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

3-25
Comment
Number Comment
Number
3.f.8 p. 7.3.12; DOE/ET-0028
Linear thermomechanical analysis is applied to a repository in salt. Such 3.g.4 General Comment
an analysis can result in significant error in predicting thermomechanical Although the section on radiological models (Appendices D & F) indicates
effects (see discussion under comments on retrievability). Even with this that all pathways were considered, the contribution of various pathways to
analysis a surface uplift up to 1.5m is predicted. The important question the total dose is not given in the document. Additional information on
not addressed in the GEIS is what effect will this have on shaft and the radiological analysis for scenarios (e.g., source terms, concentrations
borehole seals, thermally driven convection and breccia pipe formation? of nuclides for different locations, solubility classifications of particulates,
etc.) would help document the major conclusions concerning radio-
3.f.9 General Comment logical impacts.
The GEIS does not address the important and complex problem of groundwater
mass transport and how it is affected by joints and fractures. Rock will 3.g5 enel Comnt
fracture and a series of joints will be created or opened in the surrounding
rock as a result of mining of the repository. Effective permeabilities
Appendix I to the EIS and Appendix G to DOE/ET-0029 present impacts at
time periods of 10 yr., 10 yr. and 10 yr. Sometimes 10 4 (hydraulic conductivities) will be increased. The effect of these processes
on long-term repository performance need to be addressed,
years is
discussed. Since preliminary versions
discussed. Since preliminary versions
of
of
the
the
EPA standard for high-level
waste specifically reference the 10 4 on long-term repository performance need to be addressed.
year period, it would be prudent to
present cumulative dose calculations for this time period for all cases
3.g Long-term Radiological Effects - Environmental Transport studied.
3.g.1
3.g.1
p p. 1 1.20
.g.6 General Comment
Some of the numerical values on page 1.20 (e.g., maximum individual dose)
The s ev er
al appendices which support the long-term impact assessment need
cannot be traced to Section 3.1.5. to be coordinated so that their results are directly comparable. Some
cumulative doses are for 50 yr., some for 70 yr. Different times are
3.g.2 p. 3.1.66 referenced. The total picture is confusing and leaves many questions
Describe how the estimate of 1x10- 6 for the "annual fatalities estimated about the internal consistency of the supporting calculations.
due to isolated waste" is determined. Specifically, explain and justify
the use of the "annual transfer probability for an atom of radium to enteriological Effects - Geology/Hydrology
the body from the geosphere."
3.h.l p.3.1.2
3.g.3 General Comment The four climatic factors listed to be considered in assessing the long-
Define "health effects" and assumptions for "translating" 1.8x10 8 man-rem
t e s o at i on
rm i l
f was t e ar e no t
sufficient. Precipitation patterns
into 1.8xlO 4 to 1.4x10 5 health effects.
(temporal and spatial) and man induced changes must also be considered.
3.h.2 p. 3.1.5
3-26
It is stated that "The major mechanisms related to nuclide transport
through the disposal media are thermal convection, diffusion and disper-
sion, sorption, and radioactive decay." Also important can be the advec-
tion of nuclides with the local groundwater flow.