Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 1 of 22
ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS
FIGURES OF MERIT ASSOCIATED WITH AT - REACTOR STORAG
The two principal effects of federal acceptance capacity and allocation policy on commercial power reactors are 1) their impacts on the quantity of
additiona1" at-reactor storage required to be deployed and 2) the length of time that a reactor must await spent fuel removal (and herice decommissioning)
after its last discharge. These two effects are analyzed for a broad spectrum of cases in the MRS Systems Study (DOE 1989a), and both can have sign i fi
cant cost consequences. To some extent, these effects must be traded
off against each other in setting priorities for allocation of
acceptance.
capacity. FCR priority allocations tend to reduce the costs of additional
storage. but will generally result in longer average times between last
discharge .and completion of spent fuel removal than do shutdown priority
schemes. The current standard reference all ocat i on of acceptance, based Oldest- fuel- First, gives intermediate results for both of these effects
(i . e.,
neither capacity needs nor time between last discharge and fuel
removal is minimized or maximized).
on
Additional StoraQe Caoacitv
The class of acceptance allocations analyzed here represent a limiting
case in this spectrum of allocation schemes. By devoting capacity to shutdown reactors. these schemes tend to prec1 ude acceptance at operating reac-
tors which could benefit from acceptance to 1 imit the need for additional
storage. Thus,
additional at-reactor storage requirements and costs tend to
assumptions and methods from MRS Systems
be higher for these cases. (Using
29, 000 MTU for Case
scenario (Case 1).
Study (Task G), projected additional storage requirements are on the order of
2, compared with about 10, 600 MTU for the reference OFF
This increment of storage capacity would cost roughly
$1.4 billion using the " lower bound 1" cost estimates from Task G.
Duration and Cost of Pool ODerations After Last O;scharge
Acceptance scenarios in which only shutdown reactors are served will
tend to minimize the time required for spent fuel removal and thus the length
of pool operations after last discharg~. Since the operations costs are
OCR
0048
P A- 165066
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 2 of 22
sensitive to the presence of spent fuel, this analysis began by calculating
the number of pool- years of operations after last discharge required by each
scenario. Several
shown in Table 4.
spent fuel pools serve more than a single reactor, as
1. Since the duration of pool operations is governed by the
reactor at each pool. shari ng site.
last reactor to shut down, pool- years after last discharge were measured
based on the 1 ast di scharge from the 1 ast
TABLE 4.
Reactors Sharing Pools
SharinQ TvDe (a)
Reactors Sharina Pools
Bra i dwood 1
Browns Ferry 1&2
Byron 1
Calvert C1 iffs 1&2
Comanche Peak 1&2
Cook 1
Hatch 1&2
LaSalle City 1&2
Limerick 1&2
North Anna 1&2
Oconee 1
Point Beach 1&2
Prairie Island 1&2
Quad Cities 1&2
San Onofre 1, 2, & 3
Sequoyah 1&2
Surry 1
Susquehanna 1&2
Turkey Point 3&4
Vogtle 1&2
Zion 1&2
(a) A. Common
pool shared between 2 pools. B . Pools connected by a transfer canal. Pools requiring cask transfer.
E.
OCR
0049
P A- 165G6?
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 3 of 22
The cost of a year of spent fuel pool operation was estimated in Task G
at about 52. 2 million per site for a site with no operating reactors and
about SO. 5 million per site for a site with at least one operating reactor.
These costs are independent of the quantity of spent fuel in inventory.
This
is a first-order estimate of operations cost but is considered as reliable as
the unit cost estimate for additional at-reactor storage capacity.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Table 4. 2
summarizes the results of at-reactor impact and transportation
analyses for the nine cases developed in this study. The following sections
discuss the significance of these results and their implications for formulation of an acceptance rights allocation policy.
The Reference Case
Case 1 is the reference OFF case from the MRS systems studies.
This
case results in significant costs to utilities for spent fuel management at
reactor sites in terms of both storage capacity above currently estimated
maximum pool capacities ($. 82
bill ion) and pool operations
cost after last
discharge ($2. 01
billion).
Case 2 - A Literal Construction of EDr
Case 2 ,
was formulated as the
starting point in analysis of shutdown
priority scenarios. It assumes that the restriction on acceptance of spent
fuel from only shutdown pools is strictly observed. As a result, there is
insufficient fuel to fully utilize system acceptance capacity for several years (see Column 2 in Table 4. 3) in this case, resulting in a total of 8850
MTU of acceptance capaci ty being unused.
