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

35
SCOPE
be taken for use of the plutonium in this "alternative" fuel cycle, the disposal of radio-
active wastes from this fuel cycle should be discussed. (208-NRC)
Response
In developing a basis for this generic Statement, DOE recognized that it is not pos-
sible nor even reasonable to attempt to identify the impacts of commercial nuclear waste
management over the entire indefinite future. No one can predict whether or not nuclear
power will be utilized for another 10, 50 or 500 years. DOE attempted to place a reasonable
boundary on the system to be analyzed that would be sufficient in scope to provide the
information needed to reach well-balanced decisions necessary for the waste management
requirements that can be foreseen today. DOE assumed that the future course of actions can
and will be reexamined periodically in the future. For example, if the burden of nuclear
waste management should become so onerous that nuclear power generation should be discon-
tinued, which is not a conclusion of the present analyses, the decisions and necessary
actions can be initiated when and if that becomes apparent.
The intent of the analysis in the draft Statement was to account for the waste manage-
ment requirements for the maximum projected nuclear power capacity reached by the year 2000
and the implied waste management commitment of allowing these plants to complete a normal
life cycle and be decommissioned after 40 years of operation. It was assumed that other
plants were likely to be added after the year 2000 but the waste management requirements for
these plants were considered to be outside the boundaries of the system analyzed. Thus, it
was reasonable to assume that plutonium recovered in excess of requirements for the sytem
analyzed could be utilized by these other plants. But the waste management requirements for
these operations were clearly outside the scope of the analysis. DOE did not speculate as
to what these additional plants might be--light water reactors, fast breeder reactors, or
some other type of nuclear facility.
In the final Statement, DOE considers a similar situation but has reduced the maximum
installed capacity in the year 2000 from 400 GWe to 250 GWe as that now appears to be the
maximum reasonably achievable. In addition, in the final Statement, DOE has included con-
sideration of much lower growth possibilities, a case that analyzes the steady-state opera-
tion of a 250 GWe system through the year 2040 and a case that considers continued growth
to 500 GWe by the year 2040.
An expanded discussion of plutonium utilization can be found in final Section 7.3.7.
Draft p. 1.15 and Section 3.1
Issue
Severial commenters stated that sufficient reference was not made to the efforts of
other nations in the area of waste management. (144, 147, 154)