Text

Transcript of Dot/Nrc 850731-0802 Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation Seminar in Chicago,Il.Pp 330-410
	ML20134K927
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/02/1985
From:	; NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20134K911	List: IR 05000731/2008002; ML20134K907; ML20134K922; ML20134K927;
References
	NUDOCS 8508300515
	Download: ML20134K927 (82)
	v • d • e

a1

D

-

.

vt cu a i roy cz m3

h 6//c

Ek a >-e n / Soo >n

ou

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF:

DOCKET NO:

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORTATION SEMINAR

Other questions?

(G

14

(No response.)

15

I guess we've exhausted this.

We are ahead of

16

schedule, and I think maybe if we--

Oh, one question in the

17

back.

18

Will you come to the front microphone, please?

f

'

s .

19

MR. SMITH:

My name is7 'n Smith.

I'm from the

a

!

20

State of Texas, the Governor's office.

!

l

21

There are three points that I would like to make

22

if I may, and I would like to direct them to the people who

!

23

basically planned and organized the conference we have had

1

i

24

here today and the past two days.

j

(

25

First of all, I want to thank you for putting it

l

i

!

I

i

.

9340 02 04

360

,/~~')

WRBeb

1

on.

It is always difficult to conduct a meeting like this,

V

2

and I think you've done a good job on it.

The coordination

3

has been very good.

.

4

There are two points, however, that I would like

5

to offer in a constructive manner, and I hope they are taken

6

that way, too.

.

\\

7

The first point is t.!at I think there has been a

8

clear attempt to limit the discussion, the scope of the

9

discussion that has occurred here, and I believe that the

10

caliber of the people that we have here making presentations

11

and participating in the audience justifies a more

12

comprehensive treatment of the transportation issues than

.

rw

13

was allowed.

U

14

And I hope that in the future if meetings similar

15

to this are held that there won't be this -- what appeared

16

to me to be an attempt to avoid controversial issues and

17

avoid addressing the transportation issues that do in fact

18

have impact.

19

That's the key point that I want to make.

20

The other one is a less important one but one

21

again that I think needs to be addressed, and that is if you

22

are going to make a distinction between designated state

23

attendees and non-designated attendees, that that should be

24

made clear when the invitations are sent out rather than at

(

25

the meeting finally saying that there are a second class of

9340 02 05

361

j

WRBeb

1

attendees and a first class, and as in the case of one of

,

2

the previous questioners, not offering him the same

3

opportunity to ask questions as was offered to the

4

officially designated attendees.

5

(Applause.)

6

MR. KERR:

Thank you.

7

I will respond to that briefly.

8

Let me just say that the invitation that went out

.

9

from the NRC at least to certain state officials said "We

10

invite you to send somebody who can speak on behalf of the

11

state on transportation issues."

And if that meant

12

representing a diversity of views within the state, we would

r^N

13

expect that that individual would check out all of the

L_,i

14

appropriate agencies.

15

It was certainly not meant to imply that any of

16

you are second-class citizens and so forth, but we felt, in

17

view of the nature of that invitation, we should give some

18

deference to those who presumably were designated by their

19

states.

20

The second one, limiting the scope of the

21

discussion, that is always a problem in developing any

22

agenda.

And we had to fashion it in some way that we felt

23

appropriate to cover what we thought we coald in the time

24

period allowed.

,

,-.

(_)

25

Now I am sure there could be improvements and we

__

9340 02 06

362

WRBeb

1

will seek to make those in any future one.

I guess I didn't

2

really think we were tryi'ng to avoid any controversial

3

questions but, rather, to have it somewhat structured.

4

Mr. Chu, would you like to speak on this issue

5

first before we hear from Mr. Aaroe?

6

MR. CHU:

I just want to add with respect to the

7

first question raised as far as an attempt to limit

8

discussion, that certainly is not the case.

And indeed, I

9

was going to make this part of my closing remarks because I,

10

too, sensed in the past two and a half days that what a full

11

two and a half days it has been, and that many people here,

12

because of the diversity and because of the size, have not

-w

13

had an opportunity to carry on as much discussion as people

b

14

would like to have had.

15

Now with respect to the motivation on the part of

16

the people proposing the seminar, both our agencies had been

17

approached by individual states and by individual agencies

18

within the states to come to their states and explain to

19

them that federal regulatory scheme, the rationale, and the

20

implications of the implementation of the program.

21

We have responded to these requests as best we

22

could, but in the past year or so it was becoming a rather

23

large burden for us with respect to our resources, and I am

24

now speaking primarily of manpower resources.

()

25

And so we felt that we should convene a

9340 02 07

363

/^1

WRBeb

1

conference and invite all of the people who have operational

LJ

2

responsibilities in this whole subject area of spent fuel

3

transportation, and get them together.

We recognize that

4

the people who come here all have a diversity of background,

5

a diversity of responsibility, and to go with that, a

6

diversity of the knowledge, if you will, to carry it out.

--

7

Nevertheless we thought it would be important to

,

8

get rid of -- get some of the background out of the way.

9

And the unfortunate outcome, of necessity, of all of this is

10

that the lecture part, and I do recognize that it is a

11

lecture to many of you and that's unfortunate, therefore

12

limits the discussion.

,

'

13

Now it is our hope that at subsequent meetings

14

that all of this be out of the way and that we can come in

15

here and get down to work in earnest.

16

MR. KERR:

Thank you.

Very well put.

17

Mr. Aaroe.

18

MR. AAROE:

Bill Aaroe, from West Virginia.

19

I don't have any question, but I have a request.

20

I would like to have the proceedings of this session

21

compiled and mailed out as soon as possible.

22

MR. KERR:

Let me tell you we do not plan to

23

publish the proceedings of the total meetlng.

AS we

24

indicated, you know, it would be a rather lengthy

(~)

\\_/

25

transcript.

And it will be available in the public document

9340 02 08

364

7~1

WRBeb

1

room.

2

I have given some thought, however, and

3

consideration to providing the summaries that these three

4

people provided this morning in as suitable a fashion as we

5

can manage and send to the attendees.

And I think we can

6

handle that.

,

7

Now I don't have anything on the other discussion

8

taking place here, but I think I can address the one from

9

these three people.

10

Any other comment or question?

11

(No response.)

12

I will just add one comment:

'

-

13

We have we hope a fairly full list.of attendees

v

14

that has been prepared, and it will be available at the

l

15

break on the back tables in the anteroom.

So if you would

16

like that, you are welcome to have one.

17

The other is that we are a few minutes ahead of

18

time so I suggest that we try to get you ahead of schedule

19

at the end, and maybe we'll reconvene at 10:20.

That will

20

give you about 17 or 18 minutes.

21

Thank you.

22

(Recess.)

23

MR. KERR:

I have a report from one of my

24

volunteer marshalls that most of the people are now back in

()

25

this room, so I think we will begin the next session.

This

9340 02 09

365

(~3

WRBeb

1

is the last session.

V

2

There are a number of important considerations

3

and issues which are relevant to the transportation of spent

4

nuclear fuel but which did not fit neatly into the headings

5

of packaging regulations, carrier regulations, inspection

6

and enforcement or emergency response, but they are,

7

nonetheless, very important.

