ML20202G485
| ML20202G485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/06/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2405, NUDOCS 8607150402 | |
| Download: ML20202G485 (17) | |
Text
ddKg- M0.6
- l y-
[M L
' CERTIFIED COPY DATE ISSUED: May 6, 1986
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES ACRS SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN SUBCOMMITTEE WASHINGTON, D. C.
MARCH 12, 1986 A meeting was held by the Spent Fuel Storage Facility Design Subcommittee.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on February 21, 1986 (Attachment A). The schedule of the items covered in the meeting is in Attachment 8. The list of attendees is in Attachment C. A list of the handouts is in Attachment D. The handouts are filed with the office copy.
Herman Alderman was the Designated ACRS Staff Member. The meeting was convened at 1:30 p.m.
Principal Attendees NRC ACRS K. Steyer L. Berratan T F. Siess, Subcomt. Chairman W. Pearson J. Roberts H. Etherington T. Clark R. Kornasiewice D. W. Moeller L. Rouse C. Sawyer Opening Statement - Subcommittee Chairman C. P. Siess Dr. Siess noted that the purpose of the meeting was to look at 10 CFR Part 72 which is entitled " Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste." He remarked that what has in-stigated this is the fact that the staff has indicated that it will review U h gy ly[ J m =m=s m m eo.oe esese PDR ACRS c- = B&S -
s 2405 PDR
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 2 FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 the proposed monitored retrievable storage facility under part 72 as revised and that the Commission has asked the ACRS to review all of the activities on high level waste management that have been assigned by the Congress.
K. Steyer, CEBR In response to a question from Dr. Siess, Mr. Steyer noted that at the beginning the emphasis for the independent spent fuel storage facilities (ISFSI) was on pool type storage. Then as it became evident that licensees were more likely to come in with requests to license casks but before the final rule went out in 1980, it was modified to cover all forms of ISFSI's.
Mr. Rouse noted there is considerable interest in dry storage at reactors.
He mentioned that Virginia Power and Carolina Power and Light are both considering dry storage.
Mr. Etherington asked about the cooling system for dry storage. The response was the cooling is a passive system using conduction and convection to radiate the heat to the surroundings. He added the cask'would have an inert atmosphere because of the concern of oxidation of the fuel clad.
Mr. Rouse also noted that many reactors will.take care of their spent fuel storage by reracking the fuel in their pools and in some cases by consolidation of the fuel in the pools.
l
9 MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 3 FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 Mr. Etherington asked about damaged fuel. The response was that damaged fuel would most likely remain in the spent fuel pools. Some fuel with " pinhole" leaks would be sent to a MRS.
Mr. Steyer noted 10 CFR 72 had to be modified to cover the storage of high level wastes. Dr. Siess asked if that covered transuranics. Mr. Steyer replied not as such. There is a little bit of transuranics in high level I waste but it is mostly fission products.
T. Clark, Project Manager for the MRS Mr. Clark discussed the status of the MRS. He noted that the Commission sent its comments to Department of Energy (DOE) on February 5th. DOE expected to send those comments to Congress on the 7th. As a result of actions by the Governor of Tennessee, an injunction has been issued prohibiting DOE from sending the proposal to Congress. DOE is appealing the injunction in the Appeals Court and if the Appeals Court rules in favor of DOE, the proposal wouldn't go to Congress until about June.
Mr. Clark mentioned a safety evaluation would be completed in about four years if everything goes according to plan. He noted that he thought 10 CFR 72 was pretty good the way it stands. He noted that he had used it for licensing the Morris ISFSI and it had worked fairly well in that case.
s
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 4 FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 He commented on the schedule. If the schedule holds then the NRC would receive an application for an MRS in 1989. He noted that he plans to have DOE brief the ACRS at that time. He stated the tentative plans call for the startup of the MRS in 1996 two years prior to startup of the repository in 1998. He mentioned the commitment to the State of Tennessee that the MRS would not receive fuel unless there was a construction permit for the repos-itory.