In addition, the allocation of acceptance priorities on a strict
Longest-Shutdown- First-
basis in many cases implies that the individual pool
(Table 3. 1)
annual cask loading constrai nts
would be exceeded. This " alloca-
tion in excess of shipping capacity " problem occurs in almost all years of
repository operation, as shown in Column 3 in Table 4. 3, and involves a significant fraction of the spent fuel--over 20, 000 MTU. Thus, this
scenario
is an infeasible cne from a logistics perspective if these estimates are
OCR
0050
P A- 165068
.... .,.
--
:::0
TABLE 4--
Pool Maintenance Cost and Logistics Impacts of Alternative Acceptance Scenarios
Shutdcwn Pool
"InlCuI..lletlve
Shutdown
Cool Ing
Thill!
Aver.
Tf- per
lhIsid
System
Capacf ty
Add I tf 01'181
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Case
Stllrt
ShIWlrv
Priority
TI..
Pool (""s)
Operations Cost (sa)
Dete
Allocation Rule
Rule
-t:l!:!L
(DOOI- veers)
Infeasible Alloeatlon
nmn
At-RellCtor ToUI Storege Cost
nmn
Costs (sa)
..f2c c)
mJ..
S50
2003 2003
OfF
DEIXIt DEIXIt
DECtI'V FCIt/OF F
nla(I)
l$F
110 550
220 570
12.
~:?J)
20, 100 25, 600 11, 100
20ft
.. (c) (c)
u c)
(c) (c)
2013 2003
L$F L$F
11. 12.
(c) (c)
Document 783-6
U'I I--'
2013 2003 2003
LSF LSF LSF
DEIXIt(R) (d) DEIXIt(R)/FCR/OFF FCRJllECOt(R)IOFF
180 555 614
2003 2003
FCR/DECXIt(R)IOFF FCR/OfCOM(R)/OFF
SIF (b) lSF
672 025
10.
IIIftlrv tile 1crQ!St to be 8!ptfe:l hllYe tile SIIIInest IIMI"Itory of spJ1t fuel
(I) longest Shutdown Flrlt (LSF) . pools It shutdown reactors that
rights Is Incapeble of Ihlpplng CIUt fta entl re
(SIF) - pools at lhutdcwn reactors thBt (c) Costs not reported since this scenario is Infeasible as confivured. (d) DECCM(R) reeHocltlon of I strict shUtcfown pool
(b) Slllttlest Il'Mntory Flrlt
t.n
hllt1est shlA'lrv piorfty.
histst shlA'lra picrity.
Filed 04/07/2004
allocation.
priority aUocatfon to other shutdown pools if 8 shutdown pool with allocation
Page 4 of 22
"'U
....10.
CJ1
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 5 of 22
IABli.!.1.
Pickup Schedules and Quantities of Spent Nuclear Fuel Infeasible for Pickup in Case 2
1w:
2003
201)4
Schedul ed Pi ckup
CMTU)
Infeasible Allocation
CMT
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021 2022 2023 2024
400 400 180
471
246 382 503 782 516 549 081 754 476 1 , 027 502 298
1 t 205
913 311 381 979
000 000 . 3, 000 000 000 000
3 , 000
000 000 000
3 t 000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047
T ota 1
3, 000 3, 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 544
400 139 354 595
1 t 390
567 498 1 , 228 212 502 267
1 t 279
596 175
237
323
86, 758
20, 096
OCR
0052
PA- 165070
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 6 of 22
of the fact that shutdown priority tends to concentrate a large fraction of annual acceptance in a few reactors relative
to an OFF allocation, as illustrated in Figures 4.
accurate. This is a consequence
1 through 4.
Since the problems of unused acceptance capacity and allocation in
excess of shipping capacity are fundamental ones , the figures of merit for at-reactor costs are not displayed for Case 2. Cases 3 through 6 were formul ated to show how these problems could be circumvented and are discussed
below.
Delayed Acceotance
One obvious solution to the problem of unused system acceptance capacity
. in Case
2 is delayed first-repository operation. This option was analyzed in Case 3, assuming a 2013 start date for the first repository and the same
ramp-up pattern as in Cases 1 and 2. In effect, this case assumes the federal system " waits " until sufficient spent fuel is accumulated to-
fuHy util-
ize system capacity. Ir the process, however , this case exacerbates the
extent to which estimated cask- loading rates would be exceeded, increasing
the allocation in excess of shipping capacity cumulative total of 25, 600 MTU.
450 400 350
300
.!! 250
Ci5
200 150
100
10 12 14 16 18
Caskloadings per Year
FIGURE 4.
22 24 26 28
Distribution of Annual Rail Caskloadings for Case 1
----_nmnn__n_-- _m - _on.
OCR
0053
PA- 165071
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 7 of 22
if 35
);- 30
Lt
100
145
Caskloadings per Year
FIGURE 4.