And that is what this session

8

is devoted to.

'

9

Our first. speaker this morning is Mr. Leland

10

Rouse, who is the Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch of the

11

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He will speak on why must

12

spent fuel be moved now.

13

Mr. Rouse.

14

MR. ROUSE:

Thank you.

15

You know in his opening remarks, John Davis noted

16

that the topic of this seminar is a controversial subject.

17

Now I appear near the end of the seminar with what I think

18

is one of the more provocative titles.

For that I think I

19

owe my thanks to a couple of my NRC cohorts who helped

20

arrange the session.

Thank you, John Cook and Bill

21

Thompson.

.

22

Actually the primary focus of my remarks is aimed

23

at providing you with a general overview of the spent fuel

24

storage status at light water power reactors, and the

I)

25

actions being taken or considered by utilities to provide

l

!

L.

9340 02 10

366

(~J1

WRBeb

1

for additional storage needs.

This information may provide

'

-

2

you with a perspective of possible future transport of LWR

3

fuel prior to the availability of a respository or perhaps

4

monitored retrievable storage by DOE.

5

After a number of years of relatively few

6

shipments of LWR spent fuel, a number of people have noted

7

that several shipment campaigns were initiated over the past

8

few years involving a significant quantity of LWR spent

9

fuel.

These campaigns were described basically by Al Grella

10

yesterday, and briefly, the reason for the shipments are as

11

follows:

12

The spent fuel at West Valley was originally sent

.

(~)

13

there for reprocessing.

The fuel, after being held in

,

(_/

14

storage for the past ten or more years, is being removed by

15

the owners in connection with the DOE high-level wasto

16

solidification project at the facility which is to lead to

17

the final decommissioning of the only commercial

AMt

cl

18

reprocessing plantdoperatrng in the United States.

19

The return of the fuel from Morris to the Point

20

Beach reactor up in Wisconsin was a business decision by the

21

utility based strictly on storage costs.

22

The transfers of spent fuel from the Cooper

23

reactor in Nebraska and the Monticello reactor in Minnesota

24

to the GE Morris storage facility involve the settlement

k_m)

25

between General Electric and the utilities of old fuel

e

'

l

'

_

'9340 02 11

367

}

WRBeb

service contracts made when reprocessing of spent fuel was

1

2

projected.

3

There is one other shipping campaign that has

4

recently been initiated that perhaps Al didn't mention

5

yesterday.

This is one by DOE, moving spent fuel from

6

Virginia Power's Surry nuclear site out to Idaho under a

7

cooperative agreement betwe,en the utility and DOE executed

QvcI W

8

under provisions of thejWaste Policy Act.

9

The fuel will be used in the development and the

10

demonstration of dry storage of spent fuel in metallic

11

casks.

This campaign may involve up to about 130 fuel

12

assemblies and some 40 shipments over the next one to two

.

-

13

years.

,

^

14

There have been questions regarding the need for

15

at least some of these shipments.

For example, in

16

connection with the plans of transfers of spent fuel

17

assemblies from the Monticello reactor to Morris,

18

Governor Earl of Wisconsin requested the NRC to conduct a

19

formal inquiry into the need for the shipments.

20

In his reply to Governor Earl, Chairman Palladino

21

of the Commission pointed out that NRC's regulatory

22

responsibility regarding the transportation of nuclear

23

retrievables does not include the authority to determine the

24

need for the shipment under these circumstances.

()

25

In this case as in other campaigns, no NRC

1

L

,

9340 02 12

368

~T

WRBeb

1

licensing actions were required by the involved parties to

(G

2

conduct the shipments.

The shipments are made under

3

authority of existing licenses, with the exception of the

4

shipments being made to Idaho from the Virginia Power Surry

5

site which, as I noted, is being conducted under DOE

6

authority.

7

A little earlier there was a question on the

8

status of the petition that was subsequently filed by the

9

State of Wisconsin.

As I indicated, this petition requested

10

the ARC to change its rules to allow state governments and

11

other interested parties a greater opportunity to comment on

12

the need for nuclear waste shipments, and th6 safety and

13 ,' environmental consequences associated with such shipments.

)

14

As I indicated, the Commission has it under

15

review but no decision has been made on the rulemaking

16

petition.

17

Now most of the shipments I've referenced have

18

involved a responsibility for storage of fuel.

What is the

19

storage situation at reactors?

20

At the end of 1985, nuclear power reactors will

21

have generated about 13,000 metric tons of spent fuel.

22

Essentially all of this fuel is stored in the reactor

23

basins.

24

In response to a question from the floor

O

's)

25

yesterday, I indicated there is only one type of GE Morris

9340.02 13

369

(~

WRBeb

1

storage facility.

The fuel from West valley is being moved

V}

2

out, as we said, so that takes care of that one.

3

DOE has a few assemblies in Nevada at a s'ite that

4

has been there for demonstration again of dry storage

5

technology, and they will end up with perhaps as much as a

6

hundred tons of fuel at Idaho for these coming

7

demonstrations of dry storage technology.

8

Other than that, all of the fuel is at the

9

reactors.

By 1998, there will be about 40,000 tons of spent

10

fuel.

11

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 clearly

12

established that the nuclear utilities have the primarp

13

responsibility for interim storage of the spent fuel

V(~T

14

pending acceptance by DOE at a repository or perhaps at a

15

monitored retrievable storage facility, MRS.

The Act did

16

provide authority for DOE to accept up to 1900 tons of spent

17

fuel for interim storage as a last resort to maintain

18

orderly reactor operations.

'

19

To obtain such federal storage, the NRC must make

20

a determination that the utility has diligently pursued the

21

licensing of storage alternatives, including reracking of

22

existing pools, rod consolidation, addition of new capacity

23

such as pools or dry storage modules, and transshipment

24

within the utility system.

.

25

Under these limitations, DOE and NRC anticipate

.

, ,--

-

-.

i

9340 02 14

370

,

(y"1

WRBeb

1

little, if any, use of this federal storage provision.

.

2

Now to provide the necessary interim storage, the

3

utilities to date have re' lied on reracking of existing

4:

storage basins to more effectively use available space.

The

5

.NRC has approved over 110 applications for reracking since

'6

the mid-1970s.

Obviously, a number of reactors have been

'

7

reracked two or more times.

Through reracking, most

,

8

reactors have storage capacity into the 1990s.

9

There are a few reactors that will require the

10

use of other methods to meet storage needs yet in the 1980s.

11

Rod consolidation in existing pools is being considered by

/

12

some reactors, although standard use of this technology in a

13

reactor pool has not yet been licensed by the NRC.

_

14

For some of you, let me explain rod

15_

consolidation as envisioned for the reactor pool.

16

Rod consolidation is an operation where the

17

non-fuel Learing hardware is removed from the bundle and the

18

loose rods that result are placed in a cannister.

It turns

!

19

out that you can get all of the rods from two assemblies

!

20

into one cannister that neatly fits in the same storage slot

'

21

in the reactor racks.

Theoretically therefore, you can get

22

a two-for-one increase in your storage capability.

