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

1-7
Comment Comment
Number
Number
,.16 p. 1.16 lines 14 to 17. The text in the summary section (Section 1.3) states
"The conclusion is that the available lethal doses in radioactive waste that, "Calculated radiation dose to the total population from routine
are far less than the available lethal doses in toxic nonradioactive operations including transportation, assuming that all facilities are
chemicals now being handled routinely by society as shown in Table 1.3. located in the same region (a'highly conservative and unlikely scenario)
Further, radioactive wastes decay with time whereas toxic chemicals have amount to no more than about 0.3% of the dose the population would receive
no half-lives and hence their quantities remain unchanged with time." from naturally occuring sources and differs by a factor of less than 15
1-8
among fuel cycle options." Although the summary gives no reference to
a. Is the value in Table 1.3 for radioactive waste based on deaths where the supporting text for this conclusion is, it appears that the
due to the radiotoxicty or the chemical toxicity? supporting data base is in Tables 3.1.84 to 3.1.87 (summarizing environ-
mental effects from routine operations). However, several entries (e.g.,
b. How does this value behave with time? see U and Pu Recycle column on p. 3.1.215) give regional population doses
c. Provide references for Table 1.3.
1.20 p. 1.34
(6 x 10 4 man-rem) that are greater than 0.3% of background as quoted above.
d. Available Lethal Dose is defined as (the number of) potential Table 1.8. The section entitled Socioeconomic Impact mentions that the
deaths if dose is uniformly administered." impacts were not converted to a 1-5 scale; refers the reader to Table 4.5.2 -)
o What does this mean? and states that the impacts are small for all options. It would be helpful
o What "dose" is uniformly administered? to discuss why the 1-5 scale was not used and what rationale was used in
o Administered to what population? both tables to conclude that the impacts would be small. These conclusions
appear to be at variance with the statement made on page 1.22 (line 19)
e. How many available lethal doses result from the eventual stable which states: "...socioeconomic impacts...could be either small or
daughter products of the radioactive waste, significant."
1.17 pp. 1.15, 3.1.62-64 Also refer to the statement on page 3.1.47 (lines 10 and 11) which points
The section entitled Human Institutions calls attention to the merit of out that socioeconomic and political factors may eventually play a deter-
setting up such institutions in the long run control of nuclear wastes, mining part in repository site selection.
It would be helpful to address whose responsibility it would be to establish
and maintain such institutions. 1.21 p. 2.2
Four impact statements on TRU waste are mentioned as being in preparation
1.18 p. 1.17 by DOE (SRP, INEL, RL, and LASL). Data from DOE received by NRC in
1.19 p. 1.19
The difference between "major disasters" and "primary events" is unclear, conjunction with the DOE licensing study showed TRU waste to exist at
Some of the main conclusions given in the summary concerning radiological
impacts are not readily traced back to the supporting text, e.g., p. 1.19,
ORNL. Will there be an environmental statement for ORNL?