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.

Draft pp. 1.10 and 2.1.2<br />

Issue<br />

204<br />

GROWTH SCENARIOS<br />

Considering the 400 GWe and the 250 GWe growth scenarios described in Chapter 2 <strong>of</strong> the<br />

draft Statement, would the low growth scenario change DOE's approach to repository siting<br />

and development?<br />

(208-NRC)<br />

Response<br />

What effect would the lower growth scenario have on the selection <strong>of</strong> alternatives?<br />

In the final Statement, DOE has assumed that the maximum nuclear growth will be no more<br />

than 250 GWe in the year 2000 and it does not affect our approach to repository siting and<br />

development. The only effect <strong>of</strong> very low growth asssumptions (eg., the present inventory<br />

case in Chapter 7.0) might be to eliminate the feasibility <strong>of</strong> regional repository<br />

consideration.<br />

DOE does not see any direct relationship between nuclear growth and selection <strong>of</strong> dis-<br />

posal alternatives.<br />

Issue<br />

Several letters commented on the growth scenarios used in the Statement.<br />

Draft p. 2.1.2--The assumption <strong>of</strong> 400 GWe installed capacity by the year 2000 is<br />

undoubtedly optimistic by at least 33%. (154)<br />

The growth scenarios are excessively optimistic and/or do not exhibit neutrality<br />

regarding nuclear growth. (22, 35, 42, 55, 62, 63, 68)<br />

An analysis <strong>of</strong> no growth should be included. (30)<br />

An analysis <strong>of</strong> a high growth scenario <strong>of</strong> 550 GWe in the year 2000 and a low growth sce-<br />

nario <strong>of</strong> 150 GWe in the year 2000 should be included. (43)<br />

There should be treatment <strong>of</strong> situations in which nuclear growth rises through the<br />

twenty-first century and in which nuclear generating capacity remains constant. (40)<br />

It may be more conservative and realistic to adopt the lower estimate <strong>of</strong> 200 GWe, aug-<br />

mented by the estimated wastes generated by the postulated early reprocessing <strong>of</strong> U. S. and<br />

foreign spent fuel elements, defense wastes, and wastes from head end operations. (22)<br />

Response<br />

The final Statement quantitatively analyzes the waste management impacts <strong>of</strong> the follow-<br />

ing growth scenarios:

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!