23

However, a number,of reactors will be limited on

24

this particular technology because of structural

'

,

(

25

considerations.

e

9340 02 15

371

WRBeb

1

One or two applications for rod consolidation are

2

expected in the next year.

3

Dry storage modules, particularly metal storage

4

casks, are also of high interest as an alternative storage

5

mode.

With respect to dry storage, we have under review a

-6

number of Topical Reports and cask designs by potential cask

7

vendors.

After NRC approval of the Topical Report, the

.

8

Report can be referenced by license applicants for use of

9

the casks at specific sites, and the safety features of the

10

casks do not need to be' reviewed again.

11

.We have recently issued our initial approval of

12

the dry cask storage design, although this particular cask

13

is expected to be used pnly in the storage demonstration

s

7

14

because of its limited capacity.

,

15

We expect to approve yet this month a Topical

16

Report on a cask design selected by Virginia Power Company

17

for use at its surry site.

This will enable us to complete

18

our review of the Virginia Power license application within

19

the next couple of months, the first filed with the NRC for

20

dry storage of spent LWR fuel.

21

We have under review Topical Reports for four

22

other cask designs, as well as a Topical Report on

23

horizontal concrete modules for dry storage of spent fuel.

24

The concrete module design has been referenced in a license

,

\\

25

application filed by Carolina Power and Light for its

9340 02 16

372

('

WRBeb

1

Robinson 2 reactor site.

N.-

2

It should be noted that most of these storage

3

cask designs are intended for transport as well, although

4

only one vendor to date has initiated any formal action with

5

the NRC to lead to transport certification.

These are rail

6

type size casks weighing about 100 tons or more, with spent

7

fuel capacities much higher than the current generation of

8

casks because they are designed for spent fuel that has

9

decayed for at least five years.

10

Transshipment of spent fuel within a utility's

11

system is an option included in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act

12

as a method for utilities to alleviate storage shortfalls.

13

While three utilities have requested authority from the NRC

(-V)

.14

to receive and store at a reactor site fuel generated at

15

other reactor sites within the system, these same utilities

16

are actively pursuing or considering onsite fuel storage

17

alternatives.

18

Transshipment is not expected to be a significant

'

~

19

factor in the overall storage situation.

20

In summary, it does not appear that the on-going

21

or recently-completed shipping campaigns with LWR spent fuel

22

are a forecast of shipping needs of the next decade.

While

23

we can expect some movement of LWR spent fuel for test,

24

demonstration and evaluation purposes and perhaps some

()

25

limited transshipment within a utility's system, generally

o n.Jo

.

9340.02 17

373

r-J

WRBeb

1

spent fuel will be maintained at the generating site until

(_

2

DOE is prepared to transfer it to the respository or MRS.

3

The movement of the large quantities of spent fuel in

4

inventory at the reactors now is not projected to begin

5

until at least 1996.

6

Thank you.

7

(Applause.)

8

MR. CHU:

As I said earlier, these topics do not

9

fit neatly into any particular category.

I think it would

10

be well to entertain questions now at the end of each

11

speech.

12

Are there any questions?

13

Yes, sir.

,-

v

14

MR. MOBLEY:

Mike Mobley, of Tennessee.

&

15

I guess to sum it up, do I understand what you

16

are saying is that there is questionable need to be

17

concerned about the spent fuel transportation as an

18

increasing thing, and there is even less need to be

19

concerned about the fact that we are not going to have

20

enough electric-power if we just say we are not going to

21

move the spent fuel, we can handle it at the reactors?

Is

l

22

that what you're saying?

l

23

MR. ROUSE:

What I was trying to do is to give

24

you a factual picture of the storage situation at reactors.

(m,)

25

Congress in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act did provide DOE

i

!

_ . _ _ . ..__

__

c340'02 01

374

j }

WRBeb

1

with authority to proceed with a repository.

We are

2

certainly all aware of the difficulties that are being

3

encountered in the siting and the basic construction and

4

operation of a repository.

5

Congress also provided the option perhaps but has

6

to specifically authorize the MRS.

7

All I am trying to say is that the reactors now

8

are capable of providing for their own needs in this next

9

decade.

However, the utilities also feel quite strongly

10

that the federal government has made a commitment to begin

11

to take that fuel off their hands at the end of this next

12

decade.

13

MR. CUNNINGHAM:

Clearly wh'en DOE takes title to

_{

14

this fuel, large amounts of it will be shipped.

Containers

15'

and casks for these shipments have to start to be designed

16

now to be available in 1996.

This is a long process.through

17

design, testing, and so forth.

We all must be aware of and

18

look toward that time when fuel will be shipped in

'19

substantial quantities.

20

So what Lee summarized was simply the current

!

I

21

situation.

There are going to be large shipments in the

22

future, and we have got to prepare for that now.

23

MR. TEDFORD:

Tedford, from Arizona.

24

I was under the impression before coming here

( O'

25

that the Morris site was sort of a national thing for spent

I

l

L

,

- .,

,

, , - . . - .

. - . .

- - - - . . -

.

_ . . - - - . - , . _ - - .

. .

- - - - -

-

i

!'

c340 02 02

375

-

WRBeb'

1

fuel, but what I heard yesterday was essentially that

l

2.

General Electric is receiving fuel that they have sent out

'

3-

and let people use the energy from it and then took it back.

-4

My. question is:

5

Is there any PWR spent fuel out there, or just

6

BWR7

7

MR. ROUSE:

Let me stop and think,

8

The Point Beach fuel was there.

That's a PWR.

9

And it has been moved back to the Point Beach reactor.

I am

10

honestly not certain.

They have stored PWR fuel, I think.

!

11

We have an answer I think in the back of the

l

12

room.

l

13

MR. STRASMA:

Jan Strasma, Region III, .NRC.

,

14

There'is spent fuel from San Onofre in

l

15

California, and spent fuel from Connecticut Yankee in

16

Connecticut that has been stored at Morris.

l

L

17

MS. ZALMAN:

This is sort of a large question.

18

It isn't only with regard to nuclear transportation per se,

19

but it concerns where nuclear transportation fits into

20

energy choices made over the period while the nuclear waste

(

21

program is growing.

22

You mentioned the figures of 13,000 metric tons

i

'

23

in 1985 to something like 40,000 metric tons by the end of

1

24

the century.

I think of it in terms of people's ages.

When

..

!(

25

my nephew is 17 these shipments will be beginning.

We will

-c340 02 03

376

WRBeb

1

be into a new era, obviously, with regard to dealing with

(']'

\\_

2

nuclear waste.

,

3

But to what extent is the burden of nuclear waste

4

being considered in terms of the front end of the choice on

5

whether or not to produce electricity generated by the

6

nuclear option?

In other words, my view is that for the

7

future, this is probably going to be taking a larger toll,

8

both in terms of financial, manpower and just the quality of

9

life in terms of the activity or the frequency of activity

10

of having hazardous material on our roads and on our

11

trains.

12

So to what extent can you comment on the current

13

thinking on choices, about production of electricity and

14

alternative choices being made by utilities across the

b

15

country in this area?

16

MR. CHU:

Does anybody want to respond to that?

