ML20151Z201

Summary of 980730 Meeting with Util Re RAI on Application for Approval to Transport Trojan Reactor Vessel Package to Us Ecology Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility on Hanford Nuclear Reservation.Attendance Lists & Viewgraphs Included

ML20151Z201
Person / Time
Site:	07109271
Issue date:	09/17/1998
From:	Jackie Cook NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Kane W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 9809210195
Download: ML20151Z201 (73)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-. -. - -. = 01-187/ Att k UNITED STATES i P, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l E I WASHINGTON, D.C. 30e06 0001 September 17, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: William F. Kane, Director l Spent Fuel Project Office FROM: John R. CoJ, Senior Transportation Speciali l Traasportation and Storage Safety Section l Licensing & Inspection Directorate Spent Fuel Project Office

SUMMARY

OF THE JULY 30,1998 MEETING BETWEEN THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF AND PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, AND PUBLIC MEETING i. On July 30,1998, a meeting was held between Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, including staff from the Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO), Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and Region IV (RIV), and representatives of Portland General Electric Company (PGE) to discuss SFPO's recent request for additional information (RAl) regarding PGE's application for approval to transport the Trojan Reactor Vessel Package (TRVP) to the U.S. Ecology radioactive waste disposal facility on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington. Also attending the meeting were representatives of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Oregon Office of Energy, WMG, Burns & Roe, The Glosten Associates, l Foss Maritime Co., Packaging Technology, Inc., Bechtel, Southem Califomia Edison, and PGE consultants. A member of NRC's TRVP review team at NRC headquarters joined a portjan of the meeting via speakerphone. An attendee list is included as Attachment 1. The meeting was open for public observation. This meeting was noticed on July 15,1998. I The purpose of the meeting was to facilitate prompt consideration of PGE's application by the Commission. The meeting's objective was to provide PGE the opportunity to clarify its response to the RAl. SFPO staff also met with PGE staff and contractors to discuss details of RAI responses to questions on the TRVP Probabilistic Safety Study. PGE and its contractors and consultants presented their approach in responding to each of the I questions in the RAl. In general, the staff was satisfied with the PGE presentation, although certain items were identified as topics requiring further discussion. Examples include the / method to be used for determining acceptable temperature conditions for the shipment and the t analysis of stresses in the tie-down system / reactor nozzle region. As a result of the meeting, PGE identified several additional items to be included in its RAI response. At the conclusion of g3 the meeting, PGE indicated that it would meet NRC's request to respond to the RAI by August 9,1998. l l h_ , L. 7 &VS T% r-n m l 9809210195 980917 Ah a W G U PDR ADOCK 07109771 C PDR l ., a o T 1 L

~ . W. 'Kane 2 On the evening of July 30,1998, staff participated in a public meeting on the review process. being used for the PGE application at the Doubletree Hotel in Kelso, Washingtonc A speaker-x from PGE described the planned shipment, and speakers from NRC, DOT, and the Oregon - 10ffice of Energy described their respective roles and procedures related to the shipment , application review and responded to questions from attendees. ~ Dockets 71-9271 / Attachments:. 1.- Technical Meeting Attendance List

2. PGE RAI Response Outline

3. Public Meeting Attendance List

'4. PGE Presentation .5. NRC Presentation 1 cc: Mr. Rick Boyle, DOT l Distribution: i Dockets 71-9271 . PUBLIC NMSS R/F SFPO R/F HLee NOsgood SRosenberg TKobetz DReid MMasnik, NRR CHaughney sWHodges PEng ~ELeeds LKokajko SGagner, OPA VTharpe NRC Attendees OFC-SFPO C SFPO C -: SFP K -//, C a - NAME. JCoo M EEaston Nyr SSh h b DATE N/3 /98 0$fl7/98 kb dhI//798 C = COVER. E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY S:\\PROJ\\ TROJAN \\TRVPMEET.WPD 9/17/98:dd e

n. .. ~

I W. Kane 2 On the evening of July 30,1998, staff participated in a public meeting on the review process being used for the PGE application at the Doubletree Hotelin Kelso, Washington. A speaker from PGE described the planned shipment, and speakers from NRC, DOT, and the _ Oregon Office of Energy described their respective roles and procedures related to the shipment application review and responded to questions from attendees. Dockets 71-9271 Attachments: 1. Technical Meeting Attendance List

