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

6.72
The SDP program plan has been divided into four distinct phases (Sandia, 1980). In each
phase, the concept feasibility is assessed. The estimated completion dates shown do not con-
sider programmatic perturbances resulting from regulatory or institutional influences.
* Phase 1 Estimation of technical and environmental feasibility on the basis of historical
data. Completed in 1976.
* Phase 2 Determination of technical and environmental feasibility from newly acquired
oceanographic and effects data. Estimated completion date: 1986.
* Phase 3 Determination of engineering feasibility and legal and political acceptability.
Estimated completion date: 1993-95.
* Phase 4 Demonstration of disposal facilities. Estimated completion date: 2000 to 2010
(Anderson et al. 1980).
Summary
Major uncertainties, shortcomings, and advantages of the concept are summarized below:
* The remoteness of the location, apparent sorption capacity of the sediments, and
demonstrated stability of the site are attractive attributes.
* The concept could be implemented in a step-wise fashion.
* The expected performance of packages and waste form in the environment at the seabed is
not well understood.
* Specific new domestic legislation and international agreement would likely be required.
* Retrievability to allow for corrective action purposes might be difficult.
* Transportation requirements to a remote location add to the overall risk of the concept.
6.1.4.4 Impacts of Construction and Operation (Preemplacement)
Health Impacts
Both radiological and nonradiological health impacts are discussed below.
Radiological Impacts. Both occupational and nonoccupational doses prior to the waste ar-
riving at the seaport facility are expected to be similar to those anticipated for a mined
geologic repository, as presented in Chapters 4 and 5.
The occupational and nonoccupational radiological impacts of the operation of the sea-
port facility and the seagoing vessels have been developed by Bechtel (1979a), and are pre-
sented in Table 6.1.11. These impacts are conservatively estimated as equivalent to those
for away-from-reactor storage pools (AFR), corrected in consideration that:
* The primary waste handled at the subseabed facilities would be 10 years old.
* The primary waste at the subseabed facilities would be encapsulated.
* The number of personnel is expected to be smaller at the seaport facility than at the
AFR facility. This may be offset by the fact that personnel might receive occupational
doses for longer time periods while serving aboard ship.