17

Let me just say one thing:

18

I can't respond to you, obviously, because my

'

19

expertise is very, very limited, but let me go off on a

20

limb and make just one observation, and that is that no

21

single energy source is risk-free.

22

We do have just only so many different kinds of

23

possible energy sources.

Most widely used is petroleum, and

24

we know what the situation vis-a-vis petroleum is, why

(

-

25

experts disagree as to whether we are going to run out of

,

.

_

.

-_.

_

-

..

-- _

c340 02 04

377

WRBeb

1

oil.

2

Ten years ago the prediction was that we would

3

run out of oil by 1985.

We are now in 1985 and so clearly

-

4

we haven't run out of oil yet, but the end will be some time

5

in the early part of the next century.

We have a price to

6

pay vis-a-vis petroleum in terms of geopolitics, and so on,

7

in the Middle East and everywhere.

I won't get into option.

8

I will get back into my bureaucratic mode.

9

Another possible source of energy that is

.

10

widespread is coal, but that is not risk-free.

So that we

,

11

as a nation, -- and I am now speaking as an individual

'

12

rather than a DOT employee -- that we do have to strike some

r-

13

kind of balance and that we do' recognize the risks that are

C

14

entailed in the nuclear option.

15

I will stop right here.

16

MS. ZALMAN:

Do you view that the utilities still

17

conceive of ef ficiency in solar and geothermal and the other

18

less risky opportunities are still trivial?

Is that your

19

conception?

~

20

MR. CHU:

Well, my conception is that each one of

21

the options has its costs, and right here I'm referring to

22

costs in the most generalized sense of the word, both

23

economics, safety, health and environment.

And we are

24

trying to -

"we" collectively are trying to strike some

()

25

kind of a balance.

And by that I mean we are struggling to

L

l

i.

c340 02.05

378

('}

WRBeb

1

strike that balance.

'm>

2

It is not a very simple thing, certainly not to

3

me at all.

Okay?

And some of the things that look

4

potentially very attractive, that do seem to entail with it

5

low cost as far as safety and hea,lth and environment, solar

6

and geothermal, we are at a point where the economics are

7

not very attractive.

8

And in the end when society does make a choice,

9

we are talking about making a choice along economic lines.

10

That's not something we can do terribly much about.

11

It is not a very specific answer but--

12

MS. ZALMAN:

That's all right.

Thank you.

(]

13

MR. BOYLL:

Jamie Boyll from Mississippi Policy

,

V

14

Council.

15

You stated that the dry storage is of great

16

interest.

I would just like to know how close you are to

,

17

possible licensing of that type of system.

18

MR. ROUSE:

Right now I have two applications for

19

dry storage, one from Virginia Power, one from Carolina

20

Power and Light.

21

At Virginia Power it is dry storage in metal

22

casks.

Yet this month I expect to approve the Topical

23

Report of the Castor 5 cask that Virginia Power selected.

24

In the next couple of months I expect to complete our review

O

(_/

25

of Virginia Power and go to the Commission with a

--

c340 02 06

379

r-9

WRBeb

1

recommendation.

U

2

So over this next year I expect'to have completed

3

'a number of the Topical Report reviews and probably get out

4

the first two licenses.

5

MR. BOYLL:

Thank you.

6

I understand there is still some research being

7

done while fuel assemblies are being moved.to Idaho.

Is

8

that for research or actual storage?

9

MR. ROUSE:

That is development of DOE's doing

NtiCIlA Y

10

under theAWaste Policy Act.

It is developing the

11

technology.

What they are doing is pushing the temperatures

12

a little bit to really try different storage mediums.

.

13

For example, we presently require that the dry

/-)

\\*J

14

storage be in an inert atmosphere, and they are also going

15

to plan to do some storage of consolidated fuels.

They are

16

trying to advance the technology.

17

MR. CHU:

Are there any other questions on this

,

18

particular topic?

19

Yes, sir.

20

VOICE:

(Designation dnaudible) -- from the State

21

of Utah.

I am not a designated official.

22

I have a question about rod consolidation as a

23

method for possible transportation, limiting transportation

l

I

24

activities.

()

25

I am wondering what the status of rod

!

.-

. _ - - _ . , , - . -

- ,_

,

_ - , . . . . .

- - . . _

-

.

- - .. .

- _ _ . . _ . - - , _

0340-02 07

380

WRBeb

1

consolidation in transportation activities is.

2

MR. ROUSE:

I'll try that.

3

As I indicated, there are a number of reactors

4

that are looking at rod consolidation principally as a means

5

of increasing their storage capacity.

Right now I do not

6

expect a lot of reactors will go to rod consolidation.

7

There are some problems, some structural reasons that they

8

may not.

9

However, DOE itself now as part of this is

10

looking at system improvements and is looking at a concept

11

of consolidation of the rods for transport.

It is a thing

12

they are looking at but there are no decisions.'

13

VOICE:

So there have been no' tests conducted

()

-

14

with rod consolidation?

15

MR. ROUSE:

No, there have been none to date.

16

VOICE:

Thank you.

17

MR. CHU:

Our next talk will be devoted to the

18

question of modal choice.

It will be given by Mr. Phil

~

19

Daling of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.

The

20

title of the speech is " Modal Choices and Considerations."

21

Mr. Daling.

22

(Slide.)

23

MR. DALING:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

24

Good morning.

Before I get started, I didn't

O)

(_

25

print my paper but I did bring a bunch of copies with me

-

0340 02 08

381

(~ ';

WRBeb

1

and they are available outside on the display table, until

' . . _ -

x

2

they run out.

If they do run out and someone wants one,

3

give me your card or your name and address and I will see

4

that you get one.

5

As Woody indicated, I will be talking today about

6

modal choice and considerations in the selection of

7

transport modes for spent fuel shipments.

8

(Slide.)

9

What I would like to do today is basically start

10

with some basic information about the three dif ferent

11

transport modes that are available for spent fuel shipments:

12

highway, rail and water.

And then I will go on to describe

'

,ew

13

some factors that may affect the selection of one,or more of

r

i

L ,?

14

these modes for spent fuel shipment.

15

(Slide.)

16

As we've seen over the last couple of days, spent

17

fuel is transported in what is called a Type-B package, a

18

package designed to withstand severe accident conditions.

19

It consists basically of an internal stainless steel

20

pressure vessel.

At least the existing shipping casks are

21

constructedwith an internal stainless steel pressure vessel

22

surrounded by layers of shielding material for gamma rays

23

and for neutrons.

!

24

The lids on these shipping casks are bolted and

)

25

gasketed in place to maintain the containment of the

'

,

L

m .

c340 02 09

382

("j. WRBeb

1

radioactive material.

'\\_/

2

The cask is designed with impact-limiting devices

3

to absorb some of the energy of the impact of some kind of

4

vehicular accident.

5

(Slide.)

6

This slide is kind of busy.

I am not going to go

7

into too much detail, but it contains the basic information

8

about the existing current generation of spent fuel shipping

9

casks.

10

As you can see, there are two types of truck

-

11

casks.

There is a legal-weight truck cask and an overweight

12

truck.

The overweight is not to indicate that it is not

13

legal, it is just heavier than some state restrictions

(-)

%)

14

allow.

It requires special permits.

