ML20057E348
| ML20057E348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1993 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9310120051 | |
| Download: ML20057E348 (85) | |
Text
MM4%6MM%%%WA%%M%%%W6W64%%%4%%%%%gggg 3
~:At: SMIT'AL TO:
X Cocument Control Dest, 316 Phillips j
8 t
o 5
GVA?4CEO CCPY TO:
The ?ublic Occument occm 4
/ O / N / / d 3
ATE:
c PCM:
SECY Corresponcence & Records Branen C
7 Attacned are copies of a Cocmssion meeting transcript anc relatec meeting 5
1 3
cccument( s ).
They are being forvarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No other cistribution is reauested or g
w p
recu1 rec.
Feeting
Title:
lt [,' n $ 9 < uA m me M $n R
,e b
5 n
r, a
E t
g
,2 <w. -c y < h l wen <-/LO G
~
Open
,[
Closea E
b.,
"eeting Cate:
- /1;/9?i 3
E
.c
=
s
-c
', 8 2
!!em Cescriptien*-
Cooies E
g Advanced DCS g
to POR Cg g
G C
fl kc
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 g
1 f rN! % o y; l -c av.-
t
?
i c i c
u
.f
(
2.
Oc c <.
43-2 65
1 l
>y
(/
>=
3 2.
t w
~
- 6 c*
N m
s k
- s 3
s.
3
~,
oi
{
i1 is advanceo one cocy of eacn cocument, two of each SECY pacer.
[)
- I
- ts
- s:5
- D O D, h
1R Branch files the original transcript, with attatnments, withcut SECY j
06:un w :5
=e:
cacers.
9310120051 930930
/[ i/'
d f
=========mmmenennm e en N mmmmmmmm,mmmm,mmm,m,HnnMMnnnnn PDR 10CFR N-P_T9. ]
___,,,,_,,,,,,P,p3,,,,,,,
j i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY:COMMIS SION
-ri I
{
4 l
\\
1 ilA]0 eiL*
I.RIEFING ON REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE Ah3
- 1RANSPORTATION CASKS J
I l
LOCEdOrl.'
R0CKVILLE, MARYLAND 1
h6I6 SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 4
I l
25065:
61 PAGES t
NEAL R. GROSS AND C0., INC.
C00RT REPORTIRS AND T R A h S C R 19 6 4' O 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Nort %c s t f
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 f
i 0
i r..
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on September 30, 1993, in the Commission's office at one White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript I
has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain ireaccuracies.
l
~
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is l
not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this i
transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding 'as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
O e
NEAL R. GROS $
Coutt kfmotift$ AND TRANSCRfttR$
1313 kHoot ISLAND AYtWut N.W.
(202) W433 WASHMGTON, 01 20005
' (202) 232 4 600
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
BRIEFING ON REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION. CASKS l
PUBLIC MEETING l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Thursday, September 30, 1993 The Commission met in open
- session, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
Forrest J. Remick, 1
Commissioner, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 F4HODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W
(?O?) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433
]
2 STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
SAMUEL J.
CHILK, Secretary C. WILLIAM REAMER, Office of the General Counsel HUGH THOMPSON, Deputy Executive Director, NMSS and Op.
Support ROBERT BERNERO, Director, NMSS CARL PAPERIELLO, Director, Division of-Industrial &
Medical Nuclear Safety CHARLES
- HAUGHNEY, Chief, Source Containment and Devices Branch, NMSS MARGARET LUSARDI, Transportation Branch, NMSS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
902) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202)2344433
3 f
I 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
2:00 p.m.
I 3
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Good afternoon, 4
ladies and gentlemen.
f 5
The Commission is meeting today to receive 6
a briefing by the staff on the NRC's regulatory 7
requirements for certifying a spent fuel cask for I
8 storage and for transportation, including some of the 9
technical issues that arise when reviewing a cask 10 designed for both functions.
It's also my 11 understanding that the staff will address the so-12 called multipurpose canister, one that is intended to 13 serve three functions, storage, transportation and 14 disposal of spent fuel.
15 This is a
subject that will become 16 increasingly important during the next several years 17 and one that the Commission is keenly interested in.
18 It's a subject that crosses the boundaries of many 19 activities that the NRC regulates, from reactors and I
20 independent spent fuel storage installations to 21 monitored retrieval storage facilities in high level 22 waste geologic repositories.
23 Well engineered and designed casks for 24 storage, transportation and disposal of spent fuel is I
25 an important consideration for assuring the public's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
_ - _
I, E
4
-l I
health and safety during the operation and 2
decommissioning of these facilities.
3 It's my understanding that copies of SECY-4 93-265 and the staff's viewgraphs to be used in 5
today's briefing are available at the entrances to the
~
s r
6 conference room.
7 Do any of the other Commissioners wish to I
l 8
make a comment?
9 If not, Mr. Thompson.
i 10 MR. THOMPSON:
Thank you, Commissioner 11 Remick.
12 Today's briefing will be kind of done in
- i 13 two parts, one a kind of an overall systematic review 14 and then some specifics with respect to the casks j
15 themselves.
Bob Bernero will do the overview of the 16 systematic approach.
17 One of the agencies that we obviously have i
18 a
significant interface with in the area of 19 transportation is the Department of Transportation.
f 20 In
- fact, today we have representatives of the 21 Department of Transportation in the audience, and in l
F 22 particular Allen
- Roberts, who is the Associate 23 Administrator for Hazardous Material Safety is here i
24 and we've worked very well with the Department of 25 Transportation over the years and we continue to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4 433 1
5 1
interface with them very frequently.
j 2
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
We welcome them.
3 MR. THOMPSON:
Okay.
Bob?
{
4 MR. BERNERO:
(Slide)
May I have the
-l I
5 purpose slide, please?
t 6
The purpose of this briefing is, as you i
I 7
- said, Mr.
Chairman, to focus on the storage and l
l 8
transport casks and to get into this newly arrived l
9 multipurpose canister. When Charlie does the detailed 1
10
- briefing, he will indeed focus on storage and l
r l
11 transport because that's where we have reviewed, 12 that's where we have approved, that's where we have 13 been working on dual purpose machinery, that is 14 storage and transport but not disposal.
And, of 1
l 15 course, it's at the center of some of the activities l
16 now that go with the storage, the transport and i
l-l 17 disposal, the multipurpose cask.
18 So, if we're going to talk about this 19 stuff, I think it's useful to get a bit of a system 20 overview and our focus is on spent fuel.
Whenever we 21 talk about high level waste transport, most of us are l
22 talking about spent fuel, even though that is not all 23 the spent fuel.
I've got on the projection, for those 24 who haven't seen one, a spent fuel assembly. That, of 25
- course, looks like a new fuel assembly, but when 1
l NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT P.EPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODL ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(2T) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
i 6
1 they're old they're. black or sort of reddish brown.
2 (Slide)
But the key here is this is a
'I 3
bundle of dimensions suited to some particular 4
l reactor, a bundle of metal tubes full of uranium l
4 5 [
oxide.
Now, if you maintain your focus on LWR fuel 6
assemblies -- may I have that next slide, please --
7 i' it's quite a range.
This appears in the handout.
y 8 h If you look, the range covers PWRs and 1
l 9
BWRs and there's an old rule of thumb that I like to l
l 10 use.
If a container can contain a certain number of 11 PWR assemblies, a fair estimate of how many BWR i
12 assemblies might fit in it is obtained by multiplying j
13 by 2.4.
That's not an exact number, but it's a good
{
14 approximation.
If you look at this range, the things l
15 we're working on and the majority of-the population 16 are like a big light water reactor.
They're going to l
l 17 be about 12 feet long and of corresponding boiling i
18 water or pressurized water reactor dimension.
But
{
19 there are notable outliers.
If you look at the length f
i I
20 in the PWR fuel, you see some of them go up to 16.6 21 feet.
If you look at the length in BWR fuel, it goes t
22 down to 6.8.
Now, containers that are certified for i
23 the bulk of the population may be suitable for the 24 smaller fuel by putting spacers or some other 1
25 apparatus.
But those containers are not going to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D_C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
i i
7 1
able to handle the extra long fuel.
2 So, the Commission should recognize that 3
the focus of work today and the focus of container 4
approval reviews and so forth is on packages that will 5
take care of the predominant or major population of 6
fuel, but not all of it.
Behind the spent fuel from i
7 commercial reactors, there's another whole population I
8 of high level vaste, vitrified glass logs from the 1
9 high level waste tanks on defense sites, the naval i
10 reactor fuel, things like that that sooner or later i
11 will have to be dealt with and then they will have to 12 have suitable transport packages for the purpose.
13 (Slide)
May I have the next slide, 14 please?
15 The system then, again focusing on the 16 commercial reactor industry, is we have the utility 17 maintaining a system that is the reactor itself, the 18 spent fuel pool of the reactor and possibly -- some 19 reactors have them, most don't -- temporary storage 20 facilities on site or adjacent to the site.
Now, the a
21 spent fuel can go to and from or just simply to 22 temporary storage.
It can go directly to repository 23 or to MRS.
All of these things are possible.
24 DOE is managing right now under statute 25 the repository, the MRS program if a site is obtained NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
8 i
I and so forth, and DOE has the statutory responsibility 2
to develop the transport fleet.
So, DOE is actively 3
working on a body of transport casks that is suitable
.j 4
for some of these arrows.
But when you look at it 5
from a national point of view, a systems management 6
perspective, this is where there is difficulty because 7
no one agent has full control of the system.
No one 8
is right now optimizing the whole system to have an 9
optimal set of packages, an optimal set of, for that i
10 matter, fuel dimensions and practices about local 11 storage or remote storage.
It's a real difficulty for 12 the nation in that it does not have an overall system 13 control.
14 But working within this framework, we are 15 having a fair amount of success and now I'd like to i
16 turn it over to Charlie and ask him to take up the 17 specific treatment of storage and transport.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
- Bob, just one i
19 question.
I assume it goes without saying that if we 20 include non-power reactor fuel the range of sizes even 21 becomes larger.
22 MR. BERNERO:
Oh, the non-power reactor 23 fuel is the kind of fuel I think would possibly fit if 24 necessary in existing packages in mass transport.
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
In the smaller --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i
I 9
1 MR.
BERNERO:
Because it's smaller.
2 Because it's smaller.
The real difficulty are those
{
3 things that for one reason or another just don't have 4
that kind of capability to fit what one might call a 5
standard package.
4 l
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I see.
7 ll MR. BERNERO:
Charlie?
i MR. HAUGHNEY:
Good afternoon.
8 D;
9 What I'd like to try to do this af ternoon l
10 is basically accomplish four things, talk about the i
t 11 regulatory framework that applies to storage and i
12 transport certification, then give you a brief summary 13 of the approved casks that can be used for spent fuel 14 storage or transport and talk a bit about the proposed 15 casks that are in either the dual or multipurpose 16 arena.
We have several other single purpose casks 17 that are in active application, but I'm not going to 18 talk about those in particular.
19
- Finally, I
want to close with three 20 technical issues that seem to receive a certain amount 21 of outcry, either inside or outside the industry and 22 I wanted to give you our perspective on those topics.
23 (Slide)
So, the first slide is displayed 24 and it talks really kind of about the principal safety 25 functions that confront a reviewer of either a storage NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
I i
10 1
or transport cask.