Mr. Clark briefly discussed the function of the MRS. The reactors would send mostly unpackaged assemblies to the MRS. The assemblies would be received, packaged and made ready for the repository, stored until they can be shipped to the repository. In response to a question, Mr. Clark responded that fuel from western reactors would not be shipped to the proposed Clinch River MRS and then back to a western repository. He noted that western fuel would probably go directly to a repository. There would be some of the MRS functions at the repository.
Dr. Moeller asked when does repacking the fuel at the repository become a MRS at the repository. Dr. Moeller also noted that the law states that a MRS could not be in the same state as a repository. Mr. Steyer agreed.
Mr. Steyer remarked that the MRS is limited to 15,000 metric tons. At yearly receipts of about 3600 metric tons, this gives about five years of operation if they were not allowed to send anything offsite once they receive it, a
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 5 FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 Mr. Clark noted the emphasis at the MRS will be to consolidate spent fuel.
He remarked that consolidation will save about 50 percent of the disposal space.
Dr. Siess asked if you could go into the cells to maintain the equipment if there wasn't any fuel there. Mr. Clark replied probably not. Dr. Siess stated, you mean once they close this thing up they can't get back in it forever. Mr. Clark replied probably not.
Mr. Rouse noted that the current cask design would hold 12 cannisters with 3 assemblies per cannister. This array would maintain the maximum peak clad temperaturc at about 380 C. Dr. Siess asked about the concrete temperature.
Mr. Clark replied that it would be less than that. Mr. Rouse added the concrete temperature and behavior is an open question.
Mr. Clark discussed the limited accident potential. He noted there were a lot of passive operations. The worst postulated accident would be dropping three assemblies where all rods open up and all the gas is released.
There was a brief discussion of the use of the word " Radioactivity" in 10 CFR Part 72. Both Dr. Moeller and Mr. Etherington objected to the use of the words " Radioactivity and " Radiation" as meaning less in the context. It was agreed that " gamma radiation" would be a more proper term.
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 6 FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 K. Steyer, General Design Criteria Mr. Steyer discussed changes in the general design criteria for Part 72. One was changes in protection of the fuel cladding against degradation and gross rupture. The cannister will serve as a cladding for the high level waste.
The next item pertained to tornado missiles. While underwater storage was being considered, tornado missiles wasn't a credible accident. Now that outdoor casks are being considered, then tornado missiles become credible.
The next item was offsite emergency planning. The accident analysis for the MRS or ISFSIS concluded that there wasn't any need for offsite planning.
During the Commission review of the MRS, two of the Commissioners requested that same requirement or precaution for offsite planning should be included.
Dr. Moeller asked how the 5 Rem limit per accident in 10 CFR 72 was derived.
The response was that it was a conservative arbitrary determination.
Mr. Steyer noted that Quality assured requirements were derived from Appendix B. The appropriate items were taken out and placed in 10 CFR 72.
l
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 7
. FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 The last item Mr. Steyer mentioned was the use of the terms " Safety related" and."Important to Safety". The decision was to use "Important to Safety" because it was felt that " Safety Related" had reactor connotations.
Dr~. Moeller pointed out some confusion regarding the dose limits that would apply for the general public. He noted that 10 CFR 72 cites exposures to the operating personnel and the public would be within the limits in 10 CFR 20.
Dr. Moeller noted one of the reasons for the proposed revision of 10 CFR 20 is that it has no limits for the public. The bottom line was that Mr. Steyer agreed that changes will have to be made in 10 CFR 72 to reflect this.
Mr. Steyer pointed out changes in the general designs criteria. Some of these:
o The high level waste at and MRS must be a solid form. If it is stored in a water pool, it must be compatible with water.
o Canning is allowed as protection against degradation and gross rupture.
o A paragraph was added requiring monitoring of the storage system to determine when corrective action is needed, i
l l
1 MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 8
. FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 A paragraph was added requiring ready retrieving of high level o
radioactive waste and a paragraph requiring ready retrieving of spent fuel, o Under the area of criticality safety, words were added to eliminate the implication that only water pools were being considered.
1 o The language regarding radiological protection was changed to include high-level waste in the criteria.
