23.04.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6.184<br />

standard <strong>of</strong> judgement as to prohibit preferred consideration <strong>of</strong> the rock melt option. The<br />

other concepts appear not to be affected by this consideration.<br />

6.2.3.12 Summary<br />

The performance <strong>of</strong> the nine proposed disposal concepts against the standards <strong>of</strong> judge-<br />

ment is summarized in Table 6.2.6. It should be emphasized that these conclusions are based<br />

largely on judgement <strong>of</strong> the authors, based in many cases on fragmentary or qualitative<br />

information. Of the nine proposed concepts, mined repository, very deep hole, island mined<br />

repository, subseabed, and space disposal have the potential for meeting all <strong>of</strong> the stan-<br />

dards. A comparison <strong>of</strong> these five concepts is given in the next section.<br />

6.2.4 Comparison <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Waste</strong> Disposal Concepts with Most Potential<br />

This section compares the mined repository, island mined repository, very deep hole,<br />

subseabed and space disposal concepts on the basis <strong>of</strong> the assessment factors introduced in<br />

Section 6.2.2.<br />

6.2.4.1 Radiological Effects<br />

Operational Period<br />

During the operational period, occupational exposure due to waste management would be<br />

dominated by that associated with waste processing. Transportation <strong>of</strong> TRU waste represents<br />

the greatest source <strong>of</strong> dose to the general public because <strong>of</strong> the large volume <strong>of</strong> material.<br />

Additional dose to both occupational workers and to the general public could result from<br />

accidents.<br />

Occupational radiological effects attributable to processing operations would likely<br />

be quite similar for the mined repository, very deep hole, island mined repository, and sub-<br />

seabed-options because the waste treatments are similar. Slightly greater occupational<br />

exposure could be expected with the very deep hole and subseabed options should it be<br />

decided to section bulky TRU-contaminated equipment for disposal by these options--an<br />

unlikely decision. Space disposal would require dissolution <strong>of</strong> spent fuel for both once-<br />

through and reprocessing fuel cycles, potentially resulting in greater radiological effects<br />

compared to the other options.<br />

Transportation and handling requirements <strong>of</strong> spent fuel from power reactors to the waste<br />

treatment/packaging facilities would be approximately equivalent for each <strong>of</strong> the disposal<br />

concepts. The mined repository and very deep hole emplacement facilities could be colocated<br />

with the treatement/packaging facility so that no additional transportation is required.<br />

Alternately, the packaging facility could be located elsewhere. Subseabed would probably<br />

require two additional transport operations--transfer <strong>of</strong> waste packages to the embarkation<br />

port and subsequent ocean transport to the disposal site. Island repositories would require<br />

one additional movement, from the receiving port to the repository and would thus be equiva-<br />

lent to space disposal which would be characterized by a maximum <strong>of</strong> four major transport<br />

links for high-level waste. A smaller number <strong>of</strong> links could result from appropriate coloca-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!