2. PGE RAI Response Outline

3. Public Meeting Attendance List

'4. PGE Presentation i

5. NRC Presentation cc: Mr. Rick Boyle, DOT 6

4 4

1 July 30,1998, Technical Meeting between Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Portland General Electric Company ATTENDANCE LIST Name Affiliation Stacey Rosenberg NRC/NMSS/SFPO John Cook NRC/NMSS/SFPO Eart Easton NRC/NMSS/SFPO Susan F. Shankman NRC/NMSS/SFPO Lee H. Thonus NRC/NRR Neil Jensen NRC/OGC i Breck Henderson NRC/RIV Vince Everett NRC/RIV D. Blair Spitzberg NRC/RIV Charles A. Hackney NRC/RIV Stephen M. Quennoz PGE ' Paul Applegate-PGE Ted Bushnell PGE Steve Nichols PGE Danen Heath PGE Lanny Duzek PGE/ Licensing Ray Pete PGE/ Licensing Tom Meek PGE/ Radiation Protection Vickie Rooker PGE/ Media Relations Judy Crafton PGE/ Govt. Affairs Pete Peterson PGE/Decom. Projects Dave Cummings PGE/Decom. Projects Rick Boyle DOT /RSPA/OHMT Adam Bless Oregon Office of Energy Kevin Tuite WMG 4 Robert D. Morgan Bums & Roe Norman Lacy Bums & Roe Zaener Studnicka Bums & Roe Tom Bringloe The Glosten Associates Glen Comstock Foss Maritime Co. Paul Stevens Packaging Technology, Inc. Phil Ness Packaging Technology, Inc. Steve Struether Packaging Technology, Inc. Thomas Bostrom Bechtel Ray Golden Southem Califomia Edison j Robert Jones Consultant Bob Nickell Consultant ATTACHMENT 1 a

4!!! j! i!i.:I )

i t

ii l l !: l! ~ S L A k([ I t N ,1}53 R p?l$E y E T e,, 7 *- T C .if4 1 N L E AG t nI E

s i;h ~T[

geQ% i N N a J y m D OI lP O T I rN TE a R D E8 I eA P DM99 l AN 1 cL s uE L R O 0, 3 N A OTY I S aS V FAL n TM U jEO SR J o E O rVM U F T R E QN EI R ij. i Y O R f -{ jI > ~ k T h M. C A J E L R

1. g,[.

I h)- \\ gEEm

^ 1-1 Source Term Utilization + Table 1-2 used as basis for all calculations i Thermal Analysis Containment Analysis Shielding Analysis + Uranium isotopes i i

i 1 1 r 1-2 Hypothetical Accidents Re I + Release quantities and dose included in calculation . Calculation included in SAR i + Estimated doses to workers for recovery operation included in Environmental Report l ~ i l

.l L 1-3 Design Drawings s i + Drawings identified which show design configuration j + Drawings include items listed in question Added stud closure detail e I Added foam specification j e i I t i 4

1 2-1 Temperature Restriction for 1 Shipment j i + Propose Alternative Restriction i . Average daily temperature 50 F l Large thermal inertia Calculation results show vessel wall >45 F after 100 hours l + Alternative provides more flexibility in shipment schedule l . Shipment window 3 month / year l l . Coordination with PSNS j l l

r ] r 2-2 Spot Shielding Attachment ] [ + Two alternative designs provided l + Accommodates main shielding seam plate l l l i k

i 2-3 Shielding Circumferential Weld J +. Revised circumferential seam weld between the 5" i and 2" shields to 7/8" + SAR drawings revised accordingly i 1 i

l 2-411' Drop Calculation i i s Free Drop height (11") defined as bottom of impact i + t limiter to ground contact i i Total energy absorbed equals the total potential i + energy of the free drop height plus impact limiter I crush I i i t i

r 2-5 Impact Limiter Material ) Properties / Testing l + Manufacturing data utilized to adjust crush strength j i Manufacturing variations Temperature Dynamic Effects + Curves provided to show adjustments and final 4 bounding values + Room Temperature static testing must be within j bounding curves + Extensive test data, correlation to actual dynamic j testing a