Tom Clark - Probabalistic Risk Assessments (PRS's)
Mr. Clark noted that there was a PRA program for the fuel cycle about three years ago in the research office. The program was terminated before completion for financial reasons. One of the results of this program was that risk ranking was developed. The risk ranking was not based on having all the PRA methods worked out but based upon peoples understanding of the fuel cycle. The conclusion was that reactors have a higher risk in the fuel cycle. Mr. Clark also noted that they ' looked at what happens when you go beyond the design basis.
Mr. Clark noted that Livermore and Los Alamos did studies regarding the seismic criteria for a MRS and their conclusion was that up to 0.2 G cracks
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 9 FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 might develop in the plant but if the fans kept running the plant would serve its purpose. His bottom line was that a PRA was not necessary for a MRS.
Regarding TRU waste, Mr. Clark noted there wasn't any intent to receive TRU waste as such. It would all be handled as high level waste.
Mr. Clark describes the design basis accident. 3d PWR assemblies or 7 BWR assemblies from one cannister are assumed to have all the rods break and release 30 percent of the Krypton 85 and 10 percent of the iodine. No filtration is assumed. The dose release was about 100 millirem.
Mr. Sawyer, Sabotage Mr. Sawyer noted that studies had been performed and the most severe condi-tion assumed the largest shaped charge currently available in the military arsenals was used against the cask. Mr. Sawyer remarked that the shaped charge would have to be placed against the cask. He noted that two studies determined that 32 REM's of material and 18 REM's of material would be released. This assumes the charge penetrates 32 inches of reenforced con-crete and about 2 inches of steel.
l It was added thdt the shaped charge woult . ave to be placed at a precise distance. It would take about two people handle it plus some amount of time to place it accurately.
1 l
l
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 10 FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 Mr. Sawyer added the sabuteurs would have to penetrate barriers which has a surveillance system, intrusion alarms, and armed guards who respond to the intrusion alarms.
K. Steyer - Siting Factors and External Phenomena Mr. Steyer noted that basically none of the technical requirements would change but the language would be added to state that they apply to MRS's. He noted that siting limitation in the act pertain to what states where the disposal would take places, versus where the MRS's would be located, how far apart they have to be and how much fuel can be in a MRS.
The staff has concluded that the site specific seismic criteria for an ISFSI would be adequate for an MRS.
Mr. Etherington asked about the consequences if valves fail to operate, piping breaks or instrumentation fails?
Mr. Brochum replied that at the time this regulation was written, they were primarily thinking of pool type consequences. Mr. Clark added that for the MRS if the filters are in place and the structure is going to stand, you are still 0.K.
E!T _ . -
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 11
. FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 Dr. Siess noted that the filters are not designed for that earthquake, they may or may not be in place. Mr. Clark responded that he was going to try to make sure that they are in place.
Dr. Siess asked about the statement in the Safety Evaluation Report that DOE did not plan to make the casks seismic category I but they would be analyzed for the SSE.
Mr. Clark responded that the casks would meet the category 1 criteria. He noted that Seismic Category I states .that you will maintain your confinement essentially for your containment. He remarked that they would expect analy-sis to show that the casks would do that.
Dr. Moeller's comments Dr. Moeller commented on some of the statements in the SER of the DOE proposal to Congress:
o The staff commented that if the ISFSI is located over an aquifer which is a major water resource, measures should be taken to protect it. Dr. Moeller noted that it shouldn't be limited to a major water resource.
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE - 12
. FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 o Dr. Moeller suggested that because of the importance of the heat-ing, ventilation and air conditioning systems, (HVAC), a major effort should be placed on the review of this system.
o Under Fire Protection, the'SER discusses when a fire alarm sounds the supply air damper to an individual affected area would close, while the exhaust would continue to operate. Dr. Moeller ques-tioned this statement with regard to smoke removal.
o Dr. Moeller suggested the staff concern themselves about the testing protocol of the emergency backup HVAC systems.
o Dr. Moeller questioned how the term " Direct Radiation Dose Equiva-lents" was used.
o Dr. Moeller asked what criteria would be used to do a cost benefit f evaluation of potential dose rate reduction.
l o Dr. Moeller commented on backfitting in 10 CFR 72. It appeared to him that the Commissioner might require backfitting to reduce non f
nuclear hazards. The staff responded that radiation hazards were implied.
l l
+
MINUTES / SPENT FUEL STORAGE 13
- FACILITY DESIGN / MAR.12,'86 o The final comment pertained to training and certification of operating personnel. Dr. Moeller asked who certifies the program.
