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

2-11
Comment
Number 3 i or : o I
2.d.17 p. N.4
repositories which for both systems are 100% by rail. In-addition, both 0 0
3 -0 0 0 0- 3
03
ratios are close to 1.0 and some results presented in the GEIS have been , 0 3 r
C
rounded off, making it difficult to determine which ratio, if any, has'
been used. For example, the amount of diesel fuel needed through the
ý
M- CD 0'D a
"
I oD)
W
year 2050 is given in Table 4.1.1-5 of 00E/ET-0029 as 1.7 x 106 m 3 . On J n. S
page N.3 of the GEIS, it is stated that 2 x 10 6 and m 3 of diesel fuel is
needed for an all rail shipping scenario. It is therefore difficult to
determine what, if any, ratio was applied to obtain this result. The
following table outlines cases where the impacts presented in the GEIS are
^
-
c
D S
co.CoUU>oo C
ooooooo
W
D
o
substantially different than properly converted values obtained from - '- '
DOE/ET-0029. Values given in parentheses are the results that would be -'
' < CDM
0'
obtained if DOE/ET-0029 values are multiplied by the appropriate conversion
factor developed in the above discussion, i.e., 25 for truck shipments,
1.11 for rail shipments. It should be noted that there is one impact
where apparently the incorrect ratio of 1.11 was used instead'of 1.05. z .
This is the result for nonradioactive effluents released through the a z zo
year 2050 for spent fuel rail shipments. Table 4.1.1-6 of DOE/ET-0029 w 0
shows, for example, that 4.8 x 10 3 MT of particulates will be released
under these circumstances. Applying the incorrect ratio of 1.11 gives a
result of 5.3 x 103 MT and this agrees with the result presented in Table N.4
of the GEIS. If the proper ratio of 1.05 had been used, the GEIS result
3 CD
CD
0
0
rC
<
bCD-
0 M
3 D
o @
nonradioactive effluents. Since the results are not substantially different .
would be 5.0 x 10 MT. This improper ratio has been applied to all the to (
and are within the uncertainty of these types of calculations, improper ' -M
conversions of this type are not included in the following table. It is 0
recommanded, however, that for accuracy and consistency, the values given -oA - r-t
i;: the GEIS be properly converted. -. p . . n
Repeated reference to discussion of trucker's dose on P. N.4 is misleading.
The reference on p. 13 indicates the discussion on p. N.4 explains the
overestimate of the dose and the reference on p. N.16 indicates the discussion
on p. N.4 is based on experience. The actual discussion on p. N.4 satisfies
neither of these descriptions. -. fl n n n , 3O 0Cr o
<
a) x o C W ='rr1 C '
nem cCD. 2
0 o - . 3 m CDCDCDC.CD 0. 0.
r
m
m