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

156
WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS
AFR. DOE has clarified in the final Statement, Section 4.4.1.1, that storage at a reactor
site may be in either the reactor storage basins or in an ISFSF located on the same site as
the reactor.
Issue
Several commenters questioned the water basin storage period for spent fuel.
Draft p. 2.1.4--There are some apparent inconsistencies in sections on spent fuel cool-
ing times and age at the time of disposal. There is not reasonable chance for disposal at
6.5 years of age and a more likely age is 20 to 25 years. For these reasons the sizes of
repositories have been significantly overstated. A minimum cooling time prior to disposal
of 20 years is proposed for the final Statement and it is suggested that a reasonable option
is further cooling for another 20 to 40 years. (154)
Draft p. 3.1.83--What is the reason for the assumed 6.5-yr storage period, and
without some kind of explanation, 6.5 years seems arbitrary. (181)
Draft p. 3.1.173--Cooling only 6 to 7 years before disposal will not occur in the fore-
seeable future. (154)
Response
DOE agrees that the age of the spent fuel or high-level waste sent initially to the
first repository will be much greater than 6-1/2 years, because of the large backlog of
spent fuel that will accumulate by the time the first repository becomes available. The age
of the waste at the time of disposal is discussed in Section 7.3.4 in the final Statement.
The mimimum spent fuel age for the earliest repository date is approximately 15 years and
ages up to 55 years are shown to be conceivable. However, it is assumed that the storage
backlog will eventually be worked off and the minimum design age of 5 years for spent fuel
and 6.5 years for solidified high-level waste will eventually be reached. DOE also agrees
that it is possible that a decision may be reached to continue to provide interim storage
so that the minimum age for delviery to a repository might be maintained at 20 years or
greater. However, for the final Statement, it was considered prudent to assume the pos-
sibility of younger waste going to the repository so that the impacts would not be
understated.
Draft pp. 2.1.22, 2.1.25, 3.1.184, 3.1.181, 3.1.184, 3.1.186
Issue
One commenter noted that it appears that all terms listed below refer to the same
facility. Terms should be used consistently throughout to avoid confusion and to
facilitate comparisons. (208-NRC)