ML20127B397
| ML20127B397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/05/1993 |
| From: | Steve Ruffin NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Haughney C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301120264 | |
| Download: ML20127B397 (17) | |
Text
j MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAfI 5 W Charles J. Haughney, Chief a
Source Containment and Devices Branch Division of Industrial and i
Medical Nuclear Safety THRU:
Frederick C. Sturz, Section Leader Irradiated fuel Section Source Containment and Devices Branch FROM:
Steve R. Ruffin, Project Manager Irradiated fuel Section Source Containment and Devices Branch
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH DOE ON MULTI-PURPOSE CANISTER STUDY On Thursday, December 17, 1992, representatives of the Source Containment and Devices Branch (SCDB), and the Transportation Branch (SGTB). of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), met with representatives of the Department of Energy (DOE) (see attendees, enclosure 1) to discuss DOE's preliminary Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) study.
The meeting began with introductions, followed by the MPC presentation (enclosure 2) by DOE, and concluded with questions and answers among the participarts.
DOE indicated that its MPC study is part of the new strategy to allow DOE to complete planning and begin developing a multi-purpose canister that can be used to store spent nuclear fuel (SNF), transport it to the MRS (if the MRS exists), and transport it from the MRS to the repository or directly from the reactor site to the repository.
The.SiSS staff discussed the need for DOE to provide guidance to the industry to focus on achieving canisters that are both l
storable and transportable, whereby, meeting the regulations of 10 CFR Part 72 and Part 71, respectively.
The NMSS staff indicated that while it is not j
partial to any particular design, DOE should identify the problem technical areas and limitations that exist with spent fuel storage, transport, and I
acceptance in the repository which affect the MPC; and should providt incentive to the industry to make it feasible and practical for the industry to develop and use canisters or casks that are acceptable for storage end transportation as a matter of achieving occupational exposures that are as low l
as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
DOE expects to issue its Multi-Purpose Canister study in January 1993.
OrtinalSignN Ly Steve ~R. Ruffin, Project Manager Irradiated fuel Section Source Containment and 12009"kes Devices Branch
Enclosures:
As sta Distribution: Docket file M-38 PDR NRC Central Files SCDB R/F IMlf R/f RMBernero GArlot (o LTen Eyck KCleu REcunningham JGreeves g
n o JYoungblood JLintnan RWeller JSpraul KHooks TSherr 3'
PTing BMendelson CGaskin SSchwartz KWinsberg FCombs o
Mfinklestein WBrown BStiltenpole JHolonich AGarcia S
GBeveridge/Stornell bec:hneider JSc G:\\ DOE.CAN L. Dd. sell, DOE c
.oO OFC IMIF IMIT/ / $
Itilf h
I rm
%toco NAME SRuffin:jc/tk ifBrown h' z i) u omn O
s
@H DATE 12/ /92 12/ 9 92 12/4 /92 0p L
/
f C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY f
Attendees i
_NAME QRGANIZATION l
Tritz Sturz NRC/NMSS i
Priscilla Bunton DOE Linda Desell DOE John P. Roberts DOE l
David M. Dancer NRC/NHSS l
Steve Ruffin NRC/NMSS I
Nancy Osgood NRC/NMSS Kathy Winsberg NRC/0GC-3 Jim Schneider
' 'lC/NMSS i
Charles J. Haughney HRC/NMSS Eileen Supko Energy Resources International Elaine Hirun McGraw-Hill Nuclear Ross Chappell NRC/NHSS f
t T
li 1
i I
U.S. Department of Energy l
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management l
Washington, DC 20585 i
i Multi-Purpose Canister Presentation i
l Office of Storage & Transportation OCRWM L
INTRODUCTION Introduction
Background
Multi-Purpose Canister Study Future Activities Issues 2
L.
