ML20215N491
| ML20215N491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1985 |
| From: | Oden D Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215N487 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611060096 | |
| Download: ML20215N491 (72) | |
Text
!
i i
'k
.i i
ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES FOR EXTENDED STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL FROM HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 3 t
D. R. Oden Project Manager l'
Technical Contributors P. M. Daling E. T. Merrill I
R. L Engel P. J. Pelto G. W. McNai r K. J. Schneider July 1985 r-P*
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco, California under BNW Contract 2311206920 PG&E Contract Z78-0024-85 r-Battelle Paci fic Northwest Laboratory Richland, Washington~ 99352 8611060096 861029 DR ADOCK 05000 33 l
f I
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 2.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................
2.1 3.0 STORAGE ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES.................................
3.1 3.1 ON-SITE IN STORAGE POOL....................................
3.1 h
3.1.1 Safety..............................................
3.1 l
i 3.1.2 R e gu l a t o ry..........................................
3.1 3.1.3 Technical...........................................
3.2 r
3.1.4 Transeortation......................................
3.3 3.1.5 Economi c /Logi sti c/Schedul a r.........................
3.3 3.2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SITE....................................
3.3 3.2.1 Safety..............................................
3.3 3.2.2 R e gu l a t o ry..........................................
3.4 3.2.3 Technical...........................................
3.6
[
3.2.4 Transportation......................................
3.6 L.
3.2.5 Economi c/Logi sti c/Schedul a r.........................
3.16 3.3 COMMERCIAL AFR/ISFSI.......................................
3.17 3.3.1 Safety..............................................
3.17 3.3.2 R e gu l a t o ry..........................................
3.18 l
3.3.3 Technical...........................................
3.19 a
3.3.4 Transportation......................................
3.19 f
3.3.5 Economi c/Logi s t i c/Schedul a r.........................
3.19 3.4 ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE ORY STORTGE............................
3.22 i
3.4.1 Safety..............................................
3.22 3.4.2 R e gu l a t o ry..........................................
3.24 I
iii
[
a
?
l 3.4.3 Technical...........................................
3.28 3.4.4 Transportation......................................
3.30
.I i
3.4.5 Economi c/Logi s ti c/Schedul a r.........................
3.30 a
3.5 TRANSSHIPMENT..............................................
3.34 j
3.5.1 Safety..............................................
3.34 a
3.5.2 R e gu l a t o ry..........................................
3.37 3.5.3 Technical...........................................
3.41 3.5.4 Transportation......................................
3.41 3.5.5 Economi c/Logi sti c/Schedu l a r.........................
3.42 REFERENCES...........................................................
R.1 APPENDIX A - TRANSPORTATION COST AND CASK REQUIREMENTS...............
A.1
- d ei 1
1 J
1 1
1 l
1 t
i i
FIGURES i
[
A.1 Average Highway Distance to Various Points from Humboldt Bay....................................................
A.3 A.2 Average Railway Distance to Various Points from Humboldt Bay....................................................
A.4 A.3 Average Cost per Shipment to Various Points by Lega l -Wei ght Truck f rom Humbol dt B ay............................
A.5 o
A.4 Average Cost per Shipment to Various Points by i
Ove r-Wei ght Tru ck f rom Hunbol dt R ay.............................
A.6 A.5 Average Cost per Shipment to Various Points by Rail from Humboldt Bay..........................................
A.7 A.6 Round-Trio Cask-Use Days to Various Destination Points by Lega l -Wei pt Truck f rom Hunbol dt B ay............................
A.14 i
A.7 Round-Trip Cask-Use Days to Various Destination Points by j
Ove r-Wei ght Truck from Humbol dt R ay.............................
A.15 i
A.8 Round-Trip Cask-Use Days to Various Destination Points by
)
Rail from Humboldt Bay..........................................
A.16 TABLES r
l 3.1 Selected Characteristics of Existing Spent Fuel Shipping Casks.................................................
3.7 r.
3.2 Det ai l s.of Futu re Spent Fuel Shi pments..........................
3.8 3.3 Estimated Annual Cask Avai l abil i t i es............................
3.10 3.4 Dry Sto ra ge Cask Des i gn Featu res................................
3.32 3.5 Unit Risk Factors for Spent Fuel Transport......................
3.37 3.6 Transport ati on Impa cts for Example Case.........................
3.38 A.1 Reference Cask Descriptions for Transportation Cost Estimates..................................................
A.2 A.2 Truck Overweight Charges for Traveling Through Each State.......
A.8 l,
y i
1 ;
I f
f
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In connection with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGAE) decision to decommission the Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 nuclear power plant (HBPP Unit No. 3),
PGAE has commissioned Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories (BNW) to perform an independent assessment of alternatives for extended storage of 390 spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Safety, regulatory, technical, transportation, and economic / logistic / schedular issues were to be identified and considered for each alternative. This report documents the results of RNW's assessment of alternatives for extended storage of the Humboldt Ray Unit No. 3 spent nuclear
~
fuel assemblies.
e
?
t*
n b
4 l
I 1.1
u 2.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLtISIONS Ija j
Alternatives for extended storage of HBPP Unit No. 3 spent nuclear fuel i
assemblies can be summarized as follows:
i 1
! i 1.
Storage onsite in the storage pool--in this alternative, the 390 l
spent fuel assemblies would remain in the existing onsite storage pool. This is the only alternative that does not require the i
' ~
handling and transfer or shipment of spent fuel to and from another i
facility. Thus, the incremental occupational radiation exposure and i
potential for accidents associated with the extra fuel handling l
l required for shipment would not be incurred. The incremental public j
]'I radiation exposure and accident risks, directly associated with the shipments themselves, would also be avoided.
\\
l4 2.
Storage at a federal government site--this would involve transporting l{;
the spent fuel to a DOE determined federal government site for
,dI interim storage. Federal interim storage (FIS) should be viewed as a
{
last resort relative to other licensed (or licensable)
^
alternatives. PGAE eligibility for FIS is questionable and would have to be determined by the NRC.
4 I
j l
3.
Storage at a commercial AFR/ISFSI--for this case, the spent fuel
$l would be transported to a commercial Away-From-Reactor storage facility or Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation for interim i :
storage.' The current lack of AFR/ISFSI storage space would seem to j
'l preclude this option at least for the near term.
]
4.
Dry storage onsite or offsite--here the spent fuel would be trans-l!
ferred to a dry storage facility, to be constructed either on-or
{"
offsite, for interim storage. Although not yet licensed in the U.S.,
!f there are no technical, safety, or regulatory impediments foreseen to i
licensing this alternative. DOE RAD and demonstration programs are j
providing the data needed for NRC to review and evaluate current p
license applications for dry storage in metal casks and concrete
,j, silos. Licenses for these two approaches are expected to be approved
] l within the next year.
3 q
2.1 1
3 l
5.
Transshipment--this involves transporting the spent fuel to another reactor for interim storage in its storage pool. There has been experience in the U.S. with transshipment of spent fuel between two plants in the same utility system, although no shipments have been made between plants in different utilities. Shipping cask avail-ability, and current institutional issues associated with spent fuel transportation could produce cost and schedular impacts for this I
alternative which are difficult to predict.
f
~ Both wet and dry storage technologies are embodied in these five alterna-tives. Wet storage technology has become well established over the past 40 years and is the licensed interim storage mode used in the U.S.
Dry storage technology has received less attention throughout the world until recently but is now evolving rapidly and is expected to be licensed for the first time in the U.S. within the next year. There are no major technical issues associated with either wet or dry storage.
Regulatory requirements for the various alternatives were reviewed and the ij status of current dry storage licensing activities was summarized. Based on this review and recently made NRC rules (Waste Confidence Decision) on wet and f
dry interim storage, it is concluded that there are no significant impediments to licensing for any of the interim storage alternatives. There is however an issue regarding PGAE's potential eligibility for Federal Interim Storage which would need to be resolved between PGAE, 00E,.and the NRC if storage at a federal government site is to be pursued.
Neither wet nor dry storage concepts appear to exhibit any significant advantage over the other in terms of safety. Potential safety impacts associ-ated with site differences in areas such as demography, neteorology and seis-mology can be minimized with proper facility design.
Incremental differences in safety impacts associated with storage alternatives that require additional spent fuel handling and/or transportation operations are expected to be small.
The availability of spent fuel shipping casks and current institutional issues associated with spent fuel shipment could impact both the schedule and 2.2
? l
i cost for alternatives requiring spent fuel transportation. Both subjects are discussed in detail in this report.
Major cost components for the various alternatives were reviewed and rough A
estimates of these costs are provided for each alternative in this report.
1 complete economic evaluation of the spent fuel storage alternatives for 1
Humboldt Bay would address how the various options would impact ongoing l
operations or how ongoing operations would impact the cost of the storage This level of analysis was not possible within the scope and time I
options.
constraints of this study.
How these-interactions would impact total system costs should be considered by l
- j PG4E.
Based on this examination of the issues associated with alternatives for d
interim storage of the 390 Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 spent fuel assemblies, it is concluded that extended storage in the onsite storage pool would be the most i
attractive course of action. There appear to be no technical, safety, or regu-latory issues that would preclude or give preference to any of the alterna-tives. Current transportation issues could result in unpredictable schedule and cost impacts for all other alternatives which require spent fuel trans-port. Economic, logistic, and schedular considerations favor continued storage j f in the onsite storage pool.
4 f
i 4
s I
i 1
l 1
i t
i 2.3 i
I l
i
.,-,,e-,,,---
-,w---
--,~-----n.,am-,e.
a-
-,--n---
.-.-,,.w-m.
-,-, m -, - - - - -,.
~em-oyw-
,y---+y,--
5i j!
3.0 STORAGE ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES 3.1 ON-SITE IN STORAGE POOL For this alternative, spent fuel from HBPP Unit No. 3 would remain in the 4
l existing onsite storage pool.
i l
3.1.1 Safety
)
i Experience has been gained during the years that zirconium-clad spent fuel s
has been stored in storage pools. This experience has.been highly favorable,
- j i
with no detectable degradation of the fuel cladding and essentially no health or safety impacts when storage was implemented under conditions specified in j
the license.
- i A companion report. examines in greater detail the technical and safety i
i aspects of continued storage of the spent fuel in the HBPP Unit No. 3 spent l
fuel pool.
i 3.1.2 Regulatory 1'
Favorable worldwide experience with wet storage over the years has become i
manifest in the recent NRC final ruling on the Waste Confidence Decision.III One of the key NRC points in their Waste Confidence Decision is that:
... The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and 'without J
significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the i
expiration of that reactor's operating licenses at that reactor's spent fuel storage basin, or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations."
Based on this finding, the NRC has revised its regulations 10 CFR 50(1) and 10 CFR 51(II to identify requirements for licensee actions regarding the l
management of spent fuel upon expiration of reactor operating licenses.III The revisions in 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 51 state that environmental impacts of 7
f at-reactor storage after termination of reactor operating licenses need only be j
}
considered (by the applicant and) in NRC proceedings for the time period for
\\
j
}
l 1 i 3.1 i
1 1
I
,;nich amendment of a reactor operating license is sought (in this case, amend-I ment to a possession-only license). The same safety and environmental consid-erations apply to independent spent fuel storage installations licensed under j
I It should be noted that extended storage of spent fuel at a reactor beyond the expiration date of the operating license will require an amendment to the 10 CFR 50 license to cover possession only of the reactor and the spent fuel under the requisite provisions of 10 CFR 30, 10 CFR 50, and 10 CFR 70, or an authorization pursuant to 10 CFR 72.III Specific requirements and procedures
]'
for obtaining a license amendment for possession only are stated in the recent amendments to 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 51.
~
As a result of the Waste Confidence Decision, a reactor operator that wants to store spent fuel in his existing pool after shut down of the reactor, 1
must apply for specific amendments to his licenses for possession-only of the reactor and spent fuel. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company applied to the NRC in [ July 1984] for an amendment to their license. The NRC is reviewing the application. Assuming appropriate considerations in its application for amend-ments to its specific licenses, PGAE can expect to receive the requested license amendments from the NRC, r,
3.1.3 Technical The technology for wet storage of irradiated fuel has developed since 1943. The first water-cooled power reactor fuel storage began in the late 1950s. Wet storage has emerged as the dominant worldwide fuel management method due to delays in reprocessing. The importance of wet storage has resulted in international studies and major comprehensive assessments of the technology and safety of wet storage.II~6)
I l
The storage behavior of Zircaloy-clad spent fuel has been examined, including fuel with cladding defects. Effects of water storage on pool compo-nents (racks, piping, etc.) have been characterized. Wet storage technology has not been troublefree, but the problems have not been major. These l
3.2 4
.,. ~. ~
.,-,._,,,n,--
,.-----n
-., - - - - - - - -. - - ~, - - - - -., - -,,. - - - - -, -,,, -. - - -,,,,
comprehensive assessments of wet storage experience have lead to the conclu-sions that the technical basis is well established and that wet storage is a safe technology.
A companion report (6) examines the technical and safety aspects of con-tinued storage;of the spent fuel in the HBPP Unit No. 3 spent fuel pool in greater detail.
