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

7.7 SYSTEM SIMULATION CONCLUSIONS
7.52
The system simulation analysis shows that the environmental impact of high-level and
TRU waste management will be only slightly affected by waste management programs and the
program strategy selected by DOE. More specifically, regarding the three program alterna-
tives considered in this statement, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Radiation dose accumulations for normal operation of the required facilities
increase as the size of the nuclear system increase. Neither the dose accumula-
tion nor health effects are significantly different for the program alternatives
in either the once-through or reprocessing cycles. The dose accumulation with
spent fuel reprocessing is 0.5% of the regional and 0.003% of the worldwide dose
from natural causes over the same period.
For the once-through cycle, assuming continued nuclear growth, the regional 70-
year whole body radiation dose accumulation over the period considered here lies
in the range of 1,000 to 2,000 man-rem; an additional 400 to 1,000 man-rem are
estimated for the worldwide accumulation. Comparable dose accumulations for the
reprocessing cycle range from 13,000 to 46,000 man-rem for a region and 570,000 to
1,400,000 man-rem worldwide.
2. Resource commitments also increase with increasing size of the nuclear system.
With the once-through cycle, resource requirements for the alternative program
range up to 2 to 3 times higher than for the proposed program. With the reproces-
sing cycle, resource requirements for the alternative program are about the same
to slightly higher than for the proposed program. Resource commitment variations
relative to different geologic media are relatively small. Requirements for
reprocessing are somewhat higher than for the once-through cycle for steel,
cement, electricity, and manpower; about the same to somewhat higher for diesel
fuel and gasoline; and substantially higher for propane. For all cases, resource
requirements are a small fraction of current U.S. consumption rates.
3. Wastemanagement costs increase with increasing size of the nuclear system but
unit costs are disproportionally high for the very low-growth cases. With the
once-through cycle, the cost range is significantly higher for the alternative
program than for the proposed program. With the reprocessing cycle, the cost
ranges are about the same for both alternatives. The no-action alternative costs
are similar to the low end of the cost range for the proposed program with the
once-through cycle.
Levelized unit costs in terms of mills/kWh are sensitive to the discount rate.
At a 0% discount rate, the alternative program costs are significantly higher than
the proposed program costs for the once-through cycle but are about the same for
the reprocessing cycle. Costs for the reprocessing cycle are higher than costs
for the once-through cycle. At discount rates in the range of 7 to 10%, the dif-
ferences between the proposed and alternative programs and between the once-
through and reprocessing cycles become insignificant.