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

13 1 million years is the amount of time required for our spiralling galaxy to
rotate through less than 2 degrees of arc (based on one rotation in approx-
Indicatbd, ranging from excellent to poor. High porosity is not necessarily imately. 200 million years).
undesirable because, for equal permeability, a rock with high porosity will
have slower ground-water flow rates than one with low porosity. Thermal Page 3.1.16, par. 6, line 3: Substitute "should be capable of being adeconductivity
of basalt is much greater than shale; hence the numbering given quately" for "can be quite well" after "of an area."
is backwards. Again, no mention is made of the transmissivity of the media
considered even though this parameter, unlike permeability, would permit Page 3.1.17, last par.: Who should set the criteria?
a separation of media on a scale of 1-3 (salt would rate 3, granite 2, shale 2,
and basalt 1). Other important properties were left off the table. These Page 3.1.18, par. 2, line 3: Whose criteria?
might include:
Page 3.1.20, par. 1, line 4: Substitute "is injected into" for "injects"
Plastic properties after "mobile care."
Sorption properties Page 3.1.20, par. 1, line 14: Insert "tectonic" after "the."
Page 3.1.16, par. 3: It is stated that "High-level radioactive wastes must Page 3.1.21, fig. 3.1.8: Stage II data base should also Include regional
be kept isolated from the biosphere for a long time period, perhaps hundreds geophysics survey (resistivity and seismic profiles, magnetics, and gravity).
of thousands of years," but previously it had been stated that "The HLW
must be managed...to isolate the uranium, plutonium, the balance of the Page 3.1.22, par. 1, line 6: Insert "It appears that" before "Some aspects
TRUs, amd some fission products for several millennia, and probably up to of."
one million years" (p. 1.9, par. 2, last 4 lines). It would be desirable
to state these time periods consistently and to add any necessary qualifi- Page 3.1.22, par. 1, line 7: Substitute "might" for "can" after "million
cations such as may relate to the form of the waste. years."
In order to avoid unwarranted public concern it is Imperative to avoid any Page 3.1.22, end of par.: Insert "The driving mechanisms for plate tectonics
appearance of a reluctance to acknowledge the full time period that the wastes are presently not understood."
will be potentially of appreciable hazard to man. Since any inconsistency
in describing the duration of the potential hazard tends to give this appear- Page 3.1.23, par. 3, line 6: Substitute "low flow velocities" for "low.
ance, we feel that all references to the required duration of isolation hydraulic gradients."
should be completely consistent, carefully qualified (by reference to waste
form, disposal method, fuel cycle option, hazard level, etc.), and should Page 3.1.23, par. 4: Some mention needs to be made that considerable work
relate the radioactivity levels or potential hazards to familiar natural is needed in the fields of measuring and modeling fracture-flow hydrology,
sources of radioactivity whenever possible (such as uranium ores, monazite measuring very low permeability, and other field-scale or in situ measuresands,
cosmic radiation at high altitudes, etc.). Some comparisons presented ment of hydraulic and solute transport parameters.
in the EIS appear to deserve more emphasis in order to dispel unwarranted
concern and put the potential hazard of radioactive waste into proper per- Page 3.1.23, par. 6, last line: Strike "impermeable;" no rocks are imperr~-.bl.
spective. For example, the total toxicity of plutonium projected to be
wasted in the year 2000 is comparable to the toxicity of lead wasted in 1973, Page 3.1.26, par. 3, line 2: The reference to "thousands of "years" should
but the plutonium will gradually decay while the lead will persist indefinitely be to "probably up to a million years" or to "hundreds of thousands of years"
(p. 3.1.65, next-to-last par.). If the required period of isolation of the' for consistency with statements on pages 1.9 and 3.1.51.
radioactive waste actually proves to be a full 1 million years, this period
of time should not in itself cause great concern if the waste were either Page 3.1.26, p24. 3, lines 10-13: The question of predicting future resource
in a stable form or well isolated; concern for the 1-million-year duration value is understated. How can we know what will be valuable 1,000 years or
might be dispelled by comparison with natural phenomena, such as the several- more from now? Who would have guessed 200 years ago that uranium or even
billion-year age of the earth, the fact that the earth's crust contains an petroleum would be a valuable resource?
entire group of rocks more than 2.5 billion years old, and the fact that
Page 3.1.26-28: The section on Deficiencies In Data Base is much too general
and non-specific. For example, it fails to mention lack of data on long-term
14