If you were to look at the safety 2
analysis report or SER, you'd see that the bulk of the 3
discussion was on those four topics there. They're of t
4 keen concern to us as we look at the design before we 5
approve it.
~
6 (Slide)
Now, could we have the next i
7 slide, Mike?
8 We
- have, of
- course, codified our 9
requirements in two regulations, 10 CFR Part 71 for-10 transportation package review and then 10 CFR Part 72 11 for the storage review.
Part 72, incidentally, can i
12 also handle pool storage as well as dry storage and
}
13 was used in the most recent license renewal for the 14 one pool we have independently licensed, which is GE 15 Morris, Illinois.
j 16 In any
- event, on-transportation i
i incidentally, for both of these 17 requirements I
18 there's an appendix in the back of the handout that I t
19 won't go into that was the principal regulatory guides 20 that support the rule.
But at any rate, what I've 21 tried to display here are the accident conditions that j
22 a transportation package suitable for handling spent 23 fuel must be able to withstand.
An interesting thing 24 about this is the requirements include a sequence of 25 tests and these could be either actual tests or pilot NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202; 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433
11 i
1 or calculations.
But a sequence of test conditions, 2
incloding a 30 foot drop onto a so-called unyielding 3
surface, a 40 inch drop then into a pin, that's the 4
puncture test, and finally the 30 minute fire at 1475 5
degrees.
6 The two immersion tests are conducted or 7
can be conducted on a separate test package if actual 8
testing is done.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Are the immersion 10 tests following the fire tests or independent of them?
11 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Independent.
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Independent.
13 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Okay.
At any rate, the 14 regulations then specify that after that test sequence 15 the package still have enough integrity that it neets 16 a leak rate criteria.
That value A shown on the 2
17 slide is really meant to indicate a tabulation of 18 isotope specific quantities that are in the rule and j
19 also correspond with international atomic er.tergy 1
20 requirements for the same value.
21 Basically, looking at the basic for that 22 number, it's a bit old in terms of its derivation, but 23 it was designed to look at an assumption that about 24 10 of the quantity would be released and then about 25 10-3 would be inhaled or ingested and would then NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202)2344433 l
12 1
produce a dose of about three rem to the individual.
2 Now, as near as I can determine, this is about a 30 3
year old analysis and calculation.
But nonetheless, 4
it's the one that's been adopted internationally and 5
still is in our regulation.
I might also mention 6
there is some consideration of updating those. But at 7
any rate, it's an isotope-specific source term basis.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just a question on i
9 that, Charlie.
Does that really mean the full amount 10 of material under the loaded cask could be released --
11 MR. HAUGHNEY:
No, it's a 10'3 are released I
l 12 after the leak.
l 13 MR. THOMPSON:
I think-it's just a very l
14 small amount.
15 MR. HAUGHNEY:
That's right.
i 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, this A2 17 though, A in the regulations is a quantities of 2
18 curies, right?
19 MR. HAUGHNEY:
That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And this says, "may 21 not exceed A Per week."
Does that mean that full 2
22 amount of curies could be released in a week?
23 MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, that's the leak rate.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well --
25 MR. THOMPSON: I think the question is how NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN50RIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
= _.
i 13 i:
1 many weeks are you going to let this --
~!
2 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Oh, how long can it go on?
3 I don't know.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
My question is f
5 should there be a coefficient in front of A there of i
2 6
10- something or other or is it the full amount could i
7 be released in a week?
Any release may not exceed A2 8
per week.
l 9
MR. EASTON:
It is A Per week.
2 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: So, the full content 1
11 then could be released in a week.
i 12 MR. THOMPSON:
Do you want to identify i
13 yourself?
l l
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. Could you just I
i 15 clarify that?
I just didn't understand how to j
16 interpret that.
l 17 MR. EASTON:
That is an A quantity per 2
l 18 week, but if you're talking about spent fuel, you're 19 talking about 30,000 A s or something like that.
An 2
l 20 A is a very small quantity.
It's the dividing line 2
21 between where you need an accident-resistant package 22 and a non-accident resistant package based on health l
23 effects.
If you have below an A quantity in a 2
24 package, you don't have to have an accident resistant I
25 package, the assumption that it's not that dangerous l
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRICERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 a WtlNGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
14 1
a situation.
But when you're talking about spent 2
fuel, it may be many, many, many thousands of A s.
2 3
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Would you please 5
identify yourself for the record?
i 6
MR. EASTON:
Earl Easton.
I'm in Charlie 7
Haughney's branch, Transportation.
8 MR. HAUGHNEY:
The last two bullets on 9
that page show an external dose rate criteria and also 10 the subcriticality must still be maintained, of
[
11 course, after the accident.
12 So that's the accident design criteria for 13 the transportation requirements.
14 (Slide)
Next slide, please.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
What is typically 16 used in the cask to assure the suberiticality?
I 17 assume they're poison material.
What form is that in 18 usually?
19 MR.
HAUGHNEY:
There may be poison 20 material in the basket assembly for the spent fuel.
i 21 It could be borated stainless steel.
It could be that 22 there is no particular intentional poison like that i
23 and that the geometry and the fuel array are such that i
24 subcriticality is maintained.
I'm going to talk a 25 little more about the criticality conditions and NEAL R. GROSS COURT AEPORTERS AND TRANSCR8BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W, (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
-l
15 1
analysis a little later.
We're expecting a ~ new 2
application that will have the intentional poisons 3
installed.
4 At any rate, the storage rule.
There's 5
some differences in the basic underpinning of the 6
storage rule.
Here you'll have, after the initial
)
7 fuel handling and loading, a very static condition for 8
a very long time, as opposed to a transportation cask 9
which could be either on the public highways or rail 10 and experiencing structural jostling, as it were, as 11 it moves over the transportation medium', whatever it's 12 in.
And those trips are relatively short as compared 13 to the few number of decades or so that we may see the 14 storage casks in use.
15 So, one of the first things you see are 16 the considerations of site natural phenomenon which, l
17 in practice, we use the same site natural phenomena 18 criteria for the reactor itself.
If we had a separate 19 siting consideration, we would use the same regulatory 1
20 guides and analysis to come up with the site tornado 21 and earthquake, flood and that sort of thing.
22 The fires and explosions that we look at 23 tend to be site specific.
We will look at, for 24 instance, the fuel loading on the particular site.
A 25 good example of that is the Fort St. Vrain case where NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433
t 16-1 there's some natural gas well and pipelines sort of on-2 the property around both the reactor and the spent 3
fuel storage vault.
We've had to consider those 4
conditions.
f 5
Then, of course, we also look at transfer
~
i 6
accidents in storage.
They are typically less severe 7
than for transport because the lifting heights are 8
limited by mechanical stops or design features of the 9
handling equipment.
But because of the mass of the 10 cask, these drops can induce rather high G loads.
In 11 fact, the drop and tip over are typically the limiting l
12 structural condition that we encounter in the review.
13 Right in Part 72 is the dose criteria and i
14 it's a bit more straightforward than in Part 71.
It's I
i 15 simply five rem per accident to a person at the site 16 boundary.
For normal operations, the rule specifies l
17 the EPA 40 CFR 190 value of 25 millirem per year.
i 18 Finally, you would see in a typical review 19 some site specific considerations of such things as 20 emergency planning and security.
They'd either be in 21 the site specific license or the licensee must change 22 them if they go through the general license route.
23 At this point, I'm ready to shift away
+
24 from the regulatory requirements that we use and talk
~
25 a little bit about status.
I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
_.i 17 1
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Are there any major 2
inconsistencies
.between our requirements for 3
transportation casks and storage casks?
4 MR.
HAUGHNEY:
I would tend to
)
5 characterize them as, for the most part, intentional 6
appropriate differences.
But we are going to talk l
7 about some of those later on.
I think there's some
)
i 8
examples I have later that will show that.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.
But I read 10 from what you say that they're not in conflict.
)
i 11 MR. HAUGHNEY: I don't think they are, but 12 they may appear that way at first blush.
13 MR. BERNERO:
I would just say that there 14 are justifiable differences such that being approved 15 for storage doesn't ensure being approved for 16 transport, but there is nothing that would be required i
17 to be approved for storage that makes it difficult or i
18 impossible to be approved for transport.
I think 19 Charlie spoke of the environment, the static
]
I 20 environment versus the dynamic transport environment.
21 In
- general, the transport requirement is more 22 demanding.
It just basically works out that way.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Thank you.
24 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Just another one that came 25 to mind while the question is fresh, and that's the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
002)2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
18
{
t 1
fact that if we have an accident with a storage l
4 2
system, it's on-site.
You've got the existing plant 3
personnel there, a fire brigade, security guards.
4 They're all right there.
The operators.
They can 5
trigger their own emergency response.
Contrast that 6
with a situation where you may have a relatively high 7
speed transport accident out in the public domain.
It i
8 could be either rural and remote or it could be in a l
9 major population center, either of which would cause j
10 particular problems.
l 11 So, in certain cases, I think we have to 12 consider the environment very carefully as we do our 13 reviews and set the requirements.
We will see an 14 example of that later.
)
15 (Slide)
I've got two slides that depict
-j 16 the status first of existing transport casks that can 17 handle spent fuel and then storage systems. We just--
18 while you're thumbing through those in your handouts,
}
i 2
19 what I thought we might do is show some pictures of l
I 20 some actual components.
I don't have a picture for 21 everyone that's on the table and I'm not trying to
)
3 22 taut one particular company or vendor, but nonetheless i
l 23 I've picked kind of a representative sample of these.
- 1 24 The first is a transport cask that's a 25 truck cask, so called NLI 1/2.
I think that is on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRGERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W i
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
19 1
your handout.
It's capable of handling either -- I 2
believe it's one pressurized water reactor fuel bundle 1
3 or two boilers.
Now, it's interesting to think for a 9
4 moment if that were the only transport cask how many b
5 shipments we'd have to make to fill up the repository.
r.
6 But nonetheless it is certified.
It is available for i;
!r 7
l' use.
!l 8 i' Let me show the next one, which is --
1 I
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
What was the 10 apparent cover hanging over top of it? What was that?
11 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Well, I didn't see that.
l 12 I saw their impact --
2 13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Could we have the 14 previous slide?
i 15 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
16 MR. HAUGHNEY:
That looks like a tarp.
17 That will do two things.
It keeps people away from t
18 it.
The principal reason is the physical temperature 19 and then somewhat the dose rate.
Then it's a little 20 bit of a rain cover.
You see like the larger disks at 21 the end?
Those are the impact limiters.
i 22 MR. BERNERO:
I just add, that series of i
23 casks, they had a big one, a 10/24 for rail shipment.
24 They are very hot at equilibrium if they have fresh I
25 fuel in them, hot enough to burn.
That is burn the j
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
20 i
)
1 hand, not burn combustion.
j 2
Excuse me.
Charlie said something that i
j 3
I'd just like to emphasize.
He said this holds one i
j 4
PWR assembly or two BWR assemblies and if you had to J
i i
5 ship a lot of fuel just think how long it would take.
i 6
This is a very important point.
Given the current 1
7 environment, there aren't many places to which you can l
8 ship spent fuel.
But if you do have such a place to l
9 ship, there are very few devices available in which to i
10 ship it.
It takes a long campaign shipping one at a 11 time or even seven or 18 at a time as the IF-300 cask 12 might do, because there are so few machines in i
13 existence.
i 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I know one-e 15 university that spent about eight or ten years trying 16 to get rid of some fuel and still hasn't because casks 17 aren't available.
t 18 MR. HAUGHNEY:
(Slide)
All right.
