3.7 DISPOSAL OF HANFORD SITE HLW AT THE POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY
3.7.1 Number of HLW Canisters for Disposal
The range in number of canisters that would be produced under the different alternatives would vary widely based on the amount of separations and would not agree with the current planning basis for the geologic repository. The current geologic repository technical planning baseline includes acceptance of up to 13,200 standard sized (0.62-m3 [22-ft3]) canisters of defense HLW (DOE 1994g). This baseline number of HLW canisters would come from multiple DOE Sites with the number allocated to each Site based on waste inventory and volume projections. The number of canisters used for the technical planning baseline was developed using assumptions for canister size, vitrified waste volume, and the amount of the repository capacity set aside for DOE (10 percent). These assumptions resulted in identifying approximately 7,100 canisters (1,800 Hanford Multi-Purpose Canisters) for the Hanford Site. The number of canisters and Hanford Multi-Purpose Canisters that would be produced under the different alternatives would be subject to change during final design (see Table 3.7.1).
Figure 3.6.1 Potential Borrow Sites for TWRS
Table 3.6.1 Borrow Site Summary - Materials Used During Construction and Operations
Two factors that would affect disposal of TWRS HLW in the potential geologic repository are the statutory limit on the number of metric tons of uranium or equivalent in the waste and the physical limit on the number of waste packages that would require placement in the potential geologic repository. Allex situ alternatives would process the same waste and would contain approximately the same amount of uranium or equivalent. The alternatives that generate fewer Hanford Multi-Purpose Canisters than the geologic repository planning baseline would have little or no physical limitation on repository placement. The alternatives that greatly exceed the number of Hanford Multi-Purpose Canisters used in the geologic repository planning baseline could exceed the physical limitations of the potential geologic repository.
Table 3.6.3 Borrow Site Summary Materials Used for Construction of Hanford Barriers
3.7.2 HLW Disposal Cost
Repository fees for alternatives that included shipment of HLW to the potential geologic repository were based on analysis performed by the Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste Management in support of the TWRS EIS (Milner 1996a). This analysis was performed using a consistent methodology, as used by the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program in development of the
Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program of September 1995 (DOE 1995u). Life cycle cost estimates for four alternative scenarios were provided for disposal of vitrified HLW from the Hanford Site. The four alternatives varied the volume and HLW canister sizes from the 1995 Total System Life Cycle Cost estimate basis. The analysis included estimates for two new HLW waste packages, two new transportation casks, and estimates of changes to repository surface facilities, subsurface impacts, transportation, and other program cost elements. The analysis provided scoping level detail, scaled from the detailed point estimate reported in the 1995 Total System Life Cycle Cost analysis.
Estimates of the total defense share, based on application of the 1987 Federal Register methodology were provided in the cost estimate report. Allocating the defense share between the Hanford Site and other defense sites was estimated by the ratio of the number of Hanford Site waste packages to the total number of defense waste packages. A waste package consists of up to four canisters of HLW and is equivalent to a Hanford Multi-Purpose Canister from a quantity standpoint. Repository fees for alternatives that were not addressed in the Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste Management report were estimated by extrapolating data from the estimate. The estimated disposal fees for placement of HLW in the potential geologic repository are shown in Table 3.7.1. For additional detail see Volume Two, Section B.10.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