The response was that DOE would certify the program and the NRC would inspect the program.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
NOTE: Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D. C., or can be pruchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D. C.
10001, (202) 347-3700.
i
~ ~ '
- E ,
l' l
- p. y 'i ? g p rz k w 7~/f ~
h Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 35 /. Friday February 21, 1986 / Motices
.~ . 8335 a.m. to 3.00 p.m., Room 730 of the Nancy and selection practices and/or to defend . During the initial portion o'r the .
Hanks Center,1100 Pennsylvania the Foundation's practices in meeting, the Subcommittee, along with Avenue NW., Washington, DC 2c506. discrimination cases. any ofits consultants who may be Present, may exchange prelimhary A portion of this meeting will be open DM February 18,1988.
on March 14,1986 from 1t00 a.m. to 3:00 Herman G. Fleming
- views mgarding matters to be . .
p.m. Topics for discussions will be wnsidered during the balance of the '
WReports Clemace Officer. ,,,7;,g, guidelines and policy.
ne remaining sessions of this [m Doc. 36-3846 Filed NN48 am] . %e Subcommittee will then haar meeting on March 12,1996 from 9:30 a.m. sa m caos tess e presentations by and hold diammaions to 6:00 p.m., March 13,1986 from 9:30 with representatives of the NRC Staff, a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and March 14,1980 its consultants, and other intemsted imm 9:00 a m. to 11:00 a.m. are for the NUCLEAR REGULATORY persons regarding this review.
purpose of Panel review, discussion, COMMISSION Purther information regarding topics evaluation, and recommendation on to be discussed, whether the meeting applications for financial assistance Advisory Committee on Reactor has been cancelled or rescheduled, the under the National Foundation on the Safeguards, Subcommittee on gj,,,s ruling on requests for the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, as Babcock and Wlicox Water Reactors; opportunity to present oral statements amended, including discussion of Postponed and the time allotted therefor can be information given in confidence to the %e ACRS Subcommittee on Babcock obtained by a prepaid telephone call to Agency by grant applicants. In . and Wilcox Water Reactors scheduled the cognizant ACRS staff member, Mr.
eccordance with the determmation of for February 25,1986 has been Herman Alderman (telephone 202/634-the Chairman published in the Federal postponed until early April.This 1414) between 6:15 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
Register of February 13,1980, thes? meeting notice was previously published Persons planning te attend this meeting sessions will be closed tu the pubhc in the Federal Register (51 FR 4833) on are urged to contact the above named
. pursuant to subsection (c)(4),(6) and February 7.1986. Individual one or two days before the 9(B) of section 552b of Title 5. United scheduled meeting to be advised of any Dated: Febrwy 1s, tesa. changes in schedule, etc., which may States Code.
If you need accommodations due to a Morton W. uharkin, )
have occurnd. ' .
disability, please contact the Office for Assistant Decutive DinctorforProject Dated: February 18,tese. l Special Constituencie's, National Review.
Morton W. Ubarkin, Endewment for the Arts,1100 [FR Doc. 86-3853 Filed 2-20-46, a.45 am]
. AssistanthecutiveDinctorforProject Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., saxneo caos reseas.an
' Review.
Washington. OC 20506, 202/682-5532.
[m Doc. 86-3851 Filed 2-30.eer. 8 45 am]
TTY 202/682-5496 at lesst seven (7) V Adytoory Committee On Reactor an mia cooe ressai.as days prior to the meeting.
Further information with reference to Safeguards, Subcommittee on Spent this meeting can be obtained from Mr. Fuel Storage Facility Design; Meeting '
Advisory Committee on Reactor JohnII. Clark, Adviscry Committee The ACRS Subcommittee on Spent Safeguards, Subcommittee on Management Officer, National Fuel Storage Facility Design will hold a Standard Plant Design; Meeting Endowment for the Arts, Washington, meeting on March 12,1986. Room 1046, DC 20506, or ca11202/682-5433' 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. The ACRS Subcommittee on Standard Yunne E seWme, ne entire meeting will be open to Plant Design will hold a meeting on i Acties Director. Office of CouncilcndPonel public attendance. March 12,1986, Room 1046,1717 H l Operations.Notiona/Endowmentfor the Arts. The agenda for the subject meeting Street, NW., Washington, DC.