The 19 next picture will show a rail cask.
This is the so-20 called IF-300 design.
Again, there's only four of 21 those, according to our count.
This one is loaded on 22 a rail car and it's ready for transport over the j
23 rails.
24 (Slide)
I've got another picture of this 25 tipped in the vertical condition.
It's just been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
21 I
loaded in the spent fuel pool at H.B. Robinson and is i
i 2
being lowered down to ground level.
Carolina Power &
3 Light owns an IF-300.
4 (Slide)
I'll show you another way they 5
use this.
It may have been the same cask actually.
6 They have dry storage at H.B.
Robinson, the NUHOMS 7
concrete system, and they made up the IF-300 to the i
8 port on the shielded vault and moved the fuel into the i
9 vault in that fashion.
I 10 (Slide)
- Now, the next one shows a
i 11 different way of loading the NUHOMS.
This has an on-12 site transfer canister that was designed by the vendor 13 themselves, by Pacific Nuclear.
Here you can see the 14 shield door being lifted just prior to mating up that i
15 connection there.
Here, this is at the oconee site, 16 they're ready to discharge the fuel from the transfer s
)
17 casx and place it in that vault.
18 The Oconee system will hold 24 pressurized 19 water reactors, reactor fuel bundles.
The Robinson i
20 was a seven assembly design.
It was at the early one, l
21 almost a prototype size.
22 Yes, sir?
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
That cask that we 24 see there does not go inside the storage module.
25 There's a container inside, is that it, that gets NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W
(.W.) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
[
22 1
pushed in?
l 2
MR.
HAUGHNEY:
'Well, right now that 3
container should be inside the transfer cask and it
[
4 will be -- there's a hydraulic ram that's connected 5
and will push it into the vault.
There's like some i
6 tracks on the vault.
We may have a shot of'that on i
i 7
this next one.
8 (Slide)
This is sort of inside the vault 9
looking out towards an empty transfer cask and then 10 the connection from the ram has been removed and we 11 see a person with a hard hat there at the end.
But 12 you get an idea of the thickness of the concrete I
[
13 shielding.
Inside then the fuel will be cooled by 14 natural convection flowing through passages inside the 15 vault and up and out the top.
16 Yes, sir?
17 MR. BERNERO:
Excuse me.
I'd like to 18 interject.
We're running into nomenclature problems 19 and along with DOE we are trying to evolve standard.
i 20 nomenclature.
The metal container in which the fuel 21 is embedded or loaded, bolted or seal welded shut, 22 we're calling a canister and then it has an over pack, i
23 an over pack for whatever purpose, transport, storage
.24 or disposal.
The over pack may be a cask or, in this 25 case, the over pack is for storage a concrete bunker i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
-_,-,---,.-_.-.--n
i 23 1
of some sort.
So, we generally will refer to the 1
2 inner container as the canister and the outer 3
container as a cask or an emplacement of some sort.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Or over pack?
5 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, or an over pack.
6 MR.
HAUGHNEY:
(Slide)
All right.
7 There's another section of a sketch from the SAR, it 8
looks like, showing that RAM system.
9 (Slide)
Let me show an overview.
We've 10 got a picture of a model that was built for Calvert 11 Cliffs which also uses the new home system.
You can 12 see where they have a couple of rows of these vaults 13 and then room for further expansion.
This one shows 14 you security lighting and the double fences around it.
15 These on-site storage systems are inside the protected 16 area.
They may have to sort of build an edge around, 17 but it's at that level of security protection.
18 (Slide)
Okay.
I'd like to show you some 19 metal casks that are in use at the Surry station.
The 20 first one is a basket from a Westinghouse MC-10 design 21 and there's, I believe, one of these in use at Surry.
22 That's just prior to preparation for loading. You can 23 get an idea of how much space there is for fuel in 24 there.
Now, I have to check, but I don't believe this 25 one has any installed poisons in it, other than the i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433
24 1
inherent poisoning of the basket material itself.
)
t 2
(Slide)
Next one.
i 3
This is a Nuclear Assurance Corporation i
4 cask and it's also at Surry. You can see it's on-site 1
5 cradle there and there's two of those in service at 6
that station, loaded and sitting on the pad.
~
7 (Slide) This is a cutaway view of the NAC
[
8 design and this one is of interest because this is a i
9 design that is in review right now for dual 10 certification and I'll talk more about that later and
[
l 11 the status of that review.
12 (Slide) Here's a picture of the Surry pad I
13 and the cask you see closest to us have -- there's 16 i
14 of those on-site.
They're called Castor 5s.
They'll 15 hold 21 assemblies and, of interest, they are made out 16 of the so-called nodular cast iron material which I'm 17 going to talk about later in the briefing.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
You're into storage f
19 casks now.
i f
20 MR. HAUGHNEY:
That's right.
Yes.
We 21 shifted just after the IF-300.
I should have pointed 22 that out.
I'm sorry.
j l
23 (Slide)
Now, here you have pictures that 24 we just received from Palisades Plant in Michigan.
25 These are the vertical concrete casks.
I believe I
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAWiCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202)234 4 33 W ASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202)2344433
i 25 1
those two are the two that are actually loaded there l
2 now.
There's.two on-site.
You can see -- actually 3
you can see both the inlet port and then the outlet 4
ports at the top and bottom for the convective air-5 flow.
If I had to make an educated guess, that 6
operator is checking the thermocouple monitoring t
7 system for outlet temperatures.
8 (Slide)
Okay.
Let's look at the next l
i 9
one, which I think is another -- yes, that's the 10 Palisades cask being moved by the on-site transporter.
i l
11 (Slide)
I have one final slide.
This is l
l 12 an artist's rendition of a possible MRS, nonitored 1
13 retrievable storage.
That's not representing any l
14 particular site.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK: From here it doesn't i
16 represent too much specifically.
l l
17 MR. HAUGHNEY:
We have a model of one of 1
18 those, again it's purely conceptual, on the sixth l
19 floor and if any of you are interested in looking at 20 that we could --
21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Are any of the 22 current transportable or casks for transportation 23 currently certified for storage also?
24 MR. HAUGHNEY:
No.
We don't have any dual 25 purpose licensed yet.
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
~
26 i
1 MR. BERNERO:
Well, except that -- let's i
T T
2 take an IF-300, which is certified for transport.
If l
3 you chose to load an IF-300 and park it on a railroad 4
siding on your site, it is presumably certified for 5
such storage.
It's not a logical alternative that 6
someone would choose because they are rare, they're 7
hard to find.
But technically it isn't licensed for 8
such storage, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be 9
acceptable for such storage for reasonable periods of I
10 time.
You know, if it were to sit there for 20 years, 11 then we would demand, well, you've got to have a 12 surveillance program and things associated with i
13 storage, but not for temporary parking.
l 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Have any of the i
15 transportation casks been in accidents?
And if 16 they've been in accidents, what has been the result?
t 17 MR. HAUGHNEY:
With spent fuel in them?
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
19 MR. HAUGHNEY:
I don't think --
20 MS.
LUSARDI:
I can answer that one.
21 We've tracked accident data since 1971 and we have --
~
22 there have been four accidents that have involved four 23 loaded spent fuel casks.
They've ranged from minor 24 mishaps to one where the cask was actually thrown from J
25 the trailer, but there have never been any releases in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l
27 1
any of those incidents.
2-MR. HAUGHNEY:
Well, at this point I'd 3
like to shift into the next topic, which is to talk 4
about the dual and multipurpose casks and wilere they 5
stand.
There's three of them that we're considering, 6
two of which we are either reviewing or _ about to 7
review.
j 4
8 MR. BERNERO:
We're on slide 9 now.
j 9
MR. HAUGHNEY:
(Slide) Okay. Let's shif t i
10 t.o the next one.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I was just trying to
)
l 12 decide if you're being consistent there with your i
13 definition of canister and over pack.
Do we talk
)
i 14 about multipurpose casks or do we talk about 1
15 multipurpose canisters?
I'm a little confused here.
4 16 MR. BERNERO:
When you see it, I think
{
17 you'll see it is a multipurpose canister with three 18 different over packs.
19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
Okay.
20 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
21 MR. HAUGHNEY: Okay. But at any rate, the 22 interest in these is to minimize handling, radiation 23 exposure, changes of incidents, presumably to reduce i
f-
+
24 costs and perhaps end up with one cask when you might 25 have had two or three.
At any rate, there's three NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W-(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
r 28 1
separate parts of our regulations which apply.
2 (Slide)
Next one.
Next slide, please.
3 I'm going to talk about each of these i
4 three in a little bit of detail, but the Nuclear Assurance Corporation cask is in-house for review for 5
i.
6l both storage and transportation certification.
We're l
l' I
7 j, expecting next month to get an application from Rancho j
h ll Seco supported by Pacific Nuclear for a modification 8
4 9
to the NUHOMS system. We've been having some meetings I
10 with the Energy Department on the multipurpose cask.
11 We don't have an application yet for that.
12 (Slide)
Next slide.
13 Now, the NAC cask really is a variation on i
e 14 their earlier theme where they took a storage cask and 15 added some impact limiters to handle the heavier loads
[
j 3
16 of the transportation accidents.
You can see the 17 application dates and there's been quite a bit of I'll l
i i
18 say perhaps false starts on that.
Most of the 19 difficulty has been involving the structural loading 20 of the basket, whether it could really take the more 21 severe impacts.
22 At any rate, just this summer and fall i
23 we've held some discussions with the vendor that I i
24 think have brought us conceptually to closure on these 25 structural issues.
They have, I think it was a week NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f
1323 RHODE ISLAND MENUE, N W.
(202)2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
29 1
or two ago, submitted on the docket a substantial 2
revision which we are just now beginning to look at.
3 Personally I have some optimism that we will be able 4
to conclude this review based on these changes.
But 5
we're not far enough into it to make a definitive 6
statement.
7 Yes, sir?
8 MR. BERNERO:
Excuse me, Charlie.
I'd l
9 like to add something.
t 10 Some of you may have heard from the 11 Spanish authorities for waste management, NRESA.
)
1 12 Senor Lopez was here.
We had lunch with him not long i
13 ago.
They have a strong interest in this cask for j
14 their n2tional system, that this would be a dual 15 purpose cask for their national system.
16 MR. HAUGHNEY:
I think that would be the 17 actual first sale of this.
So, at any rate, I think y
18 in the coming months we'll be making significant 19 progress on that one.
4 i
20 (Slide)
Next slide.
21 Now, the NUHOMS system has been licensed
~
22 on a specific basis at three sites and we also are 23 anticipating going into rulemaking to make it eligible j
24 for the general license use.
But because of Rancho
)
25 Seco's interest in this cask system and their interest NEAL R. GROSS t
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
30 1
in decommissioning the spent fuel pool, there's been 2
an examination of a way to modify that NUHOMS canister 3
so that an over pack can be installed and it can 4
become transportable.
So, if they have some need to 5
move or otherwise handle that fuel, they're not 6
confined to the site.
7 We expect to get the application in this 8
next month and I can't really comment on it. We don't 9
have it.
In the last year we've probably held three I
10 or four meetings with the licensee and the vendor and i
11 I think we've gotten good understanding of how the 12 requirements would apply to their conceptual design.
13 So, I think it should proceed favorably.
This would
)
14 be, I think, a rather popular dual purpose system 15 potentially.