3.1.4 Transportation This alternative does not involve transportation of spent fuel.
3.1.5 Economic / Logistic / Schedular PGAE has estimated that the upgrade modifications required for the extended storage in the existing water basin will cost 185,000 (1983 dollars) and that the annual maintenance and operating costs for this option would he
$765,000 (1985 dollars). As discussed in Section 3.3.5 of this report, inde-pendent cost estimates indicate an annual maintenance and operating cost for a separate water basin of this size would be over $2 million (1985 dollars).
However, this higher cost estimate assumes a more active utilization of the storage capacity, so the two estimates are not directly comparable.
f 3.2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SITE For this alternative spent fuel from HBPP Unit No. 3 would be shipped to a federal government installation for extended storage.
3.2.1 Safety Dry or wet storage options may exist at these facilities. For dry storage the safety impacts of handling and storage would he similar to those for the extended on-site or off-site dry storage alternative (see Section 3.4.1).
For wet storage the safety impacts of handling and storage would be similar to those for the extended storage at an existing commercial facility alternative (see Section 3.3.1).
The difference in safety impacts for this alternative and those for extended storage at Unit 3 is expected to be small for properly designed facilities. Safety aspects of transportation are discussed in Section 3.5.1.
3.3 4
t n
3.2.2 Regulatory In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act), Congress made the fol-l lowing findings in Section 131.(a):
...the persons owning and operating civilian nuclear power reactors have the primary responsibility for providing interim storage of spent nuclear fuel from such reactors, by maximizing, to the extent practical, the effective use of existing storage facilities at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor, and by adding new onsite f
storage capacity in a timely manner where practical..."; and
...the Federal Government has the responsibility to encourage and I
expedite the effective use of existing storage facilities and the 4
addition of needed new storage capacity at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor..."; and
...the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide, in accordance with the provisions of this subtitle, not more than 1,900 metric tons of capacity for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors that cannot reasonably provide ade-
~
quate storage capacity at the sites of such reactors when needed to assure the continued, orderly operation of such reactors."
~
These provisions of the Act do not allow for the interim storage of civilian owned spent fuel at federal government facilities except as part of the Research and Development Cooperative Demonstrations program or the FIS pro-gram. The DOE's Cooperative Demonstration program allows up to three demon-strations that are cooperatively funded by 00E and a utility. To date, two
-demonstrations have been negotiated and a third is in the final stages of nego-tiation. The Act states that the Cooperative Demonstration program shall
...give preference to civilian nuclear reactors that will soon have a shortage of interim storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel..."
This would seem to preclude Humboldt Bay since no additional fuel is being generated. However, we cannot speak for the 00E or predict how the DOE would apply the guidelines of j
this program to Humboldt Ray.
The constraints imposed by the Act for the FIS program include:
The maximum storage capacity is 1900 MTV.
e FIS is limited to the use of existing federally owned capacity, e
acquisition of modular storage capacity at a federal site or at a 1
reactor site, or construction of storage capacity at a reactor 3.4 l
site. Furthermore, FIS capacity "...shall not he provided at any site within which there is a candidate repository site..." (SEC.- 135(a)(2)). Hanford and the Nevada Test Site are currently potential repository sites and are therefore excluded until those sites are no longer repository candidates.
The utility must obtain a Certificate of Eligibility from NRC. The e
requirements described in Criteria and Procedures for Determining the Adequacy of Available Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity (10 CFR 53) f include that the utility must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NRC that it "...cannot reasonably provide adequate storage at the reactor site... and is diligently pursuing licensed alternatives..."(7)
The utility must enter into a contract with DOE and pay the specified I
e
(
storage fee established in the Federal Register dated December 7, 1984 Fees for Federal Interim Storage, Calendar Year 1985: Notices.
j Because HBPP Unit No. 3 is in a non-operating mode and has sufficient capacity for storage of its fuel in the reactor spent fuel storage basin, it is not likely that the NRC will approve a FIS eligibility certification request.
Here again we can not speak for the NRC and such determination would be made in r'
accordance with the procedures described in'10 CFR 53.
If PGAE were to receive eligibility confirmation, they would need to enter into a contract with 00E and
(
pay the prescribed fee.
If PGAE were the first utility to enter such a con-tract (no app'lications have yet been submitted to NRC), the fuel would need to f
remain at Humboldt Bay for about two years after the contract is signed to enable DOE to establish the FIS capability, as described in Implementation Plan for Deployment of Federal Interim Storage Facilities for Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel (00E/RW-0019).
For addition information regarding contracting for FIS services, contact F
J. Roger Hilley Office of Storage and Transportation Systens (RW-30)
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, D.C.
20585 3.5 i
t r--
I Transportation of the spent fuel would have the same regulatory require-i ments as discussed for the transshipment alternatives in Section 3.5.2.
i 3.2.3 Technical' Wet and/or dry storage technologies could be involved with this alter-t native. See Sections 3.1.3 and 3.4.3, respectively, for discussions of these
)
technologies.
3.2.4 Transportation I
Two issues regarding the offsite shipment of spent nuclear fuel are l
addressed here. The first section addresses the availability of spent nuclear fuel shipping casks to perform the shipments. This information can be combined with the number of cask-days required to perform the required number of ship-ments to determine if an adequate number of shipping casks exist to perform the l
required numbers of shipments. The number of cask-days can be calculated using L
information in Appendix A.
The second section discusses the institutional 4
issues that could arise when shipping spent fuel offsite.
Availability of Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipping Casks i
A description of the existing fleet of spent nuclear fuel shipping casks was presented by Daling.(R) Table 3.1 presents a summary of the near-term cask fleet description information from that report, Table 3.1 shows that the existing spent nuclear fuel shipping cask fleet 3
consists of three general cask types; 1) legal-weight truck (LWT), 2) over-weight truck (0WT), and 3) rail. LWT and OWT casks are both transported using l
the truck mode but OWT casks are significantly heavier (with higher payload
')
capacities) than LWT casks, and as such, require special permits in the states i
in which they travel. Based on discussions with suppliers of OWT casks, these I
state permits are generally not difficult to obtain.
j Spent fuel shipping casks must be certified by the NRC prior to their use.
and must also be recertified every five years. As shown on the table, there are currently five certified LWT casks, four certified OWT casks (only two can 8
be used for RWR fuel), and four certified rail casks (one of the rail casks is j
owned by a utility and is assumed to be unavailable to PGAE). The remaining 9
3.6 I
i I
1 I
-.-,.-..,..--._,..-,,,n---.
,,_,,--,..,-.--_._,..-..n-.-.-.-
. -. - -,. - ~.,. - -,.... -. -.. -.,,,,.... - -,,.. -. -,.. - - -.
l TABLE 3.1.
Selected Characteristics of Existing Spent Fuel Shipping Casks l
Fuel Cask External P rimary.
Assemblies Empty Cask Number Number Cask Transport Capacity Weight Dimensions of Casks Currently Designation Mode PWR /RWR (kg)
(m)
Completed Certified NAC-1 LWT 1/2 22,700 1.270 x 5.44 5
0 NFS-4 LWT 1/2 22,700 1.27D x 5.44 2
0 NLI-1/2 LWT 1/2 21,600 1,200 x 4.96 5
5 L-NLI-10/24 Rail 10.24 82,700 2.44D x 5.19 2
0 TN-8L OWT 3/0 36,000 1.72D x 5.52 2
2 TN-9 OWT 0/7 36,000 1.72D x 5.76 2
2 IF-300 Rail 7/18 63,600 1.630 x 5.33 4
4 cteristics data; NUREG-0383.I9)' Cask inventory data (a) Source of cask ch is from PNL-5284 (b) LWT = legal-weight truck and OWT = overweight truck.
(c) NAC-1 and NFS-4 are of the same design.
(d)
Includes two NAC-1 casks that are owned by a utility.
(e) There are currently no internal baskets for these casks;,therefore they l
are currently considered to be unavailable.
'[
(f)
Includes one TN-9 that is owned by a utility.
(g)
Includes one IF-300 that is owned by a utility.
L F
casks in the table are currently not certified and cannot be used at this time i
for spent fuel shipments, so they are assumed to be unavailable to PGAE.
Cask availability is defined here as the number of days per year (in units of cask-days /yr) that a shipping cask is available to perform a shipment. Each cask is assumed to be available for a maxinum of 300 days /yr, which allows adequate time for routine inspection and maintenance of the casks. As a result, total annual availabilities of 1,500 LWT cask-days /yr, 600 OWT cask-days /yr, and 900 rail cask-days /yr can be estimated. This represents the maxi-mum number of cask-days of each type that would be available if there were no other spent fuel shipments occurring.
The number of cask-days per year that could be available for PGAE to perform their shipments is the difference between the raximum cask availability values (see above) and the number of cask-days that are corsnitted to perform spent fuel shipments for other utilities. These other utility shipments are 3.7 C
l I
listed by Daling(10) for the near-term (i.e., through the year 1992) and consist of the following categories of shipments:
e transshipments, return of fuel from West Valley, NY, to originating power plants, and e
I shipments in support of research and development programs.
e Table 3.2 summarizes the important details of these shipments, b
TARLE 3.2.
Details of Future Spent Fuel Shipments 1
Origin Destination Type of Number of Year Facility Facility Fuel Assemblies 1984, 85 Cooper Morris RWR 1,062
~
1984, 85 fiorris Point Beach PWR 109 1984, 85 West Valley Oyster Creek BWR 224 1984, 85 West Valley Ginn PWR 81
~
1985 Surry INEL a)
PWR 48 e
1985 Oconee-1 Oconee-3 PWR 60 1985 Oconee-2 Oconee-3 PWR 140 1935 Honticello Morr BWR 486 a
1986 Surry INEL I
PWR 48 1986 Oconee-1 Oconee-3 PWR 140 1986 Oconee-2 Oconee-3 PWR 60 1986 Millstone-2
. Millstone-3 PWR 133 1986 tiillstone-1 Hillstone-3 RWR 132 BWR 518 1986 Monticello Morrls)
INEL a pyp 4g 1987 Surry 1987 Surry North Anna PWR 97 1987 tiillstone-2 Millstone-3 PWR 81 1988 Hillstone-1 Millstone-3 RWR 200 1988 Surry North Anna PWR 61
]
1989 Millstone-2 Millstone-3 PWR 81
.}
1989 San Onofre-1 San Onofre-2 PWR 35 1989 Surry North Anna PWR 60 1
1990 Millstone-2 Millstone-3 PWR 77 l
1990 Surry North Anna PWR 121 1991 San Onofre-1 San Onofre-3 PWR 53 1991 Surry North Anna PWR 61 1991 fiillstone-2 Millstone-3 PWR 73 1992 Surry North Anna PWR 60 t
i (a)
INEL = Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
Source: Daling 19R4.INI 3.8 J.
/
l The data in Table 3.2 were used to calculate the number of cask-days /yr that are still available in the near-term for PG&E to perform their spent fuel shipments. This was done by subtracting from the maximum number of cask-days /yr the number of cask-days /yr that are estimated to be needed for the shipments shown on Table 3.2.
The formula for calculating'the number of cask-days /yr to complete the shipments in Table 3.2 is:
Nunber of Annual Number Round-t rip Cask-days /yr of Shipments X
Shipping Time
=
i The round-trip shipping (or transit) time was calculated by dividing the total I
distance traveled (round-trip) by the average speed of a shipment and then i
adding the time required to load and unload the shipping cask at each end of j
the transport link. The average speeds of the three types of shipping casks I
are as follows:
Type of Cask Average Speed, mph (a)
LWT 35 OWT 25 Rail 12 I'
(a)
Source:
Daling.1984.(8)
In addition to travel time, the total duration of each round-trip shipment includes the time required to load fuel into the casks at Humboldt Bay and the i
time required to unload the casks at the destination facility. According to Daling,(8) total loading plus unloading times of three days per truck shipment and five days per rail shipment were used. The results of the calculations to determine the number of cask-days /yr that the existing fleet of spent fuel shipping casks will be available in the near-term are shown in Table 3.3.
The cask availabil_ity information in Table 3.3 can be used by PGAE to determine whether or not there would be a sufficient number of shipping casks to perform the required shipments over a specified time. frame. Since PGAE has not selected a particular type of cask and they have not specified a time frame 3.9 t
I TABLE 3.3.
Estimated Annual Cask Availabilities l
Type Cask-Days /Yr Cask-Days /Yr Year of Cask (a)
Comnitted Available 1985 LWT
'33 1,167 OWT-PWR Y42 258 f70 0WT-BWR 530 Rail 456 444 1986 LWT 135 565 OWT-PWR 262 338 A
OWT-BWR 0
'500 Rail 589 311 1987 LWT 243 1,257 OWT-PWR 132 468 OWT-BWR 0
600 Rail 76 824 1988 LWT 300 1,200 0WT-PWR 84 516
~
OWT-BWR 0
600 Rail 0
900 1989 LWT 348 1,152 OWT-PWR 80 520 0WT-8WR 0
600 Rail 0
900 1990 LWT 231 1,269 l
OWT-PWR 164 436 l
OWT-BWR 0
600 Rail 0
900 1991 LWT 378 1,122 OWT-PWR 84 516 OWT-BWR 0
600 Rail 0
900 i
(a)
LWT = legal-weight truck; OWT-PWR = over-weight truck-PWR version; OWT-BWR = over-weight truck-RWR version.
l i
for the shipments, an example will be presented to illustrate how the informa-tion in Table 3.3 can be used. This example will assume that PGAE has obtained approval to store their fuel at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). This is a hypo-thetical example for illustration purposes, only.
