Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

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