15

The legal-weight truck casks weigh about 26 tons

.

16

or 22,000 kilograms; in that vicinity.

The overweight truck

17

casks weigh about 50 percent more than that.

18

There are also two types of rail casks.

There is

19

a light rail and a heavy rail.

The light rail is the type

20

we saw yesterday.

Itweighkontheorderof60,000

21

kilograms.

It's a large cask, but the NLI-10.24 is an even

22

larger, and a higher capacity.

It weighs approximately

23

83,000.

24

(Slide.)

()

25

I hope you can see this.

It is not a very good

c340 02 10

383

WRBeb

1

picture of the NLI-1/2, but it is shown in the shipment

O,r4

2

configuration.

3

Let's go through these pictures quickly.

4

(Slide.)

5

This is the NLI-1/2 in the frame.

You can see

6

that it is a fairly large system even though it is just a

7

legal-weight truck cask.

There is an operator standing down

8

there, and he is taking a radiation measurement, but he is

9

dwarfed by the cask.

10

(Slide.)

.

11.

This is the overweight truck cask, TN-8 and

12

TN-9.

They are about 50 percent larger than the

.

13

legal-weight truck cask.

,

'

-q

.

14

(Slide.)

15

Here is the TN-9 in the cask-handling frame.

16

(Slide.)

17

This is the rail cask that we saw yesterday, the

18

light rail cask.

This is shown on its rail car with its

i

, 19

personnel barrier surrounding the cask.

,

20

(Slide.)

!

21

This is hanging from its frame.

We saw this at

22

the Morris facility yesterday.

23

(Slide.)

24

This is the picture of the NLI-1024, what I

O

25

ce11ed the heevy re11 ceek.

Ite cenecietee ere 50 gercene

l

.

k

_

.

c340 02 11

384

~1 WRBeb

1

larger than the light.

It's a very, very large cask.

(V

2

(Slide.)

3

Another of what Lee has been talking about this

4

morning, or one of the things he touched on was the fact

5

that some utilities or some casks may be certified to be

6

both storage and transportation.

And DOE is-currently

7

involved in a demonstration with Nuclear Fuel, Services which

8

will load fuel into storage casks at West Valley, transport

9

them by rail to Idaho, and at Idaho they will be in storage

10

for a number of years.

11

(Slide.)

12

This is the Castor 1-C cask which is a fairly

'

rs

13

large cask also.

It is a new generation cask.

Basically it

'O

14

consists only of a single solid material, one large casting

15

with approximately nine-inch-thick walls of cast iron.

16

(Slide.)

17

And this is an even larger Castor V.

This cask

18

weighs approximately 100 tons.

It is very large, and it is

19

also cast iron.

20

(Slide.)

21

Water transport is something that has not been

22

practiced in the U. S. yet.

Basically a water shipment

23

would consist of one or more large rail casks on a barge or

24

a ship.

As I said, it hasn't been used in the United States

25

but it is used extensively in Japan and in Europe.

-

.

-

-.

.- ..

-

- . _ - . _ . .

. _ _

. . _ _

.-

_.

_

A

a340 02 12

385

.

The ships are generally sma.L1 and not like a

! (F)1

WRBeb

1

r-

,

2

cupertanker.

They weight approximately two to three

.

3

thousand dead weight tons compared te a supertanker which is

'

i

4

maybe fifty or sixty thousand dead weight tons.

And the

5

ships are about the length of a football field, and maybe 12

,

6

. to 18 meters wide.

,

7

There are numerous ships that are available,

~8

either in Europe or Japan.

And you can get 24 rail casks on

9

those ships.

10

11

.

12

i

13

O

.

14

.

15

i

16

17

18

!

19

l

20

l

21

l

22

.

,

!

23

,

.

l

24

O

25

,

!

i

,

9340 03 01

386

7-9

WRBeb

1

(Slide.)

U

2

This shows a schematic of one of the ships that's

3

available.

I think this is--

The British use this ship.

4

It's a Pacific Nuclear Transport, Limited, ship.

And I just

5

wanted to show that it looks like any other ship that you'd

6

see.

It has a large engine, it has underdeck cargo holds

7

where the spent fuel casks are.

So they're basically away

8

from the people who are operating the ship.

9

They do have special provisions for shielding,

10

including both water for neutron shielding, and it has some

11

structural material for gamma rays.

12

(Slide.)

13

Another type of shipment is referred to as an

aO

14

intermodal shipment, and this type of shipment uses more

15

than one transport mode; for example, it would use

16

truck-rail or -- actually any kind of a barge shipment woul.

17

probably involve an intermodal movement of some kind to get

18

the rail casks from the reactor to the barge, to the water

19

port.

20

The two most likely configurations are a

21

heavy-haul truck / rail configuration which a reactor that may

22

not have rail service would use.

This heavy-haul / rail

23

combination uses a large special heavy-haul truck shipment

24

with special permits and escorts, et cetera, to move a large

()

25

rail cask by truck to and from a reactor.

And then once at

9340 03 02

387

(G^}

WRBeb

1

a rail siding or the nearest rail location, the cask is

2

removed from the heavy-haul truck and onto the rail car.

3

(Slide.)

4

This slide just shows a schematic of the

5

heavy-haul truck configuration.

The IF-300 we saw yesterday

6

is specifically designed as a heavy-haul truck, potentially

7

it could be used as a heavy-haul truck.

8

The skid that the cask rests on can be picked up

9

by special hydraulic equipment and moved between the

10

heavy-haul truck and the rail car.

11

(Slide.)

12

Now I'll discuss some of the factors that affect

.

13

the selection of transport modes, and these factors include

14

economics of risk and safety, routing considerations,

15

cask-handling capabilities and limitations at reactors, and

16

also the availability of current generation shipping casks.

17

(Slide.)

18

Under economics:

Transportation costs are not a

19

simple cut-and-dried type of thing, they are affected by a

20

number of different parameters, including specific origins

21

and destinations of shipments; the frequency of shipments;

22

the length of the contract; the weight of the shipment, and

23

any existing competition between rail carriers and truck

24

carriers and cask manufacturers.

m(,)

25

The transportation industry is also deregulated,

_ _ _ _ _

9340 03 03

388

(^]

WRBeb

1

which means that all of these costs are subject to

v

2

negotiation between the shippers, the carriers and the cask

3

manufacturers.

4

Basically, transportation costs consist of

5

freight charges which are assessed by the carrier company,

6

and would also include things such as special equipment

7

costs for t,he vehicles.

8

The carrier companies typically also charge the

9

next category of costs, which are security.

Security costs

10

are basically the things that are mandated by 10 CFR 73, the

11

safeguards regulations: escort vehicles in densely populated

12

areas, armed guards, and that kind of thing,

13

The third category of costs are cask lease

g3]

\\-

.

14

charges which are charged by the cask vendors for the use 6f

15

their equipment, and also any special handling costs that

16

may be incurred, such as the heavy-haul truck configuration

17

which may need a special crane and other equipment.

18

(Slide.)

19

This slide shows some representative

20

transportation costs that include all the factors that I

21

discussed on the last slide.