It is further assumed that the fuel would be shipped in LWT casks and that PGAE wishes to perform the shipments in the 1986 to 1988 time frame.
3.10 I'
l
\\
The shipping distance from Humboldt Bay to the NTS is approximately 600 miles. Therefore, a single round-trip shipment would require approximately 5 days to complete, including three days to load and unload the shipment. A total of 195 LWT shipments would be required (390 spent fuel assemblies divided by 2 RWR assemblies per LWT shipnent).
Therefore, the total number of cask-days needed to perform the required number of shipments is 195 shipments times 5 days / shipment or about 975 cask-days. For conservatism, approximately 1,000 cask days are assumed to be required.
The next step is to refer to Table 3.3 and compare the required number of cask-days needed to complete the shipments with the total number of cask-days that are available in each year. As shown, about 565 LWT cask-days are avail-able in 1986 LWT cask availability in 1987 was estinated at over 1,200 cask-days and in 1988 at approximately 1,200 cask-days. Therefore, it appears feasible for PGAE to perform these hypothetical shipments using LWT casks in the 1986 to 1988 time frane.
)
A word of caution is appropriate here. The estimated cask usages and availabilities through 1991 (see Table 3.3) are based on the best available information as of June 1985. The data used to develop these estimates are based on information in the literature that includes, in some instances, I
utility announcements of future spent fuel shipping campaigns. These plans are subject to changes and delays and thus the data should be updated perio11cally.
In sumary, a method was described that can be used by pGAE to determine whether or no' there is a sufficient supply of spent fuel shipping casks to t
perform the needed shipments in a specified time frame. This method can be used to evaluate the feasibility of using all three types of shipping casks that are in service at the present time; LWT, OWT, and rail. The additional information needed to evaluate the cask availability, which would ' e provided b
r by PGAE staff, is the type of cask they planned for use and the time frame in which the shipments are planned to take place.
Institutional Issues This section describes the institutional issues that might affect the spent fuel shipments from Humboldt Bay. Federal, state, and local-level 3.11 i
i
e 1
institutional issues that could arise during the planning and execution of the shipnents are discussed. Although institutional issues would not be antici-pated to prevent PG8E from performing spent fuel shipnents, they could cause i
delays and increase costs.
I The first transportation-related institutional issue deals with physical-i security-in-transit requirenents that are promulgated by the NRC. The NRC recently proposed to amend their regulations for the physical security of spent j
fuel in transit (49 CFR 112). Basically, the proposed regulations would reduce the level of security required. Under the proposed changes, which would be incorporated into 10 CFR 73, the requirements that would be eliminated include
~
the use of arned guards in cities, advance NRC approval of routes, and advance coordination with local enforcement agencies.
If the proposed rule becomes final, PG4E would not need to incur the costs needed to meet these require-ments. However, public perception of the security of these shipments, particu-L larly with respect to potential sabotage acts, would be damaged if the proposed requirements become final. Thrrefore, PGAE night consider implementing the more stringent physical security requirements for shipments, at least on a limited or trial basis for the first several shipments. A similar approach has
'}
been taken by other utilities who have recently completed or are currently performing spent fuel shipments.
The second federal-level issue concerns emergency response provisions. At
~
this time, many federal agencies share the responsibilities for dealing with
~
radioactive material transportation accidents, including the 00T, NRC, 00E, and FEMA. However, the ultimate responsibility for emergency response planning l
1 lies with the state and local governnents, primarily because the first responder to a transportation accident will be, in most cases, a nember of a local law enforcement agency or fire department. As a result, potential first responders need to be trained to deal with a potential radiological emergency.
Some utilities have sponsored training sessions for state patrol and local police and fire department personnel in states that their shipments will traverse. PGAE night consider a similar approach to ensure that the capabil-ities exist along their potential shipping routes to deal with potential radio-logical emergencies.
3.12 i
I The state / local level institutional issues that are anticipated to arise deal primarily with the many nuclehr transportation regulations that have been promulgated in the past several years. For example, in California, a state regulation has been imposed that requires the California State Patrol to be notified not later than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> prior to a shipment of spent fuel. The NRC requirement states that the shipper must notify the governor (or governor's designee) within 7 days of a spent fuel shipment that a shipment will pass through their states. Other states have inposed advance notification require-l ments that are different than these. Various other state / local regulations have been enacted throughout the country and it will require a concerted effort to remain in complete compliance.
The state / local regulations that can be shown to be inconsistent with DOT regulations can be overturned by petitioning the DOT. The authority for this can be found in the DOT's routing regulations, 49 CFR 177.825 (Docket HM-164).
DOT's regulations attempt to reduce the hazards of transporting radioactive materials by avoiding densely populated areas and minimizing transit times.. A carrier or any person operating a motor vehicle carrying a " highway-route-controlled quantity" of radioactive materials (spent fuel would constitute a highway-route-controlled quantity) is required to use the interstate highway E
system except when moving from point-of-origin to the interstate or interstate to destination.
All regulations enacted by state and local governments have to be con-sistent with the provisions of Docket HM-164 or they are subject to preemp-tion. The DOT holds that conflicting requirements among jurisdictions may be unduly restrictive and may increase risks. State and local requirements will be preempted by Docket HM-164 if they:
I t
completely prohibit travel between any two points served by a e
- highway, r
prohibit use of an interstate highway, including prohibition of e
travel based on tine of day, without designation of an equivalent preferred highway as a substitute, 3.13
l i
require use of a preferred highway except in accordance with the e
provisions of the regulation, 8
require prenotification of state and/or local authorities, or e
require special personnel, equipment, or escort.
e The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the federal DOT highway routing regulations are valid, and therefore preempted a conflicting ordinance d
enac'ted by New York City banning shipment of irradiated reactor fuel through the city on interstate highways.(10) This ruling is expected to set a prece-p dent for preemption of a number of state and local ordinances that are incon-sistent with DOT regulations. Among them would he the California state patrol advance notification requirement as well as any arbitrary bans of spent fuel transport through a local jurisdiction.
It will take many years for DOT to review the state / local level restric-tions and determine whether or not they are inconsistent with Docket HM-164 Consequently, many of the state / local restrictions that are currently in effect will remain so for many years. This process could be expedited if PGAE were to identify to the DOT the specific requirements and jurisdictions they feel could impose an undue effect on their shipping plans. However, even if these requirements are preempted by 00T, the local jurisdictions could appeal the l
ruling and initiate a long court hattle between themselves and PGAE/ DOT. The state / local restrictions would likely remain in effect during the appeal pro-cess increasing the likelihood that delays might be encountered if this approach is taken.
Utilities that have recently performed spent fuel shipments.have essen-tially agreed to abide by the various state / local restrictions in order to avoid the delays and costs that would be imposed if the 00T preemption approach 3
is taken. This includes in some cases paying fees to the states in which {t fee requirement has been imposed (e.g., the states of Illinois and Pennsylvania have imposed $1,000 to $2,000 fees for transporting spent fuel through their states). Thus, even though the many state / local restrictions may ultimately be j
8 preempted by DOT regulations, lengthy delays may be prevented by complying with the restrictions.
t 3.14
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) released a report that is a compilation of the state / local laws and regulations regarding the transportation of radioactive materials.III) This document was reviewed for regulations that could affect the PG4E spent fuel shipments from Humboldt Ray. Several requirements were listed for the state of California, including the requirement for advance notification of the state patrol. Also listed was a requirement for the state patrol to designate tirr.es of day and routes and a requirenent that carriers transporting radioactive materials across the Golden Gate Bridge must secure escorts.
In addition, it was found that Hunboldt County and Marin County prohioit nuclear waste shipments. A similar county ordinance banning spent fuel shipments was recently removed by an out-of-court settlement between the affected utility and the county.II2I This settlement I
took almost two years to obtain.
If PG8E decides to implement a storage option that includes offsite trans-portation activities, the shipments may also have to satisfy requirements imposed by other states and local jurisdictions through which the shipments will traverse.
In such a case, it would be recommended that PGAE initiate a dialogue with these states to determine their concerns about transporting spent fuel. The NCSL document could be used to screen out the regulations that would f
not affect the shipments and thus reduce the, amount of interactions that would be needed.
In summary, federal and state / local level institutional issues are not expected to prevent PGAE from performing spent fuel shipments but may cause lengthy delays and increase costs. Federal-level issues include emergency response provisions, insurance coverage of shipments, and physical-security-in-transit requirements.
State / local level institutional issues consist primarily of the many state and local laws and regulations related to radioactive mate-rial transportation that have been enacted in the past several years. Many of these laws and regulations appear to be inconsistent with 00T regulations and, if so, will ultimately be preempted by DDT regulations. However, it may take several years for the regulations that affect shipment of spent fuel to be preempted.
3.15
3.2.5 Economic / Logistic / Schedular If PG8E could obtain FIS eligibility certification from the NRC, it would be required to make three fee payments as established in the Federal Register dated December 7,1984.(7) The fee payment required varies with the total amount of storage services that DOE has contracted for.
If Humboldt Ray were the only and/or first FIS user, they would have to pay the maximum fee, which is based on a total DOE storage contracts of 100 MTU or less. The initial fee f
payment would be due within 30 days of execution of the contract and would be
$310 per KGU if the contracts for FIS totals 100 MTU or less. The initial fee could be red'uced to as low as $20 per KGU if 00E has signed contracts for 1900 MTU. The second fee payment is due within 60 days of fuel delivery and ranges from $380 per KGU if the FIS contracts total 100 MTU or less to as low as $140 per KGU if contracts for 1900 MTU have been signed by 00E. When the second payment is made, an adjustment for changes in the first fee payment may also be made if the first fee should have been lower because FIS executed addi-tional contracts or if actual FIS development costs' differ from the estimates used in determination of the initial fee. The third fee payment would be to reimburse DOE for the actual costs incurred for transporting the fuel from Humboldt Bay to the FIS facility and would be due~ within 60 days of delivery.
In addition, a final fee adjustment would be made after all fuel had been removed from FIS and delivered to the disposal program to correct for the differences between the fees paid and the correct fee to recover the actual expenses incurred by the FIS program. This final adjustment could require a fee payment to DOE, but would most likely be a refund to PG4E because the fee schedule is conservatively based on the most expensive of six different storage options and the actual costs may be somewhat lower.
The estimated cost (1985 dollars) of FIS storage for the 390 Humboldt Bay L
spent fuel assemblies (~29 MTU) would be:
Total Initial Fee:
$8,990,000 (1100 MTU total FIS)
Second Fee:
$11,020,000 (1100 MTU total FIS)
Transportation fee:
$1,764,000 (assumes 2 assemblies per legal-weight truck shipment, 980 cask days required i
3.16 l
5 f
i i
Total FEES:
$21,774,000 (< 100 MTU total FIS) t The cost of other activities required to implement this alternative, including 4
obtaining a FIS eligibility certificate from NRC and cask loading operations at Humboldt Bay, would need to be estimated to get the total cost for this alternative.
3.3 COMMERCIAL AFR/ISFSI For this alternative spent fuel from HBPP Unit No. 3 would be shipped to a j
comnercial AFR/ISFSI for extended storage..
3.3.1 Safety The General Electric Morris Operation and the Nuclear Fuel Services West i
Valley facility, and the Allied Gulf Nuclear Services Barnwell operation all utilize wet storage. The overall storage safety impacts would be similar to l
l extended fuel storage at HBPP Unit No. 3 (see Section 3.1.1).
The additional handling operations required to load the spent fuel into casks for shipping and unload the spent fuel for storage may result in a slight increase in safety impacts for this alternative relative to on-site storage. Siting differences in such areas as demography, meteorology and seismology may result in a slight
{
increase or decrease in safety impacts. These differen:es in safety impacts could be expected to be small for licensed facilities., Safety aspects of t
transportation are discussed in Section 3.5.1.
Public Radiation Exposure from Normal Operations j
Routine emissions from the Horris facility have been shown to be small.(13) Public radiation exposure from normal operations for extended storage at an existing commercial facility would be expected to be small and similar to that of extended storage at HRPP Unit No. 3.
F Public Radiation Exposure from Accidents The safety evaluation report for the Norris facility examined the follow-ing accident scenarios:(13) 1.
loss of ba, sin water, 2.
effect of earthquake, l
l 3.17 6
3.
fuel assembly drop, 4
tornado-generated missile, and 5.
criticality.
[
A fuel basket drop was identified as having the potential for the greatest off-site safety impact. The calculated exposures resulting from this event are small fractions of the limits in the maximum accident exposure guidelines.
This alternative would result in additional spent fuel handling at.HBPP Unit No. 3 and at the comercial storage facility and would result in a slight lncrease in accident probability. Site differences in areas such as demo-graphy, meteorology and seismology may result in a slight increase or decrease in accident impacts. These impacts would he expected to be small for licensed facilities.
Occupational Radiation Exposure 4 i The increase in spent fuel handling operations for this alternative would result in an increase in occupational exposure from that for extended storage at HBPP Unit No. 3.