' 2-6 Low Density Cellular Concrete injection and Testinq f + Provided description ofinjection process + Provided injection and testing requirements + Critical Parameters: i i . Density l . Solid Continuous Vent Flow l l . Inspection of open penetrations for voids . No free water + i

i i 2-7 RVP Material Property s i + Evaluation of irradiation effect l Conservative values used in calculations i + Fracture Toughness Current calculation addressed neutron embrittlement + Corrosion Effect -Insignificant j l l l l i

---

---------------- --- -.-- J

i l 2-8 Vessel Outlet Nozzle Stress s + Plots in calculation include localized surface stress i intensities and include portions of the stress j distribution that are classified as either secondary (self-limiting) or peak stresses i + Per ASME code, the average stress components are i used to calculate the principal stresses at the highest stress location. The maximum principal stress is less than yield stress l + SAR clarification added I t j

l [ l 2-9 RVP/ Transporter Tie-down System t + Description and figures provided . Reaction forces shown l + Tie-down design approved by USCG and NCB i i 3

.--.) d i r 2-10 Impact Limiter Load Distribution i + Provided figure showing distribution and magnitude j of force on vessel i i i I i i i !i l l j l i

.!!:i l;ill!! !l!j!l!

li il!I!!i; I?!

i, s k e lu g b n a d h n c e a o r w n e l l u a a n g s w l a i s sk r a s e g t c l e n u ap l r n a s P e el i r e e d s g e s i l r a a n r u e n e o v s v d s r r a e e o e r t n s t o a p ca n b r e d or I e p e r e s u a l e vh e a s r t b s u f f s e et oo s r r a e u p r n n e og s e s p t V i i s r r t g m a s e u a r e 1 p a e ed l r at d e r e nC sh 3 i op r p mteC nt D or a e o Vt nL Cf i + + + 1 i i

i r i 3-2 Fire-Induced Convection Analysis + Thermal Analysis revised to include a calculation 1 summary for fire-induced convection i f I + The natural convection scenario is conservative i ( i.e., bounding) j i l l T i l { d l l I

-l 4-1 Containment Release Source Term i s + Justification provided . Industry data shows distribution consistent within RCS . Industry data shows main coolant piping areal concentrations are bounding + Calculation added as Appendix i t

l 4-2 LDCC Effect on Source Term i + Minor scouring effect + Conservatively neglected effect on binding contamination within LDCC I l t l i

i r 4-3 Residual Water l + Hydration of concrete absorbs free water + 28 day venting and verification of vessel drained i + No effect on releasable source term i i i i

'l 4-4 Hydrogen Concentration i + Reactor vessel will reach 5% by volume of hydrogen 98 days following closure of the vessel l + The shipment time period (including vessel preparation) is expected to be less than 45 days l

---

- i

i h l i 5-1 Shielding Evaluation l i + Additional Details incorporated in SAR l . Plant Operating History . Summary of ANISN Thermal and total Flux Results . Normalization based on maximum measured dose rate to i calculated dose rate i i . Estimsted rors for source term and normalization +/- 28% l . Axial, radial, and azimuthal variation in component activation l l i l i i

l [ i I r i i 5-2 Vessel Maximum Dose Rates s + Table 5-1 corrected 1 i 6 m l l l l b l

-i .l Y r 5-3 Supplemental Spot Shielding j Analysis + Uncertainties in the source term and analysis were conservatively quantified at +/-28% + Hot spots can be twice as high as the calculated maximum without having to add supplemental shielding f + Provisions have been made to add multiple layers of supplemental shielding Each layer of 1/2" supplemental shielding will reduce dose from Co-60 by one-third + Package will be surveyed prior to leaving the site to j ensure that the installed shielding is sufficient to meet regulations i 4

-l r P-1 Probabilistic Safety Study ) Methods l + Conditional Probability Chains Utilized j t + Event trees provided 4 i i I i i i i

I l l I r l I f P-2 External Event Frequencies s l + Probability Evaluation . Earthquake <1 x 10-7 . Volcanic <1 x 10-7 . Tornado <1 x 10-7 i + Evaluation of consequences and justification provided . Visibility i . External Flooding j i . Extreme Weather . Fire

l P-3 Barge Break-Away from Tug + Addressed break-away event i . Mitigating Factors identified l . No Consequences to Barge / Package I l 'I i I h I i i

