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

3-31
3-32
Comment
Number Comment
Number
salt repository may not be the same as for other media, due, for example,
to competition for sorption sites by NA++, ++ and Ca No continued water inflow is expected in the.repositories in
to competition for sorption sites by NA , Mg , and Ca .
granite and in shale after the last stage of operation.
3.h.15 p. 3.1.67
. po
Uncertainties and the method for determining them should be consistently
No water inflow is expected in the repositories in salt and in
included with probability and consequence estimates. Although there is
basalt.
some discussion of uncertainties in isolated cases, they are usually not
edi w on s ue, n roa a f t
included with point values, e.g., the probability of faulting through the
repository is estimated at 4 x 11 year (pg. 3.1.67) with no indication
The generic stratigraphy for salt includes possible aquifers overlying the
salt bed. Art area of uncertainty in state-of-the-art technology is whether
f a d u
of associated uncertainties.
the effects of mining a repository in salt and of the thermal loading are
such as to create fractures that would connect the aquifer bed to the
3.h.16 p. 3.1.98 and Appendix I repository. TM-36/21 (p. c-1) discounts this in assuming that the perme-
It is stated that "...methods and detailed results for groundwater trans-
ability for salt remains at zero. No justification is provided.
port of radionuclides are presented in Appendix I." However, Appendix I
contains no detailed discussion of groundwater transport models. That
i d n of
appendix is primarily a discussion of radiological consequences of leaching
of waste in a repository. The hydrologic assumptions stated and presumably
used in the modeling (which is not discussed) are simple (e.g., constant
3.h.18 p. 3.1.136
Justification is needed for the stated maximum surface temperature rise and
uplifts,
-
'o
r o
velocity). There is no discussion of the effects of different hydrologic h.19 p. 3.1.148-3.1.155
. . . .Discuss .
the reasons for the choice of 2.8m /sec (100 cfs) for.water flow
characteristics, i.e., no sensitivity analysis.
through the breached repository. Identify the flow rate of hypothetical
3.h.17 p. 3.1.120 to 3.1.123 river "R" used in transport and dilution calculations.
The discussion in GEIS under "routine releases of radioactive materials"
does not address the problem of radionuclide contamination of groundwater
and run-off water. This could happen as a result of accidents, clean-up
operations in storage rooms, decontamination operations during the retrieval
3.h.20 p. 3.1.158
Provide a reference for ten dilution factors given and discuss the cause
of the 50 fold differences shown.
cycle, etc.
3.h.21 p..F.3, Appendix F
In the section titled "Ecological Effects" seepage and water inflow from
S.discussion
overlying strata for repositories in granite and in shale are discussed.
The estimated inflow of water in a granite repository ranges from 550 to
1550 3/day. The estimated maximum inflow during the last stages of
1550 m /day. The estimated maximum inflow during the last stages of
The hydrology of the hypothetical site is presented with no explanation or
of its appropriateness for general sites. No discussion of
other hydrologies is given. Considering the great length of discussion
that is given throughout the document to effects of.comparatively small
operation will range from about 3,800 to 19,000 m 3 /day (50000 gpd).
appear to be two implications by omission from the discussion:
There changes in the characteristics of.the waste, an apparent lack of appreciation
of the effects of the sites hydrologic characteristics is manifested
by this treatment.