Skip to main content
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Economic analysis of waste management alternatives for reprocessing wastes

Conference ·
OSTI ID:7124927
This study describes the results of a cost analysis of a broad range of alternatives for management of reprocessing wastes that would require geologic repository disposal. The intent was to identify cost-effective alternatives and the costs of potential repository performance requirements. Four integrated treatment facility alternatives for transuranic (TRU) wastes are described and compared. These include no treatment, compaction, incineration, and hulls melting. The advantages of reducing high-level wastes (HLW) volume are also evaluated as are waste transportation alternatives and several performance-related alternatives for emplacing waste in a basalt repository. Results show (1) that system costs for disposal of reprocessing waste are likely to be higher than those for disposal of spent fuel; (2) that volume reduction is cost-effective for both remote-handled (RH) TRU wastes and HLW, and that rail transport for HLW is more cost-effective than truck transport; (3) that coemplacement of RH-TRU wastes with HLW does not have a large cost advantage in a basalt repository; and (4) that, relative to performance requirements, the cost impact for elimination of combustibles is about 5%, long-lived containers for RH-TRU wastes can increase repository costs 10% to 20%, and immediate backfill compared to delayed backfill (bentonite/basalt) around the HLW canisters would increase repository costs up to 10% or overall system costs up to about 5%. 13 references, 4 figures, 12 tables.
Research Organization:
Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (USA)
DOE Contract Number:
AC06-76RL01830
OSTI ID:
7124927
Report Number(s):
PNL-SA-11714; CONF-840307-34; ON: DE84011872
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English