I don't think I'll go into the

22

numbers here, except to point out that from our calculations

23

we can see that the legal weight truck configuration is

24

probably the least expensive option for a utility to use up

(q_)

25

to, maybe, a thousand miles, somewhere in that neighborhood.

.

9340 03 04

389

WRBeb

1

Beyond a thousand miles it looks like the rail cask -- the

2

use of rail casks becomes less expensive.

And both

3

intermodal configurations shown on the slide are the most

4

expensive of all.

5

(Slide.)

6

The second factor to consider are the risk and

7

safety considerations.

We have heard several presentations

8

on the severe accident conditions that casks are designed to

9

withstand.

Historically, there has not been a release from

10

Type B packages yet.

11

Analytically you can evaluate risk by considering

12

that there are four different aspects of transportation

13.

risk, and they're shown--

I'll just go through them.

,s

(

)

14

Radiological risks from an accident, and that

15

would be the risk from a release that occurred during that

16

transportation accident.

17

There's also incident-free exposures that are

18

received by truck drivers, by the rail people and by the

19

persons along the route, to very low levels of radiation

20

that are emitted from the cask.

21

There are also non-radiological accidents and

22

incident-free risks.

Both of these risks are from things

23

other than the radiological characteristics of the cargo.

24

For example, the accident risks are from vehicular accidents

()

25

and injuries and fatalities that may occur during an

_.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

9340 03 05

390

(~}

WRBeb

1

accident.

V

2

The incident-free risks are from pollutants and

3

particulates that are emitted from the diesel combustion or

4

from gasoline combustion.

5

(Slide.)

6

One approach that is fairly simple to use to

7

estimate risk is through the use of unit risk factors.

8

These risk factors have been developed over the last couple

9

of years by Sandia National Laboratories, and there are a

10

number of reports out that indicate the magnitude of these

11

numbers.

12

The units basically are cons'equences, or risks

13

per unit distance traveled, such as radiation dose, or

14

person-rem per kilometer, or fatalities per kilometer in the

15

case of a vehicular accident.

16

To calculate risk, to get a fairly close

17

estimate, you multiply the risk factor times the distance

18

traveled.

And the distance traveled is simply calculated by

19

multiplying the number of shipments by the round-trip

20

distance.

21

Risk factors are currently available for truck

22

and rail shipments, and the barge transport risks I

23

understand are being worked on right now at Sandia and

y

24

should be available this summer.

fx()

25

(Slide.)

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

._

_

_ _ _ . -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9340 03 06

391

WRBeb

1

This slide shows some of the unit risk factors

2

that have been calculated.

I'm not going to go through the

3

numbers here: they're in my paper if you want to take a

4

closer look at them.

5

I would like to point out from the slide, though,

6

that it looks like the numbers for truck unit risk factors

7

are smaller than the ones for rail, but that's not the case;

8

the magnitude of the numbers is, but when you multiply by

9

the distance traveled you have to consider the capacity of

10

the cask, and you have a seven- to ten-fold increase in

11

capacity for rail casks, which would reflect maybe a factor

12

of 7 or 10 less shipments.

So the risk does come out fairly

13

equivalently between truck and rail.

,

CE)

-

14

(Slide.)

15

Another factor that may affect the selection of

16

transport modes are routing considerations.

As we've heard

17

the last couple of days, routing regulations do exist for

18

truck -- for highway shipments; they're embodied in HM-164.

19

But they have not been developed for rail or for barge.

20

Some factors that may need to be considered when

21

selecting a particular transport mode would be some of the

22

factors that we've discussed: the quality of track, highway

23

and water route; hazardous materials traffic volume, we want

!

24

to minimize exposure of a shipment to other hazardous

()

25

materials traffic; accident rates: we're prefer to avoid

-.

.

~

9340 03 07

392

(-]

WRBeb

1

high accident rate areas; and you also may want to look at

V

2

the total population affected: for example, a truck shipment

3

would have to go through an urban, highly densely populated

4

area versus a rail shipment that would go around that area.

5

We also wanted to look at locations of special

6

facilities along the route.

Special facilities are things

7

such as hospitals, factories that may employ 50 percent of

'f

8

the population of a certain town; you may want to look at

9

shopping centers or anywhere a large group of people would

10

be collected.

11

(Slide.)

12

Another factor to consider are the cask handling

,

13

capabilities and limitations at reactors.

We recently

-

d,s

14

completed a study looking at cask' handling capabilities, and

15

we found that some reactors are limited to using the highway

16

transport mode at this time.

Some of the reasons for this

17

are lack of rail access to the site; they may have

18

inadequate lifting capabilities; their cask handling crane

19

doesn't have the full capacity that they would need to use a

20

rail cask, or in some plants their cask loading pool is

21

actually too small and there is not enough clearance to put

22

the cask in the pool.

23

As I discussed previously, the heavy-haul

'

24

truck / rail intermodal configuration could be used at

( )

25

reactors that are not provided with rail service by using

.

-

,

- , , , - - - - - . , _ _ - .

- - - - - , . - , . _ - - . - , - - . .

- , - , . , , . - - -

. , . . . . - - , ---

9340 03 08

393

(~9

WRBeb

1

the heavy-haul truck configuration to move the large rail

%-)

2

cask to and from the plant.

3

(Slide.)

4

This slide summarizes the cask handling

-

5

capability information results that we obtain in our study.

6

As you can see, all of the plants are currently

7

capable of handling a legal weight truck cask.

About 80

8

percent -- a little more than 80 percent of the plants can

9

handle overweight truck casks, and about 60 percent can

10

handle the light rail cask, at least.

There is a break

11

between a light and a rail cask: there are some plants that

12

can handle the light cask but not the heavy rail cask.

13

If you consider the NLI-1024 as the next -- you

14

know, about the size of the next generation of shipping

15

casks, only about 60 percent of the plants can handle such a

16

cask.

17

(Slide.)

18

A final factor to consider is the availability of

19

the current generation of shipping casks to perform the

20

shipments.

21

You need to look at the fact that there is a

22

limited number of these shipping casks, and there are also

23

other commitments for their use, and we have talked about

24

some of the future shipments that we know are going to have

()

25

to occur.

9340 03 09

394

(~]

WRBeb

1

The current cask availability.

The numbers are

V

2

on this slide are for certified casks that could be used

3

right now.

In the legal weight truck category there are

4

only five that are currently certified and available for

5

use.

Overweight truck casks, there are four, and one of

6

those is owned by a utility company.

The light rail cases,

7

four of them are certified, and one of those is also owned

8

by a utility company.

And none of the heavy rail casks are

9

available.

10

(slide.)

11

I'd like to highlight some of the important

12

conclusions that are in the paper.

13

Basically, unit transportation costs are one

14

consideration that you would need to look at.

These costs

15

favor truck for the shorter distances and rail for longer

16

distances.

And in all cases the intermodal shipments are

17

the most expensive.

18

We find no significant analytical safety benefits

19

for selecting truck over rail or rail over truck, but

2l0

transport modes can be selected which minimize things such

21

as accident rates, exposure to hazardous materials traffic,

22

exposure of persons, the affected population along the

23

route.