3.3.2 Regulatory One licensed ISFSI currently exists in the U.S.
That is the General Electric facility at tiorris, Illinois. General Electric has a license under 10 CFR 72 to store standard PWR or BWR fuel elements in its fuel storage pool, which was originally built to service the on-site fuel reprocessing plant (never operated). Storage of the Humboldt Ray' Unit No. 3 fuel at the fiorris ISFSI would require two.orimary regulations-related actions:
conformance to transportation regulations, and obtaining an amendment to the the facility license to store the fuel from HBPP Unit No. 3.
l, Transportation would have the same requirements as discussed for the e
transshipment alternative (see Section 3.5.2).
i e -Because the Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 spent fuel is considered nonstan-dard for the existing license of the fiorris ISFSI, an amendment to 8
the Morris facility license would be required. An application to the NRC for an amendment to the 10 CFR 72 license of the fiorris facility
- j ii 3.18
I would be required to be filed by GE. NRC review of the amendment J
application would follow, using much the same procedure as discussed l
for storage of the fuel in an operating reactor's pool (see Section 3.5.2).
In addition to these activities, storage of the spent fuel at an ISFSI j
owned by another company (i.e., in this case, GE), would require negotiation for a major business arrangenent.
3.3.3 Technical i
The only currently licensed ISFSI employs wet storage. See Section 3.1.3 for a discussion of wet storage technology, and Section 3.4.3 for a discussion of dry storage technology.
3.3.4 Transport ati on Availability of spent fuel shipping casks and institutional issues that may affect spent fuel shipments from Humboldt Ray are discussed in Section 3.2.4
~
3.3.5 Economic / Logistic / Schedular Existing facilities built by Allied Gulf Nuclear Services (AGNS) at i
n Barnwell, South Carolina; General Electric (GE) at Morris, Illinois; and Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) at West Valley, New Ycr'(, have spent fuel water i
storage basins and have the potential capability to stora spent fuel frnm civilian reactors. All three were initially intended to be used as commercial reprocessing facilities but are not currently pursuing reprocessing activities.
l The storage pool at AGNS has been completed and the low density storage racks are available but are not installed. AGNS has never received any spent fuel.
NFS and GE have received spent fuel in_the past and have functioned as commercial storage facilities.
Telephone contacts were made to determine the current status and/or avail-ability of these three facilities. These' discussions are summarized below e AGNS - The facility is closed, has no operating personnel, and does not have a license to store spent fuel. The facility is available for sale to anyone who would like to license and operate it.
3.19
l 1
Derson contacted:
C. Nielsen
}
Allied Corporation P.O. Box 2263R Norristown, N.J.
07960 Phone: 201-455-3367 e General Electric - GE is not in the commercial spent fuel storage business but has offered this service to certain utilities in conjunction with other contractual obligations. The space in this facility is totally committed at this time. There is a possibility that one PWR customer may not exercise his option to deliver 80 PWR 1
assemblies.
If this space becomes available, 180 standard BWR assemblies could be stored there. This is not enough space to store all of the 390 Humboldt Bay spent fuel ~ assemblies. The fee for storage is negotiated for each case.
Person contacted:
B. F. Judson General Electric Co.
P.O. Rox 3508 Sunnyvale, CA 940A8 Phone: 408-738-7183 e NFS - This facility is now owned by the State of New York.
It would be impossible to store any spent fuel at this facility. The site is being decoqissioned and the water basin is committed to storing and
'I handling con'taminated equipment. Agreements have been executed with d
all owners of s' pent fuel previously stored to return spent fuel to its owners. These agreements are supported by a court order requir-f ing the removal. Removal operations are about 2/3 complete.
Person contacted:
Dan Anderson i
N.Y.S. ERDA 2 Rockefeller Plaza i
Albany, NY 12223 J
Phone:
518-465-6251 Based on the above information, there are only two possibilities for util-ization of existing commercial spent fuel storage facilities. The first pos-sibility is to purchase the Rarnwell facility. The price would have to be negotiated with Allied Corporation. Excluding interest, the current AGNS investment, in as-spent dollars, includes $214 million fixed cspital, I
3.20
$5.7 million working. capital, and $64.3 million preoperational expense.(14)
AGNS estimated replacement costs at about $565 million (1983 dollars). How-1 ever, this represents sunk costs with low likelihood of being recovered, so a negotiated price might be considerably less. The storage capacity with the present fuel racks is 360 MTU. With installation of horon-poisoned high The estimated costs density racks, the capacity can be increased to 1100 MTV.
(1985 dollars) for this option include:
purchase price:
$68,000,000 to $565,000,000 The lower cost is based on the capital cost of a 1000 MTU water basin (15)
Annual Operating Cost:
$4,100,000(15)
Transportation Cost:
$4,900,000 (assumes 2 assemblies per legal weight truck shipment,1960 cask days required)
The costs of other activities required to implement this alternative including negotiation of purchase, obtaining a license to operate the storage facility, and cask loading at Humboldt Bay would need to be estimated to get the total u
cost for this alternative.
The second possible option in the comercial AFR/ISFSI category is to purchase storage services fron GE, if the space becomes available, as discussed above. Since the potential space is not sufficient for all of the Humboldt Bay fuel, this option would have to be supplemented with another alternative, such I'
as transshipment to Diablo Canyon, which is discussed in Section 3.5.
If two Humboldt Bay assemblies could be placed in a standard BWR location, this alter-native would be limited to 360 assemblies, leaving 30 assemblies to be stored via another storage alternative. General Electric fees for storage services i
are negotiated with each user and are not publicly' advertised. Since it is a commercial profit making venture for GE, they would only perform the service if t
they can make a profit. Therefore, in estimating the cost of this service we 7
applied a before tax rate of return of 30 percent to independent cost esti-mates. Based on research previously completed at Pacific Northwest Laboratory (pNL-4517), a 1000 MTU water basin would require $68 million (1985 dollars) in capital and an anual operating cost of 6 percent of capital.(15)
Based on an economic lifetime. of 10 years, the capital recovery factor is 0.324 (32.4% of 3.21 I
I t
I capital /yr), which yields a storage cost of $26 per KGU per year or $674,000
}
per year for 360 assemblies. For comparison, in 1983, Wisconsin Electric stated that they would save $2 million per year by returning 109 PWR assemblies from GE/ Morris.(16) This amounts to about $1.5 million (1985 dollars) for the 1
180 displaced BWR locations.
The estimated costs (1985 dollars) for this alternative are:
i Annual Storage Cost:
$674,000 to $1,500,000 I
Transportation Cost:
$3,438,000 (assumes 360 assemblies, 2 assemblies per i
legal weight truck shipment,1568 cask days required)
The costs of other activities required to implement this alternative including negotiation of availability and price of storage, loading casks at Humboldt Bay, providing storage for the remaining 30 assemblies would need to be esti-mated to get the total cost for this alternative.
3.4 ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE ORY STORAGE For this alternative spent fuel from HRPP Unit No. 3 would be placed into dry storage onsite or shipped to an off-site dry storage facility.
3.4.1.
Safety Several concepts are under consideration for dry storage of spent fuel.
These include cask, caisson (dry-well), and vault. EPRI recently funded a
.i comparative safety study of the above three dry storage options and wet storage.(17) The principal observation is that none of the dry storage con-cepts appears to exhibit any significant advantage over the other with respect to safety impacts.
Pool storege appears to pose a slightly greater public risk than any of the dry-storage concepts.
However, the public risk is stated to be I
small for any of the storage concepts and to be negligible when compared to that of an operating reactor.
This alternative would require additional spent fuel handling operations to transfer the fuel to either the on-site or off-site dry storage facility.
These increased handling operations would result in an increase in safety impacts for this alternative even though the risk during storage may be 3.22
i.
l slightly lower. For the case of off-site dry storage, siting differences in i
such areas as demography, ' meteorology and seismology may result in a slight i
increase or decrease in safety impacts. These differences in safety impacts are expected to be small for licensed facilities. Safety aspects of 9
transportation are discussed in Section 3.5.1.
Public Radiation Exposure from Normal Operations The safety analysis report for the dry cask independent spent fuel storage s
installation at the Surry Power Station indicates that the impact on public radiation exposure from normal operations will be small for dry cask storage of spent fuel.(18)
Public radiation exposure from normal operations for extended on-site or off-site dry storage is expected to be small and comparable to that of extended wet storage at the HBPP Unit No. 3 storage pool.
Public Radiation Exposure from Accidents The safety analysis report for the dry cask independent spent fuel storage installation at the Surry Power Station examined the following accident scenarios:II8I 1.
earthquake, 2.
extreme wind, F
- 3.. flood, 4
pipeline explosion.
5.
- fire, n
6.
dropped. fuel assembly, 7.
inadvertent loading of newly discharged fuel assembly, 8.
loss of liquid neutron shield, 9
cask seal leakage, 10.
cask drops, and-
- 11. loss of confinement barrier.
'I A hypothetical accident resulting in loss of confinement barrier was identified I
as having the potential for the greatest offsite impact. The calculated expo-sures are small fractions of the NRC's guidelines for maximun accident exposure.
3.23 i
i h
I Occupational Radiation Exposure The increase in spent fuel handling operations for this alternative would result in an increase in occupational exposure relative to that for extended storage at HBPP Unit No. 3.
3.4.2 Regulatory In their Waste Confidence DecisionIII the NRC states:
4 "Thus, with respect to the storage of spent fuel under dry conditions at storage installations located either at reactor sites or away from 1
reactor sites, the Commission believes that current dry-storage tech-nology is capable of providing safe storage for spent nuclear fuel."
They also state,
... the Commission is confident that dry storage installations can provide continued safe storage of spent fuel at reactor sites for at least 30 years after expiration of the plant's license."
Thus, although no dry storage systems for spent fuel are currently licensed in the U.S., there appear to be no technical reasons to prevent dry storage from being licensed. Dry storage of spent fuel in metal casks has been licensed in the Federal Republic of Germany since 1984.III Dry storage of spent fuel in sealed concrete casks has also been licensed in Canada since 1984.I19)
In addition, a considerable amount of licensing activity of dry storage of spent j
fuel has been undertaken in the past year in the U.S.
To obtain a license for dry storage, the supplier of the storage system must submit a topical report to the NRC with appropriate safety analysis. The NRC must then approve the storage system on a generic basis. A " good" topical report can result in approval by the NRC in 9 to 12 months.(20) The reactor operator must also submit an application for a dry storage license under 10 CFR 72, with supporting site-specific safety analysis and other documentation. A 1
" good" site-specific safety analysis and license application documentation can result in a license by NRC in 12 to 15 months if there is no intervention (i.e., request for hearing). With intervention, the time requirements will be
- )
extended (in the order of 6 months with no major deficiencies found), and the i
t 4
final license decision will be made by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board t
i I
3.24
1 I
(ASLB). The topical report and license application can be submitted and i
reviewed concurrently in 12 to 15 months if there is no intervention.(20)
I The NRC regulation 10 CFR 72 is the primary regulation for storage of spent fuel that is not stored in the normal storage pool at reactors.
It applies to wet or dry storage at reactors or at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations.
10 CFR 72 is currently being modified by NRC, primarily for it to also be directly applicable to storage in a federal government Monitored t
Retrievable Storage facility. Technical requirements are not expected to be changed, except that allowance will be made for storage containment to be pro-vided by a sealed canister in the event spent fuel cladding is breached.
l Requirements for assuring no degradation of the spent fuel cladding or the i
canister during storage are anticipated. As part of this expected requirement, all currently-planned dry storage of spent fuel is using chemically inert gas around the spent fuel or canisters to preclude such degradation. Thus, storage will require monitoring to assure that the inert gas is not leaking and the confinement capability of the spent fuel cladding or canister has not degraded.
With the inert gas, spent fuel can be stored at cladding temperatures as high as 375*C. Future dry storage at lower temperatures in air may be allowed for thermally cold spent fuel once the allowable storage temperature limit for this P
case is established. This limiting temperature is being determined in DOE's Comercial Spent Fuel Managenen+. (CSFM) Program.
Some licensing is expected within the next year in the U.S. as discussed below.
The licensing activity for dry storage of spent fuel that is in the most advanced stage in the U.S. is for Virginia Power (Vp) at their Surrey Nuclear r
Power Station. VP has submitted an application to the NRC for a license (under 10 CFR 72) for storage of their spent fuel in up to 84 GNS Castor V trans-portable metal storage casks. Four casks have been received or ordered to date. The manufacturer has submitted to the NRC a topical safety analysis report for the generic use of the cask. The NRC has been reviewing these reports and their approval is expected this summer.
In addition, an application for a transportation license for the Castor VB cask has been filed by GNS. A drop test is scheduled later this year, and i
3.25 i I
I t
s.iccessful completion of the drop test should result in approval of the trans-I portation license. VP has also ordered one each of TN-24, Westinghouse MC-10, and GNS Castor V metal storage casks for unlicensed cooperative demonstration of dry storage of spent fuel at DOE's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). Testing will start in September 1985 and continue for 2 years.