.i. .I 1 i P-4 Accident Rate Data 4 + Reporting format changed in 1975 & 1981 l + Traffic density essentially unchanged + Lock improvements decreased likelihood of accidents + Using 1976-1980 data is valid j i i i i i I I l - - i

i F P-5 USCG Casualty Database Units l + Unitiess synoptic data base Converted to accident rate using Corps of Engineer traffic data + 10% factor does not affect analysis l l i l i i

P-6 Collision and Ramming Accident Rates + Adjustment is 1+ probability of more than one barge involved + Chapter 11 of Reference 1 including table included in SAR

~l r---- i P-7 Accident Rate Binning s l + Chapter 11 of Reference 1 explains the sorting and { binning of database records ~ + Database tabulates by defined primary accident types + Accident rates correspond to primary accident types l l l l

.i s P-8 Flooding / Swamping r + Flooding I swamping - uncontrolled water entry into l vessel hull not resulting in sinking / capsize + Based on analyses, barge design, and transit route; j flooding / swamping is not a threat i t 4 l i

? -l f i 1 P-9 "All Other" Accident Types + Non-Catastrophic Accidents I t + Any damage greater than $1500 + Includes: i i . Heavy Weather Damage j . Cargo Damage, no Damage to Vessel l . Material Failure - Vessel Structure (Minor Failures) i . Material Failure - Machinery and associated Equipment j I . Material Failure - Other-(e.g., cargo gear, propeller shaft;l l

l r i f P-10 Barge Accident Data l I i + Only one barge in US is similar to the RVP Barge + Statistical data does not exist because sample set (of similar barges) is too small i + Collision and ramming data used, and consequences analyzed j ~ l + Sinking addressed by Analysis + 17 Compartments

-l l i P-11 Immediate Jeopardy + Ample time is available to move the barge to shallow 4 water or aground to initiate damage control measures + Barge cannot sink or capsize in shallow water ? I I l l 4

i e i l P-12 Barge Foundering i + Barge Design (Subdivisions) I + Inspections (Coast Guard, National Cargo Bureau, j t Marine Surveyor) I + Operational Controls j Weather l Points of Refuge + Detailed discussion provided I i f i l

l i .i P-13 Barge Capsizing i t + Available data does not support quantitative result i i + Evaluated and addressed potential initiating events + Designed to NVIC 2-87 and ANSI-14.24 t

-l P-14 RVP Tiedown i -l s l l + Failure of the Tiedowns after a Capsize Event is not j credible I t

• Package will remain attached to barge l

+ Considered Design Basis, Analyses and independent Reviews Required i l [ t

• l t

e r j P-15 Ramming - RVP Overboard A i i + Analysis was provided in study + Maximum Acceleration for a Ramming is 1.09 g j l + Sea Fastening Longitudinal Acceleration Design Criterion is 1.5g l l l l l l I i t I i f f 6

I l ) r P-16 Land Accident Velocity s i i + Data based on truck involved and not on surrounding t traffic t i 1 I. i I l f

r E-1 Environmental Report j Preparation j + Addresses topics identified in 10 CFR 51.30, " Environmental Assessment" + Prepared per 10 CFR 51.45, " Environmental Report" + Specifically answers questions E-1 through E-4 + Proposaland Alternatives Evaluated 4

-h r l E-2 Exemptions / Approvals l + NRC- - 1' (NCT) and 30' (HAC) Drop Exemptions j i - Brittle Fracture Analysis Method Alternative to Regulatory Guide + DOT - Exemptions from Regulations that depend on C of C from NRC l l l l l 4 i i

f i E-3 Type B Package impractical t i t + Physical Size Restraints + Equivalent Safety provided by simpler and more cost j i effective design i i i I i I ~ l i l i i

i

,llth!!!!j!j iij t

l!ll!: na lP y rev oceR d d r y e r a e d y v i o e o v r v c o b o e r r c R p e r. o e R e t s v r a l e W a O t e y a e r s W w r s e a r 4 o v i i C p a a o a l l e a p C c p r e h e e e E e D S R d R R t n a e a W L r + +