16 Finally, the multipurpose cask.
There is 17 a single canister which ideally would remain sealed 18 after loading and then different over packs would be i
19 incorporated for the storage, transp.rc and disposal j
20 environments.
Originally, it's my understanding that l
21 the Energy Department received this concept as an 22 unsolicited proposal from an industrial consortium led
[
23 by Virginia Power.
From our meetings with DOE, the 24 designs are in the conceptual stage.
We've got the j
25 rules in place to certify the first two legs of the i
t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 6
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234.4433
31-1 triangle.
Part 60 would be used to license the 2
package as part of repository licensing.
It's ready 3
to do that regulatory action at this time.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Would you repeat 5
that statement?
I'm not sure --
6 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Well, Part 71 and 72 are 7
regulations intended for cash certification and 8
they're in use now.
Part 60 isn't really a cask 9
certification regulation, it's a repository licensing 10 regulation.
It's perhaps a fine distinction but what 11 would be done, at least we would envision, is that the 12 third portion, the third over pack in conjunction with j
13 the package would be licensed as a part of repository 14 licensing.
t 15 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But not the canister 16 necessarily?
17 MR. HAUGHNEY: Well, the canister would be 18 part of that system.
It's got a certain amount of 19 mass, of course because of its inherent weight.
The 20 heat source, the radiation source, all those things 21 are coming out of the canister.
So, it's an 22 interaction with whatever over pack or sleeve they put 23 on and the host rock.
24 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But the canister 25 would, presumably in simple form, slip into the over NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i 32 1
pack.
2 MR.
HAUGHNEY:
- Yes, in each of these 3
cases.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So why would the 5
canister necessarily have to be part of the licensing 6
of the over pack?
7 MR. BERNERO:
May I try?
8 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Go ahead.
i 9
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
What you call the 10 waste package.
l 11 MR. BERNERO:
Basically the situation is 12 that the canister becomes the new unit of disposed i
13 fuel.
In the previous concept, spent fuel in full l
14 assemblies is what might be called the unit of waste i
15 disposal, a spent fuel assembly, and in the licensing t
16 for Part 60 you have package lifetime requirements, t
17 engineered barrier system requirements and all of your I
18 findings are using that as the unit of spent fuel.
19 Now it would be a different thing.
It would be a set 20 of those, a set of 24 or 21, whatever the number might 21 be, in a canister that is in that Part 60 package, the 22 over pack.
f 23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
The over pack.
24 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
f 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Which is called NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 s
~.-
l 33 l
1 waste package in Part 60.
)
e 2
MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
So, the waste package
)
3 in Part 60 is really the over pack, it's not the 4
canister.
5 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Right.
Okay.
And 6
it's the waste package or the over pack that has the 7
requirement to last the 300 to 1,000 years.
8 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But not the canister i
10 necessarily.
11 MR.
BERNERO:
No, not the canister 12 necessarily.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So, my point is why.
14 is it necessary to know the design of the repository?
15 You have to know that for the waste package, but if a
16 you just know that the canister is going to go into 17 the waste package, why are they necessarily tied?
18 MR. BERNERO:
Well, having changed the 19 unit of disposed fuel there are many system effects 20 that you have to take into account.
For instance, the 1
21 present reference design for Yucca Mountain is 22 sometimes called a hot hole design.
It's thermally 23 managed to have so many kilowatts per unit of waste 24 pack"ge.
This by geometric transport requirements, I
25 other system requirements, is now a bigger bundle.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 i
34 1
That also gets you into a regime where you don't have 2
perhaps as precise a control of the thermal loading 3
and you have to take that into account.
i 4
In other words, the enlargement of the I
t 5 i:
waste disposal canister has certain effects that you i'
6 6:
have to live with in the Part 60-licensing I
7 !~
environment.
It's ultimate geometry over time and a j!
l 8 i:
variety of other things.
But per se you aren't trying P
9 to apply to it the 300 to 1,000 years of Part 60..But j
10 you have to look ahead and say will the repository in 11 its various safety analyses and findings be able to 12 make those findings adequately given that you have 24 13 fuel assemblies of varying thermal loading in this t
14 standard big package?
I t
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Let me go a step l
16 further.
If once the decision is made on the thermal i
17 loading for the repository, that then should define I.
j 18 the number o'
.uel assemblies you could have in the j
1 19 canister.
Or.,e that is done, is there any reason why l
l l
20 the canister itself could not be designed for i
21 multipurpose?
I agree with you.
I can say until the.
22 decision is made is it a cold repository or a hot l
23 repository and therefore the thermal load --
t
.24 MR. BERNERO:
Well, again, referring back i
a 25 to the little cartoon of the system, you get system 4
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
s (202} 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
~
f p
-w.--+-.--w
-w-
m.
35 4
1 requirements that will telegraph back up the chain and 2
you get into some practical considerations.
One of 3
the factors that I honestly don't know how they can 4
cope with it is if you have a recipe for the thermal 5
loading of the canister, and let's say 24 tuel 6
assemblies, you will have a standard canister that 7
goes out to different PWRs for 24 fuel assemblies and 8
the same canister presumably goes to BWRs for the 9
appropriate multiple upward of BWR fuel assemblies.
10 I would assert that if you go to Cooper Nuclear 11 Station and Arkansas Nuclear 1 for your load, you're 12 going to get vastly different thermal loads and you 13 won't have an awful lot of choice about it either.
14 That's all that's there.
You will get high burnout 15 PWR fuel or you'll get low burn-up BWR fuel and that 16 raises a distinct system problem, how could I take one 17 of each or two of each.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
That's 19 understandable, Bob, but couldn't it be that at one 20 plant you have 24 BRWs in the canister elements and 21 the other half 23 because of the limitation -- once 22 you know the thermal loading, it seems to me that --
23 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
You could have an off l
24 optimum loading.
1 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
Yes.
l-NEAL R. GROSS
]
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 4
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W
(?o2) 2344433 WASHfNGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
- - _. - ~ _
-~ --
36 i
1 MR. BERNERO:
You could have a canister i
. that gets filled at Cooper Nuclear Station and only j
.2 3
gets half filled at Arkansas or something like that.
i 4
That's a degree of freedom.
We don't know if they're 5
planning that.
It's possible.
i 6
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
I'm just i
7 trying to understand --
l 8
MR. BERNERO:
Hypothetically possible.
1 9
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'm trying to i
10 understand why all this is tied to design of the 11 repository.
I can see where certain decisions in a 12 repository have to be made, but I'm not sure that 3
i 13 complete design --
l 14 MR. THOMPSON:
Yes.
I think that's an i
15 issue we could probably do a little bit more review on i
16 and respond back to the Commission on.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Sure.
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Is it the over 19 pack that really becomes the critical item and that's 20 putting all the pieces together, the requirements'to i
21 the over pack when you're in the repository situation?
22 MR. HAUGHNEY:
In repository.
23 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Well, I have 24 sort of the same problems with this.
Are we running 25 into a chicken and egg problem when it comes to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W 9 02) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
3 37 5
1 setting the requirements at least for the over pack?
r 2
MR. BERNERO:
I think yes, we are in a I
3 chicken and egg problem.
The over pack is critical i
4 for things like packaged lifetime, et cetera, given h
5
repository conditions.
The inner pack, the canister, i:
6 i.
is critical to the repository findings in order to see 7
whether you can realize the given conditions of the 8
repository.
So, there is an interaction between the l
two.
It is not clear yet in the MPC program whethe -
9 i
l 10 that has been sorted out.
That's part of the system i
11 analysis.
j 12 MR.
HAUGHNEY:
Well, that's all I had 1
13 intended to mention with respect to the multipurpose 14 canister.
15 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: You're not going 16 to say anymore.
17 MR. HAUGHNEY:
I'll get in trouble.
18 I've got three issues I wanted to close 19 with today. Two of them really relate to criticality.
20 It's the issue of so-called water ingress during an 21 accident condition.
I want to talk about that a 22 little bit.
And the fuel burn-up credit and finally 23 cask materials.
I'm really going to focus on the 24 issue of nodular cast iron.
25 The first, water ingress.
Here is a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
.1
38 1
difference between storage and transport and I want to l
l 2
talk about how they've arisen and why we feel that i
3 they're appropriate.
Throughout the international i
4 transportation community there's always been an 5
assumption that the package will end up leaking t
6 following one of these severe accidents and therefore 7
it will fail.
Or if you haven't submerged it you 8
could have a problem from fire fighting.
Sometimes i
9 the misting or vapors could even be more of an optimum l
i 10 moderation condition, depending on the other physics 11 of the assembly.
12 At any rate, what you'll see in the 13 surveillance for these packages are a series of sealed 14 leak checks done either prior to shipment or 15 periodically with the package.
Even in spite of those 16 which given us additional essurance, the assumption is 17 made in the criticality analysis that you're going to
(
10 fill it up.
In some cases where we're trying to put i
i 19 more fuel in, of course, the reactivity is going up a
20 and so therefore there may need to be a design 21 decision to try to add poison plates to the basket 22 assembly.
23 In
- storage, we've got a
different 24 situation.
In many cases, the particular site is 25 flood free or the worst case height in the vicinity of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCalBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005 (202)2344433
39 1
the pad is such that you can pretty much demonstrate 2
that water ingress is just not a credible condition.
3 So, therefore, we don't necessarily require it.
4 The other thing is in storage you've got 5
a rather modest movement at very low speeds with the j.
-6 on-site transpcrter. It's not like a package that may 7
go thousands of miles and then be involved in an J
8 accident, or you could have seal degradation.
Some of i
9 the designs, the canisters for all the concrete i
i 10 designs for storage are all double seal welded.
So 11 they don't even have mechanical joints as we have in 12 all our transportation packages.
i 13 So here, I think, is an example of a 14 difference, but one that because of the environmental 15 conditions and the design configurations, it at least 16 to me makes sense.
)
17 Okay.
Any questions on that one?
f 18 All right.
Now, burn-up credit is an 19 issue that's -- it's really an ongoing issue.
j 20 (Slide)
Can I have the next one?
21 I want to emphasize that.
I think some 22 people have felt that we've shut the door on this 23 issue over the years and are not receptive to further 24 discussions, but that's not the case. Here we've been l
25 consistent on both the storage and transportation I
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C, 20005 (202) 234 4433 t
40 1
sides. We haven't yet to date approved burn-up credit 2
in the criticality analysis, but we might if we can 3
see some more robust demonstrations of its 4
acceptability.
It's a very conservative assumption.
5 The physicist in me just cringes at this thought.
You 6
know, about half the fuel is gone end you've created 7
all these new poisons.
But the problem is in the 8
details of seeing just exactly what these effects are 9
and being able to accurately calculate them with 10 enough assurance that you don't have a problem.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I forget. what we do 12 with spent fuel pools.
What do we assume about burn-j 13 up?
Anything?
14 MR.
BERNERO:
As I recall, there is 15 sometimes burn-up credit.
I'm not sure of that.
It 16 interacts with the boron, you know, the borated pools t
17 at PWRs.
That's where I think -- it's either/or, as 18 I recall, but I'm not sure of that.
We could get back 1
l 19 to you on that.
+
20 MR.
THOMPSON:
I 'know we do the K-l 21 effective calculations and I think we take into i
22 account some credit for burn-up.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I don't remember.
24 I would appreciate it if you got back to me.
l t
25 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
i i
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2M4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
l 41 I
a 1
MR. HAUGHNEY:
Okay.