Distribution of Annual Truck Caskloadings for Case 1
);- 12
100 Caskloadings per Year
FIGURE 4.
150
188
Distribution of Annual Rail Caskloadings for Case 2
OCR
0054
PA- 165072
=--
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 8 of 22
C'G
dJ 4
II)
500 Caskloadings per Year
FIGURE 4.
1000
1346
Distribution of Annual Truck Cask10adings for Case 2
More importantly, any scenario involving such delayed acceptance would severely impact those reactors with needs for additional storage needs prior
to 2013. (Although
this cost is not shown for Case 3, a slightly refined
late acceptance scenario in Case S results in additional at-reactor st~rage
costs of $2. 2 billion - almost three times the reference OFF cost for addi-
tional storage capacity.
Secondary Priorities
While the emphasis in this study is on acceptance scenarios devoted to
shutdown reactors, accomplishing this exclusive allocation of acceptance and
assuring full utilization of the federal system capacity by delaying accep-
tance has severe drawbacks. An
alternative reformulation of Case 2 in which
unused system capacity is reallocated to operating reactors was analyzed in
Case 4. The specific priority scheme utilized in this case is one in which
shutdown reactors are granted first priority, reactors with imminent fullcore-reserve encroachment (or an immediate need for additional storage capac-
ity) are granted secondary priority, and any remaining system acceptance
OCR
0055
PA- 165073
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 9 of 22
capacity is allocated according to the OFF principle.
This case el iminates
the unused system capacity observed in Case 2 even with a 2003 start date for
the repository.
Since this case was not constrained to the maximum annual cask loading
constraints in Table 3. 1, it still exhibits a degree of allocation in excess
of shipping capacity for the shutdown pools, amounting to 11, 700 MTU over the
1 ife
of the system. For this reason, at-reactor costs were not calculated
for this case.
loadina Rate Constraints
When spent fuel pickup logistics are constrained so that annual cask
loading rates at each pool do not exceed the Table 3. 1 values, the allocation in excess of shipping capacity observed in Cases 2 through 4 is eliminated.
This constraint was imposed by reallocation of any acceptance rights above
the estimated maxima to other shutdown pools. (Since the lower annual pickup
quantities dictated under FCR or OFF priorities do not exceed the'
Table 3.
values in any case, no reallocation of these portions of the priority scheme
is required.
Imposing the loading rate constraint on Case 3 results in Case 5, which is feasible in the sense of using all available system capacity and not
requiring greater annual cask loading capacity at any reactor than shown in
Table 3.
1. Even though this case circumvents these basic problems, it
results in at-reactor costs substantially higher (at $4. 23 billion) than the
reference OFF case.
Case 6 is the result of impos1ng the loading rate constraints (and
reallocation of acceptance) to Case 4. This case is both feasible and arguably preferable to the reference case from a utility cost perspective. The
combined cost of additional storage capacity and pool operations after 1
discharge is $2. 2 billion, over $1/2 billion less than in Case
1. Although
ast
this total is less, the stream of annual costs in this case might not be pre-
ferred by utilities, since the savings is in terms of the late component of
utility cost, and costs for additional storage capacity, which are incurred
early, are actually increased in comparison with Case
1. Thus, a high enough
rate of discount would remove the cost advantage shown for Case
OCR
0056
PA- 165074
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 10 of 22
Case 7 results from revising Case 6 so that FCR encroachment takes
priority over shutdown status. As expected, this increases the cost of operations after last discharge, but only slightly, from SO. 91 billion to
$1. 00 billion. The
decrease in cost of additional storage capacity more than
compensates, and this case has the lowest cost to utilities of any analyzed,
and results in a significant util ity
reference case.
Sensitivity Cases
cost savings in comparison with the
The LSF rule utilized in Cases 2 through 7 is one possible version of a priority rule favoring shutdown reactors, but certainly not the only such
rule. Another possibility is a rule in which allocation of acceptance rights
within the group of reactors that are shutdown is made on the basis of
remaining inventory. This " Smallest Inventory First" or SIF rule was tested
in Case 8. This rule does not affect costs of additional at-reactor
storage,
and increases costs of operations after last discharge by about S100 million. Based on this result, no further analyses of this rule were conducted.
Case 9 assumes that the priority structure of Case 7 is retained, but
that the minimum acceptable fuel age is 10 rather than 5 years.
This results
in a slight increase in storage capacity costs but a more sizable increase in
cost of operations after last discharge, for a combined cost impact of $0.
billion, as some reactors are precluded from needed acceptance by virtue of
the fuel age constra
i nt.