i i

.~_ _ i l July 30,1998,6:30 p. m., Public Meeting between Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Portland General Electne Company Longview, Washington ATTENDANCE LIST Name Affiliation L Vincent Everett NRC/RIV I Lee Thonus NRC/RIV i Charles A. Hackney NRC/RIV D. Blair Spitzberg NRC/RIV Breck Henderson NRC/RIV Stacey Rosenberg NRC/NMSS/SFPO l John Cook NRC/NMSS/SFPO ) Earl Easton NRC/NMSS/SFPO Susan Shankman NRC/NMSS/SFPO l Neil Jensen NRC/OGC Lansing G. Duzek PGE Al Bowman PGE Steve Nicols PGE Doug Nichols PGE P,ay Pate PGE Judy Crafton PGE i Steven Quennoz PGE Vickie Roeker PGE Tom Meek PGE Gina Huey PGE Mike Floyd RIO/PGE Lt. Tom Allen USCG Rick Boyle DOT Gary Robertson Washington Dept. of Health Mike Eisen Washington Dept. of Health Earl Fordham Washington Dept. of Health Terry Edvalson Oregon EFSC Jan Prewitt Oregon EFSC Tom Terrell North American Energy John Stender North American Energy Don Anderson North American Energy Mark A. Beehlen North American Energy Milton Dennis North American Energy Ken Niles Oregon Office of Energy Adam Bless Oregon Office of Energy Ray Golden So. Cal. Edison Daryl Bede US Ecology Inc. W. Wally Nehrens Columbia Pacific B&C Trades ATTACHMENT 3 [ 1

1 July 30,1998,6:30 p. m., Public Meeting between Nuclear Regulatory Commissbn and Portland General Electric Company L Longview, Washington ATTENDANCE LIST (continued) Name Affiliation i 1 Bob Hall IWOE Local 701 i Vern Mamselle IWOE Local 701 Gary Robertson WDOH Mikel Eisen WDOH Adelaido Bewtister KLTV Dick Austen Pol. Pg. Review l Bob Childress Cement Masons Local 555 John Sutherland Laborers Local 320 Wayne Braden Laborers Local 320 Larry W. Haatia Ironworkers 29 Ron Rheaume P,'lWDC Ronnie Carlson NAES Dustin Bowman Public Dean Howard Public Ray Witman U.S. Citizen Phillip A. Massey Cowlitz Co. Citizen i l Bonnie Carlson Kathleen Wirtz Sherry Dusek Mary Pate I I l A1. ACHMENT 3 (cont.) i 1

l l i,; l l j!, 3 dl na h av ?r I nl o t a emt h lP s a s ec r e R e. e W~ l cVso j ~ u N l r r a o aP n 3 n jot r r s c tce T e jo at n rP g i en n e o n is s Ri i m s m loo h c e cD i N r, e eg van e a t SM

~ .j i r PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 s + REACTOR VESSEL WITH INTERNALS INSTALLED ~ i Prepare as own Shipping Package Remove from Containment Transport from Trojan to the US Ecology Facility I Dispose at US Ecology Facility l l + REGULATORY APPROVAL REQUIRED Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Department of Transportation State of Oregon

.e r-REASON TO REMOVE REACTOR 1 VESSEL AND INTERNALS l + " PROMPT" DECOMMISSIONING APPROVED AS BEST OVER-ALL ALTERNATIVE i i

e. Provides for clean-up of radioactive material by 2002 t

+ COMPONENTS REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED TO SUPPORT THIS PLAN s i I I l

l ALTERNATIVE TO PROJECT t + SEGMENT REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS t . Storage of highly activated material at Trojan site j l' l . Shipment of remainder for disposal + WHOLE OR SEGMENTED REMOVAL OF REACTOR l t VESSEL FOR DISPOSAL t ^