]
2 At any rate, I might mention that because 3
this issue has come up with some repetition over the i
4 past couple of years we tasked Livermore under one of 5
our existing contracts to take a-look at this issue 6
and see what its facets entailed.
They've worked on j
l 7
it to the point where'they've come in and held a half 8
day long meeting with us to present their issues and 9
they're starting to draft a report which I'm inclined l
10 to turn into a NUREG CR.
This is not going to be a 11 road map on how to solve this problem, but it's going 12 to chew what our concerns are and it's also going to 13 show, I think, some areas where improvement can be 14 made a bit more quickly.
Some of these are more 15 promising than others.
16 In particular, the second bullet, the 17 issue of trying to take credit for both the uranium-18 235 depletion and the plutonium-239 build-up seems to 19 be one that can be, in our view, addressed with 20 greater accuracy. So far, everything has been coupled 21 together and perhaps partitioning some of these 22 problems would allow partial credit to be taken 23 sooner.
.24 In terms of the fission product poisons, 25 we've been looking at about ten or 12 fission products i
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBEAS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
mm 234403 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433
)
l
42 1
that are either stable or very long half-lives and 2
have a high microscopic absorption cross-section, and 3
there's only a relative few of those.
But one of r
4 them, Gadolinium-155, has a microscopic cross-section F
5 of about a quarter of a million barns, but its fission 6
yield is so small that in a whole bundle it's some
[
t number like a gram and that's not known very well.
So 7
8 the problem is, if the uncertainty bars are such that i
9 it's anywhere from a tenth of a gram to ten grams you t
10 could have a
big effect on your reactivity 11 calculations because of that poison.
l l
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
What would be the 13 relative importance of that to samarium?
t 14 MR. HAUGHNEY:
There are several samarium 15 isotopes that are also important and I don't have the 16 macroscopic absorption cross-section numbers, but i
17 maybe I could get those for you.
I 18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Not so much cross-i 19 section.
I was just wondering, if gadolinium was'in
{
r 20 there, how would it compare with samarium which we do i
j 21 know is in there and presumably better knowledge of' i
22 the quantity.
23 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Let me see it' I can get you i
E 24 some more information on that.
I think we may have j
25 it.
f I
.i NEAL R. GROSS I
I
~
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W_
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344 433
i 43 i
1 MR. BERNERO: Excuse me, Charlie. There's
]
2 one other aspect of it that is intriguing and that is,
)
3 given the concept of a multi-purpose canister or cask j
4 system, you have the question of reactivity as a 5
function of time over the time scale of a repository.
6 We customarily think of reactivity over a period of 5
7 years, you know, or the first few hours out of pile, 8
but now you have to think in terms of tens of years,.
9 daughter build-up and decay and so forth -over 10 thousands of years, and also the issue of reactivity 11 or subcriticality margin.
12 When you have a transport cask out in the 13 public domain, you certainly want a very conservative 14 margin of distance from criticality, K-effective of 15 less than some relatively conservative number,
.95, 16
.92, something like that perhaps, whereas, if you're 17 talking about a configuration 10,000 years hence in a 18 repository deep underground, well-isolated, you might i
19 use a different margin.
You might find it acceptable i
20 to have a K-effective of.98 or something like that.
21 These are issues that come in with this 22 whole idea and they're on the table now.
t 23 MR, HAUGHNEY:
(Slide)
Now I think one of 24 the more interesting ones is this issue of end effects f
25 and on our next page, show the next slide, we've got 4
1 i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISt AND AVENUE. N W f
i (202) 234-4433 WASH NGTON. D C. 20005 sc2) E34 4433 i
44 t
i 1
a graph that's a gamma scan from a fuel rod that came 2
out of H.B.
Robinson.
The fall-off at the end of 3
gammas in the fission products is quite remarkable.
l 4
In fact, you can see a little bit of the reflection on 5
the curves at either end and also the effect of the 6
grid spacers at least cutting down on the gamma flux.
7 But looking at this sort of data, our 1
1 8
contractors have come up with the fact that you could 9
literally have essentially two uncoupled slab reactors 10 at either end of a 24 assembly spent fuel basket. And 11 just exactly now those things work and how we would 12 quantify those to make sure we're properly shut-down, r
13 I mean, you could visualize a situation where you've 14 got a very small leak in the seal and you only fill up 15 the bottom, but you could get a criticality occurring i
16 there whereas your average situation is still 17 subcritical, j
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
At a BWR, I assume i
19 that would be bellied-out toward the left-hand side.
20 Is that right?
i 21 MR. HAUGHNEY: -It should.
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So you could have t
23 much more unburned fuel at a BWR near the top than you t
24 would in the PWR.
So in having two thin slabs you 25 might have a larger slab, am I correct?
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (W) 734-4433 W ASHINGTON. D C, 20005 (202) 234-4433 b.
45 1
1 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Because of the void up at 2
the top?
1 3
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
4 MR. HAUGHNEY:
That's right.
It would 5
seem that way.
6 MR. BERNERO: But still with the essential 7
question -- if you would consider burn-up credit, is 8
there a homogeneous model that you can use for that 9
burn-up credit -- what sort of penalty do you incur 10 for that slab at either end or both ends?
l I
11 MR. HAUGHNEY:
And just finally, we've i
12 been able to find no evidence that any critical
)
13 experiments have been done with spent fuel to j
1 14 benchmark a
criticality code and the critical j
15 experiment facilities are mothballed at this time, to
)
16 our understanding.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But if we have given l
l 18 credit for burn-up in spent fuel pools, it seems like 19 we would have done some of that or somebody would i
20 have.
21 MR. BERNERO:
Let us check that, because 22 I wouldn't rely on that recollection.
i 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
When you do that, 24 I'd be interested in whether the racking of fresh fuel.
l 25 or not very much exposed fuel is the same.
I mean, if j
l l
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 1
46 i
1 you're giving credit, how you deal with different life 2
times of spent fuel?
3 MR. HAUGHNEY:
All right.
4 i
4 At any rate, this is an open but very 5
interesting question and we look forward to the 6
answers to some of these problems.
1 7
Materials.
Nodular cast iron is a good 8
example. Here's a situation where we've approved that 9
material for storage and we have not done so for x
10 transportation.
I may have a sample of that material l
t 11 that I can show you, but I want to caution you.
It's 12 a lathe chip and it's a little bit sharp.
This is off 13 some machining for one of the casks.
i 14 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
A slinky.
a r
l 15 MR. BERNERO:
Super slinky.
16 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Super slinky.
[
17 MR. HAUGHNEY:
It takes a little bit of 18 effort, but you can literally break that material with 19 your hands.
I again wouldn't particularly suggest j
20 that, because we -- I forgot to bring my work gloves, 21 but it's not your normal ductile mild steel or 22 stainless steel.
The fact is, nodular cast iron can E
23 be designed and fabricated to meet the accident I
24 criteria in either regulation, Part 71 or 72.
It can i
25 pass the 30 foot drop and the puncture test.
t NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS' 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
-_,,_s~r_w_.
m,m_.1,m,,,
.,s_.
47 1
COMMISSIONER REMICK: You're talking about i
2 over-pack here?
l 3
MR. HAUGHNEY:
Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: That material is not 5
used in canisters?
i; 6 i' MR. BERNERO:
It's casks, not canisters.
t 7
MR. HAUGHNEY:
The point being, though, h
8 that an actual transportation accident could have 9
loading that's not exactly in concert with a straight 10 30 foot drop.
I always visualize a high-speed rail f
11 accident where there's derailment and tumbling and you 12 have this tremendous amount of kinetic energy that.you i
13 must dissipate and that's where the ductile material 14 has a big lead.
Bolts may. stretch.
You may even get 15 some local yielding. You'll probably end up with some 16 sort of a source path, but you're not going to get 17 sudden catastrophic failure of the entire structural 18 body, which you could get with a brittle material.
19 And again, thinking about the possible 20 accident locations, we remain unconvinced that this 21 type of brittle material is suitable for the 22 structural components in such a cask.
Again, we're 23 required and we will listen to any other proposals, 24 but I can tell you that on my watch I want to see y
25 ductile behavior in these severe accidents.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 23444J3
-=.
48 i
4 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Charlie, just before t
2 we move on from that, you and I have talked about that
-{
3 question a little bit --
l 4
MR. HAUGHNEY:
Yes, sir.
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
-- and it does seem 6
to me that it's wcrthwhile considering a rulemaking on 7
this in a public process where the proponents and 8
opponents of this use of this material could come 9
forward and make their case.
I think that, while I i
10 can understand your concern, I'm uncomfortable with'it 11 simply being e staff decision that a material or a j
12 device that meets our regulatory requirements in Part 13 71 is not acceptable to us.
I mean, that gives me a l
1 14 problem.
[
15 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Right.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I think we ought to f
17 clean that issue up, either dispose of it one way or 18 another, and I think the way to do that is through a i
i 19 rulemaking and my feeling is we ought to really give 20 serious thought to rulemaking and let everybody come l
21
- out, the opponents and the proponents of this l
3-22 material, in a proposed rulemaking.
F 23 MR. HAUGHNEY:
Yes, sir.
24 MR. BERNERO:
Commissioner Rogers, within 25 the staff we have talked about the possibility of r
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS t
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
-n.
+
v-n
.._ _. _ ~ _
49 s
I conducting further generic work, scientific work on i
2 our own, and we don't see the ability to fund that and 3
put that into the generic fee basis and so forth.
But j
4 what you propose on rulemaking, some sort of advanced j
5 notice of proposed -- some rulemaking mechanism to 6
develop that is a reasonable one, we think, to explore 7
and intend to go forward with that, j
i 8
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
- Well, it just i
9 bothers me that when we really have a feeling what the 10 right thing is to do or not do and it's really i
11 somewhat inconsistent with our own rules, then we i
12 ought to fix the rules up.
i 13 MR.
BERNERO:
Yes.
It's the hidden 14 standard.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes, absolutely.
16 MR.
BERNERO:
It's a hidden standard,
{
17 because we actually sort of did this in reactor 18 accidents.
Our regulations were class 1 through 8 19 design basis accidents, but there was a real interest 20 in the severe accident as dominating the rest, and 21 here it's a similar thing.
22 MR. HAUGHNEY:
(Slide)
All right.
We've 23 got a summary slide, allow us to close.
24 We do have some differences in how we do 25 these reviews in the storage and transportation arena, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20:05 (202) 234 4433
]
50 I
i j
1 but I can tell you even before the branches were l
l
)
2 consolidated in early July we'd actually begun to work t
3 on looking at ways that we could eliminate - any 1
i
]
4 inappropriate inconsistencies that may exist and to i
-l 5
better share our resources and avoid sending l
6 conflicting signals to the industry.
I'm not going to 7
tell you here today that we're done with that, but f
i j
8 certainly now that we're unified I think we'll be able i
}
9 to make even more progress in that regard.
10 MR. THOMPSON:
That completes the staff's r
a 11 presentation.
We're prepared to answer any questions l
12 you may have.
f I
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Commissioner Rogers?
i 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, on this issue 1
i 15 of burn-up, in one of your SECYs I guess at some point i
16 you made a conment that you felt that a measurement i
17 would be much preferable to calculations if we're L
18 going to arrive at some system for giving credits for 19 burn-up. Is there any research being done, supported, i
i 20 say by DOE or anybody else, on measurement techniques for pinning some of these burn-up questions down that 21 22 might be applicable here?