OTHER TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Transportation Cost and Cask Caoacitv
The transportation cost model (TRICAM) now in use by the Office of
Transportation and System Planning (OTSP) is sensitive to changes in the
distribution of spent fuel among different origins and to several unit cost
factors. Since all of the cases in this study have, over the life cycle of
the system, the same quantities of fuel from each origin, transportation
costs estimated by this method are invariant. The estimate shown in
Table 4. 4
would apply to all cases. This estimate, however, makes some
OCR
0057
PA- 165075
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 11 of 22
TABLE 4.
Cost Comoonent
Transportat i on
Costs
($ millions)
Bill
306
392
Truck
394 199
677
IWl
700 213
Capital
Hauling
Securi ty Ma i ntenance
Total
1069
assumptions about cask capacity and utilization factors for which values do
vary from case to case. The effects of these factors are discussed below.
The same PWR and BWR capacities are used for all rail casks and for
all
truck casks. regardless of the case being analyzed. That
is assumed to have a capacity of 48 ass~mblies. Every
is, every PWR rail
cask is assumed to have a capaci ty of 21 assemb 1 i es and every BWR rai 1 cask
PWR truck cask is
assumed to have a capacity of 3 assembl ies and every BWR truck cask is
assulI)ed to have a capacity of 7 as semblies. These capacities areconsi stent
with the ongoing cask design activities, which assume a design basis spent
fuel age and burnup of 10 years, 35, 000 MWd/MTU. However, the
spent fuel
transported in each of the cases may represent age and burnup characteristics
different from the above. Consequently,
the assumed capacities may not
apply to all the spent fuel being transported in each of the cases. In this
regard, it is important to note that fuel characteristics depend not -only on
the allocation rules assumed but also on the rules used to select the partic-
ular spent fuel to meet annual acceptance allocations. This study did not
include consideration of alternative selection rules, but some indication of
the effect of various allocation rules on fuel characteristics may be
obta i ned by compari ng characteri st i
cs for OFF selection under a ternat i ve
allocations. Figure 4. 5
illustrates the effect of shutdown priorities on
age at time of receipt as compared with the OFF case. As shown.
signif-
icantly more young fuel is received under shutdown priorities and OFF selection than under OFF allocation and selection.
Fully account
i n9 for the imp 1 i cat i ens of the spent fuel' s
age and burnup
on the cask capacity is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, one can
OCR
0058
PA- 165076
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 12 of 22
Decom , 5 Year Minimum
OFF
II
15 20 25 30 35 40
Time Since last Discharge
(yrs)
FIGURE 4.
Distribution of Spent Fuel Age at Time of Shipment; Decommissioning and OFF Priorities Compared
get some indication of the direction and magnitude of the effect by considering the age- burnup distributions of the spent fuel at time of transport.
If the distributions indicate that a substantial amount of the transported
spent fuel exceeds the casks ' design specifications, one can conclude that
the transportation costs are higher than reported in Table 4. 4, since the
reference cask capacities will have to be derated. If, on the other hand, the distributions indicate that very ittle of the transported spent fuel
falls outside the casks ' design specifications, then the transportation costs
can be judged to be very similar to those reported in Table 4.
Tables 4. 5
Cases
) and 2.
and 4. 6 illustrate the age and burnup distributions for
Modal Mix Variations
The alterations of spent fuel receipt sequence among the cases in
thi s
study affect the mix of truck and rail transport from year to year.
To the
extent that the modal mix is affected, the transportation fleet requirements
OCR
0059
PA- 165077
(')
--! --! --!
---! ---!
--!
--!!
BLE
Age and Burnup Distributions for Case I (number of assembl
ies)
60000-
Cool ing
T IIIIt
R-. (~U)
500015000200002501)0-
lIa'Ige
(veers)
5000
W2!L
1000015000
mm..
324
1518 1676
1985
3000035000-
400004500050000 5000055000
55000-
Total
5ea
350 176 729 497
3344
SMO 1534
1eo 5368
525 2212 12360 20296 7539
1384 5341 12134
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
1301 100
1018
1987 3063 3221 16244
106 173
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ' 40 45
- 5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50
746
335
523 1729 3118 635 1858 1ea1 1353
2836 762 5219 9071 532
'~1
364 3966 13476 28350 20120 6164
17342 29346 ~7055 1303
1937
222 1366 2530 324
1985 21029 61054 98120 75748 35704 5318
~50
Total
211,2
3607
11097
14245
20 729
--2
35m
70594
429n
20830
4447
411
298958
TABLE 4.
Cool ing
Age and Burnup Distributions for Case 2 (number of assemblies)
Range (1Ild1MTU)
Document 783-6
(.0)
Time
lIenge
!m.ill
n!!!!L
500010000
10000llQQ!L
1500020000 2000025000-
30000-
35000-
40000-
45000-
50000508
55000-
!Q!!!L
1t 632
60000.