l r PROJECT COMPARISON s i + EXPOSURE INCREASE l Occupational 100% (134 - 154 person-rem vs 67;l Transportation 1000 % (1.06 -1.19 person-rem vs.09:1 l Public 2300% (.48 .56 person-rem vs.02;l + INCREASED NUMBER OF PERSONNEL CONTAMINATIONS, PLANT CLEANUP CONCERNS, AND INCREASED GENERATION OF HIGHLY ACTIVATED RADIOACTIVE WASTE + INCREASED NUMBER OF RADIOACTIVE SHIPMENTS l + REDUCED TRANSPORTATION SAFETY (45 OR MORE PUBLIC HIGHWAY SHIPMENTS VS HIGHLY CONTROLLED BARGE SHIPMENT) + INCREASE COST BY $15 MILLION l

i e s r REACTOR VESSEL PACKAGE r (RVP) ON BARGE j l i i _i _,h _s ( $~ l ) w II 11 lii t } ^ 1 It_p w y_ v 1 :__ 2 I I l OVERALL LENGTH - 240' WIDTH - 55' AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING CLASSED AS MALTESE CROSS A-1 OCEANS i COAST GUARD CERTIFIED i i 1

i r REACTOR VESSEL PACKAGE i (RVP) ON TRANSPORTER j neer tuTERs 4 i 1 g_ ll! REACTOR PRESSURE I l YESS1 . -}_'gl.._ ____Q____._.___ 1__ _ 8 AND SUPPORT ASSEMBLY -I ,[__ PACKAGE TCDomi - 8 g p i bt i 'k i [- 4:(..!....!......:.1: _1:_.-:,-- -f..!....;.. ..;.. _ g:

....;....;..

g e) (e) (e) (e)-(e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e)-(e) (e) (e) _ (e) (e) (e)-(e) (e) (e) (ej-PACKAGE TRANSPORTER j

OVERALL LENGTH -42'- 6", WIDTH - 17'- 1" OVERALL LENGTH - 105' - 6", WIDTH - 23' 6" l VESSEL WALL THICK - 5 3/8"- 101/2" WELDED PENETRATIONS i FILLED WITH LOW DENSITY CONCRETE l INSTALLED SHIELDING - 1"- 5" i EXTERIOR COATED OVERALL WEIGHT-1,020 TONS i I

~ i r i TRANSPORTATION 1 CLASSIFICATION s + PACKAGE REQUIREMENTS . TYPE B (as exempted) ~ . GENERAL DESIGN PER 10 CFR 71 Alternative Approach for 1' Drop j i Alternative Approach for 30' Drop j 1 Alternative Approach for Brittle Fracture . BASIS OF DESIGN i Transportation Route j i l Transportation Control l Accident Evaluation

t i r TRANSPORTATION SAFETY l 1 STUDY i + DISCRETE PROBABILITIES OF SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENTS: Impact of RVP on Barge 3.2E-07 (3.2 incidents per i 10 million trips;l t Separation of RVP/ Barge 1.0E-06 ll1 incident per 1 million trips;l Land Transport Accident 6.4E-08 I:6.4 incidents per 100 million trips) i t

t f I BEYOND DESIGN BASIS 1 ACCIDENTS i s l + OVERLAND: l t Total Individual Exposure - 36 mrem + RIVER: . Total Individual Exposure - 1.25 mrem + THE RESULTS INDICATE THE RADIATION DOSE i I RECEIVED FROM EITHER IS WITHIN ALLOWABLE RADIATION EXPOSURE LIMITS i i t

1 r i TRANSPORTATION ROUTE AND REQUIREMENTS l s i + GENERAL REQUIREMENTS l l + TROJAN SITE + TROJAN TO PORT OF BENTON 1 + PORT OF BENTON TO US ECOLOGY k i l i l i

.i i r l GENERAL REQUIREMENTS i l + PACKAGE NOT REMOVED FROM TRANSPORTER UNTIL-OFF-LOADED AT DISPOSAL FACILITY i + QUALIFIED RADIATION PROTECTION REPRESENTATIVE AND TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR TO ACCOMPANY SHIPMENT l I i i t l F

i l .a i e TROJAN SITE REQUIREMENTS i + PACKAGE TO TRANSPORTER TIEDOWN REQUIREMENT ANSI N14.2 l + TRANSPORTER AND ROUTE REQUIREMENTS i Analysis to verify capability of carrying load Load test of on-site route + MAX SPEED 5 MPH j i l