Carolina Power and Light submitted a license application to the NRC early in 1985 for storage of PWR spent fuel in up to 8 dry storage silos. The appli-j cation is currently being reviewed by the NRC concurrently with review of the topical report by NUTECH (submitted late in 1984) on their NUHOMS storage silos. The storage silo is a horizontally-oriented concrete structure that holds 7 PWR fuel elements.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is planning to initiate a licensed demonstration of dry storage in GNS Castor Ic metal storage cask at its Browns Ferry nuclear power plant. The TVA is preparing their license application, which is expected to be submitted to the NRC by fall of this year. The NRC has recently issued a letter of approval and a safety evaluation report for the topical report on the GNS Castor Ic metal cask to store 16 RWR assemblies and is the first dry storage cask to obtain approval in the U.S.I21)
Westinghouse submitted to the NRC early this year, a topical report for dry storage of spent fuel in their MC-10 metal storage cask. The forged steel cask can hold 24 PWR fuel assemblies.
Nuclear As.surance Corporation (NAC) also submitted to the NRC early this year, a topical report for dry storage of spent fuel in their NAC 10/24 S/T metal storage / transportation cask. The stainless steel / lead cask will hold 31 PWR assemblies.
Transnuclear is expected to submit to the NRC later in 1985 a topical report on their TN-24 metal storage cask. The forged steel cask will hold 24 1-PWR fuel assemblies.
Combustion Engineering submitted to the NRC a topical report on its metal storage cask for dry storage of spent fuel, but review action will not be initiated until additional information is provided. Rabcock and Wilcox has designed a metal storage cask for dry storage of spent fuel but topical report 8
3.26 j
t T
l 1
I I
action on the cask has not been initiated.
In addition, Ridihalgh Eggers and Associates has designed and constructed a metal storage cask (designated REA 1
[
2023) and submitted a topical report to the NRC, but further action in its review has been discontinued. This DOE-owned cask, which holds 52 BWR fuel f
assemblies, has been used in a characterization test by the Department of Energy at the General Electric Company's Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at tiorris, Illinois. Temperature and radiation measurements have been taken in atmospheres of helium, nitrogen, and in a vacuum.
I The DOE is embarking on an unlicensed dry storage demonstration in 2 TN-24 I
metal storage casks at the INEL, with storage demonstrations starting in 1985.
l One cask will hold 85 BWR fuel assemblies from the Big Rock Point nuclear power plant, and the other will hold 40 PWR fuel assemblies from the Ginna nuclear power plant. The generic Safety Analysis Report for storage has been completed
{
by the manufacturer, a DOE contractor is preparing the site-specific safety analysis report, and 00E/HO is reviewing the documentation for their approval.
In addition, Safety Analysis Reports for Packaging have been prepared and are being reviewed by DOE in preparation for obtaining DOE Certificates of Compliance for transportation of spent fuel in these casks.
At least six different storage cask designs could receive NRC' approval within the next 1 to 2 years. The NRC has announced that they intend to issue a generic ruling on licensing of metal casks for spent fuel storage at reactors in 1988. Before they do this, however, they want to obtain experience in reviewing and approving licenses for specific applications. The NRC plans to precede this with issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in fiarch 1986, and a proposed rule in early 1987.I21)
The option of dry cask storage onsite at Humboldt Bay would require licensing of the storage system, possibly a new license under 10 CFR 72 and most-likely a revision to the existic: 10 CFR 50 license.
For the option of shipping the Humboldt Bay-3 spent fuel to Diablo Canyon or another reactor facility for dry storage, two primary regulations-related actions would be required: conforming with transportation regulations and obtaining a license for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.
1 3.27 I
t t
ll 1
't I
Transportation would have the same requirements as discussed for the e
transshipment alternative (see Section 3.5.2).
3 o Construction of the new dry storage facility and its operation would have similar licensing requirements as for dry storage at the Humboldt Bay site.
In addition, the inpact of the dry storage facility on the operation of the reactor may require an amendment to the reactor's operating license under 10 CFR 50.
j l
3.4.3 Technical 1
The scope of dry interim storage technology, the performance of fuel and a
facility materials, the status of programs in several countries to license dry storage of water reactor fuel, and the characteristics of water reactor fuel that relate to dry storage conditions are reviewed in two reports.(22,23) The technical bases to establish safe conditions for dry storage of Zircaloy-clad fuel are summarized in another report.I29) Materials considerations in interim wet or dry storage of spent fuel are described in a recent paper.(25) Dry spent fuel storage experience was reviewed in another recent paper (26) and brief excerpts from that paper are included below:
Interim dry storage (20 to 40 years) is a viable storage mode that e
complements wet storage.
It has been licensed in the Federal
]'
Republic of Germany (FRG), Switzerland, and Canada. It requires less I
maintenance than pool storage and provides the option of modular expansion. Uncertainty about creep rupture of spent fuel cladding due to the internal gas pressure and U02 oxidation appeared as issues concerning allowable dry storage-conditions; however, recent assess-I24) and experimental studies (27-28) have helped to resolve ments uncertainties and define conditions for acceptable dry storage.
e Experience with dry storage in concrete silos, dry wells, metal casks, and vaults is described in Tables 2 through 5 of Reference 26.
Fuel conditions are shown schematically for a metal storage cask in Figure 7 of the paper by Gilbert et al.(26) A conservative cladding temperature guideline of 380 C has been recommended for interim dry storage in inert gas.I24) An inert cover gas prevents fuel rod l
3.28
I I
degradation of reactor-breached fuel as shown in Figures 8 and 9.of Reference 26. No mechanisms are known for fuel to degrade in a 1
nonreactive atmosphere. Over 15,000 spent fuel rods have been included in dry storage' tests and demonstrations, with over 6000 rods monitored for cladding breaches. Only one spent fuel rod has failed during dry storage.(24) The cause of that failure is under investigation.
Temperatures up to 450'C are not expected to lead to unacceptable e
f cladding degradation in inert gas. Dry storage tests and demon-strations involving Zircaloy-clad fuel are under way to determine if l
cladding temperatures above 3RO*C during dry storage can be sup-i ported. Temperatures up to 450'C during fuel drying and dry storage insertion operations are considered to be conservative since these j
i operations require only short periods of time and impose acceptably small increments of cumulative creep rupture damage to the clad-ding. The storage system is monitored to assure that the protective environment is maintained until the temperature is too low for significant U02 oxidation.
Conclusions drawn in the paper are:(26) e 1.
Integrity of spent fuel in dry storage is potentially influenced by earlier operations in the fuel cycle. Fuel integrity assess-ments must consider whether impacts from operations (fabrica-tio'n; reactor service; wet storage; transportation; possible rod consolidation and/or interim dry storage; and, eventually, one
~
or more of the options: MRS, reprocessing, or repository disposal) are significant.
2.
Recent foreign and U.S. dry storage tests and demonstrations, T-emphasizing LWR fuel but including other fuel types, provide the technical basis for U.S. licensing of dry storage.
3.
A small percentage of defects, within acceptable limits, are present in fabricated fuel rods.. Reactor servise causes lower cladding ductility, increased strength, and a low level of 1
1 3.29 l
I i
\\
through-wall and incipient defects. Wet storage appears to impose only minor effects on LWR fuel integrity, including a few instances of fuel damage during handling operations. Shipping has likewise produced a few cases where fuel integrity was per-ceptibly compromised.
8 4
Fuel integrity in dry storage has a favorable history to date.
Over 15,000 spent LWR rods have been included in tests and f
demonstrations; more than 6,000 have been monitored. To date, monitoring has suggested that only one rod has failed in a dry 4
storage test.
4 5.
It appears that rods with reactor-induced defects can be stored without further degradation in inert gas but are subject to degradation in air cover gases if the temperature is suffi-ciently high to promote UO2 fuel oxidation.
Thus, although no dry storage systems for spent fuel. are currently licensed in the U.S., there appear to be no technical reasons to prevent dry storage from being licensed.
3.4.4 Transportation
~
Availability of spent fuel shipping casks and institutional issues that may affect spent fuel shipments from Humboldt Bay are discussed in Sec-tion 3.2.4 In the event that dry storage casks are also licensed for
~)
shipping, this.could affect the availability of shipping casks.
It is not possible to predict the impacts at this time.
3.4.5 Economic / Logistic / Schedular 4
Although dry storage of LWR spent fuel has not yet been approved by the NRC, there are some significant ongoing efforts by DOE and the nuclear industry to develop information needed by NRC to approve this form of spent fuel stor-age. The principal focus of these research and development projects is the use 8
of large, metal, dry storage casks. These storage casks are similar to the current generation of spent fuel shipping casks but need not be designed to withstand severe transportation accident conditions. Several cask vendors are 1
available to provide dry storage casks. The following describes dry storage
{
3.30
[
l a
,e
-r,
i I
casks that 'are available from the various vendors and presents an assessment of their availability at the present time.
All of the storage casks shown in Table 3.4 would be transported by rail.
None are yet certified for transportation of spent fuel so the fuel that is placed in them would have to be removed after the storage period has elapsed.
However, some vendors are developing transportable storage casks that would meet the requirements for transportation (10 CFR 71) as well as the require-ments for storage (10 CFR 72) of spent fuel. The principle advantage of a
~
transportable storage cask is that the fuel would not have to be removed from the cask for subsequent offsite shipment. Examples of potential transportable storage casks include the Castor Ic, Castor Vb, and TN-24 The list of casks shown in the table does not include all of the storage casks currently under-going development, but the table does include examples of storage casks from q
I all of the major vendors.
Table 3.4 indicates that most of the cask vendors have abandoned the use of Icad and stainless steel for cask materials. The current trend is towards using less expensive nodular cast irons and forged steels. These materials are also relatively easy to work with when compared to lead. Casks constructed of cast iron or forged steel can also be fabricated faster.
It is estimated that a forged steel cask or a nodular cast iron cask could be fabricated within one year after placement of an order with a vendor. This is based on DOE experi-ence with a Transnuclear cask similar to the TN-24 that is being used to demon-strate the feasibility of a transportable storage cask.
Cesk prices are difficult to obtain because this is often proprietary information, is subject to negotiation, and can be affected by many variables, such as the total number of casks in the ordered.
In general, the nodular cast iron and forged steel casks should be less expensive than the conventional lead / stainless steel casks because the materials and the fabrication techniques 7
are less costly. Westinghouse reported estimates of capital costs for the REA-2023 cask at about $750,000 each.(30) Westinghouse also estimated that it would cost about $350,000 to provide impact limiting devices for the REA-2023 cask that could potentially make them transportable.(30) Consequently, it is assumed that approximately this amount should be added to the costs of the 3.31 i
i k
TABLE 3.4.
Dry Storage Cask Design Features Design Features REA-2025 TN-24 Castor 1C Castor V MC-10 C.E.
N.A.C.
Vendor Mitsubishi(a)
Transnuclear GNS GNS Westinghouse Combustion Nuclear EnginoerIng Assurance Loaded weight, tons 100 100 85 115 100 106 120 Capacity, assemblies 24 PWR 24 PWR 16 BWR 21 PWR 24 PWR 24 PWR 31 FWR 52 BW 52 BW 60 BWR Thermal limit, kW 24 24 30 29 24 NA(b) g Overall length, ft 16 16.5 18 16 16 NA NA Outside diameter, ft 8
8 6.5 8
8 NA NA w
Materials of Lead and Forged steel Nodular Nodular Forged steel Nodular NA
- wru construction stainless cast iron cast iron cast Iron steel Neutron shielding Borated Borated Poly-Poly-Borated Poly-NA water plastic ethylene othylene plastic ethylene (a) Formerly supplied by Ridehalgh, Eggers and Associates (REA).
(b) Not available.
I~
A.-
W
i other casks to make them transportable. The costs presented here are for the l
purpose of providing PGAE with a rough estimate of the costs for implementing a f
dry storage option and should not be considered detailed cost estimates.
All dry storage casks that are presently in the licensing process exceed the current Humboldt Ray crane capacity (72 MT). However, it should be feasi-ble to design a storage cask or modify a current design to hold the shorter assemblies that would be within the crane limits. For example, the Castor VB cask, which is planned for use at the Virginia Power storage demonstration and
{
is near NRC approval could be shortened to match the length of Hunboldt Bay fuel.
If the cask length was shortened to store the Humboldt Bay BWR assem-blies, the loaded weight of the cask could be reduced by about 40 percent and with basket redesign it could hold 44 Humboldt Bay assemblies. This weight reduction is based on the simplifying assumptions that the cask weight is proportional to the outside surface area, the side walls constitute about 79 percent of the weight (area) of the cask, and the side walls can be shortened to one half the present design. The loaded weight of the modified cask is then about 69 tons, which is within the load limit for the Humboldt Ray crane.
It appears feasible to construct a dry storage facility.at Humboldt Bay utilizing the modified Castor VB cask.
If the storage casks are licensed for transport, the need to maintain the pool and crane for cask unloading would be eliminated, provided that the cask would eventually be acceptable at the waste repository sometime after 1998. Depending on the present status of Hunboldt Ray, it might be cost effective to install a larger crane or to upgrade the existing crane at Humboldt Bay so that " full size" casks with their greater storage capacities can be used. According to cost estimates for the Monitored Retrievable Storage program, the total cost of an installed 150 ton crane is $1.52 nillion. The use of " full size" casks could reduce the estimated cask purchase cost by
$1.8 million, as shown by comparing the cask costs in this section, which r
assume nodified casks, with those in Section 3.5.5 which are based on full size casks.