24

Also, the shipper, the utility or what-ever, must

()

25

consider the cask handling capabilities and limitations at

9340 03 10

395

WRBeb

1

the plant as well as the availability of the current

2

generation of shipping casks.

3

That's all I wanted to say today.

If anyone has

4

any questions I'll be glad to try to respond.

5

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Jim Holloway from Virginia.

6

I think it's unfortunate that you put economic

7

factors first.

I hope you didn't mean that.

Because as a

7

Virginia has recently done a very large scale

8

9

study on shipping of spent fuel, and as a result of our

studyeconomicswerethefst important to everyone

10

11

involved.

12

It sort of taints the study somewhat, the fact

13

that you have economic factors first here.

I think that's

O

14

the last thing we should be worried about.

We should be

15

worried about the risk.

16

Thank you.

17

MR. DALING:

It's unfortunate that I organized

18

the paper as I did.

Actually, it turns out that probably

19

the most key limitations are the cask handling

20

capabilities.

If a plant can' t handle a rail casI it

21

certainly will have to use the highway mode.

22

Any other questions?

23

(No response.)

.,

24

Thank you.

O

(^99 ee e-)

1

25

i

9340 03 11

396

i

WRBeb

1

DR. CHU:

The final topic of this morning's

2

session is on insurance considerations.

Contrary to what

3

your agenda and program notes indicate, the speaker will be

4

Mr. Wayne Kerr, Director of the Office of State Programs for

5

the NRC.

He will speak on insurance for transportation

6

operations.

7

Mr. Kerr.

8

MR. KERR:

Thank you.

9

There has obviously been considerable discussion

10

over the past few days on the steps that have been taken to

11

reduce the possibility of transportation accidents that

12

might result in an accident that would lead to injury or

13

damage to property or to the environment.

14

Strict transportation standards, stringent

15

packaging and enforcement policies of DOT and NRC are all

16

directed toward making the risk of public impact of

17

transportation accidents very small.

The record of

18

transportation accidents involving hazardous material, as

19

you have heard many times, has been one to which all parties

20

can point with pride.

Yet no one can say that an accident

21

affecting the public will never happen.

22

Both as an act of public policy and as a matter

23

of sound business practice, Congress, the Executive agencies

24

and the nuclear insurance industries have fashioned a system

'

()

25

of private insurance and governmental indemnity to make sure

L

9340 03 12

397

('T WRBeb

1

that funds are available to pay losses in the event of a

V

2

nuclear accident, including one during transportation.

3

Let me give you a bit of background on the

4

Price-Anderson system, which is something -- the

5

Price-Anderson Act, which you've probably heard of, and

6

which provides liability coverage for nuclear accidents,

7

I'll try to explain in layman's terms what is meant by

8

public liability coverage and how Price-Anderson works to

9

provide those funds.

10

I will restrict my comments primarily to present

11

and near-term spent fuel shipments, although I will conclude

12

with some remarks that address legislation which Congress is

'

13

considering for liability coverage for high-level waste

O

14

shipments, particularly spent fuel shipments, under the

15

Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

16

First, in terms of liability coverage, we're

17

concerned with whether there will be funds available to

18

parties undertaking nuclear activities that will compensate

19

members'of the public who suffer injury or damage caused by

20

an accident involving nuclear material.

Usually liability

21

issues are concerned to a great extent with the legal

22

determination of who was at fault.

Only the person who is

23

shown to be at fault for the accident, and that person's

'

24

insurer, have to pay what are called court claims to victims

()

25

for damages and injuries caused by the accident.

-9340 03 13

398

1

Under the Price-Anderson Act, hohever, anyone who

(~)1 ,WRBeb-

's_

'

2

may be liable is covered, so that whether one party or many

'

3

parties may be responsible for the accident, the same

4

coverage is available to pay the public liability claims.

y ;

5

!The Act requires licensees of large commercial

6

power plants to provide proof to the NRC that they,have

7

. private nuclear liability insurance equal to the maximum

,

'

8

amount of insurance available from private sources.

9

Licensees,of smaller reactors provide l financial protection

10

in lesser amounts.

Cfpilegesanduniversitiesthatoperate

11

research reactors, and federal agencies that hold reactor

<12

licenses are not required to buy insurance.

13'

The' Price-Anderson Act that has now evolved

.n'~'

'

14

entails.a two-part insurance system for liability payments:

15

the first is a primary liability insurance scheme whereby

16

, utilities operating large power reactors pay a premium each

17

year for a fixed amount of liability coverage.

That covered

18

is currently $160 million for each large power reactor

19

site.

This insurance is ' supplemented by the second part of

20

the s stem that applies only to the operators of large

21

reactors: in the event of a nuclear accident causing damage

22

exceeding $160 million, each licensed nuclear power plant --

23

not just the one that was involved in the accident --

24

operator would be assessed a pro rated share of damages in

,

(G,)

25

excess of the primary coverage up to SS million per reactor

9340 03 14

399-

,

WRBeb

1

per accident.

With 95 commercial reactors currently under

2

the system, the secondary insurance totals $475 million.

3

Where the Act also requires the government to

4

provide funds for an accident in exce'ss of private

5

insurance, or where no private insurance is required, these

,

,'l

6

government funds would be called government indemnity.

7

The NRC enters into agreements with licensees

8

that specify the amount of financial protection they are

9

required to have, if any, and the obligation of the

10

governme.nt with respect to its licensees.

11

In effect, the Act then places a ceiling on the

12

total amount of liability in an accident.

This limit is

I3

currently tied to the maximum amount of insurance 'through

.

7-G

14

private sources.

For many years the limit was $560

15

million.

In November, 1982, when the primary and secondary

16

layers'for large power reactors reached $560 million, the

17

government's indemnity was essentially eliminated.

18

The present limit of $635 million will continue

19

to increase in increments of $5 million for each new reactor

i

20

licensed to operate.

f

l

21

There are two insurance pools that provide the

22

utility industry with the insurance that is envisioned in

23

the Price-Anderson.

About half of these pools' total

24

liability capacity comes from foreign sources like Lloyds of

()

'

25

London and the Japanese and German insurers.

Member

,

l

L

i

9340 03 15

400

/

WRBeb

1

companies comprising a pool decide independently the amount

2

of capacity they wish to commit to nuclear risk.

3

The pools write two forms of nuclear energy

i

7b

4

liability policies: the facilities form and the suppliers

5

and transporters form.

6

The facilities form is a location oriented policy

7

issued to owners and operators of facilities and, when

8

provided, is financial protection in the formal part of the

,

9

system.

10

The facilities form, I might add, is also sold to

11

operators of nuclear facilities other than reactors, such as

12

operators of fuel fabrication facilities and nuclear storage

'

13

facilities; and in those cases the policies are not part of

(3~_)

-

'

14

the Price-Anderson system.

15

The suppliers and transporters form is not part

16

of the system, but is purchased by those who may supply

17

goods and services to facilities that have not purchased the

18

facilities form or by those who want additional coverage.

19

These pools also participate in the secondary

20

part of financial protection required by Price-Anderson by

21

' issuing policies that set forth the terms, conditions, and

22

obligations of the parties to cover the secondary part of

l-

23

the insurance.

'

24

Up to this point I have not focussed on coverage

()

25

for transportation.

