6