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

Comment
Number
4-13
Comment
Number
meters) in the thick (as thick as 600 m) unsaturated zones of the arid 5. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Western United States deserves consideration." We concur.
5.1 General
The Teknekron, Inc. report prepared for'PNL, "A Cost Optimization Study Chapter 4 does not supply an adequate summary of the results of the first
for Geologic Isolation of Radioactive Wastes," May 1979, does not indicate three chapters, much less a comparative assessment of the ten options in
any significant advantages to great depths of burial except the reduced Chapter 3, and gives little if any guidance for judging the relative
probability of repository disruption. If the large meteorite strike is environmental and social impacts of the possible courses of action.
truly improbable and if erosion and glaciation can be avoided (at least
during the first 10's of thousands of years) then there may not be any 5.2 General
advantages to great burial depths, only disadvantages. Analyses have been done for 1985 and 2000 when the first repository won't
likely be operational until well after 1990. DOE/ET-0028 pg. 2.3, paragraph 4,
The following questions should be addressed: states: "...these dates are not critical to waste management costs or
environmental effects. This is probably true. However, they could have a
1. Are there regions of the U.S. otherwise suitable for a repository significant effect on the comparison of conventional geologic disposal
which can provide a safe environment for the waste at relatively with other disposal options. This should be addressed in the GEIS.
shallow depths without a meaningful threat of interruption by natural
events? 5.3 General
The only alternative that is covered in any degree of detail is deep
2. If so, what is the reduction of risk between such a repository and a geologic disposal. While it is realized that less information is available
deep repository (and what is the increase in cost)? What is the
potential for an increase in confidence which could result in a more
for.other alternatives, it appears they could be considered in more detail
than t ha these t hes e have hav e been. been For For example, transportation portation impacts vary widely
complete site characterization and simpler modeling of a shallow among alternatives yet generally are dismissed without much discussion as
versus deep repository? being insignificant. (See e.g., discussion for island and seabed on
3.6.24-3.6.25 and ice sheets on 3.7.10.)
3. If not, what is the quantitative reduction in risk as a function of
depth for a deep repository? 5.4 Genera
As a document addressing various possible disposal media (i.e., siting
options) on a generic basis, the GEIS does not provide the detailed discussions
necessary to give the reviewer confidence in the conclusions drawn.
Too much of what purports to be discussion of siting is in reality discussion
of waste handling and processing. As an example of a GEIS with
detailed discussions of siting options and impacts, see the Final Environmental
Statement on Floating Nuclear Plants (NUREG-0056).
5-1