The estimated times for this option are about 4 months to design, about 10 months to construct and test,(31) and 12-15 months to license. Cask l
3.33 I
i
e I
o
(
fabrication time is about a year. Based on these time estimates, PGAE could begin dry storage operations in 1988.
The estimated cost.(1985 dollars) of the Castor Vb cask as presently designed is about $900,000 Assuming an exponential cost scaling factor of l
0.50, the modified cask would cost about $700,000. The 390 assemblies would a
require 9 casks.
The estimated cost (1985 dollars) of this storage alternative is:
Capital cost for Casks:
$6,300,000 (9 castor Vb nodified casks) 1 Capital cost for yard and transporter:
$3.0 million(15)
Maintenance supplies:
1.4 % of cumulative investment, or
$130,000 per year (15)
Labor and general supplies to load and place cask:
$7800 per cask (15) e Property tax and insurance 0.93% of capital, or about $90,000
~
per year (15)
Deconmissioning:
10 % of capital, or $930,000(15)
~
3.5 TRANSSHIPMENT For this alternative spent fuel from HBPP Unit No. 3 would be transferred (shipped) to either the PGAE Diablo Canyon Plant or a non-PGAE nuclear power plant for extended storage.
3.5.1 Safety In the United States today, the transportation of radioactive naterials, and particularly spent nuclear fuel, is surrounded by controversy and emo-d tion. State representatives, public interest groups, and environmental groups I
are, in general, opposed to any form of radioactive material transportation.
~
These institutional impediments could cause delays in the shipping campaign and potentially increase costs. However, from a purely technical standpoint, the risks associated with, transporting spent fuel are low and should not be a major Concern.
3.34 i
- 1 1
Two approaches to evaluating transportation safety are,1) to derive i
conclusions on the basis of historical experience and 2) to address the risks u
of transporting spent fuel using an analytical approach. Both of these approaches are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The United States has been shipping spent comercial fuel since 1964 During this time period, an average of about 300 spent fuel assemblies per year have been shipped.(32) Spent nuclear fuel is transported in Type B shipping L
containers which are designed to withstand severe accident conditions without a
]
releasing the contents of the container. Tests performed on.these casks to simulate these accident conditions include puncture, drop, fire, and water immersion tests. According to Jefferson (1985), there has never been a release from a Type B package as a result of a vehicular accident.(33) Consequently, from a historical perspective, the safety provisions and regulatory require-ments associated with transporting spent fuel have been demonstrated to ade-quately protect the health and safety of the public.
d Transportation risk can also be evaluated analytically. According to Jefferson (1985), accident-free transportation of all radioactive materials l
throughout the United States would, on average, produce radiation exposures of less than 0.5% of the exposures produced by nitYral background radiation from soil.. building materials, foods, and cosmic radiation.(33)
If the risks to the
~
public associated with transportation accidents are also considered, the aver-age radiation exposures to the public are increased by approximately 1/1000 of the accident-free exposures.(33) Thus, the total risks of transporting the i
Humboldt Bay spent fuel to.some offsite location will be a very small fraction of the risks that are inherent in everyday life.
I I
The risk of transporting spent nuclear fuel can be divided into four categories:
i e Radiological risk due to transportation accidents-
]7 e Radiation exposures from incident-free transport e Nonradiological risks due to accidents e Nonradiological risks due to incident-free transport.
The first two categories of transportation risk result from the radiological characteristics of the spent fuel cargo. Radiological accident risks are those I
3.35 i
i t
that result from transportation accidents that could potentially release radio-i active materials from a failed shipping cask. Radiation exposures from inci-dent-free transport arise from the vejy low levels of radiation allowed by federal regulations to penetrate the shipping cask. The latter two categories are not caused by the radioactive characteristics of the cargo. The nonradio-logical accident risks are the injuries and deaths that result from vehicular accidents, regardless of the type of cargo. Nonradiological incident-free A
risks are the risks caused by the emission of pollutants (sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, etc.) from shipments.
The total risks of transporting spent fuel in the PGAE storage alterna-tives can be estimated using the " unit risk factor" approach. This approach relies-on a set of factors presented by Wolff (1984) which give the risks per unit distance traveled.(34) Unit risk factors are shown in Table 3.5.
As shown, separate risk factors have been calculated for truck and rail shipments.
A hypothetical example will be discussed that illustrates the procedure to be used to calculate the transportation risks (or impacts).. For example, it is d
assumed that PGAE would ship spent fuel to the Morris facility in Illinois.
The first step is to determine the total distance traveled by multiplying the number of shipments by the one-way shipping distance (for the nonradiological impacts, the round-trip distance should be used). The next step is to multiply the total distance by the unit risk factor. This results in an estimate of the total risks (or impacts) that arise from the transport of radioactive mate-j ri al. The results of the calculations are shown in Table 3.6.
The unit risk factor approach can be used by PGAE to evaluate the impacts
{'
that arise from transporting spent fuel offsite.
In general, it can be con-cluded that the storage option that involves the shortest shipping distance will be the option that results in the fewest impacts. Some small differences I
in impacts may be calculated but there is not a significant benefit for select-ing one transport mode (truck or rail) over the other.
The safety impacts of handling and storage operations for this alternative would be similar to those discussed for the alternative of extended storage at an existing commercial facility (see Section 3.3.1).
The differences in f
I 3.36 i
i i
i TABLE 3.5.
Unit Risk Factors for Spent Fuel Transport i
i Unit Risk Factor l
Category of Risk Truck Rail Radiological impacts due to accidents (person-rem /km) 1E-8(a)
IE-7 Radiological inpacts due to incident-free transport (person-rem /km)
Nonoccupational 2E-5 3E-4 5
j Nonradiological impacts due to accidents Injuries /km 5.1E-7 4.6E-7 Fatalities /km 3.0E-8 3.4E-8 Nonradiological impacts due to incident free transport (latent fatalities /km in urban areas) 1.0E-7 1.3E-7 (a) 1E-8 = 1 x 10-8 Person-rem /km can be converted to health effects using the following range of health effects conver-sion factors:
100 to 1,000 health effects per million person-rem. Occupational exposures include exposures to the truck or train crew.
(b) Nonoccupational population groups include persons in vehicles traveling the same and opposite directions of the shipment, persons residing along the transportation routes, r.
and persons at truck stops and rail yards.
t safety impacts for these operations for this. alternative and those for extended storage at HRPP Unit No. 3 are expected to be small for licensed facilities.
3.5.2 Regulatory For the option of shipping the HBPP Unit No. 3 spent fuel to the Diablo Canyon facility or to another operating reactor for storage in a new storage pool, two primary regulations-related actions would be required: conforming with transportation regulations and obtaining a license for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation or an amendment to the operating license for the reactor.
3.37 i
I t
I I
TABLE 3.6.
Transportation Impacts for Example Case I-Transportqt on i
Category of Risk Impactsta Radiological impacts due to accidents (person-rem) 0.005 Radiological impacts due to incident-free transport '(r'rson-rem)
Occupational 1.4 j
Nonoccupational 9.0 Nonradiological impacts due to accidents Injuries 0.5 Fatalities 0.03 Nonradiological impacts due to incident free transport (latent fatalities) 0.005 1
(a) Transportation impacts were calculated assuming the one-way truck shipping distance is 2,300 km. Five percent of the distance is assumed to traverse urban areas. A total of 195 shipments (2 assemblies / ship-ment) are assumed to be performed.
Transportation would require the applicant to be a registered user of the n
spent fuel (which PGAE is), would require use of an NRC-certified transporta-tion cask (see Section 3.2.4), would require a licensed transportation carrier (which are available for centracting), would require following the 00T require-i ments for routing in 49 CFR 177.R25, and would require scheduling and prenoti-fication of states for the specific shipments in conformance with 10 CFR 73.27.
In addition, negotiations may be involved with state and. local agencies rela-tive to transportation (see Section 3.5.4).
These activities are relatively common in the transport of spent fuel, and would be accomplished by using j
conventional business and institutional arrangements. Transportation of spent
?
fuel to another reactor for storage is called transshipment. Transshipment to relieve storage congestion at operating reactors is relatively common, with
)
about 1826 PWR and 271313WR fuel assemblies tran', shipped to other reactors since 1972.
In addition, 568 PWR and 753 RWR fuel assemblies have been
!l 3.38 l
1
m i
1 l
I i
transshipped to or from the Independent Spent Fuel Installation at Morris, Illinois, or from the shut-down fuel reprocessing plant at West Valley, f
New York.I8)
The licensing requirements for construction and operation of a new storage pool at an existing facility would first require a determination by the NRC if the new pool would be licensed under an amendment to the reactor's 10 CFR 50 operating license or under a new ISFSI license under 10 CFR 72. This g
determination would be made based on the definition ir,10 CFR 72 of an I
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, and on the degree of independence l
of the new facility and the existing reactor facilities.
If it is determined that storage of the spent fuel would be licensed e
under an amendment to the operating license of the reactor under 10 CFR 50, a license amendment to allow storage of the different fuel at
'~
the reactor must be prepared. Application for such an amendment may be done without jeopardizing the operation of the reactor, but would have to be synchronized with reactor operations, and would need to be given special consideration in the licensing amendment activities.
For such an application for a license amendment, a notice is pub-lished for an opportunity of a hearing.
If there is a qualified need r
for a hearing identified, one must be held. However, if the NRC staff determines that there is no significant hazard consideration from the proposed changes, a hearing can be held later and upon NRC approval, construction could proceed.
(This is typical for current reracking at existing reactors.)
If the NRC staff determines that a t
potentially significant hazard consideration may exist, a hearing must be held before authorization to proceed, which is then the responsibility of the Atomic Safety Licensing Roard (ASLB).
If it is determined that construction and operation of the new stor-e age pool at the existing reactor would require a NRC license for an ISFSI under 10 CFR 72, design of such a fa'ility would be raquired before applying for the one-step license. From the applicant's Envi-ronmental Report that accompanies the license application, the NRC will write an Environmental Assessment (i.e., not an Environmental 3.39 i
i k
1 i
Impact Statement).
If a hearing is not requested upon favorable i
review by the NRC staff, construction could start.
If a hearing is requested, the authorization for the license rests with the ASLB, and construction can not start until a favorable ruling by the ASLB is I
received.
In addition to the considerable effort in design and con-struction of the facility (that would likely require 2 or more years), the licensing activity is major one.
It is estimated that after submittal of the license application documentation, a favorable ruling by the NRC could be obtained in about 12 months if there is no y
hearing. Even though the new facility design would be a conventional
}
facility, it is a new one that would require a new license. In addi-tion, the existing facility may need an amendment to its current license for combined operation of the two facilities.(35)
In addition to these activities, storage of the spent fuel at a reactor site owned by another utility would require negotiation for a major business arrangement.
u For the option of shipping the HRPP Unit No. 3 spent fuel to the Diablo Canyon facility or to another operating reactor in their existing pool that serves that reactor, two regulations-related actions similar to those discussed above would be required:
conforming with transportation regulations and I
obtaining an amendment'to the operating license for the reactor for storage of the HBPP Unit No. 3 spent fuel.
Transport' tion requirements would be the same as discussed above for the a
transshipment of spent fuel for storage in a new spent fuel pool.
Storage in the existing pool at an operating reactor would require an amendment to the operating license of the reactor under 10 CFR 50 to allow J
I storage of the different fuel at the reactor. Application for such an amend-ment may be done without jeopardizing the operation of the reactor.
If the NRC i
staff determines that no significant hazard considerations would result from the proposed amendment, construction could start immediately, and any hearings could be processed during construction. This is now typical for most pool reracking amendments.
It is likely that sone modification to the storage arrangements o' the spent fuel would have to be made at the operating reactor.
f 3.40 l
4 l
I i
Thi; could involve some physical modifications such as installatinn of new fuel storage racks. Such modifications would have to be synchronized with reactor I
operations, and would need to be given special consideration in the licensing i
anendment activities.
In addition to these activities, storage of the spent fuel in a storage pool of a reactor owned by another utility would require negotiation of a major t
business arrangement, involving questions of fuel ownership and liability in the event of an accident.
3.5.3 Technical Wet and/or dry storage technologies could be involved with this alterna-tive. See Sections 3.1.3 and 3.4.3, respectively, for discussions of these technologies.
3.5.4 Transportation Transshipment involves loading of -spent fuel at a particular storage pool into transportation casks and the subsequent shipment and unloading of the fuel at another plant. Availability of spent fuel shipping casks and institutional issues that may affect spent fuel supplements from Humboldt Bay are discussed in Section 3.2.4 The following discusses the institutional impediments to n
transshipments.
Transshipment of spent fuel between two plants in the same utility system has been performed on several occasitos in the past. For example, approxi-mately 5 percent of the existing U.S. spent fuel inventory is now stored at two f
away-fron-reactor storage facilities.(30 In many cases, past transshipments I'
have been performed by utilities to increase future onsite spent fuel storage capacity at the originating plant. Thus, there is a precedent for trans-shipping fuel from one reactor to another, at least within a given utility system. No legal restrictions exist to prohibit inter-utility transshipments, r
but none have been made and none are currently planned.