4 j
BACKGROUND r
l i
Definition of MPC i
Interest 1
i MPC Feasibility Study 4
9 I
t 9
3 o
Definition of MPC Also called Universal Canisters or Multiple Element Scaled Canisters (MESCs)
Sealed canisters holding multiple SNF assemblies Canisters placed in separate overpacks for storage, transportation. & geologic disposal Intention of never opening canisters once scaled 4
Interest in.MPCs NRC's concern associated with the " compatibility of the various steps in the storage, transport, and disposal" of SNF (NRC Letter dated Nov. 18, 1988)
MRS Review Commission asked what DOE was doing to enhance compatibility NWTRB has expressed interest in " minimizing waste handling" MRS Potential Host Concerns Industry Edison Electric Institute Electric Power Research Institute Utilities SMUD/ Pacific Nuclear Dual Purpose Cask 5
DOE Feasibility Study Initiated by Director of OCRWM - October 1992 Objective Evaluate benefits How' to implement MPCs if beneficial to program Complete Preliminary Draft December 1992 Compared 5 MPC Implementation Scenarios to Reference system 6
MULTI-PURPOSE CANISTER STUDY MPC Preliminary Design Concepts Evaluation Scenarios Evaluation Criteria Advantages Disadvantages 7
l
MPC Preliminary Design Concepts Large Canister 21 PWR -
40 BWR 125 Ton Canister & Cask Closure:
Double Seal Weld Burn-up credit & poisoned canister Stainless Steel Small Canister 2PWR 4BWR 26 Ton LWT l
Thick-walled Canister
.16 PWR 37 BWR Cast Iron Overpack for Shielding & Disposal 8
4
Evaluation Scenarios i
MPC Concepts Compared to Reference Waste System Uncanistered SNF Handled & Stored at MRS j
Multiple SNF Handlings at Each System Element (MRS, TRANS, MGDS)
Fuel Acceptance 1998 l
I
.MPC Scenarios Included Various Combinations of Large & Small MPCs l
l Large MPCs with some SNF Handling at MRS i
1 Large MPCs all Loaded at Reactors Large & Small MPCs loaded at Reactors j
Small MPCs Only (Cold Repository)
Thick-walled canister with Cast Iron Overpack i
i 9
~. -.
I Evaluation Criteria SNF Handlings & Radiation Exposures Public Perception Licensing Considerations Operational Considerations Costs 10
~
l Advantages i
j; Facilitate Compatibility of At-Reactor Dry Storage With CRWMS l.
Allow Shutdown Reactors to Proceed with Expeditious Decommissioning of Spent Fuel Pools L
Allow. Direct Acceptance of SNF by CRWMS w/o Repackaging Reduced Contamination /LLW Concerns Simplified CRWMS facilities (CMF, MRS, MGDS) l More Positive Perception by Public & MRS Host Possible Contingency Plan for DOE Waste Acceptance by 1998 e
I
.i
.l 11 I
Disadvantages l
At-Reactor Scaling Operations Additional At-Reactor Exposures From Welding Operations Site-Specific License Amendments to Perform Loading & Sealing Some MGDS Requirements Uncertain at this Time Canister Filler Material (Nuclide Retention, Heat Transfer)
Amount of Shielding Hot vs Cold Performance Credit for Canisters i
i 12
a *-
Disadvantages (Continued)
Concept not Currently Licensed Several Key Licensing Issues to be Resolved 4
May Impact CRWMS Schedule 10 CFR 60 Unknowns Lower SNF Capacities for Transportation Casks of a Given Weight:
i Increased Cask Fleet Size Increased Cask Shipments & Shipment Miles Increased Operational Costs j
Increased Exposures (Waste Generators & Public) 1 i
l 13
FUTURE ACTIVITIES Develop MPC Conceptual Design Refine MGDS Waste Package Concept 1
Refine MRS Conceptual Design Based Upon MPC Concept l
i i<
4 14 k
n,-
ISSUES Should Concept be Pursued?
Resolve Industry Issues Standard Contract (10 CFR 961)
~
Welding I-Clarify MPC Licensing Issues Burnup Credit Opening / Inspection Requirements Certification for Utility use under General License Licensing / Certification Schedule NRC Issues?
i i
1 i
i -
15
- %e m
. = -.
--w-