694 420
2698
4153 984 216
907
741 2085
1511
145 158
3154 1513 470 230
3668 1535
360
619
3021 3414 2924
5910 8935 10500 10832 10304
81132
9940 9153 8876
9181
751
8878
702. 857 836
554
40390 35931 33874 34380
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
- 5 '10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 .~O -45
45 ,50
176
622 427 897
174 1685
218 330
14245 1374 122
2600 1435
1489 4076 6190
!'nO
6403
1841
65CW
35517 35810
4368 1457
'l!J7
Filed 04/07/2004
~50
4473 7654 7573 5398 19M 214
35331
3897 6534 6938 7524 6330 5473 4238 2000
2786 4380 4450 3601 2422 1767 972 438
Total
2142
3607
---2 11097
20729
---2
36781 32955 12186 1068
12537
70594
---2 429n
---2 20830
4447
411
298958
:x::-
Page 13 of 22
...J.
0')
.:.:. ;:) ...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 14 of 22
could increase and cost could be greater than that shown in Table 4.
costs in Table 4. 4 assume that the annual modal mix is constant.
in Figures 4. 6
4. (The
As shown
and 4. 7,
Case 7 does show more variation in
modal mix on a
year- to- year
basis than does the OFF case.
Case 1
25 r- -
Case 7
/'(J
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Year
flGURL4. 6.
Comparison of Rail Cask Fleet Requirements
OCR
0061
PA- 165079
....
, '" \
,,
-- -
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 15 of 22
I \ I\
II)
Case 1
,I
Case7
' I
II)
:::I
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Year
FIGURE 4.
Comparison of Truck Cask Fleet Requirements
OCR
0062
P A- 165080
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 16 of 22
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
As noted in the Introduction, the time available to complete this report
precluded analysis of some aspects of the topic. In particular, a more
detailed analysis would allow higher confidence in the maximum annual cask
loading capabilities and a quantitative analysis of the effects of changes in spent fuel characteristics and possible resulting changes in transportation
cask capacities. In addition. any allocation scheme that differs from the
current OFF scheme. even if resulting in overall savings, will have negative
impacts on some utilities unless the transition to the new allocation is
accomp 1 i shed through a free-exchange process. Wi th
mind, the following conclusions are drawn:
these qual i fi cat ions in
1 . A c 1 as s of spent fuel acceptance scenari os devoted to shutdown reactors has some advantages over the reference OFF scheme, in reducing the time between last discharge and completion of spent fuel removal by a system-wide aggregate of as much as 600 poolyears and estimated operations cost by as much as $1. 0 bill ion compared wi th the reference OFF scheme.
2. Such a priority scheme. interpreted minimum spentlimited only to strictly as shutdown reactors and subject to a
fuel age of 5 years, would make less than complete use of the currently planned acceptance capacity of the repository, resulting in about 8850 MTU of cumulative excess capacity.
3. maximize additional at-reactorexclusively to shutdown with costswill Any allocation scheme devoted reactors storage requirements, of
about S 1. 4 bill i on greater than the reference
1 i
OFF case.
4. downapp cat i on of an either a longest-shutdown- devoted to shutThe acceptance all ocat i on scheme reactors through
smallest- inventory- first
5. A reformulation of these priority rules to recognize these logistical constraints is possible by slight modificati~n of the priority scheme without significantly affecting the beneficial features of these schemes.
first (lSF) or (SIF) rule distributes annual spent fuel acceptance among a few reactors, implying the need for cask loading rates exceeding prel iminary estimates of reactor pool capabilities.
OCR
0063
PA- 165081
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 17 of 22
6. An allocation scheme that combines shutdown reactor priorities
with early priority for pools with imminent need for additional storage capacity could largely provide the best features of each scheme , and resul t in a combined at-reactor cost (for both addi1ional storage capacity and operations after last discharge) about $1. 3 bill ion lower than the reference OFF case. Thi s scheme can be formulated in such a fashion to observe the cask loading rate
constraints.
7. Any of the allocation schemes that devote capacity to shutdown
reactors will unavoidably result in lower spent fuel ages and This will result in some change in cask capacities, fleet requirements, and costs from those shown here. The extent of thi s ~ffect cannot be estimated within the scope of this study. This effect can be only partially mitigated by spent fuel selection rules, since the priority rules specify removal of all spent fuel as soon
greater heat and radi at ion output than the reference OFf case.
as possible.