A number of utilities have conducted successful spent fuel. shipping cam-paigns. However, institutional concerns surrounding any shipment of spent fuel appear to be increasing as more and more utilities are faced with the need to transport spent fuel. State and local restrictions associated with spent fuel 3.41 i
I transport have frequently delayed and complicated transshipment campaigns (37) even though virtually _ all of these local restrictions have been declared illegal in Federal courts.(38) An example of the potential delays is the proposed transshipment campaign from the Surry nuclear power station to the North Anna station (both plants are owned by Virginia Power Corp. or VEPC0).
Louisa County, where North Anna is located, passed a local ordinance banning the shipment of spent fuel through the county that did not originate within the A
county. A compromise with the county was finally reached after approximately two years of negotiations.II2)- Another example is the transshipments being performed by Northern States Power Co. from their tionticello plant to the ISFSI s
at tiorris, Illinois. These shipments received a lot of media attention and attempts to block the shipments were made by the state of Wisconsin.I39I 1
Although the state was not successful, this exanple illustrates the potential for state and local governments to ban or impede spent fuel shipments from traversing their jurisdictions.(40)
(
The above example illustrates that local ordinances may cause delays and increase costs but it also demonstrates that they can be overcome.
In fact, rest of the state and local laws'that have been enacted in this area have been declared illegal in Federal courts (see section on transportation institutional
~
issues). However, since it may take several years to have specific regulations y
declared illegal, it is in the best interests of the utilities to cooperate to the extent possible with state and local jurisdictions.
One of the storage options is to transship spent fuel from Humboldt Bay to a non-PGAE plant. Such a transshipment has not occurred in the past primarily due to problems with transferring title to the fuel to another utility company.
j There are questions as to which utility would be held liable for damages if an accident occurred during shipment, handling, or storage of the fuel. These problems would not exist if the fuel was to be transshipped to another PGAE 1
plant.
3.5.5 Economic / Logistic / Schedular Assuming that local permits could be obtained by PG&E, three options exist for transshipment of Humboldt Ray spent fuel to the Diablo Canyon site. One option is to rerack a portion of a Diablo Canyon water storage basin and store 3.42 1
1 s
i the fuel in the existing water basin. The second option is to build a separate wet storage facility (ISFSI) at Diablo Canyon. The third option is to build a
[
dry storage facility, with the Humboldt Ray spent fuel being transshipped to Diablo Canyon and then transferred to storage casks in the Diablo Canyon water ~
basin. Diablo Canyon has reported that their crane is currently rated at l.'
70 tons, although the design capacity is 125 tons.f 41I The crane would need to be re-rated to handle the larger (100 ton) Castor VB casks at Diablo Canyon.
If the reracking option is used, some of the PWR racks would need to be J
l l
replaced with BWR racks.
Due to the short length of the Humboldt Bay assem-I blies, it might be possible to double tier the new racks. This would not represent a significant cost savings but would displace fewer of the PWR racks.
Design and licensing would require about 4 months and the racks could be fabricated and installed in about 12 months.(31)
The estimated cost (1985 dollars) of this alternative is:
j Cost to design, license, purchase and install racks:
$1.04 million for 390 RWR locations (15) l or, if two assemblies can be placed in a standard RWR location,
$0.63 million for 195 RWR locations (15) r Transportation costs:
$1,568,000 (assumes assemblies per j
legal weight truck shipment, 882 cask t
days required).
y L
The costs of other activities required to implement this alternative including l
obtaining a transshipment permit, loading the cask at Humboldt Bay, and unload-ing the casks at Diablo Canyon would need to be estimated to get the total cost for this alternative.
i The second option would be construction of a separate storage pool at Diablo Canyon. Most of the information contained in the literature is for larger pools than would be required here, so PG4E may have more applicable information from the Humboldt Bay history. This option would require u.nder 10 months to design,1 year to license, and about 2 years to construct and test.(31) Based on these time estimates, the new water basin could be operational in 1989.
3.43 I
The estimated cost (1985 dollars) of this alternative is:
I Capital cost to design and construct:
$37 million(15)
Annual operating cost:
$2.2 million(15)
Transportation cost:
$1,568,000 The costs of other activities required to implement this alternative including obtaining a transshipment permit, and loading casks at Humboldt Bay would need to be estimated to get the total cost for this alternative.
E The second option assumes transshipment of Humboldt Bay fuel to Diablo Canyon, where it is loaded into casks for dry storage. Assuming 2 Humboldt Bay l.
assemblies could fit in each location, each Castor VR cask would hold 88 assem-blies. This would require 5 casks at an estimated cost of $900,000 each. The time required to implement this alternative is equivalent to that for a dry storage facility at Humboldt Bay, with storage beginning as early as 1988.
The estimated cost of this alternative is:
Capital cost for casks:
$4,500,000 (5 Castor VB storage casks)
")'
Capital cost for yard and transporter:
$3.0 million(15) tiaintenance supplies:
1.4 % of cumulative investment, or
$105,000 per year (15)
Labor and general supplies to load and place cask:
$7800 per cask (15)
Property tax and insurance: 0.93% of capital, or about $70,000 per year (15) necommissioning:
10 % of capital, or $750,000(15)
Transportation Costs:
$1,568,000 (assumes 2 assemblies per r
legal weight truck shipment, 882 cask days required) 2 The costs of other activities required to implement this alternative including
]
obtaining transshipment permits, loading of casks, and re-rating the Diablo Canyon crane would need to be estimated to get the total cost for this alternative.
3.44 i
1
I REFERENCES f
1.
Federal Register. August 31, 1984
" Waste Confidence Decision."
49(171):34658.
2.
Spent Fuel Management. Report of International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evalua-tion (INFCE). Working Group No. 6, STI/ PUB /534 International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria,1980.
L 3.
International Atomic Energy Agency.
1982.
Storage of Water Reactor Spent Fuel in Water Pools - Survey of World Experience., Technical Report Series No. 218, (5Tl/ DOC /10/28, ISBN 92-0-155182-7).
4 00E. 1980. Proposed Rulemaking on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Waste Confidence Rulemaking). DOE /NE-0007 U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
k.
5.
00E. 1980. Proposed Rulemaking on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear j
Waste (Waste Confidence Rulemaking). DOE /NE-0007 Supplement, U.S.
[
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
6.
Oden, D.
R., et 41.
1985. Extended Fuel Storage in the Existing Onsite l
Humboldt Ray Unit No. 3 Storage Pool. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., San Francisco, California.
7.
Federal Register. December 7, 1984
" Fees for Federal Interim Storage."
49(237):47970-47971.
r 8.
Daling, P. H.
1984 Near-Term Commercial Spent Fuel Ship)ing Cask Requirements. PNL-5284, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Ric11and, Washington.
ij I 9.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
1981. Directory of Certificates of s
Compliance for Radioactive Materials Packages. NUREG-0383, Vol. 2, Revision 4, Washington D.C.
- 10. Nuclear Fuel. 1984 "New York City Will Continue Efforts to Bar Spent Fuel Shipnents in City."' 9(7):13.
- 11. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
1983. State Statutes and Regulations on Radioactive Materials Transportation. SAND 83-7437, TTC-0450. Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, O
- 12. Nuclear Fuel. 1984 "Louisa County and VEPC0 Agree on Spent Fuel Transshipments."
9(10):9.
R.1 1
i r
)
h
i l
13.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1981. Safety Evaluation Report l
Related to the Renewal of Haterials License SNM-1265 for the Receipt, Storage, and Transfer of Spent Fuel Pursuant to 10 CFR7 art 72 fiorris f
Operation General Electric Company Docket Nos. 70-1308 and 72-1.
NUREG-0709, Washington D.C.
14 Knox, W.
1983. Personal Correspondence. February 18, 1983. Allied-General Nuclear Services, Barnwell, South Carolina.
- 15. Merrill, E.- T., and J. F. Fletcher.
1983. Economics of At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage Alternatives. PNL-4517, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, j
Richland, Washington.
- 16. Nucleonics Week. August 18, 1983.
" Approvals from the Illinois and Wisconsin Governors for Shipping Spent Fuel."
24(33):10
.7.
Orvis, D. D., C. Johnson and R. Jones.
1984 Review of Proposed Dry-Storage Concepts Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment. EPRI NP-3365, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
- 18. Virginia Electric and Power Company. Safety Analysis Report Surry Power Station Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Vol. 2, Chapter 8.
- 19. Nuclear Fuel, November 15, 1984
" Canadian Report Concrete Canisters Will Store Enriched Fuel at Under (CON)A48/KGH."
9(24):13-14
- 20. Telephone conversation between John Roberts, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Ken Schneider, Battelle-Northwest Laboratories, on June 18, 1985.
q
- 21. Nuclear Fuel. 19A5.
"GNS Caster Ic First to Get Approval for Dry Storage."
10(11):1-2.
s
- 22. Johnson, A. R., Jr., E. R. ' Gilbert, and R. J. Guenther. Februa.y 1983.
Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Storage System Components in Dry Interim Storage. PNL-4189 Revision 1.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 23. Johnson, A. R., Jr., E. R. Gilbert, and R. J. Guenther. August 1982.
Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Storage System Components in Dry Interim Storage. PNL 4189 Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
24 Johnson, A. B.,
Jr., and E. R. Gilbert.
1983. Technical Basis for Stor-age of Zircaloy-Clad Spent Fuel in Inert Gases.
PNL-4835, Pacific North-west Laboratory, Richland, Wasnington.
'1
)
1' b
R.2 1l
i i
?5.
Johnson, A. 9., Jr., W. J. Bailey, E. R. Gilbert, and D. R. Oden.
" Mate-rials Considerations in interim Storage of Spent fuel." PNL-12464. A paper presented at and to be published in the Proceedings of the National Meeting of the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, March 1985, 2
Boston, MA.
- 26. Gilbert, E. R., A. B. Johnson, Jr., and W. J. Railey.
" Review of Dry Spent Fuel Storage Experience."
PNL-SA-12846 A paper presented at the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management Spent Fuel Storage Seminar II, January 1985. Washington,. D.C.
a
- 27. Gilbert, E.
R., G. D. White, and C. A. Knox.
"0xidation of UO2 at 150 to 350*C."
Presented at the International Workshop on Irradiated Fuel Stor-l age Experience and Development Programs, October 17-18, 1984, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
I'
- 28. Einzinger, R.
E., and R. V. Strain.
1984 "Effect of Cladding Defect I
Size on the Oxidation of Irradiated Spent LWR Fuel Relow 360'C."
Pre-sented at the International Workshop on Irradiated Fuel Storage Experience and Development Programs, October 17-18, 1984, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
- 29. Olsen, C. S.
1984
" Fuel Rod and Crud Behavior Under long-Term Fuel Storage Conditions." Presented at the International Workshop on Irradi-ated Fuel Storage Experience and Developnent Programs, October 17-18, 1984, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
- 30. Westinghouse. 1983. Monitored Retrievable Storage Conceptual System Study: Transportable storage Casks. WT5D-TME-013, pp. 21-29.
Waste Technology Systems Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
r:
- 31. McCartney, J.
S., and R. B. Cairns.
1984 Cost Comparisons for On-Site Soent-Fuel Storage Options. EPRI NP-3380, Boilog r_ngineering A Construction Company, Seattle, Washington.
I,
- 32. Finley, -N. C., et al. 1983. The Transportation of Radioactiv? Material h
(RAM) To and From U.S. Nuclear Power Plants:
Draf t Environmental Assessment. NUREG/CR-2325 Sandia National Laboratories, Albaquerque, New Mexi co.
- 33. Jefferson, R. H.
1985. Considerations of the Safety of Transporting Spent Fuel ~. SAND 84-2128, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
34 Wolff, T. A.
1984 The Transportation of Nuclear Materials. SANDS 4-0062, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
- 35. Telephone conversation between Lee Rouse, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Ken Schneider, Rattelle-Northwest Laboratories, on June 19,19R5.
R.3 i
i l
4
- 36. Heeb, C. M., and R. A. Libby and G. M. Holter. 1985. Reactor-Specific Spent Fuel Discharge Projections:
1984 to 2020 PNL-5396. Paci fic Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 37. Newman, D. F.
1985. " Role of Transportation in the Management of Spent Fuel Storage," PNL-SA-12955, presented at Fuel Cycle Conference '85, March 12-15, 1985, New Orleans, Louisiana.
l
- 38. McLeod, N. B.
1984 Exoerience and Developments in Interim Storage and Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel.
E. R. Johnson Associates, Inc.,
Reston, Virginia.
J 39 Nuclear News. March 1985. " Germany (FRG):
Government Endorsement for Reprocessing."
- p. 83, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park, J
- 40. Nuclear News. February 1985.
" Spent Fuel Shipping: Wisconsin Seeks Ban of NSP Shipments."
p.120, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park, Illinois.
- 41. Daling, P. M., et al.
1985. Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipping Cask Handling Capabilities of Commercial Light Water Reactors. PNL-53E4, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
P
=
i 1
? i 1
i R.4
9 4
s k
'\\,
APPENDIX A l
TRANSPORTATION COST AND CASK RE0tJIREt1ENTS l
i 9
i I
t
1
{
APPENDIX A TRANSPORTATION COST AND CASK RE00lREliENTS Several alternatives for extended storage of Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 spent fuel will require transportation of the spent fuel by either truck or rail.