The Price-Anderson Act itself makes

I

.

__

_

__

-

9340 03 16

401

WRBeb

1

only indirect reference to transportation.

Transportation

k'_.l

~

)

2

coverage actually comes about through provisions in the

3

facilities form of the insurance policy and in the

4

government indemnity agreements that provide coverage of

5

specifically defined shipments of nuclear materials to or

6

from the defined reactor location.

__

7

In terms of the insurance polices, insured

-

{

8

shipments which are covered co the full extent of the

9

coverage for the reactor site itself applies to shipments of

10

spent fuel to the reactor from any location except from

11

another indemnified nuclear facility, and from the reactor

12

to any other location.

(V-)

13

Thus, in shipments from one indemnified reactor

14

to another, the shipper's policy rather'than the receiving

15

reactor's policy would cover.

16

This arrangement where the shipping reactor's

17

policy covers the transportation is also the one followed

18

for shipments to fuel storage facilities, such as the

19

G.E.

facility at Morris, Illinois.

20

On the other hand, shipments of spent fuel from

21

certain reactors that has been stored at spent fuel

22

facilities at Morris and West Valley and are now being

23

returned from those, or have been returned, are covered by

24

the reactor's policy.

This is because the spent fuel is an

)

(/

25

insured shipment to the reactor facility from a location

l

,

9340 03 17

402

WRBeb

1

that is not an indemnified nuclear facility as defined in

2

the policy.

3

with respect to these shipments, the total

4

insurance coverage of $635 million would apply.

The

5

transportation coverage terminates once the material is

6

removed from the, transporting vehicle for any purpose other

7

than the continuation of its transport or when the shipment

8

arrives at another nuclear facility.

9

As I described earlier, the coverage, although

10

written in an insurance policy that describes the utility as

11

the insured by name, does cover anyone who might be liable

12

for the accident, including the storage facility operators,

13

common carriers, the drivers, the spent fuel cask designers

'

14

and manufacturers; the state, locality and highway authority

15

with jurisdiction over the road, or even the operator of

16

another vehicle who may have caused the accident.

17

It covers sabota e in the course of the planned

18

transportation, but not a terrorist activity if the material

.

19

is successfully removed from the planned transportation and

20

then dispersed or exploded.

.

21

It also covers the loss of property which has

22

been contaminated or which is in imminent danger of

23

contamination -- that is, business type interruptions.

24

I've been describing the Price-Anderson coverage

()

25

of presently extant shipments of licensed spent fuel to and

.

._

_

c340 03 01

403

.b(^7

WRBeb

1

from reactors.

The Act also extends a parallel system,

2

without nuclear insurance but with government indemnity

3

funds, to companies who carry out activities under contract

4

to the Department of Energy.

5

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides that DOE

6

will take title to spent fuel at the reactor site and will

7

take responsibility for shipping the spent fuel from the

8

reactors to the high level waste repositories or the

9

monitored retrievable storage facilities if one were to

10

exist.

The Department has stated that its activity in

11

shipping the spent fuel from reactors to repositories or

12

storage facilities would be carried out by contractors of

13

the DOE.

-

%J

14

So the consequence of the two sources of

15

Price-Anderson protection on both NRC and DOE, there would

16

be potential coverage for such shipments both through the

17

insurance policies held by the utilities as licensees of the

18

NRC and the through the contract with the companies carrying

19

out DOE's function.

20

Those of us who work with Price-Anderson in the

21

two agencies have considered that we could reach an

22

accommodation as to which coverage would prevail well before

23

the shipments started.

But it now looks like there is

24

reasonable likelihood that the Congress in its consideration

()

25

of the modification and extension of the Price-Anderson Act

. - .

c340 03 02

404

'T WRBeb

1

beyond its present expiration date of August 1st, 1987, that

w/

2

they will address it there.

.

3

The first bill introduced in the current

4

Price-Anderson congressional consideration which touches on

5

high level waste transportation is H.R.-2524, The Federal

6

Nuclear Waste Disposal Liability Act of 1985, introduced by

7

Representative Morrison and others on May 15, 1985.

This

8

bill is intended to ensure that the Department of Energy,

9

through its contractors, would assume responsibility for

10

total indemnification for public liability claims resulting

11

from nuclear waste disposal activities, including storage,

12

disposal, and related transportation of high level waste and

.

13

spent nuclear fuel.

f3

(J

Thesecondbill,S.12[25, introduced by Senators

14

15

McClure and Simpson on May 24th, provides that in the event

16

of a nuclear accident involving the nuclear waste program,

17

the funds that will be immediately available through the DOE

18

for compensating the public will be equivalent to the fund

19

provided in the event of an accident at an NRC licensed

20

reactor, or for any other DOE indemnified activity.

21

Specifically, this includes any activity by DOE

22

directly or pursuant to a contract in connection with the

23

storage or disposal of spent fuel or high level waste,

24

including the transportation of such material to a storage

c()

25

or disposal facility.

.

- .

.

_

a340 03 03

405

/~1

WRBeb

1

In the interests of time I have synthesized the

(g

1

2

concepts and language of Price-Anderson in order to give you

-

3

a general idea of how coverage is provided for spent fuel

4

shipments today, and of the congressional ideas for

5

providing coverage in the future for shipments under the

6

Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

I have skipped over many

7

important and frequently misunderstood features of

8

Price-Anderson, including a congressional pledge to review

9

the accident if the limitation of liability is reached and

10

the provisions respecting extraordinary nuclear occurrences

1

11

and waiver of defenses.

12

I recommend that you also look through the blue

.

13

brochure that was in your handout packet, which is a gener.al

descr'ption of Price-Anderson written a year or so ago, but

i

14

15

it is still generally current.

16

I'll be pleased to take any questions you might

17

have at this time.

l

18

MS. MCNABB:

What about the NRC's position on

l

!

19

renewal of Price-Anderson?

r

l

20

MR. KERR:

In the legislation pending; is that

21

what you mean?

22

Well, the program itself is there, we administer

23

it as it is currently provided under the law, which I've

24

indicated -- you know, the current liability limit of $635

()

25

million and it would go up with each new reactor licensed.

l

!

_

.

__,., __

__

c340 03 04

406

('1

WRBeb

1

And that is currently covered by the law that has been place

Q)

2

a number of years, and regulations.

3

In terms of legislation pending, there've been

4

two hearings so far this year, one more at least is

5

planned.

The Commissioners -- there are five -- are divided

,

6

on what recommendations to make to Congress.

7

Let me first say that the staff preparea a

8

comprehensive report on Price-Anderson and possible renewal

9

in 1983 and submitted it to Congress.

The staff

10

recommended that we eliminate the absolute limitation on

11

liability, which currently exists as I've described, and

12

substitute with an annual retrospective premium that would

e-

13

continue until all claims had been paid.

Q)J

,

14

Now, the current Commission position is that two

15

commissioners still generally favor what the staff proposed,

16

two commissioners generally favor the McClure-Simpson bill

17

with a cap of roughly $2 billion or somewhere in that range,

18

and one commissioner believes there should be a cap probably

19

ML20134K927

Text

Navigation menu

Search