Dear NWMO staff,
I am well advanced with reading "Choosing a Way Forward", the Draft Study Report, and am very impressed with the document.
I am in complete agreement with your recommendation of proceeding with Adaptive Phased Management of irradiated nuclear fuel.
I have a few minor comments, which hopefully will be helpful to you:-
? On pages 71 you use the word "substantive". That word has several meanings, which are not likely understood by everyone. In the last few months I have personally had to wrestle with that word, and what I found in dictionaries was not very helpful! May I suggest you put a note at the bottom of that page defining the meaning you intend to be understood?
? On page 75 you use the word "substantial" in the first paragraph of Summary Findings. Did you mean to use "substantive" as you do on page 71?
? On page 80 in the last paragraph under Benefits, you say (for Option 2) that no transportation of used nuclear fuel is required. This is not precisely accurate, as every nuclear station's irradiated nuclear fuel must be transported from its Irradiated/Spent Fuel Bay, where it stays for its first seven years after discharge from a reactor, to the dry storage site adjacent to the nuclear station. In Point Lepreau GS, for example, this transport distance is approximately a mile, or perhaps slightly more or less.
? On page 92, the third paragraph for Option 4, under Benefits, says, "In selecting a location from a greater range of potentially suitable economic regions for implementation than is possible with Option 1…… Why? ? Please explain the reasoning behind this entire paragraph!
? Page 174 has several references to the NWA. These references would be more helpful if the NWA were included as an Appendix in the report, which I don't think it is.
? Finally, I believe that long after Year 300, it may become desirable, and economically beneficial, to be able to retrieve the irradiated fuel, to use the energy stored in its "un-burnt" uranium and plutonium, if not for use in Canada, for use in other countries.
I trust you will consider these comments, and act on them.
Regards,
Roger G. Steed, P.Eng
I am well advanced with reading "Choosing a Way Forward", the Draft Study Report, and am very impressed with the document.
I am in complete agreement with your recommendation of proceeding with Adaptive Phased Management of irradiated nuclear fuel.
I have a few minor comments, which hopefully will be helpful to you:-
? On pages 71 you use the word "substantive". That word has several meanings, which are not likely understood by everyone. In the last few months I have personally had to wrestle with that word, and what I found in dictionaries was not very helpful! May I suggest you put a note at the bottom of that page defining the meaning you intend to be understood?
? On page 75 you use the word "substantial" in the first paragraph of Summary Findings. Did you mean to use "substantive" as you do on page 71?
? On page 80 in the last paragraph under Benefits, you say (for Option 2) that no transportation of used nuclear fuel is required. This is not precisely accurate, as every nuclear station's irradiated nuclear fuel must be transported from its Irradiated/Spent Fuel Bay, where it stays for its first seven years after discharge from a reactor, to the dry storage site adjacent to the nuclear station. In Point Lepreau GS, for example, this transport distance is approximately a mile, or perhaps slightly more or less.
? On page 92, the third paragraph for Option 4, under Benefits, says, "In selecting a location from a greater range of potentially suitable economic regions for implementation than is possible with Option 1…… Why? ? Please explain the reasoning behind this entire paragraph!
? Page 174 has several references to the NWA. These references would be more helpful if the NWA were included as an Appendix in the report, which I don't think it is.
? Finally, I believe that long after Year 300, it may become desirable, and economically beneficial, to be able to retrieve the irradiated fuel, to use the energy stored in its "un-burnt" uranium and plutonium, if not for use in Canada, for use in other countries.
I trust you will consider these comments, and act on them.
Regards,
Roger G. Steed, P.Eng
Have some feedback for us?
Send Feedback