[m Doc. 86-3791 Filed 2-20-86. 8.45 am] shall be as follows: Wednesday, March The entire meeting will be open to
- CO** 3'" 12,198%2:30 P.M. until the conclusion public attendance.
The agenda for subjectm' eeting shall ofbusiness.
dATIONAl. SCIENCE FOUNDATION proposed revision to : CFR Part 72. Wednesday, March 12, iss$-a 30 a.m.
Ucmsmg Requinmets for the untilthe conclusion ofbusiness Forma Submitted for OMB Review Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear In accordance with the Paperwork Fuel and High I,evel Radioactive N Subcommittee will continue Reduction Act and OMB Guidelines, the Wa s te.** ,
discussion of standard plants. .
National Science Foundation is posting Oral statements may be presented by Particularly. FAA certification, CE this notice of information collection that members of the public with the power worthiness, industry perceptions, will affect the public. concurrence of the Subcommittee DOE views, and an update on a policy Chairman: written statements will be - statement.
Agency Clearance Officer: Herman G. Oral statements may be presented by Fleming. (202) 357-9421 accepted and made available to the Committee. Recordings will be permitted members of the public with the OMB Desk Officer: Carlos Tellez. (202) concurrence of the Subcommittee 395-7340 only during those portions of the i meeting when a transcript is being kept, Chairman; written statementa will be !
Title:
Personal Data Questionnaire and question a may be asked only by accepted and made available to the AffectedPublic Individuals Committee. Recordings will be permitted Number of Responses 3.000 responses; members of the Subcommittee its total of 150 burden hours. consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring only during those portions of the Abstract: Data are required to ensure to make oral statements should notify meeting when a transcript is being kept, compliarce with laws cited in Part I and the ACRS staff member named below as and questiona may be asked only by regulations cited in Part III. Data will be far in advance as is practicable so that members of Ge Subcommittee. its appropriate arrangements can be made, consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring used to analyze Foundation recruitment
/
o sv b
l f 7 777&yf gifyt:r b l
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ACRS SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN SUBCOMMITTEE ROOM 1122, MARCH 12, 1986 1:30 p.m.
1:30 p.m. Introductory Remarks 1:40 p.m. Proposed Changes to 10 CFR 72 2:40 p.m. General Design Criteria including PRA's and Transuranics 3:00 p.m. ****** BREAK ******
3:10 p.m. Design Basis Accidents 3:40 p.m. Physical Protection and Prevention of Sabotage 4:00 p.m. Siting Evaluation Factors, including MRS Seismic Criteria and Cask Seismic Criteria 4:30 p.m. External Phenomena including protection against floods, tornadoes and tornado missiles 5:15 p.m. Subcommittee Discussion 5:30 p.m. ADJ0 URN 1
l l
l l
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON couvr nmi cmt>3rr r$cir Tw nrcTcv _
H. ALDERhMN LOCA.T.10:1; Room 1122, 1717 H St. hW., Washington, D.C.
DATE: bbrch 12, 1986 1:30 p.m.
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE NO. AFFILIATION Reham GwLv 93 7 k Tec hmt Bern-Jur 1
/
k o ';) 1 r PE GA e rs O l a te SAic )
ss an f A A m n to ARD bb h
- AxGw
~
/a,,,',"'A'io o o n. d dLur. l
@.4rtgpfE 2O/43 6 StH+765 I
l x; y,
- a. .
A'ITAONENT D '
i i
1 m
4 i
- 1. NRC Presentation i
- 2. Storage of TRU Waste at MRS A
j 3. Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Spent Fuel Storage i
]
i j
1 i
j i
i i
]
O i
i
--p -
.c . . , - - -,--w-, , ,.,,__e-,,-,. , - . - , , _ _ . ,___,,m, ,,..rp.,,.p sm....,,, g,,, ., %,e.r*.- g-g-y -w7w7,,- --,3.i