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

1.8 CONCLUSIONS
1.31
Based on the environmental impacts evaluated in this Statement, it is concluded that a
decision to proceed with the proposed action, that is, development of a programmatic strategy
favoring the disposal of commercially generated radioactive wastes in deep geologic re-
positories, is warranted. This conclusion applies whether the wastes are generated in the
once-through or in the reprocessing fuel cycle option.
This conclusion is based on the information contained within this document (and appropriate
references) which indicate that the environmental impacts of the program alternatives
are similar. The consequences of delaying implementation of a specific dis-
posal technology should not result in any appreciable change in the near-term environmental
effects. The decision to emphasize mined geologic repositories as the primary disposal
technology is similarly based on an evaluation of the long term effects which indicates
that mined geologic disposal and those technologies which justify further consideration
would have relatively equal environmental impact. It is recognized that although the level
of knowledge of the alternative technologies is not comparable, sufficient evidence exists
to support that there is little likelihood that these technologies would be superior, from
an environmental perspective, to the geologic alternative.
The no-action alternative is undesirable because of the temporary nature of present
storage of wastes, the need to construct additional facilities for extended storage as present
facilities reach their design lifetime, and because the no-action alternative is con-
trary to the presidential proclamation and could be construed as contrary to the mandate
given DOE by law. Analysis of the no-action alternative in this Statement has not considered
possible failures that could occcur if present facilities designed for temporary use
were to be used indefinitely. It is possible that no-action could result in unacceptable
safety and environmental consequences.
More specifically, regarding the three program alternatives considered in the Statement,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
* Radiation dose accumulations increase as the size of the nuclear system increases.
Neither the dose accumulation nor the health effects are significantly different for
the program alternatives in either the once-through or reprocessing cycles. The dose
accumulation with reprocessing is much larger (principally because of doses from
radioactive material in dissolver off gas that is released to the environment) (a)
than with the once-through cycle. For comparison, this amounts to 0.5% of the regional
and 0.003% of the worldwide dose from natural causes over the same period in
the highest nuclear growth case examined here.
(a) Estimated dissolver off gas releases are within the EPA Standard for 85Kr and 129
which becomes effective in 1983 (40CFR190.10).