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

2-1 2-2
Comment Comment
Number Number
2. FUEL CYCLE Pacific Northwest Laboratory studies of decommissioning for the NRC as
stated on page 8.1. The NRC information should be properly referenced and
a. Energy Projections the DOE should provide current estimates of the TRU wastes to be expected
from all decommissioning activities.
2.a.1 pp. 1.10, 2.1.2
Considering the growth scenarios on page 2.1.2 and elsewhere (225-400 GWe 2.b.4 pp. 2.1.3 and 2.1.4
by the year 2000), would the lower growth scenario change the DOE's approach The description of the once-thru fuel cycle is presented. The narrative
to repository siting and development? What affect would the lower growth should address the repository startup and shutdown schedules, i.e., how
scenario have on the selection of alternatives? Table 1.2 on page .. 10' many will be needed and on what schedule.
should also present the repository acreage requirements for a 6300 GWe yr
economy. 2.b.5 pp 2.1.17, 2.1.18, 2.1.19
A review of Tables 2.1.10, 2.1.11, and 2.1.12 shows that the maximum
b. Waste Generation average concentration of LLW at 500 years to be: 2 m Ci/cm 3 for fission
and activation products and 0.15 m Ci/cm 3 for actinides and daughters. It
2.b.l p. 1.9 is not apparent that it is necessary to send LLW to deep geologic disposal
Although the number of waste containers shown in Table 1.1 of the GEIS are for safe disposal. In view of the large impact the LLW has on repository
not unreasonable, some aspects of the table require clarification. First, volume, careful consideration should be given to the need for such disposal c
some of the numbers cannot be derived from Tables 2.1.8, 2.1.10, 2.1.11 and the rationale clearly explained.
and 2.1.13. Secondly, the heading of the third column, or the footnote,
should indicate that hulls and hardware are included in TRU intermediate- 2.b.6 p. A.17
level waste, if that is the case. Lastly, the last column should indicate Although not implicitly stated, it appears that the inventory in Table A.14
that the low-level waste is TRU contaminated. was based on a charge of 3.8 x 105 MTHM.. However, the mass associated
with the Th-232 (+2 daughters) given in the 1,000,000 year column is
2.b.2 p. 2.1.4 5.8x10 6 MT. There is an obvious error in the program used to generate
The GEIS does not address the question of the final disposition of very this table. This single, obvious error brings into question all output
long-lived fission or activation products, such as 129 I, 59 Ni, and 99 Tc generated by the computer program which was used to generate Table A.14.
which are separated from TRU or high-level wastes. To help develop national
policy for the disposal of these isotopes, cost/benefit estimates of 2.b.7 p. A.58
including them with the HLW and TRU wastes should be addressed in the On page A.58 of the appendix, Table A.52 shows 5760 metric tons of plutonium
GEIS. in spent fuel in the U + Pu recycle mode. Our calculations indicate that
this quantity of plutonium indicates an extremely high mix of spent fuel
2.b.3 OOE/ET-0028, Section 8
The preliminary information offered by the DOE in Section 8 of the back-up
document DOE/ET-0028 is obsolete and does not accurately reflect the