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

6.44
1979a). In addition, with colocation of three rock melting cavities and three reprocessing
facilities at each site, only two facility site locations would be required. The resultant
fiscal impact on community facilities would therefore be relatively small.
Although rock melt might have the least socioeconomic impact of any of the alternatives,
it is impossible to fully address the nature and extent of impacts at the generic level.
This is particularly true when analyzing the socioeconomic impact of construction activity--a
detailed estimate of the construction work force has not been completed. Nevertheless, it is
reasonable to conclude that socioeconomic impacts would be similar to, and generally slightly
less than, those described in Section 5.6 for the mined geologic repository. A cautioning
note, however, is that colocation of facilities could lead to a concentration of impacts.
Aesthetic Effects
Facilities associated with a rock melt repository would have an aesthetic impact. The
extent of this impact would depend on characteristics at the site and would reflect the fact
that optimal engineering design would be necessary for different forms of HLW. Facility de-
sign would be a function of the physical and chemical form of the HLW.
The extent of surface construction would depend on the rock melting concept version for
which the repository was being designed; where HLW solutions were being directly emplaced,
the entire reprocessing plant would be located close to the repository. Where waste slurries
were emplaced, only a relatively simple surface installation would be required to condense
steam, add makeup water, provide for slurry mixing, etc. Aesthetic impacts would reflect
final facility design, with larger facilities generally having greater impacts. Overall,
aesthetic impacts would be similar to those described for a mined geologic repository, as
presented in Section 5.6, with minor exceptions.
Facilities that would be different from those in the mined geologic repository include
the type of cooling towers and tall drill rigs used in excavating the rock cavities. In ad-
dition, although a 100-m-high stack would be required for a processing facility, its loca-
tion on the same site as the repository would reduce overall aesthetic impacts. Other aes-
thetic impacts, such as noise and odor, have not been identified as a problem with rock melt.
Resource Consumption
Energy would be required to construct and operate a rock melt disposal system. Ini-
tially, energy would be consumed in transportation and construction activities. In the
operational phase, waste preparation, transportation, and emplacement activities would
consume energy. Quantitative estimates of energy consumption for the construction and
40 year operation of a 5,000 MTHM/yr system have been prepared (Bechtel 1979a). These
estimates are presented in Table 6.1.9.
Consumption of other critical materials has not been identified as an important factor
in evaluating the merits of the rock melt concept. Drilling activities, as well as con-
struction of the facilities, would require steel, cement, and other construction materials
typically associated with a major facility. Estimates of these requirements are presented