23
.MR.
HAUGHNEY:
Yes, sir.
We had had a l
24 meeting quite some time ago with the Department on 25 this whole topic and they shared with us the fact that I
e NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
51 1
they had some R&D effort underway to come up with the 2
suitable measurement techniques to then verify any 3
calculations of reactivity or K-effective, whatever 4
they're using.
To date, though, they haven't come 5
back yet to us with a description of an operational 6
system.
Frankly, I've had enough to do on some other l
7 tasks that I haven't actively pursued how they're 8
doing, but it's my understanding that, at least as of 9
a couple years ago, the research was underway.
10 MR.
BERNERO:
I'd like to emphasize a 11 point that Charlie made.
It does appear from the 12 inherent accuracy of each procedure that, even though 13 the analytical approach to calculating burn-up may 14 have its uncertainties, the uncertainties associated 15 with measurement of burn-up would be much greater.
16 And therefore, as Charlie said, the use of the 17 neasurement would be more to verify the analytical 18 product.
You analyze a certain degree of burn-up and 19 this is a way to verify it, perhaps even as crude as 20 saying you probably have the right assembly in the 21 grapple, but not a burn-up meter. measurement that 22 would give you a flux profile.
It's a little bit 23 doubtful that you could get that precise a treatment, 24 but the door is open.
We just don't have enough --
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That point of view NEAL R. GROSS COURT RUtRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~ 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W, (202)2344433 W ASHINGTON, O C, 20005 (202) 2344433 t
52 1
didn't come through in your SECY, though.
I mean, I 2
got the flavor from the SECY that you really felt that 3
measurements were better than calculations.
I mean, 4
you've got --
5 MR.
BERNERO:
- Well, that has been a 6
position for a long time, to rely on the analysis _is 7
not sufficient because we have all of these questions 8
about the end effects and so forth.
My most recent 9
remarXs are based on our last meeting with the DOE 10 where we were talking about some of the work that 11 they're doing and I'm getting that impression and 12 that's why I just want to bring that out, that it 13 could put us in the position of saying, after all, 14 that if we're going to rely -- if we're going to have 15 burn-up credit, we'll have to temper the credit or use 16 care in selecting the degree of credit in accordance 17 with the fact that it will be principally analytical 18 and only verified or confirmed by a less precise 19 measurement..
But, that's a concern.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
If you rely on the 21 calculation, than you have to back that up with a very 22 careful tracking of the history of the fuel.
23 MR. BERNERO:
Exactly, and that puts us 24 right back in the box, you know, what we said earlier 25 in the briefing and as we say in the paper.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
53 i
1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Conceivably, if you 2
had a way of making a measurement, you could just make 3
the measurement.
You wouldn't -- I mean, make the 4
measurement at the end.
You don't have to keep 5
historical track of the history of the fuel, where it t
6 was, how long it was in each position and so on and so
{
7 forth.
8 DOCTOR PAPERIELLO:
But there's a couple l
9 things you've got to do.
You have to know the history l
10 of the fuel.
It depends on whether you want to take 11 credit for depletion and build-up of the plutonium, 12 the fissionable isotopes, and how much credit you want 13 to take for the poisons, because when you start 14 looking at the predictions of the origin code against i
15 the various lab measurements for heat generation it's l
16 pretty damn good and for a lot of the actinides it's 17 not too bad at all.
18 But when you start looking at fission l
4 19 products, particularly some of the more obscure ones J
20 when you go off the main yields and you get these l
21 small yields, you start getting large errors. So when 22 you do the calculation you're going to have to 1
23 propagate all your errors and when you predict the K-i
~
24 effective you're going to have to look at what the 25 uncertainty is in that K-effective, and so you can i
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
54 1
take burn-up credit but it might leave you a fairly 2
large uncertainty at the end. I think the measurement i
3 that they're looking at, they talk about a detector 4
called a fork detector.
A major value in that is to 5
make sure a given bundle you put in is not far off 6
from what your calculation is, but it's going to be an 7
uncertainty.
Of course you do have to make -- you'd i
8 better make sure you don't switch bundles when you 9
load your cask.
t 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
All right.
So 11 you're' talking about a measurement really shich is a i
12 sort of gross measure of some sort to kind of say 13 where you would apply how you'd apply the 14 calculation rather than really a full determination by 1
15 measurement on the content.
l 16 DOCTOR PAPERIELLO:
That's right.
That's j
l 17 exactly right.
I J
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK: If I just may follow i
i 19 up that, what type of detectors are they talking about 20 for making measurements?
Is this just gamma?
i I
21 DOCTOR PAPERIELLO:
Yes.
We're using 22 gamma detectors.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So it would be very l
24 important to know the history of the fuel since it i
r 25 came out of the reactor too.
i l
NEAL R. GROSS I
COURf REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTOtt D.C 20005 (202) 2344433
... - ~.
~
55 1
DOCTOR PAPERIELLO:
Yes.
They're not 2
disassembling the fuel.
They're measuring what goes 3
through the cladding.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I could only I
5 envision it would be gammas or possibly neutrons.
I 1
6 don't think that would be very feasible --
1 7
DOCTOR PAPERIELLO:
It's neutrons and 8
gammas.
They are looking at neutrons and gammas, two 9
detectors on a device that slips over the bundle and l
10 they scan the bundle, j
4 11 MR. BERNERO:
I would like to bring up an i
12 issue going back to the system analysis.
Just as in
)
1 13 the beginning, I said there are spent fuel assemblies j
i 14 that are bigger or smaller or lighter or heavier.
The l
1 15 statements we're making here about burn-up credit and 16 spent fuel are for analytical history of the fuel 17 assemoly as it was in the reactor and what it has done 18 since it came out. There are fuel assemblies that are 19 reconfigured and terribly complicating and they're not a
j 20 the typical fuel assemblies, but there are enough of 21 them so that the population of what one might call the l
22 outliers goes up.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just coming back to 24 the trans*sortation cask issue, are there any -- is 25 anyone trying to get a cask approved that contends NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 (202) 234 4433
. =.
56 1
that there cannot be any water ingress and that they:
2 don't want to -- that they feel that that is not'a I
3 requirement they should have to satisfy?
4 MR. HAUGHNEY: To my knowledge, we haven't
[
h, had y
that sort of an insistence come up in terms of 5
6 l
transport
- casks, where that's been a
particular problem in the review.
7 1, ;
8 !>
OOMMISSIONER ROGERS: So it's not in front i
9 of us now.
I 10 MR. BERNERO:
Well, the subject comes up 11 certainly in discussion of what does it take to havo 12 a -- I have had discussions with people when they're 13 formulating what they're proposals might be and 14 they're really exploring is there any room for us to 15 discuss and that's one of the ceasons you have burn-up 16 credit on the table all these years.
Is there any i
17 room for us to discuss burn-up credit in order to live 18 with water ingress?
We had a paper a member of the 19 staff published perhaps four or five years ago that 20 tried to treat this and it had burn-up credit.
Of 21 course, you know, it was an example model and it had 22 a model that was some water ingress and when you 23 picked up the cask by one end all the water went to 24 the other end and there went K-effective.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Sure.
[
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W, (702) 234M33 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234M33
57 i
1 MR. BERNERO:
So, we have had the issue on 2
the table for a long time and it has been in a context 8
3 that really relates to why can't I postulate water 4
ingress and compensate for it by burn-up and poison, 5
burn-up credit and poison.
i 6
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: This question of the 7
coupling between the canisters, the casks and the 8
repository design to me is a very important one.
It 9
seems to me there are a lot of questions out there 10 that don't have answers to yet.
What I'm really 11 curious is as to what the process is that you see that 12 can avoid the left hand not knowing what the right 13 hand is doing in this business.
14 I'm very concerned about a notion that a 15 cask or canister cask design, multipurpose design l
16 which may look very good somehow is proceeding along 17 independently of the actual design of that repository.
18 There are a number of issues about thermal loading and 19 how that repository might run, at what temperature it 20 might be designed to run that my guess is are very 3
21 much dependent upon how you load it and is it 22 conceivable that you get to the end of this thing that 23 everybody is perfectly happy with what they've done 24 and the two things don't fit together at all.
I've 25 seen it happen on major, major projects.
It wouldn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
58 1
be the first time.
I just wonder what steps can be i
2 taken to try to avoid SUch an unfortunate outcome.
3 ER. BERNERO: Yes. Well, when the concept 4
first came up that was a very evident pitfall.
Since 5
the concept first came up, we have tried to emphasize 6
in our dealings the need for system analysis and 7
someone doing this integrated system analysis.
Now 8
that the project has been taken over in effect, 9
instead of a consortium proposing, it's now DOE 10 developing.
DOE is moving more and more into a system 11 engineer role.
I know I have had dialogue with Lake 12 Barrett on this a number of times and urged him, and 13 I think he fully understands it, the need for just 14 that.
In fact, I've used the Cooper Nuclear Station 15 and Arkansas 1 analogies with him, that there goes 16 your thermal control unless you're willing to bound 17 the thing and go way off optimum.
18 So, that work is going on.
We don't have 19 any display of it in substance yet.
But certainly as 20 we go forward or as they go forward with any proposal, 21 we will be asking the questions.
We will be asking 22 the questions because it's a very knotty one.
23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
Well, I very 24 much appreciate this briefing.
I think it's been very
~Y 25 helpful in giving us an oversight of the issues that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433
r 59 1
have to be considered.
Thank you very much.
j 2
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Commissioner de i
3 Planque?
j 4
COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
My issues have 5
already been covered.
I thank you also for the 6
interesting briefing.
l 7
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I agree very much l
8 with what Commissioner Rogers said.
I hope we are i
9 not, and from what you said, Bob, we're not just 10
- saying, "Well, we can't consider a multipurpose 11 canister until the repository is designed."
We have 12 to bas ually be asking, and I hope the Department is 13 doing. it, what is it we need to know so that you could 14 consider the multipurpose canister and not just 15 pushing it off until the final design of the entire l
16 repository.
So, I'm happy to hear that that appears 17 to be the approach.
18 On this question of poisons inside the
{
19 canister, I guess I want to say here --
1 20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Whatever it is.
,i 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
What are the a
22 complications there?
Is it cost?
Is it brittle 23 material?
Why isn't it just a simple matter for
~
24 people rather than to necessarily be worrying about 25 burn-up and things like that Why not' ' borated NEAL R. GROSS -
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(2C2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
60 i
I stainless steel, which to me has always been very 2
appealing in contrast to some of the other poisons t
3 that have been used in spent fuel pools?
4 MR. HAUGHNEY:
I think it really relates f
f 5
to your first two comments.
Incrementally it's. an 6
extra material.
It's a bit exotic.
It's not in great l
7 production.
So, it's going to add incrementally to 8
the cost of the canister assembly.
If a competitor
-i l
9 can avoid that, then there's again a little bit of an 10 edge, especially if they hope to sell some large i
11 number.
12 The other thing is the borated rtainless
+
13 steel, much like our lathe chip there, tends to be a 14 brittle material and so it can't be -- we've had 15 difficulty accepting it as a structural component.
16 So, it's adding some extra material that is great from 17 the physics standpoint but not from the structural 18 engineering standooint.
19 MR.
BERNERO:
Yes.
I would like to 20 emphasize a point, as Charlie just did, about cost 21 management.