OCR , JKF
0064
P A- 165082
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 18 of 22
REFERENCES
Brentlinger, L. A., S. Gupta, A. M. Plummer, L. A. Smith, and S. Tzemos. 1989. I1RS Systems StudY. Task F: Transoortation Impacts of a Monitored Retri evab1 eStoraae Facil ity . BMI/OTSP- O7, Battelle Memorial Institute,
Col umbus, Ohio.
Gupta, S., et a1.
Model,
1988. " TRICAM: A Transportation Cost
and Risk Analysis
Proceedinas. Waste Management /
Tucson, Arizona.
Ouderkirk, S.
1988. WASTESWaste System TransDortation and Economic Simulation - Release 24. User s Guide . PNl- 5714- , Pacific Northwest
J.
II:
laboratory. Ri ch 1 and, Washi
ngton.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
Washington.
1985. Functional Design Criteria for an Inteara1 Monitored Retrieval Storace (MRS) Facil ity . PNL- 5673, Rith1and,
S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1986a. " Request for Proposals No. DE..RP07861012625 for Development of From Reactor Casks. Washington, D. S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1986b. Generic ReQuirements for a Mined Geo10aic DisDosal System . DOE/RW- OO90, U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.
~. DOE/RW- OI96.
S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1988a. Initial Version. Drv Cask StoraQe Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, D.
S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1988b. " Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste. Code of Federal Regul at ions Title 10, Part 961.
S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1988c. Draft 1988 Mission Plan Amendment DOE/RW-O187, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington,
U. S.
Department of Energy
1988 . DOE/RL- 88- 34, Riehl and, Washington.
S. Department of Energy (DOE). DOE/RW-O235, Washington, D.
1989a.
(DOE).
1988d.
Soent Fuel StoraQe Reoui
rements
MRS System Studv Summary ReDort
Study . DOE/RW- O220 ,
S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1989b. Final Version Dry Cask Storage U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.
Wood, T. W., S. M. Short, M. G. Woodruff, M. K. Altenhofen. and C. A. MacKay.
1989. MRS Svstems Study Task G ReDort: The Role and Functions of Surface Storage of Radioactive Material in the Federal Waste Manaaement System PNL6876, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
OCR
0065
P A- 165083
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 783-6
Filed 04/07/2004
Page 19 of 22
APPENDIX A
CUMULATIVE PROJECTED POOL AND DRY STORAGE INVENTORIES
IN ORDER OF REACTOR SHUTDOWN
OCR
0066
PA- 165084
::u
TABL
Projected Inventory of Spent Fuel at Reactors at Time of Shutdown
C\Iru leU WI
R~actor
Reactor Shutdown Inventory Inventory
Inventory Inventory
MTU
Pool
Dry
Tote I
Pool
MTU
CUllUlative Dry
C\IIuletJYe Total
-ll!RelICtOf'
If-1mL -h!L.
(lCTt/)
omn
30.
0'
Inventory Il'Wmtory 1mJ
1101 1005
IIfOIAIf PT
ORE_If
IUIIOlDT BAT
B\IR B\IR
3503
LAatOSS(
WEST VALLET-8&P
T ANnE . ROWE 1 BIG IIOCX
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
8\IR 8\IR
30. 69. 28. 38. 26.
100. 129. 167. 193.
168.
30. 69. 28. 38. 26.
168.
1301 6401 5601 1201 6601
IOatIS-8\lR1Nt
1M!
B\IR
B\IR
57'01
IIADOM NECK
DRESDEIf
362. 419. 984.
123.
orSTn CIII!: 1
IIINE NILe PT1
GUillA
ROB IIfSOII
74.
116. 148.
30. 100. 129. 167. 193. 362. 425. 990. 1557. 2245.
2825 . 0
1006 1903 3101 4401
8\IR 8\IR
7'05
1428. 2041. 2505. 2991. 3359.
63.
Z44.
35~.
368.
-...I
8\IR
MILLSTONe IIOMTlceLLO DRESDeN
B\IR B\IR
3459. 3891. 4370. 5127.
Document 783-6
INDIAIf PT
PAll $ADl:S
90.
5'88.
POIIIT BEACH 1&2
PllGRI"
BWR
QUAD CITIeS 1&2
B\IR
BWR
57. 564. 443. 613. 463. 4S6. 368. 235. 387. 361. 610. 442. 319. 548. 414.
1241.
3982. 4343. 4954. 5396. 5715. 6263. 6677.
7'919. 847'9.
63. 564. 566. 6tf1. 519. 634. 431. 419. 756. 361. 700. 665. 599. 861.
6fJ9.
"'IIIE TANlCee
VT TAIft(I:E
Z tell
560. 515.
1039.
223. 280. 319. 195. 243. 213.