L The methods and data used to estimate costs for transporting the spent fuel and I
the duration of time required for various cask configurations that might be f
utilized for the movenent of this fuel are discussed in this appendix.
A series of analyses has been performed to provide a generic mapping of the distances, cost and cask requirements for transporting spent fuel frcm the Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 plant to a given destination within the contiguous forty-eight states. The analyses were perforced using a logistics / siting model (TRANSIT)I developed at Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) under the direc-
[;
tion of the Transportation Technology Center (TTC). The results are provided for transport by legal-weight truck, over-weight truck or general-freig,ht rail movement of the spent fuel from Hunholdt Bay. The casks that were assumed to l
be utilized for each of the modes listed above are described in Table A.1.
The average highway and rail-line distance from Humboldt Bay to a given destination are shown in Figures A.1 and A.2.
These distances are derived by
~
utilizing a modified great-circle method that accounts for an average circuity I
factor for both highway and rail routs.
The costs for transporting the spent fuel to various destinations by one of the three modes investigated is shown in Figures A.3 through A.S.
.The cost shown in these figures represent an estimate of the total round-trip transport cost that would he encountered on a per shipment bases. The cost includes shipping, safeguards and security, and cask rental costs. The cost shown in r
Figure 4 for over-weight truck movements of spent fuel do not include special over-weight permits and fees that are assessed by various states. A listing of the fees charged by individual states is shown in Table A.2.
To obtain a total tra.c: port cost for moving 390 assemblies from Humboldt Bay to a given A.1 1
I
4 I
i TABLE A.I.
Reference Cask Descriptions for Transportation Cost Estimates Estimated Rental Estimated Woleht (T)
Length (Inch)
Diameter (Inch)
Capacity Cost Load / Unload Required Cask Mode Empty Loaded Overall Cavity Overall Cavity Best/ Intact S/ Day Days / Operation Shipment; NAC-1 LWT 24 25 200 178 50 13.5 2
850 1.5 195
^
h TN-9 OWT 37
- 39 198 178 67 7 X 5.9 7
2l00
- 2. 0 56 P
64 *I 37.5 18 3000 2.5 22 I
IF-300 RL 65 70 IS4 +
18 0 15 3/4 In. Ltd (a) Add 13 Inches to one sector for expansion tanks.
l N
4
- - ~
- 4 1
w
-. --~
=
~._,
i Q.
e g
750' 3
U ggga g
N 7..
s',
3
")s i
\\
)
E 4
-]
f
.j t
)
y
\\
1
~~
j
\\,
'Y l
\\
2-
\\
'u
-}
L. ~.-- -.
{.-----
/
' ~ ~ _ -
(,,
i j
\\
w-
/..
{
.r
..i 3
\\
FIGURE A.I.
Average Highway Distance (miles) to Various Points from Humboldt Bay
l i'
b I
i 1
D m
\\
u T
1 C
\\.
43 i
s b
)
\\
\\
I"
\\\\
3 s
(-
g O
o.
I 3
)
W-i u
\\
40
< m.
1 o
e
\\,
<f}\\
i s
[
m y
4
._.q
~
e i'
t
[
i O
}
}
I
!g r-7
-+
\\
)
3
\\
\\
~ ~.
l
. -)
l l
/
\\
\\
,t.s /
e w
s t
k
?
A.4 h
O e
9 i
O C
'm\\
1
\\
2 N
s
's, W
J
't
}
w
.P-
\\
i
(
O
- x r--
t.
t, 0
i g
C
\\,
i 1
- a
-- k' ~
e i
W E
7 A
z 1
I g
E E,
^
?.E 1,
.l
~'
i A.,
? " ~'
a I
-t f
o "O "O l'
39 s
O s
9 '%
_ y.
e 88 I
a g
8 i
l f
i I
~-
/
/ '~ $
gE
~
uo
"%N g
g y
.e w l
k l
g 4
., '~f e
7 at
[h ua b
O 5
A.5
i sised i
' ' ]-
4 21 3 L
sta s
s
\\
)
\\-
. i i
{
t
- 41..,
i 5.
'}
~
.q.
_.. l--
.\\
vp.
\\
g -
r' I
3)
I i
i y
i r - lf.
m
,-}--
~-,
.v.,
\\
..g - 4
-Q:
t o
t e-
.a i :
s
=
e
\\
4 FIGURE A.4.
Average Cost (dollars) per Shipment to Various Points by Over-Weight Truck from Humboldt Bay g
n.
~ **
.,J 1
W
~
1 t
( [*
N g
l IN q
-}
l\\
7 _q
[
L 1
I T-K
.[
h-
. -- ~
'\\
i 1
~
.: r x
FIGURE A.S.
Average Cost (dollars) per Shipment to Various Points by Rail from Humboldt Bay
I I
I TABLE A.2.
Truck Overweight Charges for Traveling Through Each State (a) lJ When Weight of l
Article Exceeds Overweight Charge Applicable per i
State (1bs)
Vehicles Used (5)
Alabama 48,000 38.00 up to 65,000 lbs 58.00 from 65,001 to 85,000 lbs 88.00 from 85,001 to 110,000 lbs 128.00 for weight of 110,001 lbs or i
more 3
Arizona 48.000 20.00 Arkansas 48,000 17.00 plus a charge per 100 lbs on weight over 43,000 lbs as follows:
0 to 100 miles 25c 101 to 150 miles 30c 151 to 200 miles 35c 201 to 250 miles 40c 251 miles and over 45c California 48,000 33.00 Colorado 48,000 23.00 Connecticut 48,000 35.00 Delaware 48,000 18.00 plus 2$ per ton mile traveled in o,
Delaware on the weight over 48,000 lbs Florida 48,000 35.00 per load on articles weighting 48,001 to 57,000 lbs 40.00 per load on articles weighing between 57,000 lbs and 74,000 lbs 40.00 per load plus 25$ per 1000 lbs on weight over 74,000 lbs
~
' Georgia 48,000 30.00 Id aho--
48,000 30.00 1
(a) These charges are applicable only when overweight permits are required.
'l A.8
1 E
TABLE A.2.
(contd)
{
When Weight of Article Exceeds Overweight Charge Applicable per State (1bs)
Vehicles Used ($)
Illinois 43,000 30.00 plus 30$ per mile traveled in Illinois on shipments over 48,000 to 49,999 lbs plus 50$
per mile on shipwnts over
]
50,000 to 69,999 lbs 65.00 plus 50$ per mile on shipments weighing over 70,000 lbs Indiana 48,000 33.00 plus 40$ per mile traveled in Indiana, subject to a maximum charge of $75.00 Iowa 48,000 23.00 Kansas 48,000 23.00 Kentucky 48,000 48.00 Iouisiana 48,000 30.00 plus 40$ per mile traveled in i,.
Louisiana,'up to 68,000 lbs 40.00 plus 80$ per mile traveled in Louisiana fron 68,001 to 88,000 e
lbs 50.00 plus $1.20 per mile traveled in Louisiana from 88,000 to 108,000 lbs 60.00 plus $2.40 per mile traveled in Louisiana from 108,001 or more
~
Maine 48,000 35.00 l
Maryl and 48,000 45.00 plus 55.00 per ton, or fraction i
L' thereof, on weight in excess of 50,000 lbs Massachusetts 48,000 18'.00 y
Michijan 48,000 45.G0 Minnesota 48,000 28.00 A.9 I
I t
i i
TABLE A.2.
(contd) i I
When Weight of Article Exceeds Overweight Charge Applicable per State (lbs)
Vehicles Used (5)
Mississippt 48,000 10.00 plus 15$ per ton mile traveled only on interstate highways; all 4
other highways 30$ per ton mile in Mississippi on weight in excess of 48,000 lbs 2
Missouri 43,000 28.50 Montana 48,000 40.00 on distance of 100 miles or less (in Montana) 60.00 on distance of 101 to 200 miles (in Montana) 8,0.00 on distance of 201 miles or over (in Montana)
Nebraska 48,000 29.00 Nevada 48,000 25.00 W
New Hampshire 48,000 44.00 on shipments 48,000 to 58,000 lbs 54.00 on shipments 58,000 to 63,000 lbs 64.00 on shipments 70,000 lbs plus
$2.00 per 100 lbs over 70,000 lbs New Jersey 43,000 50.00 on articles weighing 48,001 to
}
53,000 lbs 1
60.00 on articles weighing 53,001 to 58,000 lbs 75.00 on articles weighing 58,001 to 63,000 lbs 125.00 on articles weighing 63,001 to 68,000 lbs 200.00 on articles weighing over 68,000 lbs New Mexico 48,000 20.00 New York 48,000 30.000 North Carolina 48,000 23.00 i.
l A.10 i
J w-
,n-
..--t
i f
TABLE A.2.
(contd)
When Weight of Article Exceeds Overweight Charge Applicable per State (1bs)
Vehicles Used (5) t North Dakota 48,000 23.00 plus 56.00 per ton in excess of 48,000 Ohio 48,000 38.00 t
Okl ahoma 48,000 23.00.plus 55.00 for each 1,000 lbs or fraction thereof on excess of 48,000 lbs per load Oregon 48,000 21.00 pennsylvania 48,000 30.00 plus 3$ per ton mile on excess of 48,000 lbs per load when
-(
weight exceeds 98,000 lbs charge l
4$perton Rhode Island 48,000 18.00 i
' South Carolina 48,000 23.00 South Dakota 48,000 30.00 plus 2$ per ton mile on excess of 48,000 lbs Tennessee 48,000 40.00 plus 5$ per ton mile traveled in TN on weight in excess of 48 M u
Texas 48,000 19.00 Utah 48,000 74.00 Vermont 48,000 40.00
^
Vi rginia 48,000 28.00 plus 10$ per mile traveled in Virgini a g
I Washington 48,000 25.00 plus a charge of:
106 per mile on 48,000 to 56,999 lbs 20c per mile on 57,000 to 62,999 lbs 30S per mile on 63,000 to 68,999 lbs ASC per mile on 69,000 to 74,999 lbs 75c per mile on 75,000 to 80,999 lbs 1.00 per mile on 81,000 to 86,999 lbs 1.50 per mile on 87,000 to 92,999 lbs 1.75 per mile on 93,000 to 98,999 lbs 2.00 per mile on 99,000 lbs or over A.11 i
w,
TABLE A.2.
(contd) i When Weight of Article Exceeds Overweight Charge Applicable per State (lbs)
Vehicles Used ($)
West Virginia 48,000 20.00 plus 3$ per ton mile on excess of 48,000 lbs per load Wisconsin 48,000 35.00 articles up to 58.00 lbs 5.00 58,001 to 68,000 lbs 60.00 68,001 to 78,000 lbs 70.00 78,001 to 88,000 lbs 80.00 88,001 to 98,000 lbs t
90.00 98.001 to 108,000 lbs i
100.00 108,000 to 113,200 'as plus 1.00 l
per 1000 lbs over 118,000 lbs Wyoming 48,000 21.00 plus 4$ per ton mile in excess of 48,000 lbs, subject to t
maximum charge of 5200.00 (such maximum charge will NOT apply to towaway shipments) i LI O'
Fq 6 <
f-I v
A.12 i
destination, the average per-shipment cost shown in Figures A.3 through A.5 may be multiplied by the total number of shipments shown in Table A.1 for each mode.
The average number of days to complete a round-trip movement of the spent fuel cask for each of the three modes is shown in Figures A.6 through A.8.
The total number of cask-use days includes the estimated loading and unloading times that would be required at both the origin and destination. The duration g
of schedule that would be required to transport the Humboldt Ray fuel to a given destination (utilizing a single cask) may be estimated by multiplying the average cask-use days per shipment by the total number of shipments for each l
mode.
If two or more casks are utilized for the movenent of the spent fuel, l
the total cask-use days (for a single cask) may be divided by the number of casks to obtain an estimate of schedule duration.
't i
Y*
Le re b&
i!
l
?
A.13 I
I i
l
' ' '77 -
~
s.s l
(
i 7.5 l'
_p s.u-j i
4' y~.],
m
\\
g e
f_
~
~
t
'9 j
2
'g
' _ __ _ (- _..
j N
-N j.
l e
'- s,
p-L FIGURE A.6.
Round-Trip Cask-Use Days to Various Destination Points by Legal-Weight Truck from Humboldt Bay
.a w
~ ~
-~
~.-
p e
c 1
r^
r
.e a
7 a
e Ff., g.
=
~
-m f
- k..
/
T t~
A t
j
.g l
...st 4'
s m
o r --
,/
l
-,\\-
' ~ '
,I h
8 s._if..
~.i c
{
i FIGtRE A.7.
Round-Trip Cask-Use Days to Various Destination Points by Over-Weight Truck from Humboldt Bay l
l
1 1
11
'8 M
y a
B t
d l
o
\\
\\s,
bmu H
, ~
mo
/
r s
f 6
/
l i
u a
R y
b q\\
s
\\
t I
n io
.\\
9 P
n o
i ta n
i t
se D
~
f h
)
s i
u o
ir m
a i
V o
t I
'1
}.
i s
y a
D
)i e
'j U
~~
s
] l;p;l
- m i q
.L_
k L
s a
u C
~
x' y
p t
ir T
]
d n
~.
\\
u o
N R
/.
J 8
A g
E RUG I
F
'.g
,'