The Commission should be aware that when 22 dry storage first began the legislation mandated that
]
23 DOE try to develop it.
The Commission took the 24 approach of being willing to review almost anybody's 25 topical report, let 100 flowers blossom so that there l
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
61 1
could be vigorous competition.
That vigorous 2
competition, which cost a lot of reviews that led to 3
no licenses, but nonetheless it resulted in a cost 4
optimization that although we don't review cost data 5
as part of our safety review, we have good reason to 6
believe that the cost per kilogram or per ton for dry 7
storage of spent fuel came down dramatically from the 1
l 8
beginning until now, i
9 As a result, what you see in all of the 10 designs is a regular or recurring interest on the part 11 of the buyer or the developer to say, "Do I really l
l 12 need this costly component or not?"
Tbey want to get 1
13 as many assemblies into as big a can as possible and i
14 as effective a storage system as they can.
15 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Well, I would also f
9 16 like to join in saying I found the briefing very, very 17 informative and I thought the SECY document was i
I l
18 exceptionally well written, very concise and to the i
i f
19 point and quite interesting.
So, I thank the staff 20 very much for your presentation and your effort.
21 MR. THOMPSON:
Thank you.
l 22 (Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m.,
the above-l 23 entitled matter was concluded.)
24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
G02) 234-4433 WASHINGTJ t D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 t
.-.i..,....,
i 5
i i
i CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER i
Thi.s is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled-l
!!TLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE AND f
TRANSPORTATION CASKS
? LACE OF MEETING:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND I
DATE OF MEETING:
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription I
is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the i
transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
^ AA3 I
/
Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch i
i I
5 I
r i
i
}
i HEAL R. GROSS cover assomas Aee raAuscamens i
132) N0000 ISLApe AVEMut. M.W.
I (30t) 234-4435 wAggmes10st. DA 20005 (202) 232 6
Transportation
=
y ;.
and Storage 1_:
/
z m
Require 111ents g
m
~ $$' lr.lI?
- 2; Robert M. Bernero, Director ml$p
- we Office of Nuclear Material Fed" es&x Safety and Safeguards ig m
K,a w C:aarles J. Haughney, Chief
- E;.
Storage and Transport
- i. n Systems Branch s a s
.m a ; 3,z,
4 R
w A Briefing for the Commission
'y 1 30 September 1993 jy
Purpose
= _o out ine ':ae c.1:::erences in M_ C U
j recuirements,or certi:'fing a sJen1:
1
'ue cas1 for s':orage anc/or s
transoor:ation:
Eper
- Cas:( Design Requirements j6_
(kh
- Approvec Cas.( Designs
- Proposed Cas.( Designs i
-,_o c1scuss tae tec1nica Issues
=
~
aiglig 1:ec. c.uring ~:le review 0: a j7 s
c.ua aur30se use c.esign.
Cpm
- ..,a.
- .
?
[-
..')
p pa
)!s;~
p I[
je p..
t f::
a-LWR Fuel Assemblies 9
l l
e owa 3wR ln
~
- Width
- Wic t1 s
7.6-8.5 L-6.5 s
~
s>
Incles incles th
,z
! bns;$
- Length
- Lengt1 espe.
Mb 11.4-16.6 6.8-14.7 e#;6 m m reet EI"4 Feet N:
- Weight
- Weig 7t
+
n 1,096-1,515 328-6' 9 y
. ;+
Lbs Lbs a?
e hl e
[?
by. ~
py:
NQSfI$~
~
sili
'{r{ <.
r r
@ 119 G '
~~
k t
s:
4
'l=
2
The System i
{M7??&P*
p, g; +
i sT kg p,. ; -
1 ::;
bi i
f$.
r.
UTILITY DOE p
.u m
_ie.
2:d. :*s e m
t m
.:(
3j g?("
ij l
Spent i.' Reactor +
Fuel N..
Repository
[f P..
(Pool or
- =
i.
!. i.
MRS k.?
~_:,:.
- p.,;.
- w =
f t::
P l
l B
1 f E nga l
(Temporary 3 ll l
O,;$
M i
Storage J ii i
p&.
k, em t
p,' w:s w
e s
y[m g,
y q
.w..
hs v>,
Ef@
hn, O,.
c x
d2s
+
1;::,
Fj,,.x, trWi EQ p-3
Y Primary Functions of a Spent Fuel Cask S
. lcing i
.ne
=
s as Containmen:
B- -
=
n.
Suacri':icali,/
=
- 's Hea: Removal et
=
nu l0b???.:.1.
y;qy w:
D...D;idi 4,%
p.
4yr
?: ' I t- :n hb)[{h f
u y
ee:;
{lh F
n; 4
h$lm 2
h.
n l%
y e.,
N: l f-l.
l l$,
i
-e
{v p
- h -
h$ c y
I 4
summmmmmmmmmmmmm-Transportation Requirements 10 CFR Part 71 *
= Accic. err: Concn..ons e
s
- 30 Ft c rop onto an unyielc.ing surface k
- 40 Inch drop onto a 6 inch c ia. pin pi
- 30 Minute,1475 F Fire Test E,
- 8 Hour immersion unc er 3 ft of water hhp
~
m
- 50 Ft immersion IE vs (unc amaged specimen)
J
= Acceatance Cri:eria
- Any release may not exceec. A2per he y-weer e
L
- External exposure may not exceed n#
1 rem /ar at 1 meter from t:ae surface of ";.
the casi j
Contents must remain suberitica.
L
{$w k
- A listing of pertinent RegGuides for 10 CFR Part 71 is
((
enclosed in the Appendix
("
i: :
[!
5
Storage Requirements 10 CFR Part 72 *
= Accicent Conca..tions
?s
~w
- Natural Events
- Man-made is.
N l
Hurricanes Events Es u
Tornadoes Fire g-L Earthquakes
- ExplosionM&
EE
- Floods Transfer g~
- Wind Accidents [
Driven (drops, ym Missiles tipovers) [,
f; na-
= Acceptance Criteria p,!jk,
- Dose at site boundary < 5 rem
[
- Cask contents must remain suberitical
[,
- Fuel cladding must be protected r,
n
- Site specific critena
^
c.
a.s i
[.:3 A
E; l
- A listing of pertinent RegGuides for 10 CFR Part 72 is E
enclosed in the Appendix y(,7 6
Approved Spent Fuel Transportation Casks l
rrmw,n Model Certificate Capacity-Weight (Ib)
- # Built E
No.
Holder Mode E
\\
n i
60 J
NLI 1/2 Nuclear 1PWR 50,000 5
,I!
Assurance or Truck EP -
Corp 2BWR
[!(
R,:
p Mi;
=
NAC-LW Nuclear 1PWR 50,000 5
EEF"
T Assurance or i
Truck IR Corp 2BWR
- b. m w
p
$0g TN-8 Transnuclear 3PWR 80,000 2
Ly inc OW Truck p$*'
4',
!~
TN-9 Transnuclear 7BWR 80,000 2
- P,
~
Inc OW Truck g_,
- y p
&pjw; IF-300 Pacific 7PWR 140,000 4
s Nuclear or Rail jjl,
18 BWR g,
' kan +
n NLI-10/24 Nuclear 10 PWR 195,000 2
h Assurance or Rail y
Corp 24 BWR
. j].
E
~~
j.c
. c4 4a?d3:n%' t&'>+.
- ,4q..'.. yGv.; % a?
. \\. 4%344..W.hyit i;&.!,; i...:'va y _a.4.svi,..
6 1
7 1
Approved Spent Fuel Storage Systems wymen l
Model No.
Licensee Capacity:
System if i
MVDS Fort St. Vrain Site Vault L
Inventory IT a
fi I
Castor Surry 21 PWR Cask L ffN.
[h!RF l
V/21 gen em MC-10 Surry 2iPWR Cask fsI '^
f:.-
O, n e
>s NAC-128 Surry 28 PWR Cask
[w.
lid >^
f:i; NUHOMS H.B. Robinson 7PWR Canister k-7P Assembi f::
f;f',:hdi.~;~I
[:0 -
2 NUHOMS Oconee 24 PWR Canister 7'
24P Calvert Cliffs Assembi !
EL ew y
E
[fd 4 c4 VSC-24 Palisades 24 PWR Canister Arkansas
- Assembi Point Beach
- y F:
7 m
~.
f^
- Potential Users I
8 l
Proposed Cask Designs i
- Dua, Mu~ :i-:?uraose Casis B,;,
=
c.
- NAC-STC s
y
-NUHOMS-MP 187 e6 l
- Multi-Purpose-Canister (MPC) i p!!)(Ag
! BA 'f i
n.,
- yp ',
p,,,4
)
1
?y h,,
i;;
4 07 i
t:
R
}-:..
p
.. tj.;
b n
[97 ' ' '
e y
?l t ). _,.,
?::? ::,
$l2fTp.:G y@lh'W, ye.-, te n
n
{PI
' ' _ ^ lhi bsye
{G jlO w.
6-
{bn h5
{;y. s s-;
9
Dual, Multi-Purpose Casks 1
= Minimize ?uel Eancling
(("
= ?oten:ia. Cos': Recuc: ions F
= Any proaosec. c esign mus': sa':is: 9 a
regu.a~:lons :or eaca use i;e It
- Part 71 for Transportation
%a l O
- Part 72 for Storage slif[W'l pc
- Part 60 for Disposa.
!)F L.
m
}l6 n,
s II! ;
{l;,
v tM bji de
- p
- "^>
u(l
- Mj% '
j:g, <
g f
- 1. :
)
Il' Ey 50 10
Dual, Multi-Purpose Casks qp:
= Curren': S:atus
!n pF
- One Dua Purpose Design Unc er t
Review e;
x s
NAC-STC ne. S wg-g,kh
- Another application expectec saortly g
I i,
enw
= Sta is mee':ing wr:a DOE :o ciscuss p
the Yu.ti-Purpose Cask Concep:
pi n$l>-
f
.s
-..^,
.s
_s
.+
IhN
[N.
na :
h,,h!I!IED,,
kyi[
E
+
I$%
k Blci:m'
?h lMO sjdigs g?t y-V, 11
NAC-STC w n w.
= A c.assic cask c.esign wr:a innac:
(
.imiters for :ranspor a': ion p
e
= An Ica':1on :or :ransaor:a':1on s
certi::1ca':e received Sept. 27, ~ 990
[et
= An ica:1on ~:or new s':orage w-g,sa certi ~1ca':e receivec April 25,1990 u.
};:;:
- Review suspenc.ec. pending transport 4
review modifications
= Transaortation review snouid 3e F
~
connle':ec. early in 199L hiL p
disd>i s
- Limiting : actors involve structural p-s w
c esign of basket 7'
n-
= A nlicant ':0 resubmi': s':orage V
m a nlica:1on a: Ster transaort review is gys ma conn e::ec gg e.
e7
? :p p
c 1
l 12
NI~HOMS-MP 187
\\
j me,.me
= Canis 1:er system using a rein:forcec.
[]
concre:e Eorizon:a S:orage Yocule P
(:ESM) as an over3aci
!k.
u
= Severa.. are-an Ica: ion mee:inos ae cr.
e p:
witL1 aaalican:
a1 lys
= :ntendec -Por use a: Rancao Seco A
~
n.
n
= A n 1 cation exaectec in early Octo 3 erg '
o:~ :ais year g
<l Y
= Aoiicarr: alans :o recues: acarova
- ot
+
u use :1le 1:ransaor: over3ac1 as a e
s w
vertical storage al:ernative ':0 tae 6e HSM Ms y-W+
II fil,.
s.
b ik" it:
}';.