115.
0C0IIa
TUItICeT PT
1&2 1&2 3&4
129. 203. 319. 468. 531. 775. 1144. 1144. 1235. 1458. 1738. 2058. 2253. 2497. 2710. 2826. 3437.
"33.
FORT CALlUM
PEACIIBOTTa't 2 SUltRY 1&2
691. 910. 260. 679.
1203.
610. 696. 226. 137. 210.
1485.3 173. 631. 1649. 1387. 1137. 397.
1203.
Filed 04/07/2004
mMUNee
ARK NUtl.EAR 1 8IMfSVICK 2&PI/II
8\IR
OCONee
8995. 10034. 10725. 11635. 11896. 12575. 13178. 14144. 14591. 15000.
. 15383.
3 "ILE ISL 1
DUAlfE ARNOLD
BWR BWR
175. 229. 310. 175. 130.
67'9.
COCftR S11I
PRAIRIE ISL 1&2
PeACIIBOTTCM 3
4359. 4496. 4707. 4707. 4883. 5113. 5423. 5598. 5605. 5735.
365. 447. 409. 382. 649. 340. 431. 491.
BUR BUR
5960~ 1
6189. 6854. 7453. 8321. 8931. 10416. 11190. 11821. 13411. 14858. 15995. 16392. 11283. 18486. 19027. 19104. 20423. 20981. 21638. 22109. 22765.
23754. 1
'1J
FITZPATRICK
RAIICIIO SECO 1 IRCMIS FeRRT1&2
1974 1978 1984 1987 1998 2000 2002 2002 2001 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
2014 '
3201 3301 1007 1102 1204 5401 601 1010 2801 6001 1012 1506 1803 3401 3704 5203 5501 401 102 1508 1901 2401 3001 3302 3705 3901 4501 4803
507. 500.
2014
224. 491. 226. 207.
1261.
, 15~4
Page 20 of 22
16033. 16373. 16805. 17296. 17975. 18483. 18984. 20246.
540. 617. 119. 551. 656. 410. 656. 988. 905. 715. 323.
6457. 6684. 6891. 6967. 7290.
576_ 1585.
24660. 25375. 25951. 27536.
CJ1
CJ1
::u
TABLE A
(contd)
tUlulatfw
Diy
IlW'entory
Reactor
RftCtor 1I_
Pool Ruetor Shutdown Irwentoly I rwentory
Pool
CUllulatfve Diy
cu.ulatfye
Irwentory
1t1V
--1L
...l2MtV
1t1V
Total Total Irwentoly Irwentory
(1t1V)
(MTU)
(MTU)
3ZO2
MlllSTOIE
TROIM
IlInM'T
587.6 .
423. 655.
20669.
21:m.
29587. 1
232. 151.
3801 3902 501 701
PUR PUR PUR PUR
21912.
22569 . 2
655. 806. 581.
28192. 28999.
14Of..
1601
P\IR
PUR PUR
8WR
1SO1
CALmT a.F 1&2 IRUlSUICIC ,&PUR BEAVER VALLEY 1 Sf LUCIE
SAt.9I
IIaOIIMS FERRT3
4202
4BO5
22978. 23364. 23643. 24181.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
101
FARLEY
25463. 1
2'811.
- 10021.4
7523. 7675. 7675. 8422. 8781. 9071. 9529. 9142. 9917.
10306. 10539.
17'D1
CRTSTAL 1Mt:5
DAVIS-BESSE 1
CXIOIC
5001 5801
1&2
PUR
402
ZOO1
8WR
ARK IIJCI.EAIt 2 MTCtI 1&2
657. 408. 386. 218. 538. 629. 651. 297. 342. 878. 412.
25161.0 26103. 26981.
768. 676. 736. 752. 804. 755. 582. 575.
1620.
112!0.
1073.
3CK58.
1 99.5
662.
1568.
30991. 31759. 32435. 33172. 33924. 34721U 35484. 36067. 36642. 38262. 38924.
4Of.93.
FARlEY
SALEJII
102 4203 5201 1504
IIORTII AIIM MCcallRE
1&2
1&2
PUR PUR
$(CIUOYAII
P\IR P\IR
2739'.. 28467. 29119. 29659.
11530. 12025. 12115. 12288. 12851.
747. 359. 289. 458. 213. 174. 104. 284. 233. 741. 249. 495. 90. 173. 563.
48OS
2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021
'3051.4
Document 783-6
2901 4601
CllAIID GUI. F
StIIER
SAIl OIIOFitE
2OZ2
2&3
PUR
8WR
47'D1
742. 712. 1362. 813. 1340. 995. 720.
704. 302. 129. 1121. 1542. 256. 104.