4 TROJAN SITE ROUTE l COLUMBIA RIVER VI ) n c e BARGE WAR SE AUX g Y N =t_ l " 7.1, O j o COOLING TOWER TURBINE BUMNG WAREHOUSE 4 1 f omcE in N 1 l CENTRAL BUILDING TRANSPORTER fg] [ PATHWAY s SECURITY ~ BUILDING g

I ~ TROJAN TO PORT OF BENTON REQUIREMENTS t + TRANSPORTER TO BARGE TIEDOWN REQUIREMENTS l . ANSI N14.24 - 1985, for inland waterways . Transportation Safety Analysis + WATERFRONT FACILITIES . Designated Waterfront Facility per 33 CFR 126 + BARGE REQUIREMENTS . Specially designed and built to PGE requirements 4 . ANSI N14.24 - 1985, NVIC 2-87 . Stability Requirements - Type ll Hull in 46 CFR . Coast Guard Certificated, ABS Classed

TROJAN TO PORT OF BENTON REQUIREMENTS s 1 1 + OTHER REQUIREMENTS . Max speed 10 knots 2 tugs for redundancy . Safety zone established and shipment escorted by Coast f Guard t . Coast Guard and National Cargo Bureau inspection of package and stowage . Priority passage and exclusive use of dam locks j . NRC Representative plans to accompany shipment i t

TROJAM TO PORT OF BENTON ROUTE s PORT OF PASCOf i US ECOLOGY D j(gE. BURIAL FACILITY LONGVIEW PORT OF BENTON M a River Mile 342 ICE -O KELSO HARBOR ASTORIA n DAM FLOW W ' COLUMBIA RIVER ^ MC ARY DAM River Mile VANCOUVER River Mile 292 72.5 l i JOHN DAY DAM / River Mile 217 BONglLLE PORTLAN i River Mile 145 DAM River Mile 201 7 WILLAMETTE l RIVER j l

r i PORT OF BENTON TO US ECOLOGY REQUIREMENTS s i + MAX 5 MPH l + RAILROAD TRAFFIC STOPPED ON HANFORD l RESERVATION i + ESCORTS CONTROL / RESTRICT ROAD TRAFFIC IN j VICINITY OF TRANSPORTER i l

PORT OF BENTON TO q US ECOLOGY ROUTE ( l i COLUMBIA RIVER i 7 30.2 MILES 200E D AREA / US ECOLOGY 10.5 MILES Ob # 3.5 MILES HANFORD NUCLEAR li ,i, RESERVATION BOUNDARY N PRIVATE PROPERTY i

Review Process for PGE Trojan Reactor Vessel Shipment x UN s i u, x l Ai o o aw l

• s%&s1 e

l l Public Meeting Thursday, July 30,1998, 7 p.m. - 10 p.m. Doubletree Hotel, Kelso, Washington

.a i TRVP Review Approach i 1 i l l l PGE requests TRVP, with operational controls, be approved for shipment under exemption j i Multi-discipline XRC review team (structural, shielding, thermal, etc.), supported by LL3L l 1 I t i

-l 1 TRVP Review Approach, Contd. i

• Risk informed decision to grant exemption (

71.8) from certain Part 71 requirements: TRVP satisfies requirements for routine transport t> conditions Probability that TRVP will experience accident t> beyond that for which it has been analyzed is low i i

( Y J l i i TRVP Review Approach, Contd. l t L I 1 Exemption requires staff to prepare an Environmental Assessment on exemption alternatives and impacts l 1 NRC may issue "other package approval" for TRVP; Commission approval required for exemption DOT exemption required to recognize bRC approval l l i 1 l

i l TRVP Review Status 1 l 3 I 1NRC Staff has completed initial technical review of + PGE TRVP SAR, PSS 3 i On July 9,1998,:SRC issued Request for Additional Inform.ation @AI) to PGE PGE given 30 days to respond to RAI

SRC staff has met with PGE to discuss RAI

[ t

.l.: l i TRVP Planned Actions } j i i I i i i Based on PGE response, :SRC will prepare a Safety Evaluation Report and an Environmental Assessment

SRC staffwill advise the Commission of-its findings and recommendations regarding the Trojan Shipment The Environmental Assessment will be published in the 4

Federal Register j PGE also requested WA approval to dispose TRVP at Hanford !}}