13
i Multi-Purpose-Canister (MPC)
!m:-
= A sealec. canis 1:er wr:a ci:Terent
!~
eO overpacis :or use curing S':orage, s
_ransaor:a':lon anC. 31saosa.
E
~
ln-$1
= Originally aroaosec.1:o DOE ay incustry p#iie as
~
s.w:.
= Jesign(s\\; in concea:ual stage p: sp.
For cisaosa., :ne c.esign wou d be
[
=
aparoved as par: of :ae reaository k,_$1.
licensing arocess Ib k.
Issues
!1
=
m
- Tae repository aas not been designed g6
- Disposal environment has not been BL com.plete.y caaracterized (nm1 i#R s :
4,
in e
kh5 E
14
TechnicalIssues 4
T(4% ' ~ --
...A nn CIT:1Ca L if n
m.= -
,g 1
- Water Ingress
- Fuel Burnup Credit t-m Cast Ma:erials
%.< s
=
-.,~
..fi$E: > <.
i h NTN$fOEsi g b>-:2
- p
$> k.ei 5 i('N h5GMi.:[.45f:.h h(?$$?NfY EiG., G,
C.: '.
a t,
$).
p' :.-
_f:-::
6 i :.
6J.
3!. i
- h. 1 h
i!:,2 pi:..:...:
git??%:,
f ![! > Odh
{d >.
};:9<
19.?:
W:
$O fb4M-k!!!
$fh$
^
[f:/id.
..,'.i.'.
55' 8.
}.
. ~$._ [,. [ :3'i[f,
7,,
,..j[,
4f!
e (N- - -
hi} 4 f'k ki;R:?:
~^
EdMsili >
$$I khib
- M;f 9
.m.
p$'NkW'?g.?:[M p4
fsE4:
4
$h fb* '
$!I '
en t, -
g ;:
T a:u
's/
5.
v.,,
m 15
Criticality water Ingress
- Transportation Assumption of water ingress is an l@.
w mternational and domestic f.).: @< h s
transportation requirement
[j;/1,i e m Criticality potential from Mfi submergence or fire fightmg exists'*aa s
=g 2
_j gg If sea effectiveness is c.egrac ec.
g a c uring transport Lusag P
e:F Seal effectiveness monitored
=
perioc ica ly and prior to saipment $+f
- Storage s 'e.s.:
m b-4
,e i
No water mgress is assumec.,1:::
ingg ass
+ Site Specific analysis WE l
epu demonstrates that it is not a gj$
s+aae cre e event ae
@qp e
dg5 No c egradation of the seal is esu expected in a static environment ggd me Monitor for helium leakaEe on WM maEN w n n-meC1laniCa1 sea 1s is Blan 16 l'
f
x
,$'~
/.O s, s.
'q;,;"
z.,
IMAGE EVALUATION A%
o v'
d' TEST TARGET (MT-3)
</
(8F g, s
{ #M, g y jj i
+
<w I.0 m
~~
l,l lyl 2.0 nem
!ll La a==
1.25 ll 1.4 1.6 ii smm l#. _._ _. _. _.._.. _ __._. _ _.-- 1 5 0 m m l
l 6"
4 lfh
%f,>41
<$% p,;o16 4
"i2
'7 3.
Qf
,K,yj/,,;,.
- 4;V4 N
v g, y,//
o 7,
qu l
l
'%m
m.
D qe 3:+
6
/g
.A o.
' ^:",
IMAGE EVALUATION
/
J'4 77 j/
\\)/o//
\\/
TEST TARGET (MT-3) f),jE (4, Oa
.. sp
/
- 4 g\\
ag, -
,k
$f 4
<e 1.0 1"
"?
lMd fm.=22 l,l
=
~
j i 1.8 i ;==
1.25 g I.4.
kll =1.6 11
=
__.__ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.. - - 1 5 0 m m 4
6"
~ 43)
- $ A' oc 7
e?hp#o
[Ik[m,
,) (
/fN m,
y 4
I
+
.th
/
<['
0 e
y.
IMAGE EVALUATION O '%
O c
</
\\
N Y bl gh ////
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
Q,;.
Rf/)49$p
}Yj9 V
'.s.' h g
,g if 1.0
'22
$$$;0 r
l,l
%m a ts u
4
[ I.25 g I.4_
ay i g j
n,--
==
_ _ _ - - _--- -. __. -___. _ _._ - - 1 5 0 m m - - - - -
4 i
N:
,,og w
- +
qp C
$7,,9 e
//fk g,,
/
s.fp 1
> $k
,M
- ~~
-o s
4
Criticality WKRyWT
= Burnup Credit g
- Transportation anc. Storage
- Taking crec.it for fuel burnup p-m during criticality analysis is not pn >
w=
currently approved E6 1
Assumption of unirrac.iatec. fuel is @p e.
conservative c-le,
)
-NRC nas a contract with LLNL to E*
e study aurnup topics M-t
- Primary Issues k
m, Neutron cross section data WW mms r f, 8
- Uranium depletion, p_utonium h
y:T C
buildup Distribution of fission proc uct s_ii poisons k;
- Fuel assembly end effects
$$h ge r Burnup measurement technology gd v
17
l Measured AxialBurnup l
Distribution k
a k.:-n,
.4 2.
- )
- V;u y; 1 k:U 'dh.f
- 4.. :n
$7;gg$'
$i Edi >
g::.
y.ww w.
4 I
I I
I i
I I
l C '...a g:gpg@e:
- m. n ca. u xx l'
i a Ngw 10 r) 01r. :;;;g I=
.i
.i.n v: m e
wea -~
%gw:;;.;; ~ s L
f7 3 c
N L
$8 i
T g
u Il h
i
?j U ^
o 6
p m*;=.:.s ~
i a.h. me, t
g l
ppm $?<!C
} tis l
w p@gtweiba p
4 l
[r t
h"sAf :1'fd i
iI o
i m:
2 I
i usa s
WW ne/rfew m.
l l
I l
l l
l l.
ns Mew o
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 iN5 hip!F amu _
@bMt,nM3#
DISTANCE FROM BOTTOM (cm) na g;n ~
.g9 i:t
>1t$;5Ik !.. "
0N$3}$55 anterm e vwy ::r
' h.~.%
.rp.g.:.:-cy, k'pssgyw3v-4; e
I}@M6!? lin#.'
p.m ie,n:
YN:.flf.h f?.5s#
d; isd50d
}4,
.4:wx' fi'yg' n:Mi. '
O g
~
- w h6b?
18
Cask Materials nmm
= Transoor:a:1on gg m
j.%%
- Large, uncertain c.ynamic loads p
a'$,"
possiale during an accic.ent y_.
- Accident in urbanized area, W
Ac c..tional margin of safety p(g.n.uj
.i em appropriate er n
f5kUbd$$
= Storage f*~
p
- Static, defined.oads C;.#J.
}r%
- Located on a controlled access site her a w:
trx.psw
[.'3:P!
per-(c b4n ^
N $ hl.,.
ws: m
' NQ(3hjjsWys i f$
jgraiMc L. ~5y..m-er u,.:s --
p e kbkNi67%
hh h m:m m W55$h
- t2 W i,
l[p!3EJ"I i5 s.,,
e l ' l, "
v...
g<
19
I Summary Water ingress
=
- Jifferent approaches for transportation anc storagejustif,iec.
[a=
Fue: 3urnua L
=
r
- Key technical areas must 3e better e~
clpegg
!1 unc.erstood aefore a c.ecision can be mac.e pzc Casi Materia _s the
=
4 a=
- Insufficient data to justify caange in
!??*
transportation casuc requirements;
($,
p Different approach for storage is pF Se justifiec.
pg w-Star,,oaen :o aro30sals sunor:ec by es:
=
sv tec anical c.a':a RE m
NRC :ranspor'a: ion anc. s:orage staff l$iJG
=
1 p
comained a%c
- Eliminating c.uplication of Effort ha'
- Ultimate goa. is a combinec. review
[p.
y
!s fn 20
~
TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY GL IDES
- RG 7.L ( 6/75)
@Pi5 wn Lea cage tests on pac.cages for Sg*
m s alPment of rac ioactive materia..s
"?w 3%
- RG 7.5 (5/77) 3R$
Ac ministrative guic e for
%ag obtamma eXem tions from certam ?$g DER Se%s a d e
NRC reSuirements over LW gMeg%r wa gym I
radioactive materia S ipments eu tG0640
@e$$
- RG 7.6 (2/77 or 3/78) q $.
- Design criteria for t:ae structural m
analysis of s aipping cas.c eg!
2W?M containment vessels asewr
- RG (7.8 5/77)
I_hk m
Y f.
h Loac. com ainations for the rw e
vara structural ana..ysis of saipping idiM men cas:<s M
m%anm
[g$ p;ym4 6
l??!??$
I 21
TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY GUIDES
= RG 7.9 (3/79 or 1/80)
E,@y5 mQ 9
- Standard format and content of part 71 applications for approval hf g$@Q, of packaging of type b, large quantity, and fissile radioactive Mi$gs material mis hhk!
!!W@m!
= RG 7.11 (6/91) 1 &
- Fracture toughness criteria of base material for ferritic steel shipping hk cask containment vessels with a MEi me maximum wall thickness of 4 gy?
]gh inches g(f$$
= RG 7.12 (6/91)
$pr
- Fracture toughness criteria of 9
w base material for fern. tic steel
-g shipping cask containment vessels gg with a wall thickness greater than j$g[
4 inches, But not exceeding 12 8E sv inches JR zg
,ms NDD?hlh?l I16sst 22
STORAGE REGULATORY GUIDES
= RG 3.4 (1/89)
==
- Standard Forrnat and Content for the
!W$#
m;c
&a$
p Safety Analysis Report for an au g;
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Water Basin Type)
$gu$$
ww
= RG 3.48 (8/89)
RE mau tp9se
- Standard Format and Content for the as as Safety Analysis Report for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage WT Installation or Monitored Retrievable dh ew Storage Installation (Dry Storage) siMn mn
= RG 3.49 (12/81) i@an$1 e
- Design of an Independent Spent Fuel His$;
[$y Storage Installation (i%!
gg (Water-Basin Type)
= RG 3.50 (9/89)
- Guidance on Preparing a License 7 h$
PP cation to Store S ent Fuelin an i,d$_$
li P
A Independent S ent Fuel Stora8e WiEE P
emm Installation
$$ss wm
- fM"""
pp k.y 23
o STORAGE REGULATORY GU1 DES
= RG 3.53 (7/82)
- App _icaaility of Existing Regulatory ((f3 Guides to the Design and Operation of an ISFSI w:w i
= RG 3.54 (9/8L) 2Ws!
- Spent Fuel Heat Generation in an J,"ea m
l iis ISFSI i
Sgj a 1G 3.60 (3/87) gga e
- Design of an Independent Spent Fuel $e_$m Storage Insta..lation spet ess M,aaa i
= RG 3.61 (2/89)
- Stanc ard Format anc. Content for a esp s Topical Safety Analysis Report for a i
g$g$$
$e%
Spent Fuel Dry Storage Casr
= 1G 3.62 (2/89)
- Standard Format and Content for the
@Z 5
4 p}
u 6$[
Safety Ana.ysis Report for Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel Storage Cas1s w
hkNf 24
.