1852. 1935.
LASAlLE cn 1&2
Ift:GUIRE ST LUCIE
P\IR P\IR
2022 2022 2023
20Z3
1008 1505 1802 5302
VASil 1IJCI.EAR2
CATAWA
416.
VATERR8 3
DiABlO CMTOII 1
SUSQJEMMM 1&2
P\IR P\IR
BWIt
P\IR P\IR P\IR
31072. 31708. 32401. 32992. 33723. 34116. 34725. 35341. 35808. 36679. 37253. 31816.
38797 . 8
864. 721. 884. 871. 808. 719.
1836.
39369. 39933. 40366.
934. 937.
1186.
Filed 04/07/2004
1501 2701 3501 3601 5101 301 1402 2101 2501
8WIt
41m3.
13755. 14058. 14187. 1 15308. 16850. 17107. 17212. 11628. 17628. 17863. 18019. 18874. 19237. 19610. 20363. 20744.
20970 . 2
P\IR
PWR
BWIt
3502 302
PERRY
CAT A\I8A
CALLA""T PALO VERDE ENRICO FERMI2 RYR lEND WOlF CllEEIC DIABLO CMTOII 2 PalO VERDE
234. 155. 855. 362. 373. 152. 380. 226. 171. 376. 442.
O~O
967. 847. 734. 924.
1156.
41235. 41947. 43310. 44123. 45463. 4M59. 47179. 49032. 50967. 51832. 52553. 53431. 54308. 55116. 55835. 57672. 58606. 59543. 60730. 61697. 62544. 63279. 64203. 65359.
2023 2023 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2026 2026 2026 2026 2026
"lllSTONE
!lOPE CREEK:
901 1502 3Z03 4201
P\IR P\IR
651. 539. 799. 614. 635. 693. 591. 731. 393. 608. 616. 461. 871. 573. 563. 981. 571. 563. 433. 586. 620. 563. 548. 713. 917. 847. 738.
41574. 42137. 42685. 43398. 44316. 45163. 45902.
92. 374;6
21141. 21518. 21961. 21961. 22053. 22427.
917. 939.
1112.
66277 .
67217. 68330.
Page 21 of 22
....Jo.
(j) )::-
;;u
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
TABLE A.
CUliJl.tfw
Reactor
Pool
Dry
(contd)
C\M/latfw
Dry
(MTU)
--1!L(MTU)
(MTU)
R8Ctor
(MTU)
PALO 't'EROE MARRIS
Reletor Shutdown Inventory Inventory
Inventory Inventory
377.
22805 . 4
Pool
Inventory Inventory
(MTU)
CMTU)
Tot.l
CUliJletfw
Tot.l
..lm- --'!!!L
5'8.
693.
1213.
303 703
1003 1602 2301
ITRCN 1&2 BEAVER VAllEY 2
P\IR P\IR P\IR P\IR
8WR
BWR
22805.
23485 . 3
925. 693.
1893.
0'\
3102
NIIfE MilE PT2
IRA IOUOCO
CLlIITOI
1&2
69255. 69949. 71842. 12681.2
2027 2027 2027 2021 2027 2027
679. 337. 426. 312.
839. 920. 994.
'73601 .
74596.
Document 783-6
1001 2201
2OZ8
502. 493. 682. 428.
SOUT" TEXAS 1
PWR
764n.
270B8.
P\IR P\IR P\IR
8WR
PWR
2003 2202 3701 4810
5901 4901
YOGTlE 1&2 SOUT" TEXAS 2 lIMERiCk 1&2 VATTS 8AR $!AIIROJIC
1067. 1104. 106Z. 723.
595. 570.
1373.
1447. 118. 847. 114. 1260. 360.
23822. 24249. 24561. 26008. 26126. 26974.
1875. 1185. 1952. 1176. 1984.
77657.
796'0. 80786. 82770.
955.
466. 482.
29658.
83n6.
1036. 1855.
taWlCIIE PIC 1 &2
PWR
2028 2029 2029 2031 2031 2031 2037
46450.1 41143. 48356. 48858. 49352. 50035. 50463. 51531. 52635. 53698. 54421. 55017. 55587. 56960.
28349. 28709. 29176. 29658.
84763. 86618.
Total
beclUSe the projeeted dry storllte Inventory.
56960.
R\I-!59
86619.
even though this site currently dot!s . use dry starllte, 10l"1li thit the tot.l pool cllpllCltyfor the site Included the
Filed 04/07/2004
(8) No dry 8torllgt! inventory is 9t!"t!r8tt!d for SUrry 1&2,
utHIty reported in the 1987
Page 22 of 22
""0
....It.
(J1
-....,J